Agenda item

To consider application UTT/22/0267/FUL.

The Senior Planning Officer presented an application for an open logistics facility where storage containers are decanted from larger vehicles onto smaller ones, to be located in the Countryside Protection Zone (CPZ) in Great Hallingbury. She highlighted a number of issues that had been raised and updated Members on information contained in the Late List.

She recommended that the Director of Planning be authorised to grant permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 17 of the report.

Following the presentations by the public speakers, the meeting adjourned at 11.35 and reconvened at 11.45.

In response to various questions from Members, officers:

• Confirmed that Forestry Commission consent had been given for the removal of trees and that there was a copy on the Council website.
• Referred Members to the map that showed the number of Wren’s employees living within 5 miles of the site.
• Outlined the daily traffic movements of 224 two way staff movements and 86 HGV movements. Tracking had taken place of 16.5m HGVs but not of 18.75m vehicles.
• Confirmed that there had been a breach of S4 but that it had always been the intention for Wren to move off-site.
• Clarified the background noise issues relating to masking, in terms of volume and impact. British Standards had been applied but that did not mean there was no noise. It was said that the Noise Consultant had undertaken a desktop exercise, based on assumptions and that modelling had been looked at over 16 hours rather than 24 hours. Members were generally dissatisfied with explanations offered in respect of noise assessments.
• Detailed access to the M11 from site and possible diversions if the M11 was blocked.

Members discussed:

• That access had not been available to site at the time of the site visit; it was considered that there had been enough seen from distance to continue the discussion rather than defer.
• The fact that there had previously been 9 reasons for refusal and that Essex Highways and Highways England now had no objections.
• Serious concerns that the traffic management proposals would not work, particularly in respect of access and the relief road. Concerns were expressed about the inappropriate size of vehicles involved and the changes to traffic flow since the opening of J7A of the M11.
• The need to maintain the CPZ and current attractive piece of landscape, particularly with the current setting of the 16^th Century building (The Old Elms).
• Concerns in respect of wildlife, nature conservation and impact on rural character.
• Noise impact methodology and the effects that 24 hour operation would have on neighbours.
• Light pollution.
• The possibility of changing operating hours when the business model was based on 24 working hours per day.
• The breach of S4.

Following discussions in respect of possible reasons for refusal of the application, Councillor Pavitt proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of S7, S8, GEN4 and ENV2.

Councillor Light seconded the motion.

RESOLVED that the application be refused on the grounds of S7, S8, GEN4 and ENV2.

Councillor G Driscoll, J Thwaites, M Coletta, R Keys, D Conway, C Conway, N Reeve, T Demetriades, V Waring and Councillor A Townsend (Great Hallingbury PC) spoke against the application and two statements were also read out from A Smith and O Smith against the application as it stood.

S Parnaby (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.45 pm and re-convened at 1.50 pm.