27/3/2008

Local News in Fleet

Pyestock plan rejected but developer vows to press on

Protestors joined the 500-strong audience who watched the meeting considering whether to grant planning permission for a mega-depot between Farnborough and Fleet.

Campaigners are celebrating after controversial plans for a mega depot on land between Fleet and Farnborough were unanimously rejected.

Hart District Council’s planning committee voted against permission for the scheme on the former Pyestock test site following a detailed four-and-a-half hour debate.

The decision has delighted campaigners, but joint developers Prupim and Astral have vowed to continue pressing ahead with the scheme.

Hundreds of people packed into Aldershot’s Princes Hall last Wednesday evening for the meeting, which allowed both sides to argue their case.

Prupim representatives and members of campaign group SPLAT (Stop Pyestock bLot Act Today) locked horns over six key issues affecting the Pyestock plan.

The topics debated were development plan policies, traffic generation, noise and air quality, visual issues including the effect on the strategic gap between Fleet and Farnborough, ecological issues and employment issues.

Justin Gartland spoke on behalf of Prupim about development policies. He said Hart’s Local Plan development blueprint earmarks the Pyestock site for employment use. Mr Gartland added that a warehouse and distribution centre was entirely appropriate for the site, as it was close to the motorway and away from residential areas.

He pointed out Hart’s planning officers supported a previous application for a larger scheme on the site.

However, Bob Schofield of SPLAT said the proposal breaches a string of planning policy at all levels.

David Bird spoke about traffic generation issues on behalf of the developers.

He said the number of HGVs visiting the site would be capped, and pointed out that if  an office park were to be built on the site instead it would generate even more traffic.

Mr Bird said the applicant proposed a £3.5m package of road improvements, including a new access to the site and a noise barrier along the Minley Link.

A bespoke bus service would run to and from nearby railway stations.

However, Mr Schofield said junction 4a of the M3 is already operating at capacity and the applicant had carried out no proper traffic assessment of its proposed 24/7 operation.

Cllr Stephen Parker (Con, Fleet North) warned that the 150 loading bays proposed for the Pyestock site would generate 1,200 one-way trips, 300 of which would be in the early hours of the morning.

He added that local roads are already gridlocked at certain times of the day and that if a capping limit was set on traffic generation it is a “racing certainty” that the developer would come back for a higher limit.

Cllr Richard Appleton (Con, Fleet West) feared the developer would end up doing what TAG has done at Farnborough Airport with its expansion plans.

He warned: “The developer will put in what they can get away with and then they’ll try to increase it.”

Cllr Appleton raised concerns about a proposed new roundabout in Ively Road.

He said: “I don’t consider that to be a benefit to the community. It’s only there to benefit the development.”

Cllr Ken Crookes (Con, Odiham) questioned how enforceable a lorry routing condition was.
He warned a driver travelling from Portsmouth would switch on his sat nav and be directed along the A287 before turning into Redfields Lane and through Church Crookham.

Cllr James Radley (Comm-unity Campaign Hart, Church Crookham East) said he knew of one lorry driver travelling from Basingstoke to Fleet who was told by his system to use a “farmer’s track”.

David Simpson (Lib Dem, Yateley North) added: “This is an appalling application purely on highway grounds.”

James Wicher spoke about noise and air quality issues on behalf of Prupim.

He said a noise barrier along the Minley Link would protect nearby residents, while site noise levels would comply with World Health Organisation (WHO) levels.

Mr Wicher claimed there were no air quality reasons to refuse planning permission.

However, SPLAT member and noise expert Stephen Roome warned the site would generate noise almost at a level to cause ill health.

He said that no air quality assessment had been carried out for the Pondtail area of Fleet, which is a statutory requirement.

Cllr Parker warned construction noise would last for five years but operational noise from HGVs with refrigeration units and forklift trucks would last forever.

He said noise from deliveries to the 150 loading bays on the site would blow the WHO noise levels out the water.

Independent councillor Denis Gotel (Fleet Central) was worried for people living close to the Minley Link.

He warned: “They will be subjected to a lot of noise from a lot of HGV traffic and my heart goes out to them.”

The Minley Link noise barrier also caused Cllr Sharyn Wheale (Con, Fleet Pondtail) “grave concerns”.

She warned: “It will be like having the Berlin Wall instead of the open countryside we currently have between Fleet and Cove. It’s absolutely disast-rous and totally unacceptable.”

Martin Kelly spoke on behalf of the applicants about visual issues, including the effect on the strategic gap. He said the site is set in a heavily wooded area of comparatively poor and variable condition. He said some woodland would be lost, but it would be compensated for with additional planting. Mr Kelly claimed the strategic gap would not be materially affected and the development would be well designed and screened.

In response, Mr Schofield said that the proposed 1.3m sq ft development with buildings up to 60 feet high would destroy the open and rural gap.

He said the signalised junctions and major roundabout proposed for the scheme would urbanise an otherwise rural area.

Cllr Parker added: “The strategic gap will be harmed and cease to function as a rural divide between Fleet and Farnborough.”

Topsy Rudd spoke about ecological issues on behalf of Prupim. She told the meeting that the development would have no adverse impact on the overall integrity of the Special Protection Area, land protected because it is the habitat for a number of threatened bird species.

Dr Rudd claimed the proposal would cause minimal disturbance to wildlife.

This was rejected by SPLAT member David Healey. He claimed that the developers had denied the existence of badgers on the site and branded all its other ecology surveys as “flawed”.

He warned the development would be lit up like an airport at night, causing noise, air and light pollution.

Mr Healey said the tranquillity of Fleet Pond would be lost forever and the proposal was almost certainly in breach of European law, an issue that SPLAT is pursuing.

Mr Gartland spoke about employment issues for Prupim. He said the proposal would generate about 1,500 jobs, many of them suited to locally unemployed people.

Again SPLAT rejected the claims. Member Steven Cribbes pointed out that Hart has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. He said there is a national shortage of HGV drivers and questioned where they would come from.

Speaking on behalf of Rushmoor Borough Council, which serves Farnborough, development control manager John Thorne said the proposal would badly affect people living in the Cove, Southwood and St John’s wards. He said it was too big for the site and would harm the strategic gap, while the extra traffic would result in noise disturbance and loss of amenity.

After the meeting, SPLAT spokeswoman Shan Healey said: “We are absolutely delighted that the planning committee decided unanimously not to grant planning permission to both applications. The fact that they added a further six additional reasons to fight the submission at appeal just proves that it is a wholly inappropriate scheme for Hart.

We realise that although all our arguments are compelling we will need to work even harder to ensure that it is rejected at appeal.

“We hope that Prupim will find a more acceptable use for the site and we would like to thank everyone for their support and good wishes.”

Chris Perkins, director of fund management at Prupim, said: “We are obviously disappointed that the council has refused our application, particularly as council officers previously recommended our initial larger proposal should be approved. We recognise the application has generated opposition from residents but there remains a very strong planning case for what we are proposing.”

Mr Perkins said there is a strong need for distribution facilities within the south east, where the country’s largest consumer market is located.

He added: “The proposals will clean up this contaminated site and bring it back into more productive use.

Mr Perkins said that both Hampshire County Council and the Highways Agency have raised no objections in relation to the traffic issues, subject to a cap on traffic levels.

He added: “The matter will now be considered in detail by an independent planning inspector at a public inquiry at which all parties, including objectors, will have their say.”

See our sketch,  Pyestock: What a performance, on page 3 of the Fleet News.

First printed in: Fleet News and Mail