Agenda item

    Details:

Installation and operation of an asphalt plant for a period of 5 years

Public Participants:

Mrs M Wathen – Marchwood Parish Council

Additional Representations:

Marchwood Parish Council - considered that the more recent traffic survey, of 2015, should be used to evaluate this application.

Environmental Health Officer – was now satisfied that the proposed 17m stack was adequate.  However, they requested the imposition of a condition to restrict the noise generated by the proposal.  The suggested condition had been circulated in the update prior to the meeting.

Comment:

Cllr Hoare disclosed a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Marchwood Parish Council which had commented on the application.  She concluded that there were no grounds under common law to prevent her from remaining in the meeting to speak and to vote.

Cllr Rippon-Swaine noted that this item would be determined by the County Council of which he was a member.  He took no part in the consideration and did not vote.

The officer’s recommendation was updated to take account of the additional representations received.

The Committee considered that this proposal had the potential to cause serious harm to the living conditions of many residents of Marchwood if certain aspects, including that most of the materials used would be imported through the nearby wharf, were not secured. Other proposals to transport materials to businesses on this estate by water had been refused consent by the Ports Authority.    Significant numbers of HGV movements would be generated close to residential areas, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  In addition, the process of producing the asphalt had the potential to generate noise, dust and fumes, with a danger that a defence of best available techniques could be used and leave the local population vulnerable.  The cumulative effect of this proposal together with other activities in this area should also be taken into account.

Decision:

That the County Council be advised that this Council raises the strongest objections to the proposal on the grounds that:

1.    Consent should not be granted unless the applicant has secured the right to import the majority of materials through the nearby Marchwood Wharf and they have also obtained the necessary consents from the Port Authority.  Without such consents the number of HGV movements would be significantly greater than set out in the proposal, which would have an unacceptably detrimental effect on the quality of life of local residents.

2.   The cumulative effect of this proposal together with other developments that have been given consent in this area should be taken into account.  Traffic movements, noise, dust and fumes from the industrial estate already affect the quality of life of large numbers of nearby residents and any additional impact must be assessed very critically within this context.

3.   The potential for this plant, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to generate unreasonable levels of noise must be given proper consideration.  Before any consent is granted the applicant should be required to prove that they can control the level of noise generated to no more than 9 decibels above ambient at the nearest noise sensitive premises between 07.00 and 19.00 on Mondays to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays.  At all other times there should be no more than 5 decibels above ambient at the nearest noise sensitive premises.  The measures used should also take account of the potential amplification effects of temperature inversions.  Otherwise, the company could use a defence that they have used the best available techniques to control noise generated, leaving the local population vulnerable should enforcement action become necessary.

4.   In addition to concerns about the noise and disturbance created by HGV movements, the effect of large numbers of additional HGV movements on air quality must also be taken into account and a proper air quality assessment provided.  Initial evaluation suggests that the number of HGV movements generated by this proposal should be controlled to be fewer than 100 a day, but this figure may be too generous when other contributory factors are taken into account.

5.   The information submitted with the proposal assesses road capacity based on traffic survey work undertaken in 2000.  A further traffic survey was undertaken in 2015 that sets the current context within which this proposal should be judged.  The use of 2000 information is misleading in the light of the significant development that has taken place in this area in recent years.

6.   Should consent be granted, lighting details should be agreed to ensure that the development does not cause unacceptable light pollution; and

7.   Should consent be granted, conditions should be imposed to ensure that any contamination of the land is properly identified and mitigated.