To consider a report from the Head of Strategic Planning regarding the variation of conditions 5, 11 & 18 of planning permission 51471/003 to allow for restricted night-time activities including importation of road planings at Unit 5-6 Waterbrook Estate, (formerly referred to as Unit 7), Waterbrook Road, Alton GU34 2UD (Application No. 51471/007 Site Ref: EH156)
Minutes:
Variation of conditions 5, 11 & 18 of planning permission
51471/003 to allow for restricted night-time activities including
importation of road planings at Unit
5-6 Waterbrook Estate, (formerly referred to as Unit 7), Waterbrook
Road, Alton GU34 2UD (Application No. 51471/007 Site Ref:
EH156)
The Committee considered a
report from the Head of Strategic Planning (item 6 in the minute
book) regarding variation of three conditions at Waterbrook Estate
in Alton.
The officer introduced the item and the history of the application,
which had been deemed by the Inspectorate to require a HGV routing
agreement. Members were reminded of the location and details of the
site following it previously appearing at Committee in 2018.
The Committee received 10 deputations on this item. Helen and
Martyn Boyce, Nick Weeks, Rachel Palmer, Peter White and Justin
Laughton all spoke against the application. There were concerns
regarding long-term health with night movements of vehicles and it
was felt that this would make a mockery of guidelines in place to
protect residents. There was already a lot of noise at weekends and
concerns after the applicant was felt to be breaching conditions
previously. Little correspondence had taken place with the
applicant and it was requested that a temporary permission be
considered to monitor how disruptive the change to conditions would
be.
Councillor Graham Titterington from
Alton Town Council highlighted how despite being on industrial
estate, the site was still close to housing and despite noise
levels being declared appropriate, disagreed with the conclusion
following tests on the projected sound levels.
Councillor Suzie Burns from East Hampshire District Council
addressed Committee and questioned whether there was a real need
for the change of conditions and night time operations. There were
also concerns that the assessment was not accurate as they were
done from the ground level of the properties and not the bedrooms,
which were more in line with the site and would be subjected to any
additional night-time noise. Councillor Burns also stressed that
the screening proposed should be allowed to establish and be
effective before work could continue.
County Councillor’s Mark Kemp-Gee and Andrew Joy also shared
their concerns regarding the site and the proposed changes.
Councillor Joy echoed Councillor Burns’ reservations over the
sound assessment, agreeing that the receptors had not been
accurately placed and therefore the result was not a true
representation.
John Palmer spoke on behalf of the applicant and reminded Committee
that all night-time noises were from the site, as there were other
operators within the industrial estate that already worked through
the night. The locations of the receptors had been approved from
the Environmental Health Officer and were a recognised industry
standard and felt the results were accurate. Whilst there was
currently no liaison panel in place, Mr Palmer agreed that this
would be beneficial and could be looked into.
During questions of the deputations, it was confirmed that residents hadn’t diarised incidents that had happened.
During questions of the officers, the following points were clarified:
· There had been four complaints made in 2020 on noise and dust and nine in 2019, which had been thoroughly investigated by the Monitoring Enforcement team;
· Records and CCTV had verified that noise and dust issues had been from a different site within the industrial estate;
· Issues with stockpiles heights had been addressed and posts had been installed to assist with measuring the limits;
· None of the more recent visits had shown breaches of conditions, but the site would continue to be monitored.
During debate, Councillor Quantrill shared concerns over making
a temporary permission, as it would only be delaying a permanent
decision being made and would require it coming back to Committee.
Councillor Philpott reminded the Committee that the modelling and
projected noise implications at night were not guaranteed and it
was important that the applicant could prove that they could
operate without too much disruption to residents, and therefore a
temporary permission could be a best outcome.
Members discussed how long would be most suitable for a temporary
permission and the Head of Strategic Planning agreed that on
balance a year could be appropriate. Following the debate it was
concluded that the recommendation would be amended to reflect
Members collective support to make the permission
temporary.
RESOLVED
Subject to all parties entering
into a Section 106 Agreement with the County Council to secure the
routing of out of hours Heavy Good Vehicle movements to and from
the site, the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment was
authorised to GRANT permission subject to the conditions listed in
integral appendix A and update report for a period of one year from the date of
decision.
Voting
Favour: 13
Against 0
Abstentions: 1
Supporting documents: