Agenda item

APP/20/00990 (East Hampshire District Council Ref 51680/001) - Havant Thicket, adjacent to Sir George Staunton Country Park, Reservoir and Pipe Line, Middle Park Way, Havant

Proposal:                Hybrid application seeking:

 

                                 1)      Full Planning permission for Development of a reservoir for raw water storage, A pumped storage reservoir, with the minimum required total storage capacity of 8,700 million litres (Ml), to support the planned bulk supply transfer of at least 21Ml/d in extreme (currently defined as 1:200 year) drought conditions; Construction of an earth embankment adjacent to Staunton Country Park ; Construction of an overflow discharge/spillway at the south-western side of the reservoir and associated works; Construction of a new junction on the B2149 Manor Lodge Road and a new junction on Swanmore Road. Provision of viewing areas on the southern embankment and western edge of the reservoir.

 

                                 2)      Outline application for (matters to be considered outlined in Table 2.2 in the submitted Development Specification) control house partially incorporated within landscaped earth mounding adjacent to the south west embankment; together with provision of other earth embankments. Construction of a visitor centre / cafe, with storage areas and welfare facilities to the northwest of the reservoir to be used for recreational and education purposes; Provision of picnic area(s) and children's play area(s).  Access routes from both junctions to the visitor car park; visitor car park comprising 193 car parking spaces and between 70 and 75 overflow spaces plus spaces for staff, coach/minibus and disabled drivers sited to the north west of the reservoir. Creation of a permanent wetland on the northern side of the reservoir and construction of bird watching hide/screen(s); recreational facilities for public amenity. Provision of perimeter tracks and a network of bridleways, cycle paths and footpaths; Construction of a slipway on the western bank of the reservoir for operational use only and a small section of the proposed pipeline (210m).

 

Additional Information

 

Minutes:

 (The site was viewed by the Site Viewing Working Party)

 

Proposal:       Hybrid application seeking:

 

                        1)      Full Planning permission for Development of a reservoir for raw water storage, A pumped storage reservoir, with the minimum required total storage capacity of 8,700 million litres (Ml), to support the planned bulk supply transfer of at least 21Ml/d in extreme (currently defined as 1:200 year) drought conditions; Construction of an earth embankment adjacent to Staunton Country Park ; Construction of an overflow discharge/spillway at the south-western side of the reservoir and associated works; Construction of a new junction on the B2149 Manor Lodge Road and a new junction on Swanmore Road. Provision of viewing areas on the southern embankment and western edge of the reservoir.

          2)      Outline application for (matters to be considered outlined in Table 2.2 in the submitted Development Specification) control house partially incorporated within landscaped earth mounding adjacent to the south west embankment; together with provision of other earth embankments. Construction of a visitor centre / cafe, with storage areas and welfare facilities to the northwest of the reservoir to be used for recreational and education purposes; Provision of picnic area(s) and children's play area(s).  Access routes from both junctions to the visitor car park; visitor car park comprising 193 car parking spaces and between 70 and 75 overflow spaces plus spaces for staff, coach/minibus and disabled drivers sited to the north west of the reservoir. Creation of a permanent wetland on the northern side of the reservoir and construction of bird watching hide/screen(s); recreational facilities for public amenity. Provision of perimeter tracks and a network of bridleways, cycle paths and footpaths; Construction of a slipway on the western bank of the reservoir for operational use only and a small section of the proposed pipeline (210m).

 

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to grant permission.

 

The Committee received supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting which:

 

(A)         included written deputations submitted by an anonymous local resident, Borrow Investments Ltd, Mrs Bell, on behalf of Havant Climate Change Alliance and Havant Friends of the Earth, Mr Childs, Ms Codling, Ms Comerfield, Councillor Davies, Councillor Francis, Ms Harvey, on belf of Havant Brough Tree Wardens, Mr Luck, Ms Morgan, Ms Saunders, Ms Schwager, Ms Stevenson, Ms Viney, Mrs Young and Portsmouth Water;

 

(B)         gave responses to questions submitted by Councillors prior to the meeting;

 

(C)         summarised eight further representations, including reference to a petition received after the report was published; and

 

(D)         Updated the planning considerations set out in the report.

