Pyestock North Hartland Park Ively Road Farnborough

ITEM 14
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
27 FEBRUARY 2008
DIRECTORATE OF COMMUNITY AND
ENVIRONMENT
PLANNING REPORT NO.PLN:0808
SECTION C
The information, recommendations and advice contained in this report are correct as at the
date of preparation, which is more than two weeks in advance of the Committee meeting.
Because of these time constraints some reports may have been prepared in advance of the
final date given for consultee responses or neighbour comment. Any changes or necessary
updates to the report will be made orally at the Committee meeting.
APPLICATION NO.
08/00011/ADJ
DATE REGISTERED
9 January 2008
EXPIRY OF
CONSULTATIONS
5 February 2008
PROPOSAL
ADJACENT AUTHORITY CONSULTATION: Consultation from
Hart District Council on application for erection of new buildings for
Class B8 use (warehousing and distribution) with ancillary offices
and associated access, parking, ground works, infrastructure and
landscaping
LOCATION
Pyestock North Hartland Park Ively Road Farnborough
WARD
APPLICANT
Hart District Council
AGENT
RECOMMENDATION
OBJECTION
DESCRIPTION
The site comprises an area of some 48ha, surrounded by mature woodland, and lies to the
north of the new Ively Road, within Hart District. The site, now called Hartland Park, was
formerly known as Pyestock North. It was used by DERA as their engine testing research
and development complex and subsequently passed to QinetiQ. Most of the on-site
activities have transferred to Cody Park and the existing buildings and structures, comprising
about 74,000 square metres, including engine testing facilities, offices and laboratories, are
now largely decommissioned.
In April 2005 Rushmoor Council raised objection in respect of a consultation from Hart
District Council (ref. 05/00130/ADJ) on an outline proposal for redevelopment of the site to
provide a storage and distribution park, with off-site highway works and landscaping
improvements. In June 2007 Rushmoor again raised objection in response to a further
consultation from Hart regarding a revised outline proposal for a similar form of development
(ref. 07/00338/ADJ). Objection was raised on the following grounds:
1. The proposal would result in industrial development within the strategic gap involving
warehouses that are larger in terms of scale bulk and floor space than the existing structures
on the site, extensive car and lorry parking, intensive heavy vehicle activity and significant
loss of existing woodland screening. It is therefore considered that the proposal would
physically and visually diminish the open nature of the strategic gap and would thereby
151
JM01
ITEM 14
cause unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area and the environment surrounding
Rushmoor.
2. Bearing in mind the assumptions made in the Transport Assessment about the level of
traffic that would be generated by the proposal, The Council is not satisfied that it would not
add to congestion on the highway network. Furthermore, the estimated 1,600 jobs to be
created by the proposal would be likely to result in the extension of the labour catchment
area, thereby increasing commuting to and from a site that is outside the built up area and
placing greater pressure on local roads. It is considered that the proposal could result in
significant traffic generation in an unsustainable location, with adverse implications for
highway safety in Rushmoor.
3. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the level and type of development and
increased traffic associated with the proposal would not give rise to levels of noise that would
cause harm to the amenities of residents in Rushmoor.
The applications have not been determined by Hart Council, and the applicants have recently
lodged an appeal to the Secretary of State against non-determination of the second outline
application.
The current application is a further consultation regarding a detailed application submitted to
Hart in December 2007. This application again seeks permission for a storage and
distribution (Use Class B8) development on the site with associated office space, car and
cycle parking, servicing facilities and landscaping. The development would provide a total of
126,216sqm of B8 floor space distributed over 10 units, including 9,198sqm of ancillary office
space, with 1,137 car parking spaces.
The submitted masterplan shows three retained existing buildings as before, together with 10
new buildings ranging in size from 2,171sqm up to 28,815sqm, and in ridge height from 11m
to 19m. In general, the layout of the development has been designed to fall within the
existing built footprint on the site following a similar grid network of roads and routes. There
would be 3 relatively small units (J, K & L) along the northern boundary with two of the
retained buildings in between, 4 larger units (B, C, D & E) in the centre and two small units F
& H) and one large unit (G) at the southern end of the site near Ively Road. The plan shows
the main access point in the north east corner of the site from the A327 Pyestock roundabout
via Bramshot Road (the existing access) and another in the south-west corner from Ively
Road, which would be for cars, bicycles and emergency vehicles only. There is also a link
shown in the south-east corner of the site through to QinetiQ's Cody Park.
On 30 January 2008 Rushmoor Council raised a holding objection to the consultation
pending full consideration of the consultation responses by this Committee.
