Hampshire County Council
Minerals Panel
27 October 1997
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan -
Representations on Proposed Modifications and Next
Stage in the Plan Preparation Process
Report of the County Planning Officer
1. Summary
1.1 This report summarises the representations that have been
received on the Proposed Modifications to the Hampshire
Minerals and Waste Local Plan. It sets out the options for
progressing the Plan towards adoption. It concludes that in
general the objections do not raise significant new issues
and that, with certain exceptions, the Plan should be adopted
as currently proposed to be modified.
2. Introduction
2.1 The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan was placed on
deposit in November 1993. The Plan includes policies for
minerals and waste development over the period to 2001,
including the provision of a seven year landbank of sand and
gravel at that date (ie for the period to 2008). It
identifies specific sites for future minerals and waste
development, including sand and gravel extraction and new
energy from waste processing plants.
2.2 Following the receipt of some 1,400 objections to the 1993
Deposit Plan, a Public Local Inquiry was held between March
1995 and February 1996. The Inspectors report was received
in two parts: the report on the waste part of the Plan was
received in May 1996; and that on the minerals and general
parts in August 1996. The Inspectors report was considered
by the Minerals Policy Panel on 27 November 1996 and the
Planning and Transportation Committee on 9 December 1996.
2.3 The Planning and Transportation Committee accepted nearly all
of the Inspectors recommendations for changes to the Plan
and agreed that Proposed Modifications to the Plan should be
published. The Proposed Modifications were placed on deposit
in March 1997. They include the deletion of a number of
preferred areas and sites and the insertion into the Plan of
additional (omission site) preferred areas for sand and
gravel extraction at:
_ Squabb Wood, Embley (o7);
_ Walkford Farm, Hinton (o15);
_ Roke Manor, Shootash (o20);
_ Bramshill Plateau, Hartley Wintney/Eversley (o41)
(three small extensions to the existing Preferred
Area 2 - Bramshill Plateau);
_ Busta Triangle, Eversley (o25/40) (extension to the
existing Preferred Area 2 - Bramshill Plateau); and
_ Watmore Farm, Eversley (o46);
and for landfilling/land raising at:
_ Squabb Wood, Embley/Shootash (o7/8); and
_ Apsley Farm, Andover (o37).
2.4 Planning permission has since been granted for sand and
gravel extraction and landfilling/land raising at Squabb Wood
and permission has been granted, subject to a legal
agreement, for landfilling/land raising at Apsley Farm.
2.5 The following recommendations by the Inspector were not
accepted by the Committee:
(i) inclusion of areas defined in district local plans
as having local landscape value as a general
constraint in Policy 9b;
(ii) inclusion of land at Dibden Bay as a preferred site
for an aggregates wharf in Policy 26; and
(iii) inclusion of Hazleton Farm, Horndean as a preferred
area for landfilling/land raising in Policy 46.
2.6 The Committee accepted the Inspectors recommendations to
delete HMS Daedalus, Stubbington/Lee-on-the-Solent from
Policy 22 as a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction;
and to delete Policy 47 on land raising. However, it decided
that the HMS Daedalus site should be the subject of a new
Policy 24A in the Plan to safeguard it for future mineral
working; and that a new Policy 47 on land raising should be
included.
2.7 The Proposed Modifications to the 1993 Deposit Plan were on
deposit from 26 March to 30 May 1997 to enable
representations to be made. In May 1997 a composite version
of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan incorporating the
Proposed Modifications was published, a copy of which was
sent to all County Council Members in June. The Deposit Plan
and the Proposed Modifications are available for inspection
in the Planning and Surveyors Library.
3. Representations on the Proposed Modifications
3.1 Representations have been received from 1,626 individuals and
organisations, most of which are objecting to one or more of
the Proposed Modifications. These are more representations
than were received in response to the 1993 Deposit Plan.
However, the great majority of them (just over 1,400) are
objections to the proposed inclusion of Walkford Farm
(Modification No. PAo15/1) in the Plan as a preferred area
for sand and gravel extraction. Objections have also been
received to the proposed inclusion of the sites at Squabb
Wood (Modification Nos. PAo7/1 and PAo8/1), Roke Manor
(Modification No. PAo20/1), Bramshill Plateau (Modification
No. PA2/4), Busta Triangle (Modification No. PA2/4), Watmore
Farm (Modification No. PAo46/1) and Apsley Farm (Modification
No. PAo37/1) as preferred areas for sand and gravel
extraction and/or landfilling/land raising; and to the new
Policy 24A for the former HMS Daedalus Airfield site
(Modification No. 5/43). In addition, objections have been
made to the non-inclusion of Hazleton Farm (Omission Site
o6), Hound Farm (Omission Site o10) and Dibden Bay (Omission
Site o50); to the deletion of HMS Daedalus (Preferred Area 5)
and Ashley Manor Farm (Preferred Area 10); to the non-
inclusion of local landscape areas in Policy 9b; and to the
proposed new land raising policy (Modification No. 6/48).
Other objections are more detailed and relate to specific
policies and paragraphs of the Plan and to the criteria for
working or development of the preferred and safeguarded areas
and sites.
3.2 Plans showing each of the sites referred to in paragraph 3.1
are attached, as is a plan of the county showing the location
of these sites, together with the other sites that are
included in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
3.3 A schedule summarising the representations on the Proposed
Modifications, grouped by modification number and including
the names of those objecting to or making representation on
each proposed modification, is attached as Appendix 1. For
each of the new (omission site) preferred areas (Squabb Wood,
Walkford Farm, Roke Manor, Apsley Farm, Busta Triangle,
Bramshill Plateau and Watmore Farm) Appendix 2 sets out the
number of objections and the issues raised in the objections.
The full representations are available for inspection in the
Planning Department.
4. Requirement for Sand and Gravel Preferred Areas
4.1 Under current Government and SERPLAN policy guidance on
aggregates (MPG6 - Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in
England, April 1994; and RPC2705 - Aggregates Apportionment,
December 1994), the Minerals and Waste Local Plan should make
provision for the supply of 45.9 million tonnes of land-won
sand and gravel over the period 1992-2008. This equates to
an average supply level of 2.7 million tonnes a year, which
is known as the apportionment for Hampshire.
4.2 The methodology used in the 1993 Deposit Plan to calculate
the provision required to be made in the Plan in the form of
preferred areas was agreed by the Inspector. However, some
of the figures used in the calculation are subject to change
as new data becomes available. The actual preferred area
provision required to be made in the Plan is reduced by the
amount of sand and gravel already permitted for extraction -
the permitted reserves. At the close of the Inquiry in
February 1996 the preferred area requirement (including 20
percent over-provision) totalled 11.2 million tonnes of sharp
sand and gravel. This is the requirement shown in the
Proposed Modifications. Since then figures on production and
reserves of sand and gravel for the years 1995 and 1996 have
become available. There has been a significant upward
revision of estimates of remaining permitted reserves at some
sites. As a result, the requirement for preferred areas in
the Plan has reduced to 9.73 million tonnes of sharp sand and
gravel (including 20 percent over-provision).
4.3 The preferred area requirement has therefore reduced by 1.47
million tonnes. Of this, 0.22 million tonnes is accounted
for by the permission granted in April 1997 for sand and
gravel extraction at Squabb Wood, Embley (Omission Site
Preferred Area o7). Discounting that site, the preferred
areas recommended by the Inspector for inclusion in the Plan
are estimated to have a combined sharp sand and gravel yield
expected to be available in the period to 2008 totalling
10.97 million tonnes. This is 1.24 million tonnes higher
than the revised preferred area requirement of 9.73 million
tonnes.
4.4 A more detailed note on the current need for sand and gravel
preferred areas, together with updated versions of Tables 1
to 4 of the Plan containing these revised figures, is
attached as Appendix 3.
5. Next Stage in Plan Preparation Process
5.1 All the representations made on the Proposed Modifications
must be considered and responded to as part of the process of
deciding how to proceed with the Plan. As the Plan relates
to the whole of Hampshire, including Portsmouth and
Southampton, discussions need to be held with the two City
Councils to agree the way forward for the Plan to be adopted
jointly by the three authorities, if that is what the City
Councils intend to do.
5.2 There are four options for the next stage in the process:
Option 1 Adopt the Plan including the
Proposed Modifications.
Option 2 Hold a second Public Local
Inquiry into the objections
to the Proposed
Modifications.
Option 3 Publish further proposed
modifications in response to
the objections, including
withdrawal of some or all of
the new (omission site)
preferred areas included in
the Proposed Modifications.
Option 4 Abandon the Plan and commence
preparation of a new plan
covering the period to 2011.
5.3 In considering these four options, great weight should be
given to the importance of having an up to date adopted
Minerals and Waste Local Plan for Hampshire, to provide a
policy context for making decisions on planning applications
for all minerals and waste development. The waste policy
context will be a very important factor in the consideration
of the planning applications for new household waste
processing plants (energy-from-waste incinerators) that are
expected to be submitted in 1998. The period covered by the
existing Minerals Local Plan (adopted in 1987) has now
expired; and there are no planning policies for waste beyond
the general strategic policies in the County Structure Plan.
An up to date Plan would also give certainty to local
residents and the minerals and waste industries as to where
new mineral workings and waste management facilities will and
will not be permitted.
Option 1 - Adopt the Plan including the Proposed
Modifications
5.4 This option would enable the Plan to be adopted in the
shortest possible time, in spring 1998. However, it would
involve rejection of all the objections to the Proposed
Modifications, for which sound planning reasons would be
required.
Option 2 - Hold a Second Public Local Inquiry
5.5 Advice given in the Governments Planning Policy Guidance
Note PPG12 Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance
is that an inquiry into objections to proposed modifications
will be necessary only in exceptional circumstances; and
that it will not normally be necessary to hold a further
inquiry into matters already considered. The Secretary of
State advises planning authorities to hold an inquiry where
objections raise matters which were not at issue at all at
the earlier stage, for example, if it is proposed to
substitute an entirely different proposal for one which was
in the plan as considered earlier, so that the objections
made to the proposed modification include new evidence.
Thus, in the case of the new (omission site) preferred areas
it would only be appropriate to hold a further inquiry if it
was demonstrated that there were important planning issues
which had not been considered by the Inspector in the
original Inquiry when he recommended the modification to
include the site in the Plan.
5.6 The option of holding a second inquiry would enable
objections to the new (omission site) preferred areas to be
heard and considered by an independent inspector at another
Inquiry, where new issues have been raised. Only in the case
of Walkford Farm has a new issue, not considered at the
previous inquiry, been raised.