 

In view of the public interest shown in this application, the Chairman, in accordance with the Committee’s adopted deputation procedure, agreed to an extension of the time allowed for deputations as follows:

 

             3 minutes for each objector

             21 minutes for those speaking in support

 

The Committee was addressed by the following deputees:

 

(a)          Ms Brooks, who on behalf of the Havant Climate Change Alliance and Havant Friends of the Earth accepted that a reservoir was needed but, with reference to her written submission, objected to the proposal for the following reasons:

 

              (i)           the size of the reservoir should be smaller retaining more ancient woodland and reducing the risk to Leigh Park in the event of the embankment failing;

 

              (ii)          although the planting proposed exceeded the amount of woodland that would be lost, this would not compensate habitat that would also be lost:

 

              (iii)         the carbon emissions generated by the proposal would have a cumulative effect with others locally and nationally, which would ran counter to the government’s target of cutting emissions;

 

              (iv)         a commitment to the long term ecological monitoring and management of new woodland and pasture habitats was essential to its maintenance and encouragement of biodiversity

 

              (v)          the visitors centre should be placed further away to the south where it could still be by the water’s edge for views and built as an example of the highest standards of sustainability with net zero carbon emissions.

 

              (vi)         the cycle and pedestrian paths should be surfaced with tarmac which would last longer and be more  comfortable to use by wheelchairs and pushchairs.  Joint use paths should also clearly separate cyclists and pedestrians.

 

              Mrs Brooks requested that a decision on the application be delayed until:

 

              (1)         firm commitments on emissions and biodiversity had been resolved; and

             

              (2)         there is a viable plan to mitigate/compensate for these emissions

 

(b)          Mr Childs supported his written representation objecting to the proposal by highlighting the following concerns:

 

              (1)         the 72 alternative sites investigated did not reference any options created by a new pipeline or a second or third reservoir; the new pipeline allowed for two or more smaller reservoirs and this should be investigated thoroughly;

 

              (2)         no wildlife corridors had been proposed in the reservoir plan. The applicant should redesign the proposal with a corridor and use ancient soil from the destruction of the Avenue to kick start recovery;

 

              (3)         smaller trees should be relocated from the Avenue to accelerate growth of the woodland corridor;

 

              (4)         planting of satins in clay was unacceptable;

 

              (5)         the applicant had not accounted for loss of any of the approx. 3 km² ephemeral surrounding waterways in its calculations;

 

              (6)         the applicant had not shown how the reservoir would look during summer and autumn;

 

              (7)         the location of visitor centre was not based on environmental concerns;

 

              (8)         an isolated visitor centre with two roads would be a magnet for vandalism and impossible to police; and

 

              (9)         The use of the roads by cars and coaches would drive out wildlife

 

During his deputation Mr Childs corrected a typographical error in his written deputation relation to the size of the corridor.

 

(Mrs Childs failed to complete his verbal deputation within the time allowed)

 

(c)          Ms Harvey supported her written representation objecting to the proposal by highlighting that:

 

              (1)         this was an opportunity to prevent the destruction of four areas of ancient woodland which were under threat by this proposal;

 

              (2)         there were numerous other sites that could be used; and

 

              (3)         Havant Thicket was one of many small woodlands which were under threat. The protection of this and other small areas of woodland were as important as retaining the rainforests to ensure climate control.

 

(e)          Mr Smith, on behalf of Havant Tree Wardens, supported the Wardens’ submission by highlighting the following concerns:

 

 

              (1)         the loss of the Ancient Woodland would threaten the habitat of  'species of conservation concern' which could not be found elsewhere. In many cases these woodlands were the last stronghold of threatened species;

 

              (2)         Ancient Woodlands were rich in complex communities of trees, plants, fungi, and microorganisms and which had taken hundreds of years to grow but could be easily degraded;

 

              (3)         the soil created by Ancient Woodlands had its own rich nutrient character which made it the perfect environment for everything that lived within it. The soil could not be simply be dug up and relocated, any more than the rich flora and fauna of Ancient Woodland could be mitigated for by planting saplings nearby in plastic tubes;

 

              (4)         Ancient woodland habitat could not be recreated;

 

              (5)         the project's aim to have 'no net loss of biodiversity' ignored the loss of particular ecosystems and skewed the statistics, which made the compensation plans look more effective on paper than they really were;

 

              (6)         there was also a failure to take account of the additional damage from 'Edge Effects' (e.g. woodland opened up to additional intrusion, lighting & trampling) and pollution from construction, additional traffic etc. Neither did it take into account the cumulative impacts of this further fragmentation of Ancient Woodland in the area;

 

              (7)         a study showed that a mere 7% of Britain's native woodlands were currently in good ecological condition. including many Ancient Woodlands. Conservation of Ancient Woodlands and restoration of those in poor condition was an urgent national priority;

