Hampshire County Council

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL MINERALS POLICY PANEL ITEM 2 16 FEBRUARY 1995 HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN - PROPOSED PRE-INQUIRY CHANGES REPORT OF THE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICER 1. Summary 1.1 This report seeks confirmation of the Proposed Pre-Inquiry Changes to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Deposit Plan, which were published in January 1995, and recommends additional Proposed Changes to the Deposit Plan relating to Preferred Area 5 - HMS Daedalus, Stubbington/Lee- on-the-Solent and to the section of the Plan on waste water and sewage sludge, including Safeguarded Site W - Peel Common Waste Water Treatment Works, Fareham. In addition, it reports on objections that have been received on the basis that the Plan, as proposed to be changed, does not make sufficient provision for disposal of non-inert waste by landfill and recommends a further Proposed Change to the Deposit Plan. It also reports on the conclusion of the North Hampshire Waste Plant Location Study and the Environmental Appraisal of the Plan. 2. Introduction 2.1 At its meeting on 11 January 1995 the Panel considered the Draft Proposed Pre-Inquiry Changes (November 1994) to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Deposit Plan in the light of representations received. The Panel approved the Proposed Changes subject to certain amendments and additions. 2.2 The Proposed Pre-Inquiry Changes, as approved, have been published and all persons who made representations on the Deposit Plan or on the Draft Proposed Changes have been notified. Copies have been sent to Members of the Panel. A single text document including the original Deposit Plan text and the Proposed Changes is being prepared to aid understanding of the changes. 3. Countryside Heritage Policy 3.1 At the meeting on 11 January 1995 the Panel agreed to the inclusion of 'Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation' as a designation to be protected under Policy 8 of the Plan, subject to the proposed review of the County Council's Countryside Heritage Policy being approved by the Planning and Transportation Committee. 1 3.2 At its meeting on 23 January 1995, the Planning and Transportation Committee resolved that: "1. The recording of Countryside Heritage Sites be replaced by: (i) the designation of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation; (ii) reliance on the scheduling of Ancient Monuments; and (iii) reliance on the National Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest and the County Register of Historic Parks and Gardens. 2. The Minerals Policy Panel considers the inclusion of the site designations listed in (1) above in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan." 3.3 In the light of that decision of the Planning and Transportation Committee, the Proposed Pre-Inquiry Changes have been published with the inclusion of further changes to Policy 8 and paragraph 4.7 of the Deposit Plan. In particular, the designation 'Countryside Heritage Site' has been deleted from Policy 8 and additional text explaining the changes to the Countryside Heritage Policy included in paragraph 4.7. The criteria for defining Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation have been included in a new Appendix to the Plan. 4. HMS Daedalus 4.1 In my report to the Panel on 11 January 1995 I advised Members that a feasibility study undertaken by Arup Economics and Planning for Gosport and Fareham Borough Councils on the options available for the future use of the HMS Daedalus site at Stubbington/Lee-on-the-Solent (the KONVER study) had recently been completed. This concludes that a mixed use of the airfield site, involving continued use of one or two of the three runways for aviation and mineral extraction on the remainder of the site, would be feasible. I said that, in the light of this study, it may be appropriate to propose a further change to the Deposit Plan deleting part of Preferred Area 5 - HMS Daedalus (proposed sand and gravel extraction). The Panel decided to defer consideration of this matter until the views of both Borough Councils had been received and the implications of such a proposed change for the overall aggregates supply strategy of the Plan had been assessed. 4.2 Relevant extracts from the KONVER study report by Arup Economics and Planning - Executive Summary, Section 6 : Aviation Issues and Section 8 : Site Development Opportunities - Airfield - are attached as Appendix 1. 2 4.3 The findings of the KONVER study report relating to the future use of the airfield and the preferred area for mineral extraction have now been considered by both Borough Councils. 4.4 The Planning Services Committee of Fareham Borough Council has resolved to reaffirm the Borough Council's total objection to any gravel extraction on the HMS Daedalus site and its support for the total retention of the site as an operational airfield with appropriate supporting uses. 4.5 The Planning and Transportation Committee of Gosport Borough Council has resolved to conditionally withdraw its objections to the Deposit Plan in respect of HMS Daedalus, provided that the preferred area is: (i) reduced in size to the eastern half of the airfield only, as shown in Figure 8.1 of the KONVER study report (see attached Appendix 1), with a consequent reduction in mineral yield and waste disposal void; (ii) subject to proper environmental safeguards and controls, including unworked margins along the northern, western and southern boundaries; and (iii) restored to publicly accessible open space as an extension of the adjoining Alver Valley. 