CONSULTEES RESPONSES
Head of Environmental Health
Objection on grounds of noise disturbance
Highways Officer
No highway objection in principle
NEIGHBOURS NOTIFIED
Around 185 individual notification letters were sent to residents at addresses in the following
roads who had responded to the previous consultation :152
JM01
ITEM 14
Ash Tree Close; Baywood Close; Briars Close; Broadmead; Broadhurst; Chamomile
Gardens; Chiltern Close; Chive Court; Churchill Crescent; Comfrey Close; Coriander Close;
Cornelia Close; Crerar Close; Fennel Close; Fox Heath; Grasmere Road; Grenadier Way;
Gleneagles Drive; Griffon Close; Heather Gardens; Herbs End; Howard Drive; Juniper Road;
Larch Way; Lauderdale; Laurel Close; Lodsworth; Longbeech Drive; Lyndsey Close; Maskell
Way; Marjoram Close; McNaughton Close; Merlin Way; Nevada Close; New Dawn Close;
Nutmeg Court; Oldwood Chase; Palmerston Close; Pinehurst Avenue; Purmerend Close;
Randolph Drive; Regiment Close; Richmond Close; Rifle Way; Rose Gardens; Saffron Court;
Southern Way; Tarn Close; Tarragon Close; The Copse; The Lawns; The Shrubbery; The
Topiary; Trunk Road; Tweedsmuir Close; Westglade; Whitebeam Gardens and Wisley
Gardens.
NEIGHBOUR COMMENTS
A letter written on behalf of Southwood Residents Association raises objection on grounds of
additional traffic including HGV movements, additional noise, light & air pollution and adverse
impact on wildlife.
The Aldershot Civic Society have written raising objection to the proposal on grounds of
adverse impact on air quality, noise pollution, water pollution due to run-off of surface water
from roads, traffic generation, harm to wildlife habitats & biodiversity, negative impact on
local employment and housing and adverse impact on the openness of the Strategic Gap.
Letters of objection have been received from Rushmoor residents at some 115 addresses,
as follows:
5 Ash Tree Close; 4 & 14 Briars Close; 14 & 35 Broadmead; 7, 17, 19, 27, 47, 87, 91 & 97
Broadhurst; 18 & 24 Chamomile Gardens; 24 Cheyne Way; 15 & 22 Comfrey Close; 1, 7 & 9
Coriander Close; 5 Cornelia Close; 1 Crerar Close; 53 Elmgrove Road; 2, 7, & 11 Fennel
Close; 5, 6 &15 Fox Heath; 49 Grasmere Road; 11 Griffon Close; 9 Heather Gardens;
3 Hermitage Close; 42 Herbs End; 8, 18 & 30 Howard Drive; 20, 25, 38 & 53 Juniper Road;
21, 27, 50 & 65 Larch Way; 7 Lauderdale; 2, 4 & 7 Laurel Close; 5 Lodsworth; 10 & 15
Longbeech Drive; 30, 31 & 35 Lyndsey Close;16 & 25 Maskell Way; 2 Marjoram Close;
2, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 24 McNaughton Close; 4 Merlin Way; 15 New Dawn Close;
1 Nutmeg Court; 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 29, 36 & 41 Oldwood Chase; 10, 12 & 13 Palmerston
Close; 3 Parish Road, 48 Pinehurst Cottages; 101 Prospect Road; 3, 12, 16, 17, 36 & 46
Randolph Drive; 14 Richmond Close; 7 Rose Gardens; 7 Southern Way; 5, 11 & 43 Tarn
Close; 1 & 6 Tarragon Close;17, 23, 26, 41 & 47 The Copse; 14 & 23 The Lawns; 11 The
Pathfinders; 4 The Shrubbery; 17 & 24 The Topiary; Poplars & Trunk House Cottage, Trunk
Road; 1 Tweedsmuir Close; 21 Whitebeam Gardens; and 22, 27, 36, & 46 Wisley Gardens.
Objections have also been received from 23 Longmead, Fleet and 23 Upper Way, Farnham.
The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:
Traffic generation:
* congestion & delays at M3 J4A and in Southwood;
* infrastructure inadequate for increased traffic volume;
* use of local residential roads as rat runs to avoid congestion or for employee parking;
* constant traffic noise & vibration;
* air pollution;
153
JM01
ITEM 14
* health risks from exposure to emissions;
* road safety issues affecting cyclists & pedestrians, especially children;
* Traffic impact assessment flawed;
* unsustainable development not accessible by public transport;
* increased carbon emissions;
* staff will be travelling from outside the area, adding to traffic volume;
* should be located near rail rather than road links;
* there are more suitable locations eg Basingstoke;
Environmental impacts:
* adverse effect on local environment and quality of life for local residents;
* light & noise pollution from 24 hour operation directed towards Southwood;
* visual intrusion in countryside due to scale of buildings;
* adverse effect on open recreation areas such as Fleet Pond;
* loss of woodland/wildlife habitat and adverse effect on nature conservation;
* inappropriate overdevelopment near residential area;
* increased urbanisation encroaching into the Strategic Gap, eroding its rural character;
* increased flood risk due to hard surfacing of land;
* ground water pollution; and
* proposed mitigation inadequate to overcome damaging effects of proposal.
