Agenda item

To consider a report of the Director of Universal Services regarding a Planning Application for a proposed extension to Nursling Recycling Centre, variations to existing site layout, erection of a new workshop building and the upgrade of parking arrangements at the adjacent paintball centre at Nursling Recycling Centre, Lee Lane, Nursling Southampton (Application No. 22/00174/CMAS) (site ref TV055).

Proposed extension to Nursling Recycling Centre, variations to existing site layout, erection of a new workshop building and the upgrade of parking arrangements at the adjacent paintball centre at Nursling Recycling Centre, Lee Lane, Nursling Southampton SO16 0AD (Application No. 22/00174/CMAS Ref: TV055)

The Committee considered a report from the Director of Universal Services (item 6 in the minute book) on an application at Nursling Recycling Centre. This followed a deferral of the consideration of the planning application from the January 2023 Committee meeting to address the following matters:

1. Clarifying Test Valley Borough Council’s objection with reference to development in the countryside and Policy COM2 [of the Test Valley Revised Local Plan (2016);
2. Clarify the impact on the tree vegetation around the site if an extension is permitted; and
3. Request the Test Valley Borough Council EHO to review their comments on the impact on the residents in Station Road of the increased frequency of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements, especially with reference to the proximity of those dwellings next to the highway.

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

Deputations were received from local residents Debbie Clayton, Ken Wilson, Penelope Gage, Anthony Ironmonger and Phil Lomax and Test Valley Borough and Nursling and Rownhams Parish Councillor Phil Bundy who all spoke against the application and shared their experiences of living close to the site. The applicant also attended and spoke in support of the proposals put forward.
During questions of clarification, the following was confirmed:

·         It was unknown whether a 20mph zone had been discussed at a past liaison panel meeting;

·         Speedwatch in the area had been discontinued due to lack of funding;

·         It was felt that a lot of dust was lost from lorries due to the speed they were travelling at and the lack of sheeting on vehicles;

·         Residents hadn’t received replies to emails and messages left with the operator of the site;

·         The additional HGV movements following the installation of the picking station were not happening yet;

• The applicant was not aware that planning permission was required before installing the picking station in 2021;

·         The last site liaison panel had taken place at the end of 2022;

·         The applicant was not aware of any complaints received in 2023 and there is an existing complaints procedure in place;

• The applicant has agreed to the widening of the road following the liaison panel and discussions with the County Councillor;

·         The traffic data of vehicles going in and out of the site had been included as part of the planning application and could be provided to the site liaison panel using the software if necessary.

During questions of the officers, the following points were clarified:

• The 2011 planning permission resulted in the surrounding of a certificate of lawful use at the site. The tonnage and HGV movements limits included were requested by the applicant at that time and was carried forward into the 2014 planning permission.
• The working hours requested in the new application matched what was in the existing planning permission;

·         The site location plan was updated in the Update Report to include the housing on Station Road. This was an omission on the original plan and did not reflect these properties not being important in the determination of the application;

·          The recommended speed signage and improvements to entrances on Station Road were to improve visibility of speed limit as this was noted as a concern by residents and not in response to specific highway safety concerns;

·         The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the noise impacts associated with the increase in HGV movements are significant but as the area is already noisy, and as there was no daytime noise limit, but there was no significant impact due to the nature of the area and existing background noise. The impacts were therefore not considered significant or adverse;

• The Environmental Health Officer confirmed that residents were likely to notice the increase noise subjectively but objective measurement was not showing that it resulted in a significant impact.
• The consideration of noise matters at North Winchester was a very different scenario to the Nursling planning application where the refusal of the planning application was based on Noise Impact Assessment readings.

·         There is another site along Station Road that generates vehicle traffic as well as this site that is subject to the planning application. This site is subject to a certificate of lawful use (CLU) which means there are no limits to HGV on the site currently.  A planning application was currently being determined by Test Valley Borough Council at the site, for additional manufacturing activities and it is understood the applied for vehicle movements would be in the order of tens of vehicles

·       The Highways Officer confirmed that there had been five accidents in the past five years in Lee Lane and Church Lane, but none of these involved HGV’s.

During debate, some Members shared concerns over the size of site should the proposals go ahead and were sympathetic to the local residents who had attended to speak at the meeting, but also acknowledged the strong chance of the application winning at an appeal if it was to be refused. Members discussed initiating a 20mph limit along Station Road, but it was confirmed that this could not form part of the conditions and would difficult to justify with the lack of highways concerns around the proposal. It could, however, be noted as an informative for the applicant, along with further investment in the road surface and infrastructure. Members also discussed the potential cumulative impacts of the proposal as well as the need for the liaison panel to sit again. Clarification was provided that the retrospective picking station would not result in further vehicles above those requested in this application.

RESOLVED

Planning permission was GRANTED subject to the recommended conditions set out in Appendix A, the update report and the completion of legal agreements for a financial contribution for highway safety improvements and road widening scheme to a section of Lee Lane between Church Lane and the site entrance.

Voting
Favour: 9
Against: 5