The urgent need for the Planning Committee to challenge unsound planning applications

Perhaps the headline should read, ‘The urgent need for HBC Planning Services to properly qualify planning applications submitted for validation’. The amount of time wasted by elected representatives and the general public, attempting to clear up the mess caused by inadequate qualification at the pre-planning stage, is significant.

The amount of time wasted by the officers after declaring these troubled applications as valid is, according to a recent FOI request, not even measured. There’s plenty of scope there for an urgent ‘process improvement’ initiative by the new Exec Head of Place.

1. Introduction
2. The history of the 8 Downley Road site
3. The HBC Planning Committee meeting – 21 February, 2025
4. The case for deferral of planning applications
5. Why must the Planning Committee make independent and objective decisions?
6. Postscript: The ‘outstanding’ report from the County

Introduction

On Thursday 20 February, Havant Borough Council’s Planning Committee considered the planning application for 8 Downley Road, the subject of a concern we first raised in June last year. The planning agent presenting the application, and the traffic consultancy which prepared the supporting documentation, were the same team which had previously prepared the equivalent documentation for planning applications for the Amazon DPO1 delivery station at 32 New Lane in 2021.

That team, working with HBC Planning Services and Economic Development, had deliberately withheld the identity of the intended occupier of 32 New Lane from the Planning Committee in 2021 and 2022, a fact that, given Amazon’s well-known operational business process, invalidated the supporting documentation that they had provided and led to an unsound decision being made.

After two years of occupation, Amazon remains in breach of the conditions placed on its planning approval and despite repeated escalations to HBC executive management, enforcement action is still outstanding. The impact from the traffic generated by the company, in particular on the residents of Crossland Drive, has been significant.

The current planning application for 8 Downley Road, prepared and submitted by the same team, risks exacerbating the traffic issues, not just for Crossland Drive but on all routes across the town to the A27 and the A3(M).

The history of the 8 Downley Road site

An application for redevelopment of the site at Downley Road sounds, on the face of it, like a good opportunity to redevelop a recently abandoned brownfield site. Located in a fairly well hidden cul-de-sac in the corner of the New Lane industrial estate, the site was originally owned by Avery Hardoll, one of the many important manufacturing companies which provided good, skilled employment for the town’s residents during Havant’s manufacturing heyday.

When Avery Hardoll ceased trading from the Downley road site, its large staff car park was acquired by L.A. Kattenhorn & Partners Limited, forming the company’s New Lane storage site for plant machinery, buses and more or less anything else on wheels, as can be seen in the aerial image above. The former factory buildings, shown in the yellow box above, were taken over by Dunham Bush over twenty years ago.

This is the site which was the subject of the planning application, another site for which the only ‘official’ access to and from the strategic road network is via Crossland Drive and through the rest of the town.

The HBC Planning Committee meeting – 21 February, 2025

You can watch the proceedings in full, running to about 90 minutes, by clicking the arrow in the YouTube video below, or you can dip in and out by following the links given in the table below.

If you’re short of time, take the links in the left hand column to view the meeting at the start of the segment which interests you. The right hand column gives a brief commentary on each segment.