Economic effects:
* no benefit to local community;
* loss of property value;
* no need for more jobs;
* will attract unskilled workers, putting pressure on health care & housing;
* traffic problems will discourage visitors & inward investment to Farnborough town centre &
business parks; and
* if proposal goes ahead Rushmoor residents would seek reduction in their council tax.
Other issues:
* noise & disruption during construction if approval given;
* conflict with national, regional and local policies; and
* scheme not substantially different from previous applications.
POLICY AND DETERMINING ISSUES
The site is outside Rushmoor within the Fleet/Farnborough strategic gap. The determining
issue is the effect on Rushmoor in terms of the strategic gap, highway and sustainability
considerations and impact on nearby residents.
COMMENTARY
Strategic gap issues
The site is within the strategic gap and the land is previously developed. However, the
existing buildings and structures are relatively unobtrusive, being screened by existing
vegetation. The proposed buildings would be much more obtrusive because of their greater
footprint, bulk and scale (up to 19m in height) and proximity to the site boundary. Taking into
154
JM01
ITEM 14
account the size of the buildings and the reduction in screening due to removal of some
woodland to facilitate the development, it is considered that even with supplementary
planting around the boundaries the warehouses would be visible from public vantage points
outside the site. In any event the buildings are likely to be significantly higher than the
existing structures and the trees on and around the site. Furthermore, although the
floorspace would be less than proposed in the previous scheme, it would still almost double
the industrial floorspace on the site from some 74,000 sqm as existing to 133,000 including
the existing buildings to be retained. It is therefore considered that the proposal would
physically and visually diminish the open nature of the strategic gap to a substantial extent
and would have a serious adverse impact on the rural character of the area.
Highway and sustainability considerations
On the basis of the transport assessment (TA) that has been submitted, the Highways Officer
raises no highway objection in principle. However, he has reservations about some of the
assumptions made in the TA in respect of the volume of traffic to be generated by the
proposal, the likely success of the proposed traffic management measures and the
enforcement of controls over HGV movements. In view of this there is still a concern that the
proposal may have adverse implications for highway safety in Rushmoor. Furthermore, the
estimated 1,530 jobs to be created by the proposal would be likely to result in the extension
of the labour catchment area, thereby increasing commuting to and from a site that is outside
the built up area and placing greater pressure on local roads.
Impact on nearby residents
The nearest Rushmoor residents are some distance away. However, heavy goods vehicles
associated with the proposed storage and distribution use would be using adjoining roads to
reach the site, being routed from M3 J4A along the Minley Link. Furthermore the distribution
park would be a 24-hour facility. Having examined the Environmental Statement submitted
with the application, the Head of Environmental Health has raised objection to the proposal
on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that it would not give rise to levels of noise
that would adversely affect residents in Rushmoor. In particular, he comments that although
the proposed acoustic fencing along Minley Link may be adequate to mitigate the effect of
vehicle engine and tyre noise, it may not be high enough to prevent noise from high level
HGV exhaust vents from reaching dwellings bordering the road. He therefore raises objection
to the proposal on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not
give rise to levels of noise that would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of Rushmoor
residents.
Because of previous concerns about the impact on Rushmoor in terms of air pollution from
traffic associated with the development, Rushmoor's Head of Environmental Health
commissioned a study by independent consultants. The study looked at the predicted
increase in vehicle movements (including HGV's), and the impact of this increase on air
quality in the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) adjacent to the M3 and dwellings
bordering the Minley Link. The results of the study indicate that the proposal could have only
a "minor adverse significance" on air quality in the study area. On this basis the Head of
Environmental Health raises no objection to the proposal on air quality grounds.
155
JM01
ITEM 14
FULL RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore recommended that OBJECTION be raised on the following grounds:
1
The proposal would result in industrial development within the strategic gap involving
buildings that are larger in terms of scale bulk and floorspace than the existing
structures on the site, extensive car and lorry parking, intensive heavy vehicle activity
and loss of existing woodland screening. It is therefore considered that the proposal
would physically and visually diminish the open nature of the strategic gap and would
thereby cause unacceptable harm to the rural character of the area and the
environment surrounding Rushmoor.
2
Bearing in mind the assumptions made in the Transport Assessment about the level
of traffic that would be generated by the proposal, The Council is not satisfied that it
would not add to congestion on the highway network. Furthermore, the estimated
number of jobs (up to 1,530) to be created by the proposal would be likely to result in
the extension of the labour catchment area, thereby increasing commuting to and from
a site that is outside the built up area and placing greater pressure on local roads. It is
considered that the proposal could result in significant traffic generation in an
unsustainable location, with adverse implications for highway safety in Rushmoor.
3
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the level and type of development and
increased traffic associated with the proposal would not give rise to levels of noise that
would cause harm to the amenities of residents in Rushmoor.
156
JM01
ITEM 14
157
JM01
ITEM 14
158
JM01