Hampshire County Council

Regulatory Committee

19 July 2006

Applicant: New Milton Sand and Ballast

Re-application for sand and gravel extraction, construction of a vehicular access and environmental banks, restoration to lakes, woodland and small fields at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea

(Application No. 06/87884) (County Council Ref: NF177)

Report of the Chief Planning Adviser to the Regulatory Committee

Item 6

Contact: Neil Chester, ext 6496 email: neil.chester@hants.gov.uk

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for sand and gravel extraction, construction of a vehicular access and environmental banks, restoration to lakes, woodland and small fields at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea. The application is a resubmission of the application previously refused planning permission, against which the applicant has appealed. The details of the proposal remain unchanged, however, the applicant has submitted an assessment of the economic impacts of quarrying on tourism to address the second reason for refusal.

1.2 It is considered that in the absence of an unacceptable environmental or amenity impact on the Shorefield Country Park or other neighbouring uses, the impact of the proposal on the local economy will be minimal. However, the proposal is contrary to emerging Policies S8 and DC15 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy because the site is not a preferred area and the existing preferred area (Plumley Wood) can address the shortfall in the landbank. It is considered that granting permission for extraction at Downton Manor Farm would prejudice a decision on the acceptability or otherwise of the emerging Strategy. Therefore it is recommended to refuse planning permission.

2. Planning History and Background

2.1 An application to extract sand and gravel, and erect a processing and batching plant with ancillary facilities at Downton Manor Farm (Application No. 050554M) was submitted to the County Council in August 1992. The application was withdrawn in June 1994 when the applicant promoted an alternative site at Ashley Manor which was subsequently refused and dismissed at appeal.

2.2 An application for a change of use to a waste transfer facility at Downton Manor Farm (Application No. 79324) was submitted on 1 September 2003, but this too was subsequently withdrawn.

2.3 On 13 August 2004 New Milton Sand and Ballast submitted a new proposal for sand and gravel extraction at Downton Manor Farm. This application was refused in October 2005 (Committee Report attached at Appendix 1) on the grounds that:

2.4 The current proposal is a re-submission of the previously refused application: the details of the proposal remain unchanged. However, the applicant has submitted an assessment of the economic impacts of quarrying on tourism to address the second reason for refusal. There are, therefore, two material differences in the circumstances relevant to the current proposal; the first concerns the relevance of this new data, the second the change in the planning policy framework now that the County Council has approved the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy and submitted it to the Secretary of State for public examination. The implications of these two matters are fully addressed in this report.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (adopted 2000) Policies MW2 and MW5 concern mineral extraction.

3.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted 1998) Policies 7 and 17 concern mineral extraction. Policy 20 refers to proposals for mineral extraction, which are located outside of a Preferred Area.

3.3 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy (adopted for submission to the Secretary of State May 2006) Policy S9 refers to the geographic apportionment of sand and gravel within Hampshire. The apportionment for the Forest geographic area (excluding the New Forest National Park) is 1.163 million tonnes per annum; and Policy DC 15 refers to criteria for sand and gravel extraction.

4. Consultations

4.1 The local Member, Councillor Rice, has been informed of the proposal.

4.2 Lymington and Pennington Town Council has been informed.

4.3 Milford-on-Sea Parish Council objects to the proposal citing not only that the site is not a preferred area for mineral extraction but local amenity, environmental and traffic impacts. The Parish Council also expresses the view that there is no need for the proposal in the light of the minerals requirements in the Core Strategy submitted to the Secretary of State and the proposal is premature in light of the current review of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The Parish Council re-iterates its concern over the impact of the proposal on the local economy.

4.4 Environmental Health Officer (New Forest District Council) raises no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions.

4.5 New Forest District Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

4.6 Environment Agency raises no objections, subject to conditions.

4.7 New Forest National Park Authority has been informed.

4.8 Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raises no objections to the proposal.

4.9 Highways Adviser raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to ensure visibility splays of 120 metres by 4.5 metres are created and maintained, and that details of the access and measures to prevent mud and debris being deposited on the highway are submitted.

