The application sought to transform the existing sawmill into a facility for general industrial use, as well as storage and distribution. The proposal also included the retrospective siting of an ancillary office block and the installation of weighbridges.
The application, submitted by Nash Karbani anid managed by Smith Jenkins Planning and Heritage, was officially registered on 14 July 2023.
Before an official decision was made by the council, a consultation was launched to gather views on the proposal. Many suggested the application should be refused, including Pewton Mewsey Parish council who reported that the site had been occupied without planning permission since September 2022. It also rejected the proposal on the grounds that the site had insufficient needs for storage and distribution. It added that the “high traffic volumes and damage caused are evidence of this”.
Refusal
Test Valley borough council took in to account the consultation refusals and rejected the application for several reasons including the absence of a comprehensive transport assessment.
The council expressed concerns about the ability of the local highway network to handle the increased volume and type of vehicular activity anticipated from the proposed development. Specific deficiencies were noted in the submitted traffic counts, speed surveys, vehicle manoeuvring, parking provision, visibility splays, traffic routing, and potential off-site highway improvements.
It had determined that, without this information, the proposed development would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the function, safety and character of the local and wider highway network, contrary to policies T1 and T2 of the Test Valley Borough Local Plan 2016 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Additionally, the council raised concerns about flood risk. The ancillary office block and weighbridges were planned to be located within flood zones 2 and 3. The council determined that it was not demonstrated these elements were essential to be sited in these high-risk flood zones, nor was it shown that there were no other available locations with a lower flood risk.
Furthermore, the council noted the absence of an ecological assessment in the application, leading to concerns that the development would not conserve, restore or enhance biodiversity as required.
Register for free to comment