A BUSINESSMAN who dumped asbestos waste has been refused planning permission after councillors deemed his actions to be “illegal”.

Carl Chambers, managing director of Salisbury retailer In-Excess, bought Nightwood Farm in West Grimstead in 2015 to develop into a distribution centre for his firm.

In October last year he applied to Wiltshire Council for retrospective planning permission for grass-planted embankments.

But the council’s southern area planning committee unanimously refused him permission last Wednesday over concerns about waste dumped in the bund during the build.

The Environment Agency (EA) found spoil used to form the bunds contained a “very low” concentration of asbestos, which posed a “relatively low risk” to health. It did not prosecute Mr Chambers.

However, Mr Chambers’ actions and subsequent application received backlash from local residents, as well as parish councils in East Grimstead and Alderbury.

Wiltshire councillor Richard Britton said that the waste dumping was “deplorable” and could affect those living around the farm and place a “residual risk” to nearby water.

The application was called before the committee after council officers recommended it for approval, citing the lack of objections from government agencies.

After the meeting Cllr Britton said: “Members regarded this latest thing as simply an attempt to legalise illegal dumping of waste including hazardous waste in ancient woodland. Essentially this is an illegal act.”

He added that there was “general condemnation” and “resentment” from councillors that they had been advised to allow an application that was “basically illegal”.

Prior to the application being lodged Mr Chambers said tests had been conducted which showed there was no criminality and the material was better left on site.

The amount of asbestos was 10 times lower than the permitted minimum, he said, and posed no health risk.

“We have two families living on site, including myself, so the concern for our own health is paramount,” he added.

“There would have been no point to make an application if any of these agencies had raised concerns. I believe we were proactive and most professional and diligent in our actions.”

Mr Chambers added that his company had been “under extreme scrutiny from day one”.

“We have invested a considerable amount of time, money and energy in this site,” he said. “Some of the site was in a very poor state. We have a certificate of legal use for two buildings to be used as Class B8 storage and distribution and three units for any agricultural purposes, and that is what they will be used for. The site for us is long-term storage and our use is very minimal.”

Concerns were also raised about the number of trees that had been felled to make way for the bunds. Mr Chambers said only three had been cut down, and not hundreds as had been claimed.

He also said councillors had not been given all the relevant information – including certificates for the safe disposal of asbestos.

Most of the waste had been there since the site, once the largest intensive pig farm in the South, was built 50 years ago, he said.

“One can only imagine the smell and noise from 3,200 pigs,” he added.

“The facts of the site have been exaggerated beyond belief, I find the whole episode totally bizarre.”

Councillors called for the waste to be removed by a licensed contractor and trees to be planted to cover the bunds.

Mr Chambers has six months to appeal.