YAPTON PARISH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

 

17 October 2005 – At a meeting of the Planning Committee held in Yapton

 

Present: Mr Faulkner (Chairman), Mr Andrews, Mrs Barnes and Mr Jones.

 

 

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

 

The Planning Committee had before them and considered the following planning application and resolved as indicated:-

 

 

F/19/05/

Development of materials recycling facility, offices and visitor centre – Resubmission of application F/20/04, including additional highway improvements.

Ford Materials Recycling Facility

Ford Airfield

Ford Road

Ford

 

For: Viridor Waste    

       Management Limited

 

      OBJECTION

 

 

 

In considering planning application F/19/05 the Planning Committee wished to emphasise it supported the general principal of recycling, particularly where installations were sited in the correct location for the complete process.

 

1)      The surrounding road infrastructure at Ford was inadequate for the proposed large increase in heavy goods vehicle movements. The quality of life had already deteriorated in Ford and the surrounding villages as a result of agreement to previous planning applications in the Ford area which has led to a significant increase in heavy goods vehicle movements. Evidence of this can be seen on the present road system where large areas of patching are visible on both Church Lane and Ford Road repairing the damage caused by the additional heavy vehicle movements. There is no proposal to strengthen the present roads to take this additional traffic. It was considered that the improvements proposed by Viridor are only cosmetic and will not improve the flow of traffic. Whatever work is undertaken to Clymping roundabout will do little to increase capacity on the adjacent stretches of the A259.

 

2)      The proposed location of this recycling facility would lead to a significant increase in unnecessary vehicle movements around the County. It was considered extremely unlikely that the majority of processed materials would be exported through the port of Southampton as indicated by Viridor. Therefore the likelihood was that much of the processed material would leave the County at the Northern boundary from where it had originally been generated in the towns of Horsham, Crawley and East Grinstead and also Gatwick Airport. It is considered that the location of this facility should be in the North of the County to eliminate duplication of vehicle movements in the course of the processing operation. It is extremely unwise to locate a facility on the basis of such uncertain information.

 

3)      Vehicle movements along the A259 at peak times would be significantly worsened for local residents and commuters by the increase in traffic resulting from agreement of this application. The road infrastructure is considered inadequate to the East around Bognor and to the West around Littlehampton and Lyminster particularly over the railway level crossing.

 

4)      The proposal would be in conflict with the Policy ERA7 contained on page 99 in the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001 to 2016 – “Proposals for the management of waste (including recycling etc) should not be permitted unless they are located as close as practicable to the point at which the waste is generated”.

 

5)      The Waste Local Plan had thirty options which now appear to have been reduced to one. Viridor have no alternative options if this application is declined. This gives the impression that a lot of pressure will be placed on locating this facility at Ford without due consideration being given to any other acceptable alternatives of which we believe there are several.

 

6)      The proposed development should not cause unacceptable impact on the neighbourhood and should not be sited close to other facilities such as in this case, the sewage treatment works at Ford. This has already caused disruption to local inhabitants’ living conditions and visitors to the weekend events held on the airfield.

 

7)      The location of the materials recycling facility was considered unsuitable for employees and visitors to access by local transport which would therefore  increase the number of vehicle movements particularly at peak times.

 

In conclusion we urge West Sussex County Council to decline this application and consider a more appropriate location for this facility.

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN