It’s noted that the InExcess Planning application has been withdrawn. Please see the Comment below from Carl Chambers, Managing Director of In-Excess UK Ltd.
The Minutes of the recent Exceptional Parish Council Meeting to discuss planning application 16/08573/FUL are now
The following is a helpful note from Sam Goold, re Planning Application 16/08573/FUL
In case you were not aware, the in-Excess storage facility has lodged a retrospective planning application for a huge turning circle on the site. This will enable larger lorries to turn in the woods and therefore use our village roads (including Farley and Pitton). The weight of objection from the last application is the only hope that we can have this application rejected, so please would you all kindly consider lodging an objection: You don’t need to write much if you would prefer – just filing the objection is key to any success in this.
Most worryingly is the lack of respect for the local countryside and the local residents as the ancient woodland has been contaminated by asbestos waste (not to mention the ugly nature of the work being carried out).
Any support would be gratefuly received.
Kindest regards,
01722 712 873
Just for reference as it may not show on the website for a few days, please do use any of my objection if it helps (or there are some others already on line):
I OBJECT to this retrospective application which has been submitted to fall under the radar of the local villagers. A huge turning circle has already been built to enable large, over-sized vehicles to enter the site. As already opposed by local residents last year, these vehicles are not suitable on our small, narrow, deteriorating lanes. These lorries pose a risk to our countryside and more worryingly to the residents themselves as there are no footpaths in the area. There are already reported incidents of families and horses being put in danger by these huge lorries which are already using our lanes.
The addition of concrete hardstanding to provide turning circle for vehicles (outside of the cartilage of the existing business), galvanised steel security fence (7.5 ft high and bright silver), lamp posts (which are very bright) and gate does not respect or protect the ancient woodland that have ALREADY BEEN POLLUTED AND DESTROYED. The defined clear line and proposed grass bunds between business and the surrounding ancient woods are filled with builders waste and broken asbestos sheets – the Environment agency is fully aware of this contamination.
Trees have been felled without license and builders rubble deposited in the woods.
This application has blatantly lied under points 13. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation & 15. Trees and Hedges.
Furthermore, further to the original (rejected) planning application:
- Three additional barns have been clad with no permission.
- The two small cottages are now one big house, which is different in size and materials from the original planning application
Dear Sam Goold,
My name is Carl Chambers, Managing Director of In-Excess UK Ltd.
The reason I withdrew the application is because you are all being fed a complete load of rubbish, your statements here are wholly inaccurate. Due to the sensitivity of this site, I have been under intense scrutiny since the day we took ownership. I have had more visits from Health & Safety, The Environmental Agency, Planning Officers, Enforcement Officers and the Police, all of which, we are working with, this has been driven by spurious accusations and the lack of knowledge to the lawful use of the site.
I have been in business in Salisbury for 27 years, some of those years have not been easy.
We are a law abiding company and work within the law, we have been subjected to several episodes of criminal damage, slashing contractor vehicle tyres and disrupting machinery, in one instance, it could have caused a fatal incident, if any person reading this has anything to do with these episodes, shame on you!!
We are in the process of resubmitting an application complete with an in-depth report and a common sense approach to the use of this unique site.
Mr Chambers,
It is simply that the residents of Pitton are frightened by the thought of your heavy lorries driving through our village. This is especially true beairng in mind the school run and the sharp corner at the top of White Hill. We presume that you have surveyed the village roads and we cannot understand why you would want to send lorries through our villages.
If you have an alternative route in mind for your lorries, you should let us know.
Dear Brian,
I will be living on site, and I have had the experience of driving through Pitton and Farley in my car during School home time. It was an experience I do not wish to repeat in any vehicle.
I completely understand your fears on this road, I have control of the only vehicle we use for our site and it would NEVER venture through Pitton or Farley.
We log all the movements of our vehicles and our trucks have trackers and camera’s fitted.
You will see our small pick up truck (with the Dinosaur on the side) in the area as we do a lot of local deliveries in the villages around Salisbury.
This site, as I have always stated is long term storage to our main distribution warehouse at Harnham, we have contracts with certain major retailers where we need to remove stock at high speed. They are periods where we do not use the site at all.
For us, a very much low key, part-time operation, perfectly suited to that site.
If you would like to visit the site at anytime, please let me know
Regards
Carl Chambers.
Mr Chambers,
Thank you for making a response. We might appear cynical, but that does provoke the asking of ‘devils advocate’ questions, which is sometimes the best way to get to the nubb of any issue.
Having reviewed you comments there are still concens.
1) Your current plans are to use two units for inExcess, but this could, by stealth, turn into all five units.
2) The size, or potential size, of this development belies your comment about it being a “part time low key operation”.
3) The amount of money being spent does not indicate good business justification for a site where there are “periods with no acitivty at all”.
4) Even though you can log vehicle movements our experience of vehicles that come through Pitton is that drivers set the satnav and blindly follow those directions. By the time you check their movements the damge has already been done.
5) Wiltshire Council Highways commented that 30 lorry movements per week, along with various staff car movements, was excessive was considered as excessive for this area.
6) 30 movements per week does not stack up with your comment that only one vehicle will be used for the site – on a part time basis.
7) We cannot stop you selling the site as an ongoing depot operation to somebody who does not care about vehicles coming through our village. You (inExcess) might not be able to resist making a financial gain from your efforts in deveopling this site.
I welcome a response. I am sure that other villagers will be following these public threads.
Brian Cudby