BLACKMOOR residents are staggered by a planning inspector's decision to allow a haulage company to double the number of lorry movements permitted at its site. Williams of Bordon and Blackmoor Estate won an appeal to increase the lorry movements from 30 per day to 60, even though the application faced stiff opposition from county, district and parish councils as well many residents. The company was originally granted a five- year permission in November 2002 for soil recycling and green composting, as well as combined soil and green waste with screening equipment, facilities and landscaping. Residents were concerned that, after it became clear that the organisation had been breaking a condition which allowed only 30 lorry movements entering or leaving the premises each day, it had decided to "plead ignorance" by claiming it was unsure whether the condition allowed 60 movements. And this led to a subsequent appeal against the planning condition. "The council considers that although an increase in lorry movements may increase activity on the appeal site, the existing conditions would be adequate to ensure that such an increase in activity on the appeal site itself would not have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of surrounding residents," reported Simon Rawle, appeal inspector. However, according to residents, this is not the case and they feel that Williams of Bordon has been flouting many of conditions which should have been upheld to reduce the impact of the site. Tony Cathie, whose property is adjacent to the company, has been feeling the effects of the site with the price of his property plummeting, which he claims is a result of the increased activity. "It is a big concern now that they have been given permission to increase the lorry movements, said Mr Cathie. He added: "It is a self-policing site, which means that the company would have to record the number of lorry movements, and it is debatable whether this would be completely accurate. It has reached as many as 104 in a day, a lot more than even 60, which is a major worry," he claimed. "There are only two officers for the whole of Hampshire to police these sites and there must be quite a few in the county, so there is no way they could sit there for a day to make sure the regulations were not being breached. "Apart from that, the dust and noise is a problem, no one knows what is being carried in and out of the site, or what pollutants are in the air. It is affecting the local environment," claimed Mr Cathie. "Three councils opposed it but it still went through. There is a perfectly good recycling centre in Sleaford, why can't they do more there?" John Trodden who lives close to the site believes that a dangerous precedent has been set, which could lead to other companies deciding to dispute the number of lorry movements permitted. He said that if a government inspector allowed it once, it could be the same for everyone. Mr Trodden wrote a letter of complaint to David Smith, Hampshire County Council's development control officer and to the Environment Agency about the activities taking place on site. He said: "Please accept this email as a formal and recordable complaint regarding the materials being brought onto the Williams site and stored. Ditto regarding the height of piles, uncontrolled dust, disregard from sheeting and items of machinery over and above permission." Mr Trodden's correspondence was sent with pictures illustrating the "abuses" of the company's permission to work on that site, including stores of concrete which had not been permitted. His letter continued: "In every photograph there is evidence of concrete and builders' rubbish, which has very definitely not been generated by screening the 'stones' from imported soil. You will note the large slab of concrete weighing in the region of half a ton. "Note also, please, that the onsite equipment/ machinery is also getting way out of hand. "Mr Williams does not have permission to store roll-on roll-off skips, nor does he have permission to store the concrete rings and other civil engineering materials at the top end of the site," the letter continued. "Most piles exceed the three-metre limit and nothing was done today (Friday, May 12) to deal with the quantities of dust blowing in from the site. No lorry leaves the site sheeted and there is still no wheel washer, only a wheel spinner," explained Mr Trodden. His letter continued: "The number and magnitude of contraventions of conditions attaching to the temporary permission given by your council for this operation is growing by the day. "I would be most grateful if you would let me, and the other recipients of this mail, know exactly what you propose to do about this completely unacceptable state of affairs, bearing in mind that the site is partly within an AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), in close proximity to a SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and wholly within the proposed National Park. "I would also take this opportunity to point out to the Environment Agency representative that the annual and one-off storage limitations placed on the operation in their licence are also being systematically ignored and exceeded by the operator. Perhaps a little bit of 'policing' by all the responsible authorities in this case is very, very overdue." The proprietor of Williams of Bordon, Eric Williams, strongly refuted claims that his company had been working outside planning regulations imposed by the county council. He said: "There is nothing wrong with what we are doing, we have wheel washers and everything on site. The people from the Highways Department didn't have a problem, neither did those from English Nature and the inspector seemed to be highly satisfied, according to his report. "So I'm not interested in what the people complaining have to say." And of the successful appeal, Mr Williams said that wording of the original planning condition was wrong and was duly picked up on.