The Case Officer introduces the application	Planning Officer Kayleigh Taylor runs through a presentation describing the proposed demolition and construction.
Deputations
Against the proposal – Bob Comlay	New Lane resident and member representing residents of Crossland Drive and New Lane on the Amazon DPO1 Community Liaison Panel. Followed by Questions from the Committee.
Against the proposal – Cllr. Sharon Collings	HBC Councillor for ‘Leigh Park Central and West Leigh’ ward. Followed by questions from the Committee.
In support of the Proposal – Natalie Fellows	The ‘Fellows Planning’ planning agent for the application, Mrs. Fellows was previously the agent responsible for the anonymous applications for development at 32 New Lane in 2021 and 2022, later acknowledged to be Amazon. Followed by questions from the Committee.
Officers’ comments on the deputations	Ms Taylor, the Case Officer, comments that the Operational Management Plan (OMP) condition will resolve conflicts with other users of the estate. (It should be noted that the 32 New Lane OMP has been the subject of extensive escalations and remains the critical point of focus in the continuing saga of Amazon’s non-compliance with planning conditions at that site. The OMP condition for 8 Downley Road is, as drafted, not fit for purpose.) The Case Officer responds to Mr. Comlay’s concerns about the use of TRICS data for estimating previous site traffic movements. This response fails to consider that there is available evidence of real traffic generation at the site over the past decade. This point is significant since the same transport consultancy completely failed in 2021/22 to explore the real historical traffic generation at the 32 New Lane site under Pfizer occupancy, while failing to presenting an honest representation of traffic generation by the ‘intended occupier’, already known to be, but undisclosed as, Amazon. In response to the request made by Cllr. Collings, the Case officers confirms that in her opinion, it is not possible to raise a condition relating to the implementation of ANPR cameras.
Questions of the officers	Cllr. Keast asks why the building has already been demolished, when the application being decided is for demolition and redevelopment. Cllr. Horton queries the responses received from the County Highway Authority. Steve Weaver takes the more tricky part of that question and attempts a response. Cllr. Hulls picks up the point in Mr. Comlay’s deputation about the disparity between the TRICS calculations of previous occupation and the reality as observed by former Dunham Bush staff. This discussion gets straight to the point of the deputations against the proposal. Cllr. Keast calls for a total ban on HGV traffic in parts of New Lane, commenting that “it’s quite ridiculous that they’re going through the town centre”. Unfortunately, he’s not quite clear on the geography. The fact is, that unless and until the mythical Southleigh – A27 link road is constructed, there is no other way that HGVs can go. Cllr. Diamond sheepishly admits that she was on the Planning Committee that approved the Amazon development and asks why the Committee can’t call ‘Them’ back in to make them ‘do what we suggested’. In fact, Cllr. Diamond, I think you’re referring to Planning Conditions rather than simple suggestions. “What’s gone wrong“, is her question. Steve Weaver once again replies, pushing the onus back onto the Amazon Community Liaison Panel, CLP! In doing so, he ducks the subject of Amazon’s outstanding breaches of planning conditions, raised to his exec by the CLP twelve months ago and just about to be kicked down the road to his successor. (Will the fourth change of ‘Director of Place’ have any more luck than the previous three since this was first escalated in March 2022?) Cllr. Tanson asks whether we could modify the road layouts, presenting an open goal to Steve Weaver who slots it straight into the County’s goal. It’s beginning to look as if, in this pre-devolution world, there’s little love lost between the two authorities. Cllr. Horton asks a frankly bizarre question regarding setting up some kind of ‘extended CLP’ for the new site. Since it’s not in Steve’s play-book, he wonders whether the Case Officer has an answer. An interesting question from Cllr. Tanson regarding the number of B8 premises on the estate, possibly not being used. Steve Weaver’s response is rather astonishing.
Questions, continued, moving into the debate	Cllr. Horton bravely sets off in the right direction with a suggestion that the application be deferred pending further input from the County, but falls into the inevitable black hole between the two tiers of local authorities. The philosophical arguments flit between the various benefits of BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ versus simply BREEAM ‘Excellent’, but fail to probe the other elephant which Amazon brought into the room, Local Employment. In the early days of Fellows Planning’s previous application, readers will recall the front page of The News on September 16, 2021. The Council’s expectation of 1000 jobs at New Lane, has quite predictably resulted in a large number of third-party gig-economy drivers and a relatively small number of low skilled on-site ‘tote handlers’, many of whom would appear to be drawn from external sources of low-skilled, low-cost, labour. Cllr. Keast’s enthusiasm in interrupting the vote to call for some serious thumping on desks at the County is warmly welcomed by HCS. Cllr. Fairhurst, who just happens to be a Hampshire County Councillor, remains silent. The Monitoring Officer gets involved, and at this point proceedings go further down a deferral rabbit hole. It’s well worth sticking with the video to listen to this! Cllr. Fairhurst now plays the usual Joker. “If we vote to defer, doesn’t that mean that the applicant would appeal, and then the Planning Inspector would award costs against the Council?” Mr. Eaves and the Chief Legal Officer breathe almost audible sighs of relief. It’s in the bag. Little thought, however, is given to the fact that even if they were taken to an appeal, the weight of public opinion would be on the Council’s side.
The vote	The vote goes the predicted way, permission granted. With a single notable vote against by Cllr. Horton on behalf of residents.

