(Chairman)

(P)

  (Vice Chairman)

(P)

Councillor R.J. Bailey

(P)

Councillor P.R.J. Lashbrook

(P)

Councillor C.S. Borg-Neal

(P)

Councillor Mrs J. Lovell

(P)

Councillor P.J. Boulton

(P)

Councillor C. Lynn

(P)

Councillor D. Busk

(P)

Councillor D.A.S. MacDonald

(P)

Councillor I.R. Carr

(P)

Councillor M.R. McGarry

(P)

Councillor Mrs E. Charnley

(P)

Councillor Mrs P. Mutton

(P)

Councillor D.N.A. Drew

(P)

Councillor J.S. Neal

(P)

Councillor L.M. Gates

(P)

Councillor P. North

(P)

Councillor P. Giddings

(P)

Councillor B.A. Page

(P)

Councillor Mrs S.M. Hawke

(P)

Councillor A.J. Peters

(P)

Councillor A. Hope

(P)

Councillor G.P.C. Stallard

(P)

Councillor Mrs M. Kerley

(P)

Councillor Mrs J. Whiteley

(A)

167

Schedule of Development Applications

168

Rule 9.2

6.

APPLICATION NO.

07/01951/OUTN

APPLICATION TYPE

OUTLINE APPLICATION - NORTH

REGISTERED

11.07.2007

APPLICANT

Goodman

SITE

Land at Former Andover Airfield, Monxton Road, Andover,  ANDOVER MILLWAY / MONXTON / PENTON MEWSEY

PROPOSAL

Erection of Business Park with both Outline and Full details comprising : Outline - Plots 1, 2, 3 and 5 for uses comprising business (Class B1), storage and distribution (Class B8), hotel (Class C1) and community building (Class A1/D1), biomass plant and associated works, and  Full - Unit 4 for uses comprising storage and distribution (Class B8), access roads, vehicle maintenance building, car and lorry parking, landscaping, fuel island, vehicle wash, weigh axle reader and associated works (Amended description)

AMENDMENTS

CASE OFFICER

Mr Jason Owen

The Committee was minded to refuse the application for the reasons outlined by the Head of Planning, who was delegated to finalise the drafting of those reasons to include the relevant Policy references and the references to areas which would otherwise need to have been addressed by Legal agreements.

Refer to Planning Control Committee for REFUSAL for the reasons:

1.

The proposed development by virtue of the size, siting, massing and design of the proposed building on Plot 4 would result in a form of development out of scale and proportion with other development in the vicinity, and would, as a result of its prominence in the landscape – including views from the A303(T), give rise to an unacceptable visual impact on the character and appearance of the area.  The proposed development would also give rise to an unacceptable degree of artificial light intrusion (both as a consequence of the extent of light spillage from the roof lights in proposed building on Plot 4, and the general provision of external lighting around the site) further detracting from the character and appearance of the area.  The proposed development is contrary to Policies AND04.1, DES01, DES02, DES03, DES05, DES06, DES07 and AME03 of the adopted Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

2.

The proposed development by virtue of its relative proximity to properties in Red Post Lane and the nature and extent of the proposed 24-hour working operations of Plot 4 would give rise to an unacceptable level of noise disturbance to those properties during night time operations.  In addition, and in the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure enhanced acoustic and/or means of ventilation to properties known as “Red Post Farm”, “Windrush”, “Hillside”, “1 Red Post Lane” and “Melbury” the proposed development would adversely affect the living conditions of those properties to the detriment of their amenity, contrary to Policy AME04 of the adopted Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

3.

The proposed development by virtue of its relative proximity to properties in Red Post Lane and the nature and extent of the proposed 24-hour working operations and the subsequent need for external lighting to be positioned around the site would give rise to an unacceptable level of artificial light intrusion during the night time hours.  The proposed development would adversely affect the living conditions of those properties to the detriment of their amenity, contrary to Policy AME03 of the adopted Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

4.

In the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure the correct phasing of the off-site (local) highway improvements (Hundred Acre Roundabout and new A303(T) over-bridge); financial contributions towards transport infrastructure improvements; the provision of a Green Travel Plan and associated surety performance bond; provisions securing the installation, management, and maintenance of the ANPR system and associated arrangements for the establishment, and subsequent monitoring, of ‘barred routes’ and an associated performance surety, the proposed development would give rise to an

unacceptable impact on the local highway network to the detriment of highway safety contrary to Policies AND04.3, AND04.5, TRA01, TRA05, TRA04, TRA05, TRA06 and TRA09 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

5.

In the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure a maximum cap of 85no. Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) of outbound movements, the means of monitoring the ‘cap’, and a scheme of enforcement that includes a requirement to implement new road infrastructure on the A303(T), the proposed development would give rise to a detrimental impact on the safety and free flow of traffic on the A303(T) to the detriment of highway safety on the strategic road network, contrary to Policy TRA09 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

6.

In the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards a scheme for an acoustic evaluation of the A303, and a financial contribution towards mitigating against the additional noise generated by the development on this road, the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable increase in noise along the A303(T) to the detriment of nearby residential properties. The proposal is contrary to Policy AME04 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

7.

In the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure financial contributions towards the provision of a Training and Development Coordinator, and the means of securing on-site construction training opportunities for local apprentices, the proposal would fail to provide sufficient means to enhance the training needs for local employment and for future employees at the site, contrary to Policy RE2(Section b) of the Regional Planning Guidance 9.

8.

In the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure a financial contributions towards both on- and off- site public art provision, the commitment to achieve a minimum percentage of land for landscaping provision within the individual Plots, and secure the dedication of 0.5Ha of land within the site for “community uses”, the proposed development fails to make provision for an attractive form of development that would cater for the likely needs of future users of the site and reduce the need to travel from the site, contrary to Policies TRA01, DES01, DES02, DES07, DES10, AND04.1, AND04.2 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006).

9.

In the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure compliance with the aims and objectives of the “Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Sustainable Report”, and achieve a minimum of BREEAM “very good” standards of construction within all elements of the development, the proposal fails to achieve an acceptable standard of sustainable development and fails to comply with Policies AN04.1, and ESN32 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan (2006) ad Policy INF2 of Regional Planning Guidance 9.