27/3/2008

Local News

BIG ‘NO’ TO MEGADEPOT

Rebecca Connop Price reports

CAMPAIGNERS fighting the bid to build a huge warehouse depot on land between Fleet and Farnborough are celebrating after plans for the development were thrown out.
At a special planning committee meeting, held in front of 550 residents at the Princes Hall in Aldershot, Hart councillors all voted to reject the plans for Pyestock.
At the conclusion of the four-and-a-half-hour meeting, the 17 planning committee councillors agreed with the officers’ reasons for rejecting the scheme – and added a further six reasons, including the stipulation that there was overwhelming public opposition to the plans. This follows from Hart Council’s planning department receiving 12,000 letters of objection to the development.
Developers PRUPIM are seeking a public inquiry, but campaigners vowed to continue to fight the warehouse plans, which would have seen several warehouse sheds – totalling 1,250,000sqft – built at the former MoD site once used to test the Concorde.
After the meeting last Wednesday, Shan Healey, of campaign group SPLAT (Stop Pyestock bLot Act Today), said: “We have to carry on campaigning and work even harder.”
On Thursday it was announced that the appeal process had started. The developers had appealed prior to the meeting based on what’s called “non-determination” of the application, which means they judged Hart Council was taking too long to make a decision.
Mrs Healey, who lives in Fleet, said: “We only have a certain number of weeks, and it’s not very many, to get ourselves prepared. We thought we’d have a few days off but we’ve been working all over the Easter weekend.”
The meeting pitted the developers against the campaigners. Each got four minutes to discuss six areas of policy. Rushmoor Borough Council, as the neighbouring authority, was also given four minutes to speak. Hart councillors were given the opportunity to debate each issue.
Bob Schofield, a Fleet resident and spokesman for non-political campaign group SPLAT, spoke out against the plans. His concluding remarks drew a standing ovation from an audience clearly made up of residents opposed to the plans.
Coun Stephen Parker, whose Fleet North ward contains the Pyestock site, had prepared an extensive analysis of the plans. In particular, he pored over the developers’ transport and noise assessments, pointing out the areas where he felt the plans were not up to scratch.
During the debate, the Conservative councillor hit out at the developer’s decision to plan to put many of the warehouse’s 150 loading bays on the side of the development facing Farnborough. He said: “The developers may have overestimated the council’s parochial cynicism. I for one find it no more acceptable to subject our neighbours to noise than I do to our own residents.”
Coun Sharyn Wheale, a Conservative representing the nearby Pondtail ward, said she was worried that the developers would try to expand once they got permission for the development. Alluding to Farnborough Airport’s operator, she said: “I’m very worried that the developers will do a TAG, start small and get bigger.”
Coun James Radley, of Community Campaign Hart, was also concerned that the developer’s traffic predictions were suspiciously low. The developer proposed a cap on lorry movements of 800 per day. He said: “Why build something this big when you have a cap of 800 lorry movements? It’s not a balanced design and balanced design is something we should be looking for in the planning process.”
At the conclusion of the meeting, councillors agreed on eight reasons to refuse the plans, arguing that the development would create too much night-time noise, that it would create too much traffic on local roads, and that it would urbanise the strategic gap between Fleet and Farnborough.
The councillors also said the development:
++   Would decrease the air quality and kick up dust
++  Included plans for a roundabout on the Ively Road which would have been unnecessary
++  Would create too much noise for Southwood residents
++  Did not include provision for renewable energy resources.
Hart officers were at first unhappy about including “overwhelming public concern” as a material planning reason for rejection – fearing it would not be a lawful reason for rejection – but Coun David Simpson, Hart’s deputy leader, quoted various Appeal Court cases to prove it was acceptable, and the committee agreed to include it.
Despite the result, the developers remained committed to the scheme. Chris Perkins, of PRUPIM, told reporters: “We’re not abandoning the plan and the proposals that we have, we believe, in the long run are the right answer for the area.”
Following the meeting, Lib Dem Coun Simpson, said: “This was not just putting a quart into a pint pot this was the equivalent of sending the River Thames down the Blackwater river.
“The traffic flows would have been intolerable for this whole area. If Junction 4a of the M3 closed, for any reason, then Hampshire County Council recommended no traffic would be allowed in or out of the site. So hundreds of lorries and cars would be stuck on local roads, or the hard shoulder of the M3 until it reopened. This is lunacy of the first degree.”

First printed in: Surrey Hants Star