Hart Borough Council Development Management Committee Meeting

The minutes of the meeting on 14 June 2023 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Proposed by Councillor Quarterman; seconded by Councillor Worlock.

Apologies had been received from Councillor Butcher and Councillor Forster was his substitute.

None.

The Chairman updated the Committee that the Development Management and Building Control Manager had started maternity leave.

The Chairman’s second announcement was that he had had a request from a Planning Committee Member for a meeting to discuss how planning conditions are drafted to ensure these are enforceable.

The Chairman is to discuss this with the Executive Director, Place and if appropriate it will be bought as an Agenda item at a future Planning Committee meeting.

The planning reports from the Executive Director, Place were considered and accepted.

The Principal Planner summarised the application as erection of an industrial unit for flexible Use Class B2/B8/E(g)(i)-(iii) together with associated parking, landscaping and other associated works and construction of a vehicular access from Griffin Way South.

She reminded Members that permission for 10 units on this site was given in July 2022 (application 21/01800/FUL) by this Committee and that this 11^th unit was also for an industrial one.  

Members were shown site and elevation plans of the proposed development along with photographs and the Principal Planner explained that a new vehicular access had been proposed.

It was also highlighted that due to a typo on the report the Recommendation B should say:

In the event that the unilateral undertaking is not completed within 3 months of the date of the meeting, permission be REFUSED under delegated powers.

Members questioned:

·       The distance from the proposed unit to Providence House

·       The existing entry and exit road to the site and existing planning permissions on it.

·       The speed limit on Bartley Way and if there was a swept path to show how Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) could navigate the site access.

·       The proposed noise restrictions for the site

·       The scale of the map that shows the roadway entrance to Providence House – the Principal Planner provided an answer for this.

·       What HGV access has been permitted for the current 10 units that already have permission.

Members asked Selena Coburn who spoke AGAINST the application:

·       If she was concerned about any specific conditions that are not listed in the report. Miss Coburn highlighted bank holidays and Sunday conditions, external lighting and noise.

·       How many HGVs already use the site – it was believed to be two – and where do additional HGVs wait if the loading bays are already in use.

·       If she was aware of the application 22/03029/AMCON, Rye Logistics Park.

Members asked Susie Stephen who spoke FOR the application:

·       If suitable tenants have been already identified and what functions, they intended to carry out.

·       How many staff will be employed at the site, and the number of parking spaces proposed.

·       The maximum number of staff the site could employ.

·       The times that HGVs are expected to arrive at the site, if there would be a certain timeframe and potential impacts if vehicles arrived early or late.

·       Whether future applications could be submitted to amend certain conditions that will be stipulated in this application.

·       If an additional parking bay or bay(s) would be required for early or late HGV vehicles to use.

The Principal Planner summarised conditions 13 and 17.

Members debated:

·       The distance of the site to Providence House and the cottages on Holt Lane.

·       That quality of life for residents close to the site needs to be carefully considered and monitored, especially regarding hours of operation.

·       Weekend operating hours and how this could impact residents.

·       Possible HGV parking along Bartley Way and how this could be managed.

·       The amount and type of noise and artificial light pollution the site may cause to residents.

·       Turning areas that may be needed for HGVs to access the site.

·       If the proposed restrictions will hinder potential tenants so future applications to change them will need to be submitted to the council. 

·       The possibility that parking could be displaced across the Hook area and how to manage this in residents’ best interests.

·       Staff parking and why the report appears to suggest an amount that is below the Council’s usual standard.

·       The lack of public transport to the site and that employees will need to provide their own travel arrangements.

·       The lack of clearway on the main roads around the site currently.

·       That Hampshire County Council’s Highways department had no concerns about this application and any potential traffic congestion that could still occur as a result.

·       If an acoustic screen could be used to limit potential noise pollution for residents of Providence House. 

Members were keen to explore whether a condition could be applied to this application to ensure that one day a week would be exempt from operations.

The Chairman clarified that the conditions for this application are the same as those imposed upon application 21/01800/FUL and are subject to noise and time of operation restrictions. It would be inappropriate to have inconsistent conditions across the two applications for this site.

A Member highlighted the importance of enforcement and enforceable conditions.

Members discussed background sound levels and it was reminded that advice had been sought from Environmental Health.

Members asked the Principal Planner to remind them of the conditions placed on the previous application for 10 units (21/01800/FUL). The Principal Planner confirmed that units 8 and 9 had activity restricted to at weekends and bank holidays.

The Chairman proposed the Officer’s Recommendation(s) and this was seconded by Oliver.

Members undertook a recorded vote For Recommendation A and the results were:

For: Cockarill, Makepeace-Browne, Oliver, Quarterman, Radley and Wildsmith.

Against: Forster, Kennett and Worlock

Abstention: Blewett 

DECISION

Subject to the completion of a unilateral undertaking to secure the provision of the proposed vehicular access under S278 of the Highways Act within 3 months of the date of the meeting, permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

In the event thatthe unilateral undertaking is not secured are not completed within 3 months of the date of the meeting, permission be REFUSED under delegated powers (RECOMMENDATION B). 

Notes:

There was no site visit.

Susie Stephen OBO Stanbec spoke For the application.

Selena Coburn spoke Against the application.