 

              (8)         studies also showed that Biodiversity was declining faster than at any time in human history. Current extinction rates, for example, were around 100 to 1 ,000 times higher than the baseline rate, and they were increasing. Such declines were undermining Nature's productivity, resilience and adaptability, and were in turn fuelling extreme risk and uncertainty for our economies and well-being;

 

              (9)         the additional destruction of Havant Thicket and other local woodland from the proposed pipeline to Otterbourne had not been mentioned; 

 

              (10)       there was no overriding reason for the permanent loss of Ancient Woodland, particularly since:

 

        The reservoir capacity was excessive and it was intended to export water elsewhere in the Southeast

        Local Communities would not benefit from the new water supply, but suffer the impacts of increased traffic, woodland loss etc.

        The depth of stored water would prevent recreational use.

        There were no details as to how Leigh Park would be protected from flooding   It would not protect local chalk streams such as The Ems from current overabstraction.

 

              (11)       Havant Thicket, which was a public asset, would be lost to a private venture whose purpose was to generate profit 

 

(f)           Ms Saunders, supported her written submission by highlighting the following issues:

 

              (1)         the need for the reservoir had been framed as water scarcity (water resource deficits). However, a total of 65% of the water provided by the plan would not be from the reservoir, if these targets were increased, they could cover the 35% expected from the reservoir offering an alternative solution;

 

              (2)         although there had been an in-depth consultation process in previous years (2004, 2008), the content was out of date. The 4000 people who had signed the petition 'Prevent the Destruction of Ancient Woodland at Havant Thicket and Surrounding Areas' and the objections noted in the application from the Woodlands Trust outweighed the 239 people who supported the proposal in the applicant’s spring 2021 consultation; and

 

              (3)         an alternative option which would prevent the loss of ancient woodland had been offered to the applicant and referred to in the submission made by Borrow Investment’s deputation particularly points 4 and 7

 

(g)          Ms Stevenson, supported her written submission by focussing on the following three issues:

 

              (1)         the proposal would lead to an unacceptable destruction of trees and area of primary pastureland. The importance of the valuable native species trees to be lost was recognised by the fact they many of these trees were protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The planting of saplings will not compensate for the loss of these trees. The felling of these trees would release carbon dioxide and affect climate change;

 

              (2)         the provision of two access routes with two entries would double the impact on trees on the site within the Thicket and the application site and as a result there would be no tranquillity in the countryside and meadows that the local residents currently benefited from. The same routes would be required to service the conflicting needs of car users, walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The proposal represented a loss of their current level of access to the countryside; and

 

              (3)         the application should not be considered in isolation from other development plans in the area. The reservoir would consume the last pocket of countryside in the area.

 

(h)         Mrs Young, supported her written submission by highlighting the following issues:

 

              (1)         the proposal would destroy a unique and precious ecosystem and thousands of mature trees, whose carbon capture could never be replaced by planting young saplings which take 30 years to mature. Many the trees planted last year had died because they had not been watered;

 

              (2)         the loss of the trees would increase the risk of flooding to nearby properties. Killing and all this woodland, flora and fauna, and wildlife was inexcusable;

 

              (3)         this proposal represented a loss of an Ancient Woodland which were being destroyed constantly for numerous housing developments;

 

              (4)         Portsmouth Water had chosen this site for economic and not environmental reasons;

 

              (5)         the removal of the trees would have a detrimental impact on air quality for everyone in the vicinity;

 

              (6)         the proposal would create a flood risk for nearby properties and other properties in Havant and lead in an increase in insurance costs. The real risks created by dams nearby residential areas had been demonstrated recently in areas such as Whaley Bridge;

 

              (7)         the dam would be overbearing to properties in Winterslow Drive;

 

              (8)         the public relations campaign for the development of the reservoir in 2008 was so effective that people still believed that the newly proposed reservoir would be available for activities such as fishing, boating and swimming;

 

              (9)         the siting of a reservoir close to properties in a deprived area would encourage youths to use this reservoir as a swimming area and thereby increase the risk of drownings. The proposal should incorporate safety measures to discourage swimming and help those who did run into difficulties trying to swim in the reservoir;

 

              (10)       this was the wrong location for a reservoir and needed to be somewhere else. Portsmouth Water had 70 potential sites as detailed in a map they produced. Some of them were, in no doubt more suitable, or they wouldn't have been considered otherwise;

 

              (11)       the reservoir should be sited nearer to where the water would be supplied;

 

              (12)       the application should be considered in relation to the proposals for Otterbourne Waterworks.

