Agenda item

Report by Head of Planning Services.

 

To consider and determine the following application:

 

WSCC/081/19 – Proposed Temporary Concrete Crushing and Soil Recycling Facility.

 

Kilmarnock Farm, Charlwood Road, Ifield, RH11 0JY

 

WSCC/081/19 – Proposed Temporary Concrete Crushing and Soil Recycling Facility

 

Kilmarnock Farm, Charlwood Road, Ifield, RH11 0JY

 

5.1     The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).  The report was introduced by James Neave, Acting County Planning Team Manager , who provided a presentation on the proposals, details of consultation and key issues in respect of the application.  It was noted that the reference to the NPPF at paragraph 6.8 of the Committee report should read NPPW.  It was also noted that location of Burlands Farm as identified in the appendices is slightly further north than that shown.

 

5.2     During James Neave’s presentation, the Committee paused at 11.57 a.m. because Cllr Millson lost connection to the meeting, and reconvened at 12.00 p.m. without Cllr Millson.

 

5.3     The Committee adjourned at 12.09 p.m. and reconvened at
12.15 p.m.

 

5.4     The Committee noted apologies from Cllr Millson for the remainder of the meeting because she was unable to re-establish a connection.

 

5.5     A statement in objection to the application was read out on behalf of Richard Symonds, representing the Ifield Society.  There are safety concerns because Charlwood Road is a very busy, narrow country road with bends and no pavements that is rat run and dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists; horse-riders, including children, and slow moving tractors also use the road.  There has been one fatality.  The applicant’s HGVs thunder up and down the road continually and there are concerns this will increase if the Kilnwood Vale housing development goes ahead and the applicant’s contract there continues.  The applicant claims to be searching for a permanent site, but they said that seven years and more ago.  The application should be rejected on safety grounds.

 

5.6     Mr George Rayson, WS Planning and Architecture, agent for the application spoke in support of the application.  The proposal complies with climate change objectives to reduce carbon; the site is 0.6 miles from the applicants existing operation, thus reducing transport.  This is a local business that can help the economy recover.  The land meets NPPF categorisation of previously developed land.  A Planning Inspector previously considered that the site has easy access to Crawley and M23 and it is well placed, being only 1.4 miles south-east to nearest lorry route.  The site meets all criteria in Policy W3 of the Waste Local Plan: it is a brownfield site that meets the County’s needs for inert waste recycling.  The area is already affected by noise from other industrial use and from Gatwick.  Sensitive receptors have been taken into account.  The site is contained by woodland and hedgerow and the quality of the open view from the footpath could be improved with new planting.  A second runway at Gatwick has been not approved and even if it were it would not be in place for some years; this application takes into account the safeguarded land because it is for a 5-year temporary period.  Three other planning applications previously approved at Kilmarnock Farm all allowed HGVs movements, and it was they would not adversely affect other highway users.  The site complies with polices set out in the local plans.

 

5.7     In response to points made by speakers Planning Officers provided clarification on the following:

 

·        It is confirmed that the application seeks temporary permission.

 

·        As noted in paragraph 9.17 and 9.18 of the Committee report, the site is considered previously developed land; however, it is not considered suitable previously developed land. 

 

·        Matters relating to noise are set out in the ‘Local Amenity’ section of the Committee report (paragraphs 9.40 to 9.53).

 

·        New planting is proposed to mitigate visual impacts, but planting is unlikely to reach sufficient maturity within the timeframe of the temporary permission. 

 

·        Crawley Borough Council policies provides guidance regarding the safeguarding of Gatwick Airport from incompatible developments that add to the constraint or increase the costs or complexity of an additional runway; this application includes a significant new, widened access, hardstanding, fences and infrastructure.

 

·        Paragraph 9.75 of Committee report details the previous proposals in terms of HGV movements. Those developments we for the required infilling of hollows at Kilmarnock Farm and allowed a maximum of 30 HGV movements to the east over a longer period, which were not sustained high level of movements over that time. The filling of hollows required that location, whereas when considering a new site for a waste operations,  waste local plan policies require that we must consider whether it would be well located to the lorry route network.

 

·        It is considered that the site is not well located to the lorry route network.

 

5.8     During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

 

Land safeguarded for a second runway at Gatwick

 

Point raised – Clarification was sough regarding how much weight must be given to the safeguarded land at Gatwick?

 

Response – The safeguarded land is identified in Crawley Borough local plan, but not in Horsham district planning framework; however, national policy must also be taken into account.

 

Consultation with Surrey County Council

 

Point raised – It was queried whether Surrey County Council been consulted, given that the Surrey end of Charlwood Road is unsuitable for HGVs?

 

Response – The Surrey boundary is 1.5 km away from the application site.  Surrey County Council had not raised comments in respect of similar applications closer to the boundary.  Also suggested that if the application were to be approved, the Highways Authority would likely require HGVs to be routed to the east and not in the direction of Charlwood, which is not considered suitable for HGVs.

 

Additional HGV movements / highway safety

 

Point raised – Charlwood Road is a busy C class road, used by residents from Surrey and Horsham as a short cut and rat run to Gatwick Airport and Manor Royal in Crawley.  It already carries a lot of HGVs and adding to this volume would be too much.  It is significant that the Highways Authority has objected.

 

Response – None required, but it was confirmed that the proposal is for 60 HGV movements per day (30 HGV movements in and 30 HGV movements out).

 

Dust

 

Points raised – It was noted that whilst recycling is innocuous, crushing of concrete creates noise and pollution from dust, and that trees would not provide protection. 

 

Response – Paragraph 9.50 of the Committee report deals with the matter of dust; in itself, this is not considered to warrant a reason for refusal because bowsers and dampening measures can be put in place and required through a dust management plan.  However, dust does form part of amenity considerations.

 

Temporary planning permission

 

Points raised – Clarification was sought on the following points.  How the applicant had intended to address, through this temporary application, the concerns that were raised before the 2019 application was withdrawn?  The difference between temporary and permanent planning permission and whether there is a difference in fees?  Whether the applicant was given an indication that a temporary permission would be automatically permitted?

 

Response – The 2019 application received objections and the applicants were made aware of the Planning Officers’ concerns at the time.  It is understood that the 5 year temporary permission aims to address the concerns about Gatwick safeguarded land, and provide additional mitigations, e.g. fencing.  Planning applications can be for permanent or temporary permission; temporary applications might be seen as ‘trial runs’.  It is down to the applicant what type of permission to apply for.  There is no difference in the application fees.  The applicant was not given the impression that a temporary permission would be acceptable. 

 

Status of mobile homes at Kilmarnock Farm

 

Point raised – The status of the mobile homes adjacent to the application site was queried and whether their removal would be a net loss to Horsham’s housing supply?

 

Response – All mobile homes would be removed, north of the ‘further stables’ and running alongside the ‘haystore’, as marked on the plan on page 73, appendix 3 of the Committee report.  Only one is lawful, the others don’t have planning consent.  The farmhouse would remain.  Paragraph 9.44 of the Committee report considers impacts on other addresses at the site.

 

Vegetation and suggested planting

 

Points raised –It was noted that the proposed new planting is adjacent to the drainage line, which is not a good idea.

 

Response – None required.

 

5.9     The substantive recommendation was proposed by Cllr Patel and seconded by Cllr Kitchen and was put to the Committee and approved unanimously.

 

5.10   Resolved – That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Appendix 1 of the report.