4.6 The optimum airfield scenario in the KONVER study report (see Figure 8.1 in the attached Appendix 1) reduces the land remaining for the preferred area for mineral extraction from 156 hectares to 76 hectares. I estimate that this would reduce the potential mineral yield of the preferred area from 5.4 million tonnes to 2.6 million tonnes of sand and gravel. This estimate assumes that 25 percent of the area would comprise margins and other parts that would remain unworked. 4.7 The Deposit Plan, with the Proposed Changes, currently assumes that 2.8 million tonnes of sand and gravel would be available from HMS Daedalus within the period to 2008. The reduction of this figure to 2.6 million tonnes would reduce the total yield of sharp sand and gravel expected to be available from all the preferred areas from 13.1 to 12.9 million tonnes. This is slightly less than the preferred area provision requirement of 12.97 million tonnes, giving an over-provision margin of 19.3 percent rather than the 20 percent level which the Plan has aimed to provide for. However, I consider the loss of 0.2 million tonnes from the total sharp sand and gravel yield expected to be available over the period to 2008 to be insignificant; it would only represent the loss of about five weeks' extraction and there would still be a safety margin of 19.3 percent over-provision of resources within preferred areas. In any case, the Plan will be reviewed long before 2008, since it only covers the period to 2001. 3 4.8 The reduction of the HMS Daedalus preferred area, to limit it to the eastern part of the site only, would increase the distance between mineral extraction and the nearest houses on the western side from 100 metres to approximately 400 metres. Much of the objection to this preferred area is from people who live on the western/north-western side of the airfield. 4.9 The HMS Daedalus airfield is located within a Strategic Gap. There is, therefore, currently a significant policy constraint against built development on this area of land. The limitation of the preferred area for mineral working to the eastern part of the airfield would leave the western part available for continued airfield use. This would not be significantly different from the current situation applying to the western part of the airfield insofar as the underlying sand and gravel resource is concerned. The mineral would not be 'sterilised' significantly more than is currently the case. An estimated deposit of approximately 2.8 million tonnes would remain which might become available at a future date, in the event that the land ceases to be used as an airfield. However, I consider that the eastern part of the airfield contains sufficient sand and gravel to provide for the needs of this Plan in the south-eastern part of the County and that consideration of the western part of the airfield can be left until a future review of the Plan. 4.10 An amended plan of the HMS Daedalus preferred area showing the reduced area and amended criteria for working the area, together with consequent amendments to paragraphs 5.40 and 6.35 of the Plan, are attached as Appendix 2. 5. Waste Water and Sewage Sludge 5.1 The policies in the Deposit Plan for waste water and sewage sludge and the safeguarded sites for waste water and sewage sludge development are the subject of a relatively small number of objections. However, I have been in negotiation with some of the objectors concerned and representatives of Southern Water Services to seek to resolve as many of these objections as possible. One of the subjects of objection is the Peel Common Waste Water Treatment Works, Safeguarded Site W. Both Fareham and Gosport Borough Councils are objectors to this site. Their main concerns relate to odour nuisance; they are seeking to ensure that this problem is effectively addressed in any future development at the site. 5.2 Fareham and Gosport Borough Councils have suggested changes to Policy 62, paragraphs 6.73-6.75 and the site-specific criteria for Site W to overcome their objections. I have discussed these with the representatives of Southern Water Services, which has led to some minor amendments to the wording. I consider the suggested changes, with those amendments, to be appropriate and that they should be put forward as additional Proposed Changes to the Plan. They are set out in the attached Appendix 3. 4 6. Need for Landfill 6.1 In reporting the representations on the Draft Proposed Changes to the Panel on 11 January 1995, I said that objections had been received from some waste operators on the grounds that the Plan does not provide sufficient policy flexibility or preferred sites for landfill and land raising to ensure that the need for disposal of non-inert waste by landfill or land raising can be adequately met. In particular, I reported that two additional sites had been put forward by an objector as being suitable for land raising, for consideration as omission sites. These two sites, at Netley Farm, Portsmouth Road, Netley and Southleigh Forest, Emsworth Common Road, Havant, are both existing landfill sites. 