Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Universal Services regarding a Retrospective planning application for a Waste Transfer Station (Sui Generis) at Avery B, Shedfield Equestrian Centre, Botley Road (Application No. 22/01797/HCS) (Site ref: WR228)

Councillor Jackman left the meeting, taking the voting total down to 13

Retrospective planning application for a Waste Transfer Station (Sui Generis) at Avery B, Shedfield Equestrian Centre, Botley Road SO32 2HN (No. 22/01797/HCS) (Site ref: WR228)

The Committee considered a report from the Director of Universal Services (item 7 in the minute book) on an application at Avery B in Shedfield.

The Planning officer summarised the report, providing aerial photographs and elevations of the site and highlighting the update report that had been published.

The Committee received a deputation from Councillor David Ogden and Councillor Sudhakar Achwal on behalf of Shedfield Parish Council, speaking in support of the recommendation to refuse the application. It was confirmed that complaints had been received for more than two years, dating before Avery B was operating there. Concerns were also raised in relation to development in the countryside and visual impact, inadequate site access, insufficient assessment of noise, dust and cumulative impacts and the development not being in accordance with planning policy and guidance.

During questions of officers, it was confirmed that concerns had been raised regarding the site and its operations following the Regulatory Committee visit to the Environment Agency, who had issued the existing Environmental Permit. Should the recommendations be supported, the Planning Authority would take steps to cease current operations on site and require the site to be reinstated to previous condition. An update would follow as part of the quarterly Monitoring and Enforcement update to Committee on this matter.

RESOLVED

Planning permission was REFUSED for the reasons set out below, in the update report and as outlined in Appendix A:

a)   On the basis of the information submitted and notwithstanding the proposed mitigation, it is considered that the proposal is likely to result in landscape impact contrary to the requirements of Policies 10 (Protecting public health, safety and amenity) and 13 (High quality design of minerals and waste development) of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013), Policy CP13 (High Quality Design) of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 1 – Joint Core Strategy (2013) and Policy DM23 (Rural Character) of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 2 (2017);

b)   The location of the proposal has not been adequately justified in terms of its need for being located in the countryside, contrary to the requirements of Policies 5 (Protection of the countryside) and 29 (Location of waste management development) of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013), Policy MTRA4 (Development in the Countryside) of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 1 – Joint Core Strategy (2013)) and Policy DM10 (Essential Facilities and Services in the Countryside) of Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 2 (2017); and

c)    On the basis of the information submitted, the development is contrary to the requirements of Policy 12 (Managing traffic) of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) and Policy DM18 (Access and Parking) of the Winchester City Council Local Plan Part 2 (2017) as it does not have a safe and suitable access to the highway network and does not include suitable mitigation measures to mitigate any significant adverse effects on highway safety.

d)   On the basis of the above reasons, the proposal is considered to be contrary Policy 1 (Sustainable minerals and waste development) of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan (2013) as the proposal does not constitute a sustainable minerals and waste management development.

Voting
Favour: 13 (unanimous)