5.7 This option would substantially delay the adoption of the
Plan, probably until summer 2000, by which time the Plan
would have only 18 months remaining life. Such a delay would
have serious implications for the consideration of planning
applications for minerals and waste development, including
the expected applications for the new energy from waste
incinerators, over the next three years, since there would
not be a fully approved policy framework in place.
Option 3 - Publish Further Proposed Modifications and
Withdraw New Sites
5.8 This option would enable most of the objections to the
Proposed Modifications to be met, by withdrawal of those
modifications to which objections have been made. However,
if Proposed Modifications in accordance with the Inspectors
recommendations, such as those inserting (omission site)
preferred areas in the Plan, are now to be withdrawn, this
would have to be justified by sound planning reasons. This
option would involve some delay in the adoption of the Plan,
probably until autumn 1998.
Option 4 - Abandon the Plan
5.9 This option would take the Plan preparation process back to
the beginning and thereby enable all the preferred areas and
omission sites to be reconsidered from the same base point.
However, it is unlikely that a new plan could be prepared in
less than five years, given that much of the ground already
covered in the preparation of the current Plan would have to
be gone over again, with added work involved in covering an
extended time period. Therefore, like Option 2, this option
would have very serious implications for the consideration of
planning applications for minerals and waste development over
the next five years.
6. County Planning Officers Comments
6.1 My comments on, and recommended action in response to, the
objections to the Proposed Modifications to the Plan are set
out in attached Appendices 1 and 2. Whilst the Plan would
benefit from some limited further modification, mainly for
purposes of correction, clarification and updating, in
response to certain representations, in general I do not
consider that the objections raise new issues of substance
that were not considered by the Inspector at the 1995 Public
Inquiry.
Objections to Sites and Areas
Walkford Farm, Hinton (Omission Site o15)
6.2 A total of 1,417 objections have been received to the
inclusion of this site as a preferred area for sand and
gravel extraction in Policy 22 of the Plan. The objectors
include New Forest District Council, Dorset County Council
and Christchurch Borough Council. There are strong calls for
a second Public Inquiry to be held.
6.3 Only one new issue, not considered by the Inspector, has been
raised in the objections. This is the impact of mineral
working operations on the recently established adjacent
woodland burial ground at Hinton House, which adjoins the
site. This issue was not known about at the time of the 1995
Inquiry and therefore was not considered. However, I do not
consider it to be a reason of sufficient significance to
justify either holding a second public inquiry or withdrawing
the site from the Modified Plan. This issue has been
addressed in the Proposed Modifications, which include a
criterion requiring the provision of an unworked margin and
screening adjacent to the woodland burial ground in order to
safeguard its amenity.
6.4 Objections have also been made on the grounds that the
traffic levels that would be generated by mineral extraction
and infilling with imported waste material would be much
higher than the levels considered by the Inspector, which
related to extraction traffic alone; and this traffic would
have an unacceptable impact on the A35 and other roads in the
locality, including in Dorset. Objectors argue that the site
should be rejected, or a second inquiry should be held,
because the Inspector only considered the impact of mineral
extraction traffic, whereas, if the site were subsequently to
be infilled with imported waste material, the levels of
traffic generated would be much higher.
6.5 The issue of traffic was considered in depth at the Inquiry
in 1995, when objections to the inclusion of Ashley Manor
Farm, New Milton in the Plan were heard. The Inspector
accepted the evidence of the County Surveyor and concluded
that mineral extraction and backfilling at that site would
not result in a significant increase in traffic on the local
road network. However, in the event and for other reasons,
the Inspector recommended that Walkford Farm should be
included as a preferred area in the Plan in place of Ashley
Manor Farm; and the Proposed Modifications reflect that
recommendation.
6.6 In the light of that recommendation and the objections that
have been received to the proposed inclusion of Walkford Farm
in the Plan, the County Surveyor has undertaken a Traffic
Impact Assessment (TIA). This concludes that the inclusion
of Walkford Farm as a preferred area in the Plan in place of
Ashley Manor Farm would result in a reduction of mineral
lorry traffic using the A337 east of New Milton, together
with the removal of mineral lorry traffic from Highcliffe.
The disbenefit of the Walkford Farm site is that there could
be a small increase in traffic using Ringwood Road. However,
this additional traffic would result in only a 0.5 percent
increase in overall traffic numbers. Consequently the County
Surveyor advises that he is satisfied that in traffic terms
Walkford Farm would be acceptable as a preferred area in
place of Ashley Manor Farm.
6.7 In view of the County Surveyor's advice, I do not consider
the issue of traffic generation to be a sufficient reason to
justify either holding a second inquiry or withdrawing
Walkford Farm from the Modified Plan.
Roke Manor, Shootash (Omission Site o20)
6.8 Seven objections have been received to the inclusion of this
site as a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction in
Policy 22 of the Plan. No new issues of significance, not
considered by the Inspector, have been raised in the
objections. However, Test Valley Borough Council wishes to
see the release of this site delayed until the landfilling
operations at the nearby Squabb Wood site have been
completed, to minimise the cumulative impact. Romsey Extra
Parish Council also objects because of the concentration of
minerals and waste operations in this locality. The owner of
Croylands, to the north-west of the site, objects on the
grounds of impact on the garden at that property, which is
open to the public, particularly from changes to the water-
table or ground water pollution.
6.9 These issues were considered by the Inspector and the
proposed criteria for working the site would ensure that
local environmental interests are safeguarded. I consider
that the objections to this site do not raise reasons that
justify either holding a second inquiry or withdrawing it
from the Modified Plan.
Bramshill Plateau - Additional Areas (Omission Site o41)
6.10 This site comprises three areas - Warren Hill, Star Hill and
Three Corner Plantations, forming extensions to Preferred
Area 2 - Bramshill Plateau. Twenty-two objections have been
received to the inclusion of this site as a preferred area
for sand and gravel extraction in Policy 22 of the Plan. The
objectors include Hart District Council. I consider that the
objections do not raise any new issues of significance, not
considered by the Inspector, and that they do not justify
either holding a second inquiry or withdrawing these sites
from the Modified Plan.
Busta Triangle, Eversley (Omission Site o25/40)
6.11 Thirty objections have been received to the inclusion of this
site as a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction in
Policy 22 of the Plan. The objectors include Hart District
Council. I consider that the objections do not raise any new
issues of significance, not considered by the Inspector, and
that they do not justify either holding a second inquiry or
withdrawing this site from the Modified Plan.
Watmore Farm, Eversley (Omission Site o46)
6.12 Twenty-eight objections have been received to the inclusion
of this site as a preferred area for sand and gravel
extraction in Policy 22 of the Plan. The objectors include
Hart District Council. I consider that the objections do not
raise any new issues of significance, not considered by the
Inspector, and that they do not justify either holding a
second inquiry or withdrawing this site from the Modified
Plan.
6.13 Watmore Farm is currently the subject of an appeal against
non-determination of a planning application for sand and
gravel extraction, which is being dealt with by written
representations. This appeal is expected to be decided
before the earliest date the Plan could be adopted.
Squabb Wood, Embley/Shootash (Omission Sites o7 and o8)
6.14 Five objections have been received to the inclusion of these
sites as preferred areas for sand and gravel extraction and
landfilling in Policies 22 and 46 of the Plan. No new
issues, not considered by the Inspector, have been raised in
the objections. However, planning permission was granted on
24 April 1997 for sand and gravel extraction and landfilling
at these sites. In view of this, these sites no longer need
to be included as preferred areas in the Plan. Proposed
Modifications Nos. PAo7/1 and PAo8/1 inserting these sites in
the Plan should therefore be withdrawn.
Apsley Farm, Andover (Omission Site o37)
6.15 Two objections have been received to the inclusion of this
site as a preferred area for landfilling/land raising in
Policy 46 of the Plan. I consider that the objections do not
raise any new issues, not considered by the Inspector, and
that they do not justify either holding a second inquiry or
withdrawing the site from the Modified Plan. Moreover, on 28
July 1997 the Roads and Development Sub-Committee resolved
that, subject to a legal agreement, planning permission be
granted for landfilling/land raising at this site.
Bramshill Plateau, Hartley Wintney/Eversley (Preferred Area
2)
6.16 Fifty-two objections have been received to the Proposed
Modifications to the criteria for working this site.
However, most of these objections relate to the proposed
extension of this Preferred Area to include the additional
(omission site) areas: Warren Hill, Star Hill and Three
Corner Plantations (o41); and Busta Triangle (o25/40). The
remainder essentially concern matters of detail. I consider
that the objections do not raise any new issues of
significance, not considered by the Inspector, and they do
not justify either holding a second inquiry or withdrawing
the Proposed Modifications.
Gardeners Lane (The Triangle), Ridge (Preferred Area 4)
6.17 Seven objections have been received to the Proposed
Modifications to the criteria for working this site. They
mainly relate to the proposed access to the site. This issue
was considered by the Inspector and the proposals in the
Modified Plan are in accordance with the Inspector's
recommendations. I consider that the objections do not
justify either holding a second inquiry or withdrawing the
Proposed Modifications.
HMS Daedalus, Stubbington/Lee-on-the-Solent (Preferred Area
5/Policy 24A)
6.18 Five objections have been received to the deletion of this
site from Policy 22 of the Plan. These objections do not
raise any new issues of significance, not considered by the
Inspector. Twelve representations have been received
supporting the deletion of this site.
6.19 However, 66 objections have been received to the proposed
inclusion in the Plan of new Policy 24A, safeguarding the HMS
Daedalus site for future sand and gravel extraction, and the
new paragraph supporting this policy. These objections are
mainly on the grounds that this policy implies that the site
is effectively being regarded as a preferred area for sand
and gravel extraction even though it has been deleted as a
preferred area from Policy 22. The objectors include Fareham
and Gosport Borough Councils.
6.20 I have sympathy with this view. The inclusion of Policy 24A
is clearly being misinterpreted as a proposal for mineral
working at the Daedalus Airfield site. Since the mineral
deposits at this site are safeguarded under Policy 5 of the
Plan and sand and gravel extraction could be permitted under
Policy 24 if there is a need and it can be demonstrated that
this site is as good as a preferred area, it is not necessary
for the Daedalus Airfield site to be specifically identified
in the Plan. I therefore believe that Proposed Modification
No. 5/43 inserting new Policy 24A in the Plan should be
withdrawn. In addition, the new text inserted by Proposed
Modification No. 5/44 should be further modified to clarify
it and ensure that it is interpreted as accurately reflecting
the Inspectors conclusions on the Daedalus Airfield site.
Ashley Manor Farm, New Milton (Preferred Area 10)
6.21 Three objections have been received to the deletion of this
site from Policy 22 of the Plan. Thirty representations have
been received supporting its deletion.
6.22 The objections to the deletion of Ashley Manor Farm are
mainly on the grounds that the form of restoration is a
matter for detailed consideration at the planning application
stage, the Inspector has misinterpreted Green Belt policy,
Walkford Farm is not a like for like replacement for Ashley
Manor Farm; and there has been no full and proper assessment
of the relative merits of the two sites. These objections
are essentially arguing that the Inspectors conclusions and
recommendation on Ashley Manor Farm were wrong. However, I
do not consider that they raise new issues of significance,
not considered by the Inspector. Therefore, in my view, the
objections do not justify either holding a second public
inquiry or the reversal of the County Councils previous
decision on Ashley Manor Farm and its re-inclusion as a
preferred area in the Plan.
Hound Farm, Hound (Omission Site o10)
6.23 An objection has been received to the non-inclusion of this
site as a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction in
Policy 22 of the Plan, although this non-inclusion is in
accordance with the Inspector's recommendation that the site
should not be included in the Plan. This objection is made
on the grounds that, with the deletion of Preferred Area 5 -
HMS Daedalus, there is a need for a new site in South East
Hampshire to be included as a preferred area.
6.24 In making his recommendation that Preferred Area 5 - HMS
Daedalus should be deleted from the Plan, the Inspector
considered the need to include other sites to meet the
preferred area requirement. Omission Site o10 - Hound Farm
was among the many sites considered by the Inspector. He
concluded that, notwithstanding its favourable strategic
location in South Hampshire, this site should not be included
as a preferred area because mineral working would be highly
intrusive in the local environment and the cumulative impact
of extra lorry traffic on the road network would unacceptably
add to present difficulties of congestion and safety. I do
not consider that the reasons given in the objection are
sufficient to justify going against the recommendation of the
Inspector.
Hazleton Farm, Horndean (Omission Site o6)
6.25 Four representations have been received supporting the
decision not to include this site as a preferred area for
landfilling/land raising in Policy 46 of the Plan, contrary
to the Inspectors recommendation. One objection has been
received to its non-inclusion.
6.26 This objection, by Hughes Waste Management Limited, is made
on the same grounds used by the company in making its appeal
against the County Councils refusal of planning permission
for landfilling/land raising at this site in December 1996.
These are: that landfill will not give rise to an
unacceptable risk of pollution of ground water; that the site
is acceptable as recommended by the Inspector; that land
raising can be undertaken without detriment to the landscape
or adverse environmental impact; that land raising is an
acceptable form of waste disposal; and that there is a need
for the site. These issues were all considered by the
Inspector.
6.27 A Public Inquiry into that appeal started on 2 September
1997. The appeal decision is unlikely to be known until next
year. In the absence of a decision, I do not consider that
the objection provides any justification for a change in the
County Councils decision, which was made following a
fundamental change in circumstances since the Local Plan
Inquiry, in that the Environment Agency has raised objection
to landfilling/land raising of non-inert waste at Hazleton
Farm on the grounds that it would cause an unacceptable risk
of pollution of ground water.
Dibden Bay (Omission Site o50)
6.28 Objections have been received from ABP to Proposed
Modifications Nos. 5/61 and 5/62 and to paragraphs 5.52 and
5.53 of the Plan, relating to the non-inclusion of Dibden Bay
in Policy 26; although no objection has been raised directly
to the non-inclusion of Dibden Bay in Policy 26. Three
representations have been received supporting the decision
not to include this site as a preferred site for an
aggregates wharf in Policy 26 of the Plan, contrary to the
Inspectors recommendation.
6.29 These objections by ABP are made on the grounds that the
reasons given by the County Council misrepresent the
Inspectors conclusions and the evidence presented at the
Inquiry. The objector argues that the Inspector considered
the matters that the County Council has cited as reasons for
not accepting the Inspectors recommended modifications to
these paragraphs in reaching his conclusions on Dibden Bay.
The proposed modifications to paragraphs 5.52 and 5.53 are
mainly consequent to the Councils decision not to accept the
Inspectors recommendation that Dibden Bay should be included
as a preferred area for an aggregates wharf in Policy 26 of
the Plan, to which no direct objection has been raised. That
decision of the County Council is based more on its view that
the Inspector did not give sufficient weight to nature
conservation and landscape considerations of national
importance and to the County Structure Plan (Review), than on
the lack of consideration of matters by the Inspector. I do
not consider that the reasons put forward in these objections
invalidate the County Councils reasons for these Proposed
Modifications.
Marchwood Power Station Site (Preferred Site H)
6.30 Eight objections have been received to the proposed
modifications to the criteria for development of this site.
These objections seem to relate to the increase in capacity
of the planned new energy from waste plant for South West
Hampshire that is proposed as part of the County Councils
contract with Hampshire Waste Services for the provision of
a new long-term waste management service, rather than
directly to the Local Plan. However, the Local Plan does not
specify plant capacities, although it says that new plants
are likely to be in the range of 100,000-200,000 tonnes a
year input of waste. I have therefore treated these
representations as objections to the change in the preferred
site area on the grounds that it is still too large and would
allow the construction of an energy from waste plant that
would be unacceptably large.
6.31 The Inspector considered this issue at the Inquiry. In his
report the Inspector acknowledges that the proposed capacity
of any plant that might be proposed at the Marchwood Power
Station site is not yet known; and partly for this reason he
concludes that a traffic impact assessment will be required
with any planning application. The Inspector concluded that
the identification of a reduced site area of 3.8 hectares
would be appropriate to provide for a range of waste
processing facilities. I do not consider the objections to
be sufficient to justify either a second public inquiry or
any further modifications to the Plan.
Havant Incinerator (Preferred Site L)
6.32 Three objections have been received to the proposed
modifications to the criteria for development of this site.
The objections are that the requirements of the Plan for any
new development to be less visually intrusive are not strong
enough. This issue was considered by the Inspector and the
modified criteria for development as proposed in the
modifications is as recommended by the Inspector. I do not
consider the objections to be sufficient to justify either a
second public inquiry or any further modifications to the
Plan.
Ashlett Creek, Fawley (Preferred Site Q)
6.33 Objections have been received from Southern Water to the
proposed modifications to the criteria for development of
this site, particularly the change to the proposals for the
site from waste water treatment development to pumping
station development only. It seems that Southern Water has
changed its intentions for improving the treatment of waste
water (sewage) in the Fawley area since the inquiry and now
wishes to have the option of providing a new treatment works
at its Ashlett Creek site, instead of just using the site for
a pumping station to transfer the waste water to a treatment
works elsewhere. Three representations have been received in
support of the reduction in the area of this site.
6.34 Whilst it is the case that the Inspector considered this site
on the basis that Southern Water, at the time of the inquiry,
said that waste water would be transferred from Ashlett Creek
to a treatment works elsewhere, he did consider the
suitability of the site for a treatment works since the
Deposit Plan provided for such development. However, taking
into account the characteristics of the site, particularly
its location within the New Forest Heritage Area, the
Inspector concluded that development should be limited to a
pumping station only. I do not consider the objections raise
new issues significant enough to call into question the
Inspectors recommendations or, consequently, the Proposed
Modifications relating to this site, apart from certain
corrections to the text of the Plan, as indicated in Appendix
1.
Other Sites
6.35 One representation has been received in support of the change
to the area of the Preferred Area for clay extraction at
Selborne Brickworks (Preferred Area 11). In addition,
representations have been received in support of the proposed
deletion from the Plan of the following Preferred Areas and
Sites:
(i) Drift Road (North), Blackmoor (Preferred Area 3) -
6 representations;
(ii) Michelmersh Brickworks - north eastern field
(Preferred Area 12) - 2 representations;
(iii) Eastleigh Station Goods Yard (Preferred Site D) -
1 representation;
(iv) Otterbourne Incinerator (Preferred Site F) - 1
representation;
(v) Mauretania Road, Nursling (Preferred Site M) -
1 representation;
(vi) Park Farm, Whiteley (Preferred Site O) - 3
representations; and
(vii) Peel Common Waste Water Treatment Works, Fareham
(Preferred Site W) - 4 representations.
No objections have been received to the proposed deletion of
these sites.
Objections to Policies and Paragraphs
6.36 I consider that the objections to the proposed modifications
relating to policies and paragraphs of the Plan do not raise
any new issues of significance that were not considered by
the Inspector at the 1995 Public Inquiry. However, I believe
the Plan would benefit from some further proposed
modifications, as indicated in Appendix 1, and minor
correction, clarification and updating.
Policies 9a and 9b - Constraint Areas
6.37 One objection (from English Nature) has been received to the
proposed splitting of the former Policy 8 on constraint areas
into two policies: Policy 9a - statutory constraint areas;
and Policy 9b - non-statutory constraint areas. East
Hampshire District Council and Winchester City Council object
to the non-inclusion of areas defined in district local
plans as having local landscape value in Policy 9b, contrary
to the Inspectors recommendation; but Test Valley Borough
Council supports this non-inclusion. New Forest District
Council objects to the proposed deletion of river valleys
from the list of constraint areas; and the New Forest
Committee expresses concern that the proposed changes to the
former Policy 8 may have a harmful effect on the New Forest
Heritage Area.
6.38 The objection by English Nature does not raise any new issues
not considered by the Inspector at the 1995 Public Inquiry.
The splitting of the former Policy 8, with the inclusion of
SINCs in Policy 9b, is in accordance with the Inspector's
recommendation and in line with Government policy. I can
understand the concern of New Forest District Council that
the deletion of river valleys from the constraint areas
protected under these policies reduces the protection from
the possibility of gravel extraction afforded to the Avon
Valley. However, I do not consider that the District
Councils objection raises any issues that call into question
the Inspectors conclusion that river valleys should not be
included in either of these policies. In my view no good
reasons have been put forward that would justify the County
Council changing its position on this matter and rejecting
the Inspectors recommendation. The New Forest Heritage
Area, whatever its final agreed boundary, is protected under
Policy 9a, therefore, I consider the concerns of the New
Forest Committee to be unfounded.
6.39 The objections by East Hampshire District Council and
Winchester City Council are made on the basis that the non-
inclusion of areas defined in district local plans as having
local landscape value in Policy 9b is contrary to the
Inspectors recommendation; the County Councils reasons are
not justified; and that the inclusion of local landscape
designations is supported by Government guidance.
Notwithstanding the points raised by the objectors, in my
view the County Councils reasons for not accepting the
Inspectors recommendation are justified and Government
guidance is ambivalent on this matter. However, whilst I
consider that the modification to these policies should
remain as proposed, the issue of landscape designations is
evolving and will need to be reconsidered when the Plan is
reviewed, in the light of policy on landscape in the County
Structure Plan (Review).
Policy 47 - Land Raising
6.40 One objection (from Hughes Waste Management Limited) has been
received to the proposed inclusion of a new Policy 47 on land
raising, in place of the deleted Policy 47, on the grounds
that this is contrary to the Inspectors recommendation.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, East Hampshire
District Council and Test Valley Borough Council support the
new Policy 47, although Test Valley Borough Council considers
that land raising should be justified on a site by site
basis.
6.41 The objection by Hughes Waste Management Limited is made on
the grounds that the Inspector did not recommend the
inclusion of a new policy to replace the Deposit Plan Policy
47 which is to be deleted and therefore it does not accord
with his recommendation. Whilst the Inspector did not
recommend a replacement land raising policy, I consider that
the County Councils reasons for proposing the new policy are
justified; and this reasoning has not been challenged by the
objector. In any case, the wording of this new policy is
taken directly from the text of the Plan with which the
Inspector agreed. I believe that the concern raised by Test
Valley Borough Council is based on a misunderstanding of how
the new land raising policy would operate in practice since,
whilst proposals would be considered against the overall need
for landfill capacity, they would be assessed on a site by
site basis and unacceptable sites would not be permitted.
Therefore, I consider that the modification to this policy
should remain as proposed.
Next Stage towards Adoption
6.42 In view of the importance of having an up to date adopted
Minerals and Waste Local Plan in place as soon as possible,
I consider that Option 4 - abandoning the plan - should be
rejected.
6.43 There are strong calls for a second public inquiry to be
held, into the objections to the Proposed Modifications,
particularly those objections relating to the newly proposed
sand and gravel extraction sites at Walkford Farm, Roke
Manor, Bramshill Plateau, Busta Triangle and Watmore Farm.
I recognise the concerns raised by objectors that they have
not had the opportunity to put their views on these sites to
an independent inspector at a public inquiry and that on
grounds of natural justice they should be given this
opportunity before any decision is made. However, having
regard to Government guidance in PPG12, referred to in
paragraph 5.5 above, and also to recent legal cases on this
issue that have placed great weight on Government guidance,
I do not consider that the objections raise new issues, not
considered by the Inspector at the 1995 Inquiry, of
sufficient significance to justify the holding of a second
public inquiry. Furthermore, in my view the importance of
having an up to date adopted Plan in place as soon as
possible is such that the delay involved in holding a second
inquiry would only be justified if there were compelling
reasons for doing so. I do not believe that there are such
reasons and therefore I consider that Option 2 should also be
rejected.
6.44 Option 1 - adoption of the Plan as currently proposed to be
modified - would enable the Plan to be adopted in the
shortest possible time. However, whilst this would be
desirable, having considered the representations on the
Proposed Modifications I am of the view that some further
modifications to the Plan, as in Option 3, are justified. In
particular, I believe the proposed modification inserting new
Policy 24A on the HMS Daedalus Airfield site should be
withdrawn and the proposed new text on this site should be
further modified, as explained in paragraph 6.20 above. The
proposed modifications including omission sites o7 and o8 -
Squabb Wood, Embley and Shootash in Policies 22 and 46 should
also be withdrawn. This would involve some delay in the
adoption of the Plan, probably until autumn 1998. I believe
that this delay would be justified and acceptable.
6.45 Option 3 in full involves the withdrawal of new (omission
site) sand and gravel preferred areas included in the
Proposed Modifications. This would also involve a delay in
the adoption of the Plan, probably until autumn 1998.
However, as set out in paragraphs 6.2-6.13 above, I do not
consider that the objections to these sites put forward any
reasons sufficient to justify rejection of the Inspectors
recommendations on these sites and their non-inclusion in the
Plan. Members may consider that in the light of the reduced
preferred area requirement, as set out in paragraphs 4.1-4.4
above, some of the preferred areas proposed in the
modifications should now be withdrawn.
6.46 In the light of the reduction in the preferred area
requirement, it would be possible for up to 1.24 million
tonnes of preferred area provision to be removed from the
Plan, whilst still leaving sufficient to meet the requirement
over the Plan period and the following seven year landbank
period. This is insufficient to justify the withdrawal of
Walkford Farm, but it could be used as a reason for making
some reduction from the smaller areas that have been inserted
in the Plan by the proposed modifications, ie Roke Manor,
Bramshill Plateau (additional areas), Busta Triangle and
Watmore Farm.
6.47 Roke Manor, Shootash (o20) is Preferred Area 9 in the
existing Hampshire Minerals Local Plan, adopted in 1987. It
was not included in the Deposit Minerals and Waste Local Plan
mainly because of apparent access difficulties, but these
have since been overcome. Therefore, in the event that
Members consider that some reduction in the preferred areas
should be made, I consider that it would not be appropriate
to withdraw Roke Manor from the Plan.
6.48 In view of the concentration of sand and gravel preferred
areas and existing permitted mineral working sites in North
East Hampshire, I consider that any reduction in preferred
areas that Members might consider appropriate should be made
from among those sites. The estimated sand and gravel yields
of the preferred areas which have been included in the Plan
by the Proposed Modifications are:
Bramshill Plateau (additional areas) (o41):
Warren Hill Plantation - 0.3 million tonnes
Star Hill Plantation - 0.4 million tonnes
Three Corner Plantation - 0.1 million tonnes
Busta Triangle (o25/40) - 0.42 million tonnes
Watmore Farm (o46) - 0.3 million tonnes
________________
Total 1.52 million tonnes.
6.49 The three additional areas at Bramshill Plateau are included
in Preferred Area 20 in the existing Hampshire Minerals Local
Plan, adopted in 1987; whereas Busta Triangle and Watmore
Farm are new sites. The latter two sites have a combined
estimated sand and gravel yield of 0.72 million tonnes. The
three additional areas at Bramshill Plateau were excluded
from the 1993 Deposit Plan mainly because of landscape
impact. Whilst concluding that all three areas could be
satisfactorily screened, in his report the Inspector finds
Warren Hill and Three Corner Plantations to be more visually
sensitive than Star Hill Plantation which is already very
well screened. I concur with that view.
6.50 Warren Hill and Three Corner Plantations together have an
estimated sand and gravel yield of 0.4 million tonnes. These
two areas, together with Busta Triangle and Watmore Farm,
have a combined estimated sand and gravel yield of 1.12
million tonnes, which is within the maximum amount (ie 1.24
million tonnes) by which the preferred area provision could
be reduced. Therefore, in the event that Members consider
that a reduction in the preferred area provision of up to
1.24 million tonnes yield should be made, I consider that
Busta Triangle, Watmore Farm, Warren Hill Plantation and
Three Corner Plantation would be the most appropriate sites
to withdraw from the proposed modifications.
6.51 As explained in paragraphs 6.2-6.7, I do not consider that
there is justification for a second public inquiry to be held
into the objections to Walkford Farm, nor do I consider that
the reasons for the objections to this site are such as to
warrant its withdrawal from the Proposed Modifications.
However, in view of the strong concerns expressed by
objectors that they have not been afforded the opportunity to
put their views to a public inquiry and have them considered
by an independent inspector, Members may feel that Walkford
Farm should not be included as a preferred area in the Plan
at this time but instead that it should be reconsidered when
the Plan is reviewed.
6.52 In the event that it is decided to withdraw Walkford Farm
from the Proposed Modifications, it should be recognised and
acknowledged that this would leave the Plan with a shortfall
in preferred area provision for sand and gravel extraction
of up to 2.5 million tonnes. Whilst such a loss would
represent only just over one year's sharp sand and gravel
production for the whole county, it would be concentrated in
South West Hampshire, in a locality where it is clearly
established that a strong need for a new sand and gravel
extraction site will arise within the period for which the
Plan provides.
6.53 Consideration of the case for withdrawal of Walkford Farm
should have regard to the only other currently realistic
option for meeting the need for a new sand and gravel site in
this part of South West Hampshire, ie Ashley Manor Farm, New
Milton (Preferred Area 10) which was deleted from the Plan in
the Proposed Modifications in accordance with the Inspector's
recommendation (as referred to in paragraphs 6.21-6.22
above). That site is the subject of a long outstanding
planning application for sand and gravel extraction and it is
expected that an appeal against non-determination will
shortly be made, which would almost certainly be dealt with
by way of a Public Inquiry next year, with the decision
probably not being known until the latter part of the year.
7. Conclusion
7.1 Notwithstanding that paragraphs 6.45-6.53 above set out a
possible scenario for withdrawing sand and gravel preferred
areas included in the Proposed Modifications, I consider
that, subject to the agreement of Portsmouth and Southampton
City Councils, the Plan should be adopted, with the Proposed
Modifications as published in March 1997, subject to
withdrawal of the proposed modifications including new Policy
24A on the HMS Daedalus Airfield site in the Plan and
including Squabb Wood, Embley and Shootash (omission sites o7
and o8) as preferred areas in Policies 22 and 46; and a
number of further proposed modifications to the Plan as
indicated in attached Appendix 1 and including consequential
corrections, clarifications and updating of the Plan text;
being published and placed on deposit.
Recommendations
That it be a RECOMMENDATION to the Planning and Transportation
Committee:
1. That, subject to the concurrence of Portsmouth and
Southampton City Councils:
(i) (a) a statement of the County Council's
decisions on the objections to the Proposed
Modifications to the Hampshire Minerals and
Waste Local Plan, based on the County
Planning Officer's comments on and
recommendations for action in response to
the objections as set out in Appendices 1
and 2 to this report; and
(b) a schedule of Further Proposed Modifications
to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local
Plan with reasons for proposing them, based
on the County Planning Officer's comments on
and recommendations for action in response
to the objections as set out in attached
Appendix 1, including consequential
corrections, clarifications and updating of
the Plan text;
be prepared by the County Planning Officer, in
conjunction with the Chief Executive, and be placed
on deposit for public inspection and advertised in
accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Development Plan) Regulations 1991; and
(ii) notice be given of the County Council's intention to
adopt the Plan as proposed to be modified in the
event that no objections are received to the Further
Proposed Modifications.
2. That a Review of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan,
for the Hampshire county area (excluding Portsmouth and
Southampton) be commenced as soon as the Plan is adopted.
4258/PD
Top of this page
Hantsweb Homepage