6.2 In view of those objections to the Draft Proposed Changes, I have reassessed the need for the provision of disposal facilities for non-inert waste in the Plan in the light of the most recent information and the new SERPLAN advice on waste planning 'Developing the Waste Planning Guidelines - Advice on Planning for Waste Reduction, Treatment and Disposal in the South East 1994-2005' (RPC2700 - December 1994). I have identified the following three scenarios: (i) If the waste reduction target of 25 percent is achieved by 2000 and new waste processing/resource recovery plants with a combined capacity of 550,000 tonnes per annum come into operation by April 1999, there will be a shortfall of permitted landfill capacity for non-inert waste of 1.9 million cubic metres over the period to 2001 (the Plan period). (ii) If there is slippage in the introduction of new waste processing/resource recovery plants such that they do not come into operation within the Plan period, there will be a shortfall of permitted landfill capacity for non-inert waste of 3.1 million cubic metres over the period to 2001. (iii) If, in addition, there is no increase in waste reduction beyond the current recycling level of seven percent, there will be a shortfall of permitted landfill capacity for non-inert waste of 4.3 million cubic metres over the period to 2001. 6.3 The preferred area for landfilling identified in the Deposit Plan (Preferred Area 13 - Blue Haze/Chatsworth Sandpits, Ringwood Forest) has an estimated usable void capacity for non-inert waste of 2.5 million cubic metres. Whilst this would be sufficient to meet scenario (i) above, it would still leave a shortfall in the cases of scenarios (ii) and (iii), of 0.6 and 1.8 million cubic metres respectively. However, it should be noted that this assumes that the whole of the void space within this preferred area could be used within the Plan period. Furthermore, the three scenarios 5 assume that all currently permitted non-inert landfill capacity could be used within the Plan period. It should also be noted that the Blue Haze/Chatsworth Sandpits preferred area, whilst being easily accessible from the Strategic Lorry Route Network, is located in the extreme south-west of the County, at some distance from the major waste producing areas of Hampshire. 6.4 In view of these factors relating to non-inert waste disposal, there are three options to be considered: (i) No further change to the policies and proposals in the Plan. (ii) Propose further changes to the Plan to include additional preferred areas for landfill and/or land raising. (iii) Propose a change to the text following Policy 47 of the Plan to clarify that, whilst the County Council considers land raising to be the least desirable waste management option, in the event that there is a demonstrated need for further landfill provision for non-inert waste which cannot be met by infilling of mineral workings, the County Council will expect such need to be met by land raising or extension of technically suitable existing landfill sites rather than land raising of greenfield sites (against which there would remain a strong general presumption). 6.5 Option (i) would leave the County Council open to strong objection by the waste industry at the public local inquiry into objections to the Plan and could result in the Inspector recommending deletion of the land raising policy and/or the inclusion of some of the omission sites for land raising. Option (ii) would conflict with the existing land raising policy and be likely to lead to substantial objection from affected local residents and others and consequent delay to the local plan process, including the forthcoming public local inquiry; a second public local inquiry would almost certainly be required. Option (iii) would, in my view, go some way towards meeting the waste industry's objections to the Plan but without compromising or reducing the strength of the land raising policy. 6.6 The principal existing landfill sites which currently accept non-inert waste, where proposals for land raising and/or extension might be forthcoming, are at: (i) Bramshill (ii) Apsley Farm, Andover (iii) Southleigh Forest, Havant (iv) Netley Farm, Netley 6 (v) Paulsgrove (vi) Warsash (vii) Efford, Lymington (viii) Somerley, Ringwood Forest. It would clearly not be appropriate to name sites in the Plan where land raising might be permitted as an exception to general policy in the event of overriding need, since such a decision could only properly be made after a thorough consideration of all the material factors at the time that a detailed proposal was submitted. However, it would be appropriate to indicate in the Plan which of these existing sites the County Council considers to be definitely not acceptable for any additional waste disposal by landfilling or land raising beyond that which is currently permitted. In my view, the sites at Bramshill, Paulsgrove, Warsash and Efford should be identified as unacceptable. 6.7 The text of an additional paragraph to cover this matter, which I consider should be proposed for inclusion in the Plan after paragraph 6.37, is set out in Appendix 4. 7. North Hampshire Waste Plant Location Study 7.1 At the meeting of the Panel on 11 January 1995 I reported the preliminary conclusions of the study of possible additional sites for an integrated household waste processing plant in North Hampshire that I have been carrying out. I said that, through the application of site requirement criteria and general planning constraints, six sites, in addition to the Chineham (Wildmoor) Incinerator site, had been identified for detailed assessment. My initial conclusion was that the Chineham (Wildmoor) Incinerator site is the only one of the seven that is sufficiently free of constraints to warrant inclusion in the Plan as a preferred site for a waste processing plant. 7.2 Completion of the study has confirmed my initial conclusion. I shall make a further oral report on the conclusions of the study at the meeting. 8. Environmental Appraisal 8.1 I have been carrying out an Environmental Appraisal of the Deposit Plan. A copy of the Draft Environmental Appraisal of the Plan is attached for Members' information as Appendix 5. 8.2 I am now carrying out a review of the Environmental Appraisal in the light of the Proposed Pre-Inquiry Changes to the Deposit Plan. The Environmental Appraisal will become a reference document at the public local inquiry into objections to the Deposit Plan. 7 9. Further Proposed Changes 9.1 The public local inquiry into objections to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan starts on 21 March 1995 and is currently programmed to run to 9 November 1995. No further meetings of the Panel are currently scheduled to be held prior to or during the inquiry. However, it is probable that, during the course of the inquiry, there will be a need to put forward to the Inspector further proposed changes to the Plan in response to evidence presented by objectors. 9.2 At its meeting on 24 January 1994 the Planning and Transportation Committee resolved that "powers to respond to objections to the Deposit Plan and propose amendments to the Plan in response to objections during the course of the public local inquiry into the Plan be delegated to the County Planning Officer". 9.3 In accordance with that resolution, in the event that changes to the Plan need to be formulated during the Inquiry, I intend to draft these in conjunction with the County Secretary and to put them forward to the Inspector as proposed County Council changes under the powers delegated to me. However, in the case of any proposed changes which would significantly alter the substance or policy content of the Plan, I intend to refer them to the Panel for agreement before confirming them to the Inspector as proposed County Council changes. 9.4 One matter which has very recently arisen, and which may necessitate further proposed changes to the Plan, is the publication of the Government's Draft National Waste Strategy. This document has been published for consultation and I shall be reporting it to the Planning and Transportation Committee on 10 April 1995. RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend that: 1. The Proposed Pre-Inquiry Changes (January 1995) to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, including proposed changes to Policy 8 and paragraph 4.7 of the Deposit Plan in the light of the review of the County Council's Countryside Heritage Policy, be approved. 2. The Proposed Changes to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Deposit Plan set out in Appendices 2, 3 and 4, in respect of: Preferred Area 5 - HMS Daedalus, Stubbington/Lee-on-the-Solent; Policy 62, paragraphs 6.73- 6.75 and Safeguarded Site W - Peel Common Waste Water Treatment Works, Fareham; and landfill/land raising be approved. 8 3. The conclusion of the North Hampshire Waste Plant Location Study that the Chineham (Wildmoor) Incinerator site is the only available site in North Hampshire that is known to be sufficiently free of planning and highway constraints to warrant inclusion in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan as a preferred site for a waste processing plant be approved. 4. The Environmental Appraisal of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Deposit Plan be noted. 2817/PD APPENDIX 2 HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN - DEPOSIT PLAN 1993 PROPOSED CHANGES TO TEXT OF PLAN RELATING TO HMS DAEDALUS 1. Chapter 5 - Paragraph 5.40 Add: "In the case of Preferred Area 5 - HMS Daedalus, the preferred area forms part of an existing airfield and military establishment. The development brief should address in particular the layout, phasing, timing and method of working of the site (for both mineral extraction and backfilling) in relation to any continued aviation use of the remaining part of the airfield, to ensure that any such use will not be prejudiced, and in relation to the future use of the built-up part of the HMS Daedalus site." 2. Chapter 6 - Paragraph 6.35 Add: "Preferred Area 5 - HMS Daedalus is not considered to be suitable for infilling with non-inert waste