 

(i)           Mr Taylor, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. With reference to the applicant’s written submission, Mr Taylor highlighted:

 

              (1)         the applicant’s long-standing track record of delivering to the local communities they served and their continuing commitment to engage to shape the reservoir;

 

              (2)         that the proposal would meet the demand for water in the South East and was a response to the Government’s calling for investment in regional water resources to support the country's increasing need for resilient water supplies in face of climate change and population growth;

 

              (3)         that the Water Resources South East Group had identified this as a preferred scheme which had also been approved by Defra;

 

              (4)         that the proposal was an environmentally-led scheme with a vital role to play in securing resilient supplies and safeguarding two of Hampshire's world-famous chalk streams: the rivers Test and Itchen;

 

              (5)         that the proposal would allow the applicant to store an excess of sustainable water from Bedhampton Springs during winter and be used to supply the applicant’s customers and Southern Water’s customers;

 

              (6)         the additional benefits that would be provided by the proposal, especially for local communities and wildlife;

 

              (7)         that while not proposing large scale water sports to maintain the tranquillity of the area for wildlife, the applicant was open to local water sports involving local community groups to be provided by a specialist partner;

 

              (8)         that the applicant was looking to provide local job opportunities, including apprenticeships, volunteering and wide-ranging education;

 

              (9)         that the proposal presented an opportunity to improve wellbeing and mental health in the area.;

 

              (10)       that the proposal provided an opportunity to create a wetland on the northern edge, providing a tranquil haven for a wide variety of birds, including threatened species;

 

              (11)       that the materials for the wetlands, where possible, be sourced from the application site;

 

              (12)       the plans to create or restore up to 180 hectares of woodland and woodland pasture on the reservoir site and nearby, with a focus on increasing biodiversity and species-rich habitats;

 

              (13)       the plans to improve 5.5km of local streams and get local environmental projects off the ground with a grants scheme;

 

              (14)       that although the nature of the site would change and woodland would be lost, the applicant had adapted its plans to reduce this to an absolute minimum;

 

              (15)       arrangements to mitigate and compensate the ecological impact;

 

              (16)       the consultation and customer research undertaken in development of this proposal and support expressed for this proposal;

 

              (17)       that the applicant would continue to involve local community groups and residents in the development of the reservoir;

 

              (18)       the controls in place to approve the design and construction of reservoirs;

 

              (19)       that the Environmental Agency had signed off the Environmental Statement and Flood Risk Assessment;

                           

              (20)       that the operation of the reservoir would differ from the management of other reservoirs as in this case the applicant would have control on the amount of water that could be pumped into the reservoir;

 

              (22)       the emergency measures that would be in place to prevent the reservoir from flooding nearby properties; and

 

              (23)       the importance of safety to the applicant and that its safety record had been recognised by ROSPA.

 

 

 

In response to questions from the Committee, officers advised that

 

·                         The reservoir would be mainly used by Portsmouth Water customers.

 

·                         The creation of the reservoir would enable Portsmouth Water to give the water they extract from the western region to Southern Water. However, if needed water from the reservoir could be transferred to Southern Water.

 

·                         The proposal met the Government’s aim of water companies working together to provide regional water resources to support the region’s increasing need for resilient water supplies.

 

·                         The primary access route to the site would be from the north (74%) and signage would be installed encouraging visitors to use this access.

 

·                         The number of passing points on the proposed northern route would be agreed under a reserved matters application.

 

·                         The application was supported by a robust assessment of alternative access routes from the north as set out in the report.

 

·                         An alternative option (2A) had been put forward by a third party as an alternative access route from the north. However, this was ruled out for the reasons set out in the report.

 

·                         The amount of water to be supplied to Southern Water from the reservoir would depend upon the level of capacity and the need.

 

·                         The basis on which the size of the reservoir was determined was covered by the report. In essence a number of factors including the need to be viable and a requirement to meet the needs of Portsmouth Water Company and Southern Water. Details of alternatives were also set out in the report.

 

·                         It was unfortunate that the proposal would lead to a loss of ancient woodland but this loss had been reduced to an absolute minimum and mitigation plans had been carefully developed with the support of Natural England, the Environment Agency and Hampshire County Council

 

·                         The decision to use the traditional planning application process was made by the applicant

 

·                         The stakeholder group had a wide variety of views and the individual members had submitted individual responses to the proposals; a majority of the members of the group were in favour of the application as submitted.