The case for deferral of planning applications

Havant Borough Council’s Constitution gives reasonable guidance on when it is valid for a Planning Committee member to vote to defer a decision, quoted in this extract from the HCS deputation to the Planning Committee on 9 September 2021.

The planning application under consideration then was, of course, the ‘anonymous’ application for Amazon at 32 New Lane. This guidance was ignored by the members of the committee on that occasion, so perhaps we should not be surprised to find that it’s still happening four years later. Not surprised perhaps, but certainly disappointed.

Cllr. Horton did a valiant job of trying to keep the idea of deferral in play, to the obvious consternation of the officers present. In reality, there were plenty of holes in the applicants documentation to justify agreeing that ‘there was insufficient information before them’. All the members had to do was to say so, vote to defer the decision and push back on the applicant and the county for further detail. Fear of the Planning Inspector provides no justification for caving in without a fight.

Why must the Planning Committee make independent and objective decisions?

Under the previous administration, it was apparent that the outcome of the Planning Committee’s deliberations had, in some prominent cases, been predetermined by unchallenged executive and cabinet level directives. In the case of Amazon DPO1, there now seems sufficient evidence to suggest that the outcome was determined even before the planning applications had been ‘validated’.

Although its level of challenge and debate has improved since the May 2024 elections, the HBC Planning Committee continues to be guided by the attending officers to approve sometimes ill-conceived and ill-judged recommendations without effective scrutiny.

That guidance is too often influenced by a fear of litigation from applicants, who frequently obscure key issues with excessive, complex documentation. They cite intricate planning regulations and theoretical traffic calculations that have little or no relevance to the location context of the application. When recommendations become entangled in such technicalities, they risk overlooking the broader impacts, disregarding public concerns, and ultimately compromising the safety of the borough’s residents.

Instead of accepting unchecked, incomplete, and irrelevant documentation from applicants, planning officers at both county and borough levels need to ‘work smarter’, identifying and addressing supporting documentation shortfalls and inconsistencies before declaring the planning application ‘valid’. This approach would shift the responsibility back to developers and demand that they improve the quality of their deliverables. Failure to do so leads to a significant waste of officer resources, public frustration, and extended delays in the commencement of developments, often resulting in suboptimal outcomes.

The Havant North employment area is quite obviously the wrong place to put high volume logistics operations which need direct access to the strategic road network, particularly when there is no clear directional signage and no effective monitoring of the load on the town centre streets. Yet repeatedly, this evident fact is ignored by Planning Services, and the Downley Road decision only worsens an already unacceptable situation for Havant town residents.

The simple installation of ANPR cameras at the estate entrances would provide the local authority with a valuable insurance policy against uncontrolled HGV and LGV traffic growth. Three locations would be enough, one at the Crossland Drive / Petersfield Road junction, one at the Bartons Road / New Lane junction and the third at the New Lane / Eastern Road junction. In addition to recording basic estate traffic profiles, the data available from an ANPR solution with an appropriate IT architecture would enable active management of estate traffic, to the local authority’s advantage.

With a deeply flawed application due for imminent consideration and the upcoming publication of the application by Dandara for the controversial ‘Roman Fields’ development, there is an urgent need for the Planning Committee to take stock and show some grit.

Postscript: The ‘outstanding’ report from the County

If you’re wondering what the document is for which a response from the County is ‘outstanding’, then it’s possibly based on this one. The original author, a humble resident who has since been excluded from any further engagement with it, suspects that it may have morphed into something unrecognisable.

Sadly, the likelihood of seeing any action on this before both authorities get ‘devolved and re-organised’ is, we suspect, low.