materials because of its location adjacent to the remaining part of the HMS Daedalus airfield and the consequent birdstrike risk to aircraft and also because of the proximity of houses and other built development to the area." 9 APPENDIX 3 HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN - DEPOSIT PLAN 1993 PROPOSED CHANGES RELATING TO WASTE WATER AND SEWAGE SLUDGE 1. Chapter 6 - Paragraph 6.73 Amend to: "Given that Southern Water was not able to complete its sludge strategy at the time of the preparation of this Plan, it has requested that a number of its existing sites are safeguarded for possible development in line with future operational requirements. The potential scope of development which it is considered each site may be able to accommodate in future is summarised below: (i) Slowhill Copse WWTW, Marchwood - (no change to text); (ii) Millbrook WWTW, Southampton - (no change to text); (iii) Budds Farm WWTW, Havant - (no change to text as already proposed to be changed); (iv) Chickenhall WWTW, Eastleigh - this site may be required for a third sludge treatment centre to serve the Winchester, Eastleigh and Fareham areas, but there is no required timescale for this; (v) Peel Common WWTW, Fareham - the incinerator at this site is expected to continue in use for the disposal of sludge arising there for the foreseeable future; future operations may be consolidated at this site, requiring the replacement of, or addition to, existing sludge treatment facilities; (vi) Fullerton WWTW, Andover - (no change to text); (vii) Petersfield WWTW - (no change to text); and (viii) Morestead Road WWTW, Winchester - (no change to text)." 2. Chapter 6 - Policy 62 Delete and replace with: "Policy 62: Development for the treatment or disposal of waste water (sewage) and for the handling, treatment, processing and disposal of sewage sludge will be permitted provided the County Council is satisfied that: (i) the need for the proposed development cannot practicably and reasonably be met at a more environmentally acceptable site; and (ii) the proposed development is located and designed in such a way as to minimise any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to give rise to, including visual intrusion, odour, noise, traffic and any secondary effects of sludge disposal, having particular regard to the need to safeguard the amenities of the occupants or users of houses and other buildings in the locality; and (iii) in the case of proposals for any of the sites listed in Policy 63, the proposals are in accordance with the detailed criteria for the site as set out in the text accompanying the proposals map inset maps in Appendix 1." 3. Chapter 6 - Paragraph 6.74 Delete and replace with: "The County Council recognises the need to ensure the necessary balance is achieved between meeting future needs of the wider community and environment for new development relating to waste water and sewage sludge treatment and disposal and minimising the effect of such development on local communities and the local environment so as to ensure that it is not likely to give rise to any unacceptable impact. Therefore, permission will be granted for development necessary to meet operational requirements provided that it meets the general criteria set out in Policy 62 and, in the case of proposals for any of the sites listed in Policy 63, the site-specific criteria set out in the text accompanying the proposals map inset maps in Appendix 1. Major development proposals will be required to be accompanied by an environmental statement setting out the likely impacts of the proposed development and including an assessment of alternative development options and locations also considered in the formulation of the proposal. In the case of proposals for the treatment or processing of sewage sludge, details of the method and location of disposal of the product and the process residues and of any traffic movements involved will be required. With regard to odour from waste water and sewage sludge treatment plants, the County Council will liaise with the appropriate District Council Environmental Health Officer and the relevant water company to ensure appropriate control." 4. Chapter 6 - Paragraph 6.75 Amend to: "Policy 63 safeguards the three sites where Southern Water considers that new waste water treatment facilities will be required during the Plan period. These are at Lower Pennington (Site P), Ashlett Creek (Site Q) and Eastney (Site R). The Eastney site includes two separate areas of land for a treatment works and stormwater storage and a site in Langstone Channel for a possible berth for the removal of sewage sludge by ship for treatment and disposal elsewhere. Policy 63 also safeguards seven of the existing waste water treatment works sites put forward by Southern Water as possible locations for sewage sludge handling, treatment and processing development. The Morestead Road Waste Water Treatment Works site at Winchester is not included in this policy because the County Council does not consider it to be generally suitable for major waste water or sewage sludge treatment development, such as for a sub-regional treatment facility, in view of its environmentally sensitive location. However, the County Council recognises the local importance of the Morestead Road site and any proposal for local improvement of this works will be considered on its merits. The County Council will seek to safeguard all the sites in Policy 63 from other development and will seek the cooperation of the relevant District Councils in doing this. Proposals for the replacement of, or addition to, the existing facilities safeguarded in Policy 63 will be considered on their merits, having regard to all the relevant policies of this Plan. The County Council will not grant permission for such proposed development unless it is satisfied that no unavoidable adverse nuisance or other adverse environmental impact would be likely to be caused. In addition, the County Council will encourage the water company involved to take the opportunity presented by such proposals to seek to resolve any problems arising from existing operations in cooperation with the relevant local authorities. Maps showing each of these ten sites to be safeguarded, together with a summary of the site-specific planning criteria relating to each site, are set out in Appendix 1." 5. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site P : Iley Lane, Lower Pennington (Page 201) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration by the County Council of any future planning application for waste water treatment development. However, the following site-specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals at this site will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete third planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." 6. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site Q : Ashlett Creek, Fawley (Page 203) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for waste water treatment development at this site. However, the County Council does not favour the location of a new waste water treatment plant at this site because it is in the New Forest Heritage Area and would prefer a solution involving transportation of waste water by pipeline to treatment works elsewhere. Nevertheless, the following site-specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete fourth planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." 7. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site R : Eastney, Portsmouth (Page 205) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of these sites is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for waste water treatment development at these sites. Nevertheless, the County Council does not favour the development of a sludge berth in Langstone Channel because of the visual and navigational impact it would be likely to have, and would prefer sewage sludge to be transported to a treatment works elsewhere by pipeline. However, the following site-specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete third planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance". 8. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site S : Slowhill Copse Waste Water Treatment Works, Marchwood (Page 207) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sewage sludge related development at this site. Nevertheless, the County Council would strongly prefer that any proposed development involves the transportation of sewage sludge from the site by pipeline rather than by road. Furthermore, in the event that the adjoining Marchwood Incinerator site (Preferred Site G) is not required for waste management use then the County Council would prefer any necessary expansion of the waste water treatment works to take place on that site provided it is practicable and environmentally acceptable. However, the following site-specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete fourth planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." 9. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site T : Millbrook Waste Water Treatment Works, Southampton (Page 209) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sewage sludge related development at this site. However, the following site- specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete first planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." 10. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site U : Budds Farm Waste Water Treatment Works, Havant (Page 211) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sewage sludge related development at this site. However, the following site- specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete third planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." 11. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site V : Chickenhall Waste Water Treatment Works, Eastleigh (Page 213) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sewage sludge related development at this site. However, the following site- specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete third planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings, particularly those adjacent to the site, and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." 12. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site W : Peel Common Waste Water Treatment Works, Fareham (Page 215) Delete text and replace with: "This site comprises the existing waste water treatment works at Peel Common, which is Southern Water's largest treatment works. The incinerator at this site deals with sewage sludge arising from the existing works and this operation is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. It is possible that, in the longer term, Southern Water will seek to consolidate its operations at this site with a view to replacing obsolete treatment operations elsewhere. The site is located in relatively close proximity to residential areas and has been a source of local community concern in recent years. The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council. It does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sewage sludge related development at this site. However, the following site- specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development. (i) The location of the site in relatively close proximity to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance. (ii) The location of the site in relation to Preferred Area 5 - HMS Daedalus for sand and gravel extraction and waste disposal infilling and the likely cumulative impact of developments at HMS Daedalus and Peel Common WWTW on the communities in the locality of the two sites. (iii) The proximity of the site in relation to the existing airfield at HMS Daedalus and the need to safeguard any future aviation use of the airfield. (iv) The potential impact (including environmental impact) of traffic generated by operations at the site on the B3385 (Newgate Lane) and other roads in the general area, particularly with regard to any possible transportation of sewage sludge and residues by road. (v) The location of the site in the Strategic Gap (County Structure Plan Policy C7(a)) between Stubbington and Fareham and the need to minimise any further visual intrusion by buildings and structures. (vi) The need to ensure no adverse impact on watercourses, groundwater and nature conservation interests. (vii) The need to safeguard the public right of way (footpath no. 71) adjoining the site. 13. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site X : Fullerton Waste Water Treatment Works, Andover (Page 217) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sewage sludge related development at this site. However, the following site- specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete third planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential and other buildings and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." 14. Appendix 1 - Safeguarded Site Y : Petersfield Waste Water Treatment Works, Petersfield (Page 219) Delete second and third paragraphs of text and replace with: "The safeguarding of this site is without prejudice to the consideration of any planning application by the County Council and does not imply any presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sewage sludge related development at this site. However, the following site- specific issues should be regarded as criteria against which any future development proposals will be considered. An environmental statement is likely to be required with any application for major development." Delete third planning issue and insert: "The location of the site in relation to residential, recreational, public and other buildings in the locality and the need to safeguard the amenity of occupants and users, particularly with regard to odour nuisance." APPENDIX 4 HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN - DEPOSIT PLAN 1993 PROPOSED CHANGE RELATING TO LANDFILL/LAND RAISING Chapter 6 - After Paragraph 6.37 Insert new paragraph: "Whilst the County Council considers land raising generally to be the least desirable waste management option, in the event that there is a demonstrated need for further landfill provision which cannot be met by infilling of mineral workings, the County Council will expect such need to be met by land raising or extension of technically suitable existing landfill sites rather than land raising of greenfield sites. In view of the current large permitted void space within Hampshire for the landfilling of inert waste, it is most unlikely that such a need will arise during the Plan period in the case of inert waste. The principal existing landfill sites which currently accept non-inert waste are at: Bramshill; Apsley Farm, Andover; Southleigh Forest, Havant; Netley Farm, Netley; Paulsgrove; Warsash; Efford, Lymington; and Somerley, Ringwood Forest. The County Council considers that further landfilling or land raising, beyond that which is currently permitted, would not be acceptable at the existing landfill sites at Bramshill, Paulsgrove, Warsash and Efford regardless of any need there might be for additional waste disposal capacity."

For more information on Hampshire County Council or its services please contact HCC Information Centres, by email hantsinf@hants.gov.uk or telephone 0345-626424 or 01962-870500 (from overseas +44-1962-870500)

Produced by Hampshire County Council Chief Executive's Department ,
The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire, England.
Tel: In the UK: 01962 870500; from overseas: +44 1962 870500

Comments or feedback on this website should be sent to the Web Manager hantsweb@hants.gov.uk.