Agenda item

To consider a report from the Assistant Director of Waste & Environmental Services regarding a variation of condition 7 (volume of waste) and 13 (HGV Movements) of Planning Permission 19/00200/HCS at North Winchester Farm, Stoke Charity Road, Kings Worthy SO21 2RP.

Variation of condition 7 (volume of waste) and 13 (HGV Movements) of Planning Permission 19/00200/HCS at North Winchester Farm, Stoke Charity Road, Kings Worthy SO212RP (No. 21/00832/HCS)

(Site Ref: WR240).

 

The Development Planning Manager introduced the report and explained that the focus for the Committee regarding the application was the proposed variations to conditions 7 and 13 and that the site already had planning permission for waste uses. She reported that the current site had been operating in an acceptable way, in the view of officers, and that the County Council had received no formal complaints regarding the operation of the site.

 

The Development Planning Manager reminded Members that they had visited the site in July 2022. She explained that there had been extensive discussions between the various parties to come to the recommendation being brought to the Committee.

 

The Committee heard that the Environmental Health Officer’s (EHO) advice at this point in time, was that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements would not have an unacceptable impact on residential and neighbouring amenity by reason of Heavy Goods Vehicle-related noise and disturbance.

 

The Development Planning Manager referred to the Update Report which had been published on 10 January 2023 and an email that had been circulated to the Committee Members in respect to information received from the applicant since publication of the report, explaining that this had not resulted in any change in the position of the EHO.

 

She went on to say that a great deal of work had been undertaken on highways matters and following the removal of the objection of the Highways Authority at the end of the last month, highways impacts were considered to be acceptable.

 

The Project Manager (Minerals and Waste) gave a presentation which included:

 

·         A location plan

·         A site plan including the access road and nearest properties

·         Aerial views

·         Photos.

 

The Project Manager explained that the application was seeking:

 

·        A variance to Condition 7 from no more than 30k tonnes imported to and exported from the site per annum to 60k, with no change in working hours; and

 

·         A variance to Condition 13 from the current Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements of 40 per day (20 in and 20 out) to 80 (40 in and 40 out) and 50 on Saturdays only, with no change to hours of HGV movements.

 

The key issues, due to the proposed increase in the number of HGV’s to and from the site were:

 

·         Impacts to highways and pedestrian safety and highways capacity.

·         Impacts to the countryside and public amenity.

·         Air pollution.

·         Noise impacts.

 

He further explained that this application for the variances was due to demand and that there would be no change to the permitted hours of use and HGV movements.

 

The Project Manager showed slides that listed the objections and representations received and the key issues of highway safety and amenity impacts of HGVs, air quality impacts (dust), noise impacts acceptability within a countryside setting, and ecology/habitat impacts.

 

He explained that the Highways Authority had recently accepted the proposal and that the Planning Authority had had protracted dialogue to look at mitigation, proposed and required.

 

The Committee received deputations from the following people speaking against the application; Amanda Hassall, Mrs J Pearson, Steve Waters, Ann Edwards, Andy Key (Cycle Winchester), Cllr Signe Biddle (Kingsworthy Parish Council) and Cllr Steve Cramoysan (Winchester City Council).

 

The key concerns they raised were:

 

·         Road safety, creating dangers to road and pavement users.

·         Road users, including cyclists not feeling safe.

·         The suitability and width of the roads, which in places they maintained  are not wide enough to allow for two HGVs to pass each other, meaning that they use the verges and sometimes mount the pavements. A number of deputees referred to HS2 rural road guidelines.

·         The speed at which the lorries travel.

·         Poor road conditions and damage to verges and drainage.

·         That mitigation, such as warning signs, do not address the issues.

·         The local roads are part of a major cycle network.

·         That the Transport Statement ignores cycling.

·         Unacceptable levels of traffic noise which is experienced inside and     outside properties.

·         Airborne pollution.

·         Vibration of properties.

·         No recycling takes place on the site.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Committee heard that:

·         Noise was an issue and was supported as an objection.

·         That Lovedon Lane is 2.8km from the site.

·         That the speed limit was 60mph at the far end.

 

The following people made deputations in favour of the application; Steve Webster (resident), Dr Ellin (Recycling Association) and Richard Osborn (for the applicant).

 

They highlighted the following points:

 

·         That the applicants were good neighbours.

·         Information was shared, and issues discussed.

·         Noise had not affected the resident or his horses.

·         The issue of dust has been resolved since the road was resurfaced.

·         Fencing was proposed as part of the application.

·         HGVs had previously used the roads for the chicken farm.

·         To reach net zero in Hampshire, where a climate change emergency had been declared, suitable recycling facilities were required.

·         The recycling rate of the site was 99%.

·         That the proposal to increase HGV movements did not mean operations at this level full time but as an opportunity to meet growth.

·         Net zero should be embedded in everything.

·         The mitigations will reduce noise.

·         That safety concerns were not disregarded.

·         There was a need to enhance existing sites.

 

Cllr Porter spoke as the local County Councillor. She explained that whilst she did not dispute the need to recycle, which she supported, the noise assessment underrated the impact of noise and that many houses were close to the site with impacts all along Lovedon Lane.

 

She went on to state that:

 

·        Vibration and dust would increase further. 

·        Pavement users had a fear of HGVs mounting the pavements.  

·        Children walked to school where visibility was not clear and who may not hear warnings due to noise. 

·       Road safety issues from an increase in HGV movements were a concern, including for cyclists and horses and their riders. 

·        The 40mph speed limit had not yet been implemented and the voluntary one was not enforceable. 

·       She would like highways safety to be included as a reason for refusing the proposal.

 

The Chairman asked the Principal Transport Engineer to explain why the Highways Authority was now considering the application to be acceptable. She referred to the fact that there had been outstanding information, but the Road Safety Audit had now been updated with findings, the route was an established one for traffic and that the one accident in the period had not involved an HGV. These facts with the mitigation scheme, she explained, made the application acceptable.

 

In response to questions of officers, the Committee heard:

 

·       That at this point in time, the EHO’s view is that there is insufficient information to say that the noise assessment is satisfactory.

 

·       There were proposed priority schemes in two locations over the railway bridges, with widening of the highway in certain locations, plus the use of signage and road markings to achieve an acceptable level of road safety.

 

Members debated the report and considered the following:

 

·         Noise levels, and whether they would increase or stay the same.

·         Concerns about the width and suitability of the roads.

·         Lorry movements and their effect on residents.

·         Impacts on the A33 junction.

·         Balance of need for recycling and concerns.

 

The Project Officer clarified that the EHO had no expressed concern beyond the two properties adjacent to the site’s access road.

 

The Development Planning Manager explained that while there was a requirement for the site under Policies 25,27 and 29, the proposal was not in accordance with Part C of Policy 10 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan and Policy DM20 of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 2.

 

She further explained that she would welcome a Liaison Panel being set up for the site and encouraged anyone who had issues with the running of the site to report them to the Council, which has monitoring officers.

 

Resolved

 

That planning permission be REFUSED subject to the reason for refusal listed

in Appendix A and the Update Report for the following reason:

 

•     The development is not in accordance with Part C of Policy 10

(Protecting public health, safety and amenity) of the Hampshire

Minerals and Waste Plan (2013) and Policy DM20 (Development and

Noise) of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 2 Development

Management and Allocations (2017) as it has not been demonstrated

that the proposed increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle movements would

not have an adverse impact on residential and neighbouring amenity

by reason of Heavy Goods Vehicle-related noise and disturbance.

 

Voting

 

Favour: 12

Against: 0

Abstentions 3