4.10 Downton and Milton Against Gravel Extraction (DAMAGE) strongly objects to the proposal for reasons including the unacceptable environmental impacts in terms of noise, dust, hydrology and ecology and highway safety. It considers that the noise assessment is flawed; the proposal is premature in light of the emerging Core Strategy and site selection process; and that there is no overriding need for the proposal to justify a departure from the current Minerals and Waste Local Plan. It shares with the Parish Council the view that the proposal would have an adverse economic impact, both in terms of the direct impact on the adjacent caravan park and the resulting indirect impact upon the local shops.

5. Representations

5.1 There have been 871 letters of objection to the proposal. The principal reasons for objection are:

5.2 There have been 117 letters of support for the proposal. The main reasons for supporting the proposal are:

5.3 Mr Desmond Swayne, MP, considers the proposal is inappropriately located close to Milford, and in particular the Shorefield Caravan Park, and therefore objects to the proposal.

5.4 Councillor Kendall objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 Having visited the site and having reviewed all the evidence, on 19 October 2005 the Regulatory Committee resolved to refuse planning permission for gravel extraction at Downton Manor Farm because:

6.2 The current proposal is a re-submission of the original and the details of the proposal have not changed. A review of the advice given to the Regulatory Committee in October 2005 relating to the amenity and traffic issues concludes that it remains relevant and thus is appended to this report for reference (Appendix 1). There are, however, two material differences in the circumstances. First, the County Council has approved the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy document for submission to the Secretary of State for examination. Second, the applicant has submitted an assessment of the economic impacts of quarrying on tourism to address the second reason for refusal.

6.3 The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy is a Development Plan Document setting a spatial vision for future minerals and waste planning in Hampshire. Since the refusal of the previous proposal the Strategy has been approved by the County Council and submitted to the Secretary of State for examination. Therefore, in accordance with national guidance, the emerging policies can be considered alongside those in the existing Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

6.4 Regional policy guidance states that Hampshire shall provide for 2.63 million tonnes of sand and gravel per annum (mtpa). The Strategy further sub-divides this apportionment into geographical areas. Policy S8 states that the Forest area (excluding the New Forest National Park) will produce 1.163 mtpa until 2016. The scale of reserves necessary to meet this annual requirement depends on the assumptions made about the contribution assumed from the remaining provision in the existing Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

6.5 The range in the provision amounts to between 0 and 5.483 million tonnes depending on how the proposals in Policy 19 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) which have not yet been granted planning permission are treated. In procedural terms Policy 19 of the HPSMWLP has been `saved' until such time as a site selection process can allocate new sites as `preferred areas'. This means that the existing preferred area of Plumley Wood, which is a substantial site that would provide approximately six million - at latest estimate - tonnes of sand and gravel, is a material consideration.

6.6 Policy DC15 of the Strategy states (inter alia) that sand and gravel will be permitted, provided there is less than seven years of permitted reserves of sand and gravel and a need for sand and gravel which cannot reasonably be met from identified sites and locations and it can be shown that working such land would be equally acceptable to working within an identified site or location. Policy DC15 is broadly in conformity with Policy 20 of the existing Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

6.7 An assessment of the current Hampshire landbank (ie the amount of permitted sand and gravel reserves in Hampshire) reveals that it is below the seven year requirement (approximately 4.6 years). However, the equivalent landbank for the Forest geographical area is approximately 4.67 years. The proposal at Downton Manor Farm is specifically to extract sharp sand and gravel for which the existing relevant landbank in the Forest area is estimated to be 5.9 years. On the face of it there is, therefore, a need for further sharp sand and gravel extraction in the Forest area.

6.8 Notwithstanding that the landbank is below the seven year requirement, Plumley Wood is already identified as a preferred area and has the potential to address the shortfall. The issue, therefore, is whether as a preferred area Plumley Wood is likely to be promoted in the plan period.

6.9 The report to the October Regulatory Committee stated that "the indication is that there is unlikely to be an application [for Plumley Wood] until mid-2006 at earliest. Furthermore, notwithstanding that they are within preferred areas, there is no guarantee that these sites will be acceptable". Since October the County Council has been informed that an application for Plumley Wood is likely to be submitted in early 2007. Although there remains no guarantee that any proposal would be acceptable, it is considered that Plumley Wood can reasonably meet the need for sand and gravel in the Forest area. Accordingly, the proposal at Downton Manor Farm is contrary to Policy 20 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and DC15 of the Strategy in that the need for sand and gravel is currently insufficiently justified. Notwithstanding the less than seven year landbank there are sufficient mineral reserves identified in the current Local Plan to provide an adequate supply.

6.10 The Parish Council, DAMAGE and numerous local residents have commented that the proposal is premature in light of the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). In October the Regulatory Committee was advised that "it is considered that the MWDF is not sufficiently advanced to justify a refusal on these grounds". However, since that time the Strategy has been submitted to the Secretary of State and the site selection process has been progressed, with a view to allocating sites in 2008. It is therefore considered that granting permission for extraction at Downton Manor Farm would prejudice a decision on the acceptability of the emerging Strategy.

6.11 The impact of the proposal on the local economy is a serious concern for the Shorefield Country Park, Milford-on-Sea Parish Council, DAMAGE and local residents. The local concern is that the quarry will give rise to environmental impacts, such as noise and dust, which will adversely impact upon the users of the caravan park, thus reducing repeat business. Local shops will also be affected as a consequence of a reduction in holiday-makers using local facilities.

6.12 In response to this concern an assessment of the economic impacts of quarrying upon caravan parks has been submitted. The assessment concludes that holiday parks and tourism facilities successfully operate alongside mineral extraction operations (for example, Warmwell Quarry, Dorset) without significant detriment to either use, even when the quarrying operation is a more intense operation than being proposed at Downton Manor Farm.

6.13 The Shorefield Country Park is a significant local employer and tourism is important to the local economy. It is noted that the Country Park relies on repeat bookings for approximately 60% of their business, and therefore the business may be particularly susceptible to environmental changes. However, it is considered that there is unlikely to be an unacceptable amenity or environmental impact on the Country Park or the local community. The examples provided within the economic impact assessment suggest that quarries and tourism activities can co-exist. Furthermore, it should be noted that New Milton Sand and Ballast is also a local company which contributes to the local economy. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that a refusal predicated on the impact of the proposal on the local economy cannot be sustained.

6.14 DAMAGE has raised a concern that the noise assessment has not adequately assessed the impacts of the scheme and particularly the impact of the de-watering process and reversing alarms on lorries. The de-watering will be free draining in normal circumstances and no pumping will be necessary. However, if a pump is necessary there are practicable means of reducing any noise to within acceptable levels, such as installing the pump and any generator within an acoustic casing or using a submersible pump. It is proposed to use `white noise' reversing alarms on lorries rather than the intrusive `bleepers'. These issues can be addressed through conditions.

6.15 It is considered that in the absence of an unacceptable environmental or amenity impact on the Shorefield Country Park or other neighbouring uses, the impact of the proposal on the local economy will be minimal. A refusal on these grounds would be unreasonable.

6.16 However, the proposal at Downton Manor Farm is contrary to emerging Policies S8 and DC15 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy because the site is not a preferred area and the existing preferred area (Plumley Wood) can address the shortfall in the landbank. The Strategy has been approved by the County Council for submission to the Secretary of State, and therefore considerable weight should be attached to its policies.

6.17 Finally, it is considered that granting permission for extraction at Downton Manor Farm would prejudice a decision on the acceptability of the emerging Strategy.

6.18 Accordingly, notwithstanding the merits of the proposal, the recommendation is that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of the re-application for sand and gravel extraction, construction of a vehicular access and environmental banks, restoration to lakes, woodland and small fields at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea (Application No. 06/87884) be refused for the following reasons:

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1.

Published works.

2.

Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE

LOCATION

Re-application for sand and gravel extraction, construction of a vehicular access and environmental banks, restoration to lakes, woodland and small fields at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea

(Application No. 06/87884) (County Council Ref: NF177)

Environment Department

937/NC

Annexe to Reasons for Refusal

(as required by Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

__________________________________________________________________

Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 2000

Policy MW2

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the mineral/waste planning authority is satisfied that:

(i) any adverse environmental or other impacts that the development would be likely to cause are outweighed by a clearly established need for the development; and

(ii) the proposals, where applicable, include a satisfactory scheme of working and landscaping including details of lorry routeing and, in all cases, include satisfactory measures to ensure that the development would not have any unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact; and

(iii) the proposals, where applicable, provide for the satisfactory and prompt restoration and after-care of the site to a high standard and to a landform compatible with the local landscape and suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.

Policy MW5

The mineral planning authorities will seek, through policies and proposals in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and day-to-day development control, to provide for an appropriate contribution towards national, regional and local needs for minerals from sources within Hampshire, having regard to local environmental constraints. In considering applications for mineral working, regard will be had to the aim of maintaining a stock of planning permissions sufficient for the extraction of sand and gravel in accordance with national and regional policy guidance, unless exceptional circumstances prevail. Areas for the extraction of sand and gravel will be identified in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted) 1998

Policy 7

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals and waste development provided they are satisfied that, where appropriate, the proposed development pays due regard to:

(i) the relationship of the proposal site to other properties and land uses (particularly residential and other environmentally sensitive properties) and the likely effects of the proposed development on the locality by reason of noise, dust, smoke, fumes, illumination or any other factor and the need for buffer zones between the development and residential and other properties;

(ii) the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected, in terms of highway capacity and safety and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements required could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact;

(iii) the likely visual impact of the proposed development and the need for additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development;

(iv) the need to safeguard the character and amenities of individual settlements and to safeguard open gaps between settlements from permanent development which would cause long-term harm to the function of the land;

(v) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to protect and safeguard sites of nature conservation, geological, archaeological, historic, architectural and landscape importance and their settings;

(vi) the extent and quality of agricultural land to be taken by the proposed development and the proposals for its subsequent restoration and the likely effects of the proposals on farm structure and management;

(vii) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to maintain the distinctive character of the landscape; the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard and protect individual species, habitats and landscape features, including woodland, trees and hedgerows; and the likely effects of the proposed development on forestry and woodland management;

(viii) the likely effects of the proposed development on sites used for recreation and public rights of way and the need to protect or secure the satisfactory diversion of public rights of way;

(ix) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard the flow and quality of watercourses, water supplies, floodplains, groundwater, the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the level of the water table in the locality and the likely effects of the proposed development on the immediate setting of any river;

(x) any potential danger to aircraft from birds being attracted to the site;

(xi) the possible amenity implications of any landfill gas that might be generated at the site and of any provisions that might need to be made to deal with it; and

(xii) the likely cumulative impact of the proposed development in combination with any other significant development taking place or permitted to take place in the locality and the need to minimise the impact of mineral extraction and waste disposal operations by securing, where appropriate, the phased release of sites and progression of working and restoration.

Policy 17

The Mineral Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel provided they are satisfied that such permission is necessary in order to maintain landbanks of reserves of soft sand and sharp sand and gravel, with planning permission for extraction in accordance with the most recent national and regional policy guidance, unless exceptional circumstances prevail.

Policy 20

The Mineral Planning Authorities will not grant planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel from land outside the preferred areas specified in Policy 19 unless they are satisfied that the proposal is in conformity with the other policies of the Plan and that:

either:

(i) (a) there is a need for additional permitted reserves of sand and gravel (as assessed against Policies 16-18) which cannot reasonably be met from within the preferred areas; and

or:

(ii) the proposed development involves a small scale extension to or deepening of an existing active sand and gravel extraction site.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy (May 2006)

Policy S8 - Sand and Gravel

Policy DC15 - Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel extraction will be permitted, provided the site:

a. Is identified for sand and gravel extraction in the Hampshire Minerals Plan or pending its adoption, is within the Mineral Resource Area shown on the Key Diagram, or

b. The proposed development involves a small-scale extension to or deepening of an active sand and gravel extraction site, or

c. There is less than seven years of permitted reserves of sand and gravel and a need for sand and gravel which cannot reasonably be met from identified sites and locations and it can be shown that working such land would be equally acceptable to working within an identified site or location, and

d. Is not within or likely to adversely impact upon the setting of the New Forest National Park, the Proposed South Downs National Park or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and

e. The proposals include restoration opportunities for increasing biodiversity or access to public open space, or help to meet other planning objectives, and

f. Where necessary, proposals for landscaping and planting (prior to operation)are included, and

g. Is close to, and with good access to, the minerals and waste lorry route illustrated on the Key Diagram.