 

·                         The application was outline in nature so the siting of the visitors centre would be determined under a reserved matter application. The applicant was committed to look at alternatives before submitting a reserved application

 

·                         The design of the visitors centre to accommodate disabled visitors would be a matter for the reserved application.

 

·                         The management of the visitor centre would be the subject of a legal agreement.

 

·                         The application did not propose any improvements to the river Ems but the closest watercourses. One of the primary objectives of the proposal was to safeguard the internationally recognised chalk streams of the Test and Itchen.

 

·                         Conditions were proposed to secure details of safety measures to be put in place.

 

·                         There would be enhanced land and environment management for biodiversity on the wider site through collaboration with Forestry England and Hampshire County Council, including a long-term site management plan

·                         It was hoped that part of the woodland creation would involve the planting of native species

 

The Committee discussed the application in detail together with the views raised by deputees.

 

During the debate, one member of the Committee acknowledged that although there was a need to protect chalk streams and there was need for reservoir, she felt that the benefits of a reservoir of the size proposed did not outweigh the loss of the ancient woodland and the disruption to existing wildlife habitats and countryside.

 

However, a majority of members were minded to grant permission for the following reasons:

 

·                         the strategic management of water from one company to another was not unusual.

 

·                         Alternative sites had been considered and this site was the best location

 

·                         Conditions would adequately address the safety concerns and the applicants had expressed a commitment to work with the local groups to also address there concerns

 

·                         Although this would involve a loss of trees, the benefits of a strategic arrangement for the supply of water across the region outweighed the loss of the ancient woodland

 

·                         The scheme had been supported by the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Campaign of the Protection of Rural England.

 

In response to comments made during the debate, the officers acknowledged that it was regrettable that the proposal would lead to the loss of ancient woodland. However, the size of the reservoir had been justified and that the alternative sites were not considered suitable because they were not in close proximity to Bedhampton springs or local watercourses that could accommodate the capacity of water likely to be generate if the emergency measures were invoked.

 

The officers also drew the Committee’s attention to the extensive consultations that had taken place and amendments made to overcome concerns raised during the consultation period and the educational opportunities proposed for the local communities under this scheme.

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that

 

i)            the Head of Legal Services be authorised to enter into a S106 Agreement to secure the Heads of Terms set out in paragraph 7.318 of the submitted report:

 

ii)           APP/20/00991 be granted permission subject to:

 

              (A)         the completion of the Section 106 Agreement as set out in paragraph 7.129 of the submitted report; and

 

              (B)         Full Planning Permission being granted for only the following part of the above proposal as described:

 

                            Full Planning permission for Development of a reservoir for raw water storage, A pumped storage reservoir, with the minimum required total storage capacity of 8,700 million litres (Ml), to support the planned bulk supply transfer of at least 21Ml/d in extreme (currently defined as 1:200 year) drought conditions; Construction of an earth embankment adjacent to Staunton Country Park ; Construction of an overflow discharge/spillway at the south-western side of the reservoir and associated works; Construction of a new junction on the B2149 Manor Lodge Road and a new junction on Swanmore Road. Provision of viewing areas on the southern embankment and western edge of the reservoir, and

 

              (C)         Outline Planning Permission being granted with respect to the following part of the above proposal as described:

 

                                      Outline application for (matters to be considered outlined in Table 2.2 in the submitted Development Specification) control house partially incorporated within landscaped earth mounding adjacent to the south west embankment; together with provision of other earth embankments. Construction of a visitor centre / cafe, with storage areas and welfare facilities to the northwest of the reservoir to be used for recreational and education purposes; Provision of picnic area(s) and children's play area(s). Access routes from both junctions to the visitor car park; visitor car park comprising 193 car parking spaces and between 70 and 75 overflow spaces plus spaces for staff, coach/minibus and disabled drivers sited to the north west of the reservoir. Creation of a permanent wetland on the northern side of the reservoir and construction of bird watching hide/screen(s); recreational facilities for public amenity. Provision of perimeter tracks and a network of bridleways, cycle paths and footpaths; Construction of a slipway on the western bank of the reservoir for operational use only and a small section of the proposed pipeline (210m).

 

              (D)        the conditions set out in the submitted report (subject to such changes and/or additions that the Head of Planning considers necessary to impose prior to the issuing of the decision).

 

 

[The voting on the resolution was recorded as follows:

 

For: Councillor Crellin, Hughes, Patel, Linger

 

Abstention: Councillor Patrick

 

Against: None]

 

(the meeting adjourned at 7.35 pm and reconvened at 7.43 pm)

Supporting documents: