Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council Regulatory Committee 17 October 2001 Applicant: Viridor Waste Management Report of the County Planning Officer and Chief Executive |
Item 3 |
Contacts: Julia Davey, ext 6732 and John Priest, ext 7336
1. Summary
1.1 This report considers an application for the extraction of approximately 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel, with restoration back to agricultural land using on-site clays and controlled wastes at The Triangle, Ridge, near Romsey. The site is Preferred Area No. 4 for mineral extraction and waste disposal in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) (December 1998). An Environmental Statement has been submitted with the application. The application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan because it proposes a different access and because aspects of the proposal, the proposed mining of clay, may be considered to conflict with Policy 28 of the HPSMWLP.
1.2 The main issues raised by the proposal include the potential impacts of the development: on local residents by way of noise, dust and odour; on the landscape character of the area; and on the hydrology of the 'Embley Wood' Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), the ancient woodland, local residents' properties and private wells.
1.3 The application was the subject of a report to a Sub-Committee site visit on 15 November 2000, and was presented to the December 2000 meeting of the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee for determination. The Sub-Committee resolved to defer the application to enable further discussions with local residents to take place. In March 2001 the Environment Council, an independent charity, was appointed by the County Council and funded by it, to help resolve issues and people's concerns through meetings with local residents, officers, local Members and other stakeholders. Two further site visits have taken place for Members of the Regulatory Committee, on 22 August and 20 September 2001. The recommendation is to grant approval, subject to conditions.
2. Introduction
2.1 Minerals and waste planning raises sensitive and often emotive issues for which easy solutions do not always exist. The right balance has to be struck between the need of society for minerals and for dealing with waste and the need to protect the environment and people's quality of life.
2.2 To achieve this balance, it is essential to have up to date policies to provide a clear planning framework for decisions to be made and to identify suitable locations to meet the needs of the county for minerals and waste development.
2.3 The Hampshire County Structure Plan includes broad strategic policies for controlling and guiding development for the supply and processing of minerals and the management and disposal of waste. The purpose of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) is to set out detailed policies and guidance on minerals and waste development. It provides a basis for the County Council to make decisions on planning applications and gives a greater element of certainty regarding the location of future minerals and waste development to both the industries concerned and the residents of Hampshire. Within this Plan, The Triangle site, the subject of this application, is identified as a Preferred Area for minerals and waste development.
2.4 This report focuses on the main strategic and local issues raised by the application. Various appendices provide additional details where appropriate.
2.5 The proposal has caused much concern amongst local residents and correspondence was still being received from residents and others as this report was being compiled.
3. The Site
3.1 The site, as shown on the attached plans, extends across 74 hectares of predominantly grade 2 and 3a agricultural land on an elevated plateau above the Test and Blackwater Valleys, approximately 1.5 kilometres south-west of Romsey. The site has three boundaries, hence its name 'The Triangle'. Its boundaries lie along the A3090 (former A31) Romsey-Ower road to the east, Gardeners Lane to the west, leading to the A27 Romsey-Salisbury road, and Pauncefoot Lane to the north.
3.2 The land surface generally falls away towards the east and south, although the most northern part of the western boundary falls sharply to the west. The site is bordered by hedgerows with trees; similar vegetation characterises the internal field boundaries where the land is divided into four segments by three east-westerly hedgerows. Two of these internal hedgerows qualify as Important Hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders.
3.3 A ribbon development of detached houses in substantial grounds faces the site from the west side of Gardeners Lane. Most of these dwellings are opposite the southern half of the site. The nearest house to the west of the site boundary is approximately 25 metres away. There is also a cluster of houses in the north-west corner, the nearest house being Forest Lodge, some 150 metres away from the site boundary. Pauncefoot Cottages adjoin the site's north-east corner and there are other isolated residential properties on the east side of the A3090 (including three listed buildings). A small number of properties to the west and east of the site have wells supplying drinking water.
3.4 The A3090 is a local lorry route and the M27 and A31 west of Ower form part of the strategic lorry route network. Ridge Lane is located opposite Gardeners Lane on the southern side of the A3090.
3.5 There is an extensive existing sand and gravel and landfill site to the south of the A3090 on both sides of Ridge Lane, dating from 1985, known as Ridge Farm Quarry. Gravel extraction has been completed and the site is currently being filled with inert, domestic, commercial and industrial waste. A review of the mineral permission (ROMP) has recently been processed for this site requiring the removal of the plant site and the completion and restoration of the site to agriculture by the end of 2004. This site is also within the applicant's control. The existing operation at Ridge Farm Quarry creates an average of 366 movements a day. To the south of the site, located off the A27 Romsey-Salisbury road at Shootash, is the Squabb Wood Landfill site. This was granted permission for the disposal of putrescible wastes and mineral extraction on 24 April 1997 (Application No. TVS5746/1). Mineral extraction and tipping operations are to be completed by 30 April 2007. Squabb Wood is operated by the applicant.
3.6 There is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 1.2 kilometres east of the site, and the River Test Environmentally Sensitive Area lies 600 metres in the same direction. To the west of Gardeners Lane lies Embley Wood, a complex of three Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). This area contains dry and wet heath, valley mire, open water and ancient woodland and supports an extremely diverse range of flora and fauna. The dragonfly fauna of Embley Wood has recently been resurveyed. This survey has confirmed that the site supports an outstanding assemblage of dragonflies, is one of the best dragonfly sites in Britain, and meets English Nature's criteria for SSSI designation. Heathland, ancient woodland and standing open water are Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Key Habitats. At least three of the dragonfly species identified are Hampshire BAP Priority Species and it is likely that the site supports a number of other Priority Species, particularly invertebrates. All houses in Gardeners Lane back onto the SINCs and at least three have gardens within Embley Wood.
4. The Proposal
4.1 Planning permission is sought for the extraction of approximately 2.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel, and restoration of the site to agriculture by landfilling with controlled wastes and on-site clays. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
4.2 The site will be divided into four distinct areas, as shown on the attached plan. Area 1 to the north is the landfill and land raising area where sand and gravel and then clay will be extracted prior to being infilled with controlled wastes.
4.3 Area 2 is separated from Area 1 by the Protected Hedgerow No. 12 which is to be retained. This area will be extracted for sand and gravel and then restored back to original levels using clay mined from Area 1. Area 2 is also the chosen location for the weighbridge, offices, wheel wash, gravel stocking area and silt settling lagoons. A materials recovery and composting facility originally proposed on this part of the site has now been deleted from the application.
4.4 Area 3 is located due south of Area 2 and like Area 2 will be subject to gravel extraction and restoration to original levels using clays won from Area 1.
4.5 Area 4 will not be worked but will have a pond that will be managed for nature conservation.
4.6 Four other ponds will be located on the perimeter of the site for water balancing purposes and will be managed for nature conservation.
4.7 The proposed mineral extraction will take place across 50 hectares of Areas 1, 2 and 3 to an average depth of 3.5 metres over a period of 15 years. Annual output from the site is expected to be approximately 150,000 tonnes per annum, the same as the applicant's Ridge Farm Quarry. Mineral extraction will commence sometime after mineral extraction at Ridge Farm Quarry has been completed.
4.8 The mineral extraction will be phased so that it alternates between the land raising area to the north (Area 1) and the middle and southern fields (Areas 2 and 3).
4.9 Once extracted, the sand and gravel will be taken by conveyor through a tunnel, to be constructed under the A3090, to the existing minerals processing plant at the nearby Ridge Farm Quarry for processing, which the applicant proposes to retain in-situ at Ridge Farm Quarry.
4.10 The waste capacity of the site is 2.1 million cubic metres which, based on predicted input of approximately 175,000 tonnes of controlled waste a year, will take around 11 years to fill. Categories of waste to be disposed of at the site will include household waste, non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste and construction industry waste.
4.11 The proposed hours of working the site are 0700-1730 Monday-Friday and 0700-1300 on Saturday, with no working on Sunday and bank holidays.
4.12 The proposed access to the site would be in the north-east corner and would require the realignment of Pauncefoot Lane. This is a departure from the Development Plan which proposes access should be from a realigned Gardeners Lane close to its junction with the A3090. This realignment will require the removal of approximately 60 metres of hedgerow along the north-eastern boundary.
4.13 Advance planting of trees and shrubs will fill critical existing gaps in hedgerows and allow the development of new blocks of woodland to screen views of the site from selected adjacent properties. A combination of temporary bunding and acoustic fencing will provide additional visual, as well as acoustic protection, particularly to the residents of Pauncefoot Cottages. Whilst interference with the amenity of the tenants of Pauncefoot Cottages is not expected, the applicant has confirmed that Broadlands Estate, the properties' owner, and the applicant are prepared to enter into a legal agreement, to the effect that the tenants could be rehoused should the County Council consider this desirable.
4.14 Pre- and post-settlement contours are proposed to eliminate expected subsidence of Area No. 1 (controlled waste infilling). The pre-settlement contours indicate a maximum height of 65 metres, and a post-settlement maximum height of 63 metres, some five and three metres above existing maximum levels. The landform proposed for Area 1 is different to the existing which, together with Areas 2, 3 and 4, slopes gently eastwards. In contrast, the proposed landform in Area 1 has a central ridge sloping eastwards from its high point towards the northern boundary to ensure efficient run-off and pollution control. The restored land in Area 1 would therefore drain northwards and southwards from the ridge, as well as to the east and west.
4.15 The importation of controlled wastes would commence between 2005 and 2007 at the rate of 36 loads (72 movements) per day, rising to 72 loads (144 movements) per day by 2011. There would be an additional 12 movements per day of local delivery as dug minerals going out. This gives a total number of movements through the site access of 156. There would be an average of 96 lorry movements per day from Ridge Farm Quarry exporting processed mineral (compared to 366 movements now). This gives a total traffic impact of 252 movements a day on the A3090. This represents a significant reduction on the existing 366 movements a day.
4.16 A 100 metre buffer is proposed between the western edge of the site and the area of mineral working in fields 2 and 3. A 250 metre stand-off was originally proposed between the nearest property to the west and the controlled waste infilling in the north-west corner of Area 1. However, during the last mediation meeting with the Environment Council on 6 August, the applicant offered to extend the buffer zone to the north-west so that the distance would be 300 metres between the putrescible waste (Area 1) and the nearest property. The application has not been modified formally to incorporate this proposal. The applicant considers it is a matter that would be dealt with by way of condition should planning permission be granted.
4.17 Pauncefoot Cottages are located to the east of the controlled waste area. The applicant states that the landowner has stated he will enter into a legal agreement to temporarily rehouse tenants of the cottages when any workings are within 250 metres of the properties.
5. Environmental Impact Assessment
5.1 The Environmental Statement (ES) comprises individual assessments of a number of topic areas, including ecology, noise, hydrology and hydrogeology, landscape, traffic and archaeology.
5.2 The ES concludes that "the adoption of high environmental standards maintained and enforced by the appropriate authorities will ensure that this development can take place without significant adverse impacts. Development will meet a recognised need for minerals and waste management capacity as identified in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan".
5.3 Environmental Statements need to comply with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Information for inclusion in Environmental Statements is outlined in Schedule 4. This information is attached as Appendix 1.
6. Development Plan
6.1 The relevant policies for this application are set out in Appendix 2. However, the following are particularly relevant:
(i) The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1998, Policies 19, 28, 37 and 42.
(ii) The Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review), Policies MW2, MW3, MW6 and MW8.
7. Consultations
7.1 New Forest District Council, the County Surveyor (Waste Management), the former Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA) and the Defence Estates have no objections to the proposal.
7.2 Romsey Extra Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds that:
(i) the proposal to dig a 17 metre hole to provide clay to fill the gravel workings and then to fill that void with non-inert waste is contrary to both "the words and the spirit of the HPSMWLP"; and
(ii) the hydrological studies undertaken by the applicant are not "compliant with the criteria for working" as outlined in the HPSMWLP. The Parish Council considers that there has been no comprehensive, sustained and thorough study of the hydrology of the surrounding land. The Parish Council states it is suggested that "knowledge of the hydrology of the site will permit a replication post excavation such that the surrounding lands suffer no adverse impact. We are not convinced of the scientific validity of this argument, nor do we believe that impact can be determined without adequate baseline data". In summary, the Parish Council considers the hydrology of the wider area is not understood and that any tampering with the watercourses and water flows on the surface or at ground water level risks the important areas to the west, such that this application is unsafe and must be refused.
The Parish Council considers the access proposed for the site, although a departure from the HPSMWLP, is acceptable and "may even be beneficial". It also welcomes the retention of Hedgerow No. 12.
7.3 Romsey Town Council objects to the application and supports the objections of Romsey Extra Parish Council.
7.4 Wellow Parish Council is concerned that the access to the site should be via the A31 and not through the village of Wellow. It states it would be preferable for Pauncefoot Lane to remain in use for ordinary traffic, with heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) entering and leaving the site via the proposed new access on the A3090. It seeks some assurance that suitable conditions will be attached to any planning consent to achieve this restriction. It also raises objections on the grounds of:
(i) clay extraction departing from policy;
(ii) no need for a waste disposal site;
(iii) the controlled waste area should be treated as a separate application;
(iv) no detailed or sustained study of the hydrology of the area to assess the effect on drainage and local watercourses;
(v) expert opinion suggests need for several years' monitoring;
(vi) health issues relating to birth defects;
(vii) human rights; and
(viii) amenity issues.
The Parish Council argues that the application should be refused.
7.5 The Health and Safety Executive has made comments which have been forwarded to the applicant on health and safety procedures relating to the overhead conductors on the west side of the site and the need for traffic management schemes to segregate pedestrians from vehicles and minimise the need for vehicles to reverse.
7.6 The County Surveyor (Highways) states that there are benefits to be gained to the highway network and for road users by the scheme proposed by the applicant. The arrangements would provide the benefit of ensuring HGVs to/from the site will not travel directly past any existing dwellings, with the exception of a small number of dwellings fronting the A3090, thus reducing the potential impact of the proposal.
7.7 In addition, pedestrians and cyclists using Pauncefoot Lane will be able to make use of the existing alignment and thus avoid the potential for conflict with site generated traffic. The existing layout of the A3090/Pauncefoot Lane junction suffers from substandard visibility, with three personal injury accidents having occurred at the junction during the last five years. The proposed junction has been designed to modern design standards and will offer safety benefits to all road users.
7.8 The applicant was required to submit a full road realignment design with safety audit and an accompanying arboricultural report. This has now been submitted to the satisfaction of the County Surveyor.
7.9 The Environment Agency commissioned an independent review of the scientific information within the Environmental Impact Assessment. As a result of this review the Agency raises no objection in principle to the development, subject to certain provisos and conditions being taken into account. In not objecting to the application the Agency has recognised that sufficient investigation and assessment currently exist for it to make that decision.
7.10 The Agency also requests that a Section 106 Agreement be entered into with the County Council (and, if required, the Environment Agency as an advisory party) ensuring that the applicant monitors ground water resources in areas outside the planning application boundary. It states it is only requesting off-site monitoring as a "reasonable precaution" to back up the on-site monitoring of the different ground water levels. The off-site monitoring is desirable rather than essential, and failure to provide off-site monitoring would not result in an objection to the application. The Agency states that if it felt that monitoring of features within Embley Wood was essential it would have objected to the application. Provision should also be made within the agreement to ensure that adequate compensation measures shall be enacted, at the applicant's expense, to ensure that if derogation of water resources does occur then the abstractions (wells) identified in Appendix 1 of the ES be maintained. The Agency adds that, if it ever deals with a permit application under the IPPC regime, monitoring requirements are likely to be at the forefront.
7.11 The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection in principle to the development, subject to conditions being imposed, such as further dust and noise control protection measures.
7.12 The Hampshire Wildlife Trust has been advised that the headlands within the arable fields of the application site support populations of ground nesting birds including lapwing and woodlark, the latter being especially protected under United Kingdom and European law. The applicant needs to adopt a scheme of management that will result in the upkeep and maintenance of the woodlark's habitats. It considers the application site offers considerable opportunities for environmental enhancement which could be achieved through imaginative restoration schemes to sensitively managed after-uses. It suggests, if permission is granted, that appropriate conditions and agreements are put in place. In the absence of these the Trust would object to this element of the application. The Trust also emphasises its concern as to possible risk to the hydrology of the Embley Wood SINC. It looks to the County Council to satisfy itself that the application will not have an adverse impact on the SINC.
7.13 Having considered the application and ES in April 2000, English Nature originally raised no objections to the application in principle but stated that it was important to ensure that procedures in relation to bats are conditioned as part of the application, when potential roosting areas are being removed during each phase. Restoration proposals should include wildlife corridors to connect restored and existing habitats adjacent to the site. However, on 28 September 2001 English Nature requested a "holding objection pending analysis of the hydrogeological data" by English Nature's hydrogeologist.
7.14 The Rights of Way Officer has suggested that a statutory footpath be located along the western edge of the site on completion. A permissive path could be located here prior to completion. The applicant is willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement regarding this issue.
7.15 Councillor Mrs Barron has objected to the application predominantly on grounds of impact to amenity of local residents, and hydrogeological and hydrological impacts on land to the west of the site.
7.16 Councillor Woodhall is deeply concerned about the implications of the application and unresolved issues in respect of environmental matters. His concerns include the amenity impact on local residents, particularly those who live adjoining the site. Some of these properties include ancient woodland and substantial lakes and Councillor Woodhall states that there should be no reduction in quality or quantity of ground water to these and other nearby properties.
8. Test Valley Borough Council's Views
8.1 At the time of writing, Test Valley Borough Council's final comments are still awaited. The Borough Council assures the County Council that its comments will be submitted prior to the meeting of the Committee.
9. Representations
9.1 At the time of writing this report one hundred and seven letters of objection from individual local residents have been received. These comprise residents in the immediate vicinity of the site: Gardeners Lane (18), Ryedown Lane (7), East and West Wellow (11 - excluding Gardeners and Ryedown Lanes), Ower (1) and Awbridge (5). Objections have also been received from those living in the town of Romsey (64) and Andover (1).
9.2 Local objections have also been received via solicitors representing local residents individually; by the local residents' group 'The Power Triangle Committee' (and by its solicitor); private consultants acting on behalf of individual residents; by petitions, and through the Stakeholder Dialogue Workshops led by the Environment Council.
9.3 A list of objectors recorded at the time of writing this report is attached as Appendix 3.
9.4 The main areas of objection relate to:
(i) Hydrogeological/hydrological impacts, particularly on land to the west of the site, including the Embley Wood SINC complex. Residents are concerned that water will become polluted; the drainage regime will change, affecting agricultural land; water `draw down' will occur, creating subsidence of houses, including listed buildings; and the ecological balance of Embley Wood SINC complex would be adversely impacted by potential change to quality, quantity and chemistry of ground water.
(ii) Clay extraction - objectors are adverse to that part of the proposal which involves digging a 17 metre hole to provide clay to infill the mineral extraction areas on the middle (Area 2) and lower (Area 3) fields. They state it is contrary to policy and they also state that the Local Plan Inquiry into the Minerals and Waste Local Plan referred only to infilling the void "resulting from" gravel extraction.
(iii) Need for mineral - this is queried by some objectors.
(iv) Need for waste - this is queried by objectors who state that there is no need for more waste disposal sites in the area.
(v) Amenity impacts - objectors are concerned about potential noise, dust and odour impacts. Residents living to the west and north-west of the controlled waste area (Area 1) are particularly concerned about the proximity of this area to their homes.
(vi) Landscape and visual impacts - some residents consider the proposed landform to be out of character with the local countryside and topography to the extent that the proposal is not acceptable.
(vii) Health - residents consider there is a risk to public health, particularly by what is perceived by them to be a link between birth defects and the proximity of controlled wastes.
(viii) Consideration of alternatives - some residents consider other options could be environmentally preferable, such as leaving the extraction as low level restoration; moving the putrescible waste area to the north-east corner encompassing part of the middle field (Area 2) and felling part of Hedgerow No.12 or infilling with imported inert waste. Others consider alternative sites may better serve any identified need.
(ix) Environmental Impact Assessment - some objectors consider it does not comply with the `Regulations'.
(x) Human Rights - some objectors consider the proposal is in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998 with respect to their right to respect for private and family life, and the entitlement of every person to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
(xi) Impact on Romsey - a significant number of the objections are from residents of Romsey predominantly concerned about impact of odour carried by prevailing winds, increase in traffic on the town and pollution of the River Test.
(xii) Other concerns have been raised relating to increase in traffic on local roads, including the A3090.
10. Planning Process
10.1 The application was submitted on 21 March 2000. It was accompanied by an Environmental Statement and, accordingly, there was a four month statutory period for determination of the application. This period expired on 16 July 2000. Additional information was required of the applicant and revisions made to the application. The current position with relation to statutory consultees is that English Nature has now raised a holding objection pending its analysis of the hydrogeological information submitted with the application, the Parish Councils are objecting and the views of Test Valley Borough Council are still outstanding at the time of writing. However, no objections have been raised by other consultees, including the Environment Agency (the relevant authority in relation to hydrological and hydrogeological issues) and the Environmental Health Officer (the relevant advisor in relation to some amenity issues).
10.2 In November 2000 Members of the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee undertook a site visit. The report on this site visit is attached as part of Appendix 4. At the visit a local objector's Environmental Consultant ("the Consultant") opposed some of the views of the Environment Agency. It was agreed that the Environment Agency should meet with the Consultant and the County Planning Officer to discuss his concerns prior to the December 2000 meeting of the Sub-Committee.
10.3 The County Council facilitated that meeting in December 2000. The meeting involved officers, the Environment Agency, the applicant and the Consultant.
10.4 The Consultant suggests that "without an evaluation of the hydrological foundation of the wetland wildlife habitats (and the strong likelihood that there could be linkage to the gravel catchment and subsurface hydrogeology of the proposal site) , that the environmental statement (and the assessment upon which it is based) is seriously deficient". He states that in his view `best practice' requires:
(i) a full evaluation of the wetland habitats, fauna and flora prior to determination of the application, such as to ascertain the nature of any hydrological sensitivity;
(ii) the determination of baseline ecological and hydrological conditions within Embley Wood of any sensitive habitats that may occur;
(iii) a scheme of monitoring over a minimum period of one year to ascertain the range of variation of flow and hydrochemical parameters supporting any sensitive habitats, flora and fauna; and
(iv) the development of a scheme of mitigation and remediation, should the potential for adverse effects be recognised.
10.5 He also states that "if the Council was minded to permit the proposal without requiring detailed assessment of habitats in Embley Wood, a second-best option would be to undertake a scheme of baseline evaluation and monitoring from boreholes close to Embley Wood and from surface waters designed to feed the ground water."
10.6 The Consultant suggests that the scheme proposed by the applicant should:
"(i) demonstrably have no effect on the hydrochemically sensitive habitats in Embley Wood;
(ii) include a system of determining baseline conditions;
(iii) include a rigorous system of monitoring;
(iv) ensure that the results of monitoring are reviewed regularly against hydroecological criteria and that the results are made available to the mineral planning authority;
(v) ensure that action is taken should any nutrients or other ions exceed critical levels; and
(vi) ensure that the biodiversity of the area is improved over the current situation by provision of new extensive wildlife habitat on the restored landform."
The Consultant suggests on the issue of after-use that an ecologically friendly agricultural system, for example based on herb-rich grassland, managed by free range grazing livestock would ensure that the excavation and landfilling would contribute "a wholly positive improvement to the biodiversity of the area, including Embley Wood".
10.7 Furthermore the Consultant suggested to the applicant that additional and deeper monitoring boreholes should be included along the western edge of the site.
10.8 The applicant, although "dubious about the benefits" of these additional boreholes, agreed to "support their installation" and agreed to a minimum of 12 months' further monitoring prior to mineral extraction, if permission was granted. This matter would be dealt with by way of a planning condition if permission was granted. The applicant states that surveys, investigation work and monitoring has taken place on the site and surrounding areas since 1995, with intensive hydrological and hydrogeological investigation and monitoring work since June 1999. He states there was an access problem for monitoring purposes relating to Embley Wood and surrounding areas.
10.9 The Consultant's concerns about any alteration to the PH level of water seeping down through the site geology and feeding into Embley Wood were also raised at the meeting.
10.10 Subsequently, information was provided to the Environment Agency by the applicant about PH values and monitoring which has satisfied the Agency that the issues of acidity and alkalinity are satisfactorily addressed. However, since this meeting the Consultant has reiterated his concerns about the requirements of best practice to include the determination of baseline conditions within Embley Wood.
10.11 At the time of the original site visit in November 2000, the Environmental Health Officer was expected to report on the issue of the proximity of the controlled waste area (Area 1) to local residents to the north-west of the site. He had been asked by the County Council to look at this specific issue because of the concern raised by local residents. However, the Environmental Health Officer informed Members that he had not been able to look again at this issue but would endeavour to give his comments before the December 2000 meeting of the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee. Similarly, Test Valley Borough Council, the only outstanding statutory consultee, undertook to provide its views prior to that meeting.
10.12 A joint report of the Chief Executive and the County Planning Officer was prepared for the meeting of the Sub-Committee on 4 December 2000.
10.13 Prior to committee, the Environmental Health Officer confirmed that, on checking the environmental evidence, he still maintained no objection to the scheme and specifically confirmed he raised no objection to the buffer zone of 250 metres between the controlled waste area and the residents to the north-west. Neither did he raise any objections to the proximity of Pauncefoot Cottages to the site.
10.14 The application was deferred at the December meeting because the views of the Borough Council had still not been received and a last minute objection on human rights had been received which needed to be addressed.
10.15 A round-table meeting was arranged by the County Planning Officer which took place in Romsey before Christmas to discuss residents' and local Members' concerns relating to the application. The applicant also attended.
10.16 At that meeting it was agreed that three reports would be completed and circulated to all objectors on the areas of most concern, notably:
(i) a summary of the hydrogeological monitoring work that had been implemented on the site to date;
(ii) an appraisal of the potential hydrogeological impact and pollution risk of the proposal to land west of the site; and
(iii) an appraisal of the potential for health issues to arise from the controlled waste landfill areas, together with the potential proximity issue of houses to this landfill area.
10.17 The first two reports were undertaken by the applicant and assessed as satisfactory by the Environment Agency. The third report was completed by the Environmental Health Officer.
10.18 These reports were circulated to objectors on completion in April 2001. However, the Environmental Health Officer's report did not deal with health issues such as `birth defects' arising from proximity to landfill sites. Accordingly the County Planning Officer consulted the South and South West Hampshire Health Authority on this matter.
10.19 In March 2001 the County Council appointed the Environment Council, an independent charity experienced in facilitation of meetings and mediation between members of the public and large organisations to see if mediation as an approach could facilitate understanding between the County Council and objectors regarding the processing of the application.
10.20 It was agreed that two meetings would take place to explore the scope of any mediation exercise and enable the Environment Council to prepare a report on a recommended process.
10.21 The meetings were attended by local Members, residents, County and Borough Council officers, the applicant and two Members of the Regulatory Committee (at the request of local residents).
10.22 These meetings were followed by two Workshops on 30 July and 6 August 2001 at which discussion took place on issues residents thought were outstanding and those the County Council considered had been addressed. As a result the applicant proposed that the stand off between the controlled waste area and properties to the north could be increased from 250 metres to 300 metres. The applicant also offered to fund hydrological and hydrogeological monitoring on private land for any residents living near the site who wanted this to be undertaken, should permission be granted.
10.23 Following this meeting the applicant informed the County Council that they were prepared to agree an extension of time for determination of the application at the October 2001 meeting of this Committee. The applicant also confirmed there would be no appeal against non-determination prior to this meeting.
10.24 Two further site visits were arranged prior to this meeting to allow Members of the new Regulatory Committee to view the site. The first took place on 20 August and the second on 22 September 2001. The itinerary of the September site visit was organised by local residents at their request. A report on all the site visits is attached as Appendix 4.
10.25 Since the application was originally submitted in March 2000 a number of revisions have been made to the application. These revisions include:
(i) the retention of Hedgerow No. 12 (proposed initially to be felled and its subsequent preservation through Tree Preservation Orders);
(ii) reduction in height of controlled waste landfill (Area No 1);
(iii) reduction in controlled waste void from 2.4 million cubic metres to 2.1 million cubic metres;
(iv) reduction to area of controlled waste landfill;
(v) incorporation of footpath along western edge of site (via legal agreement if permission granted);
(vi) organic/ecologically sensitive after-care and management of agricultural land (by way of legal agreement if permission granted), ecologically benefiting the Embley Wood SINCs;
(vii) additional hydrogeological boreholes and a minimum of 12 months pre-extraction monitoring;
(viii) reduction in length of time for land filling operations by 18 months (due to reduction in waste void);
(ix) reduction in length of time for extraction by nine months; and
(x) withdrawal of the materials recovery and composting facilities.
10.26 Offers have also been made by the applicant relating to increasing the buffer zone between controlled waste and residents to the north-west of the site, and to the funding of hydrogeological monitoring on private land as outlined in paragraph 10.22. If planning permission is granted it is considered that a planning condition could adequately deal with the offer increasing the buffer zone to 300 metres. The issue of funding hydrogeological monitoring on private land is not essential, as outlined by the Environment Agency. If planning permission were granted it would be sensible, as a precautionary measure as suggested by the Environment Agency, to have a legal agreement securing funding for off-site monitoring, should some residents wish to have this undertaken on their land.
10.27 The County Surveyor has also secured landscape/environmental improvements through the access design audit, resulting in less hedgerow being removed than originally proposed.
11. County Planning Officer's Comments
11.1 The application site is Preferred Area No. 4 for mineral extraction and waste disposal infilling as outlined in the HPSMWLP (December 1998). Accordingly, the principle of working the site for mineral extraction and waste disposal is established, subject to the criteria for working the site as described in the Plan being satisfactorily addressed. The HPSMWLP criteria for working the site are attached as Appendix 5.
11.2 It is worth noting that the adoption of the Plan followed a local plan inquiry and the Inspector's Report (December 1996) comments on the need for any future application to include "a detailed hydrological study of any effects on the drainage regime of the locality or loss of habitat", to provide a suitable safeguard.
11.3 The main points to be considered when determining the proposal are therefore:
(i) whether the application satisfactorily complies with the Development Plan criteria for working the site; and
(ii) whether any other 'material consideration' has a bearing on the application that should affect the final decision on the application.
11.4 The Development Plan criteria are outlined in bold italics below, followed by comments on the proposal relating to each criterion:
(i) Unworked margins and screening should be provided adjacent to Gardeners Lane and to Pauncefoot Cottages adjacent to the north-east corner of the area. Screening should also be provided alongside the A3090 and the road bounding the area to the north. The southernmost field should be excluded from the extraction area. Screen planting should be carried out in advance of mineral working to enable it to become established before extraction commences:
- the application includes stand-off margins to the west and north-west, and margins and bunds around the site, that meet the requirements of the Environmental Health Officer. Advance planting and earth bunding is also proposed prior to extraction to the satisfaction of the County Council's landscape advisor. No advance planting has been undertaken to date. The applicant states this is because they are not the landowner and planning permission has not yet been granted.
(ii) An assessment of the potential impact of noise, dust and traffic on adjoining properties should be undertaken:
- this has been undertaken to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Officer and the County Surveyor, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions on any consent that may be granted.
(iii) Access to the existing Gardeners Lane or to the road adjoining the northern side of the area will not be permitted:
- the application does not propose this access and therefore departs from the Local Plan. The proposal is for the realignment of Pauncefoot Lane to form a T junction with the A3090. The County Surveyor considers there are benefits to be gained from the proposal to the highway network (as detailed in paragraph 7.6), and therefore raises no objection to the principle of the proposal. Romsey Extra Parish Council also considers there are benefits.
(iv) Extraction will not be permitted to commence until it has ceased at the existing Ridge sand and gravel extraction site to the south-east. Working within the area shall be phased so as to minimise the impact on the properties in Gardeners Lane:
- in line with this criterion no extraction is proposed to commence at the site until extraction has ceased at Ridge Farm Quarry. The latter is to be restored by the end of 2004 at the latest. The application proposes a phased scheme of working and restoration.
(v) Only one sand and gravel processing plant will be permitted to be in operation at Ridge (ie the preferred area and the existing Ridge Farm Site to the south-east). The operation of new processing plant within the preferred area will not be permitted to commence until the existing sand and gravel processing plant at Ridge Farm has ceased operation (for the processing of sand and gravel both extracted at Ridge Farm or imported from elsewhere) and arrangements for its removal and the restoration of the site have been agreed. Alternatively the area could be served by conveyor under the A3090 to the existing Ridge processing plant site. In this case the plant may require replacement or upgrading to meet the most up-to-date environmental standards:
- the application proposes that the mineral would be transported by conveyor under the A3090 to the existing plant site at Ridge Farm Quarry, where it will be processed. The application, subject to the necessary technical appraisals relating dominantly to the conveyor tunnel design, construction and implementation, satisfies this criterion.
(vi) Restoration should be progressively to agricultural land of a quality equivalent to that existing, by backfilling with waste materials to a landform appropriate to the area. The existing or an improved field pattern should be reinstated and additional tree and hedgerow planting undertaken to enhance the nature conservation and landscape value of the area. Restoration to the highest practical standard will be required.
- restoration is proposed 're-laying' existing subsoils and topsoils over the mineral voids which would be infilled with clay across Areas 2 and 3, and infilled with controlled wastes and capped with clay in Area 1. Organic management of the land is proposed by not liming the land, which would be of ecological benefit to the local ecosystem. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (formerly the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency) raises no objection to the proposal in principle. Areas 2 and 3 would be restored to original ground levels. Area 1 would be raised because of the need for steeper slopes to drain the controlled waste landfill areas. The County Council's landscape advisors raise no objection to the proposed landform.
(vii) Infilling of the area with waste materials will only be permitted provided that satisfactory restoration of the land can be achieved. Infilling may be restricted to inert waste materials only, if this is considered necessary, in order to protect local amenity or the environment of the area or surrounding land:
- inert infilling with on-site clays is proposed across Areas 2 and 3. Infilling with controlled wastes is proposed on Area 1. The Environmental Health Officer and the Environment Agency raise no objection to the amenity impacts of the proposal in principle, subject to conditions. DEFRA and the County Council's landscape advisors raise no objection to the landform and restoration of the land. The Environment Agency and the County Council's ecology and landscape advisors also consider the proposal in principle raises no physical threat to the environment of the area or surrounding land. However, some objectors take the view that the use of clay to infill Areas 2 and 3 is not in accordance with Policy 28 of the HPSMWLP. There is also concern and objections to the use of controlled waste to infill Area 1. There is a perception, despite the views of the Environment Agency and the Environmental Health Officer, that there are risks to the environment and to people's amenity and health from the controlled waste disposal element of the proposal. In view of these concerns, the Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority has been consulted on the proposal, which in turn sought advice from the specialist unit at Guy's and St Thomas's Hospitals in London. The advice received from them is that, whilst no research has been undertaken into the risk of harm to human health from domestic and non-hazardous waste, the risk of harm is considered remote.
(viii) Soils and overburden should be carefully removed and stored to preserve their quality for progressive restoration or replaced directly on worked out parts of the area:
- topsoils and subsoils are proposed to be removed, stored separately from one another and then re-laid progressively as restoration takes place, fulfilling this criterion.
(ix) Watercourses cross the site and the possible impact that any modifications to these may have on the land drainage regime or loss of aquatic habitat should be assessed. A hydrological study will be required to assess possible impact on ground water and on drainage of land and watercourses around the site, including Embley Wood and the ancient woodland to the west and the streams feeding the River Blackwater to the south-east:
- hydrological and hydrogeological studies have been undertaken by the applicant. As a result the Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposal in principle. The studies do not include on-site hydrological surveys of the Embley Wood complex. The Plan criteria only require that the studies should include assessment of possible impacts on ground water and on drainage of land and watercourses around the site. The Environment Agency has no objection to the principle of the proposal, subject to legal agreements regarding, amongst other things, monitoring and details of mitigation. However, local residents consider it is essential that hydrological and hydrogeological surveys of land to the west of the site, outside the application boundary, including the Embley Wood complex, be undertaken prior to determination of the application. Presentations by the Environment Agency to some local residents have failed to provide reassurance that the proposal is, in principle, hydrogeologically and hydrologically sound.
(x) An ecological and landscape evaluation will be required. Existing trees and hedgerows within the area should, as far as is practicable, be retained and protected, to maintain the enclosed character of the landscape after restoration:
- these evaluations have been undertaken and as a result the proposal significantly retains internal hedgerows and perimeter tree and shrub planting, as well as proposing additional planting. Hedgerow No. 12, separating Areas 1 and 2, is now also protected by tree preservation orders.
(xi) There is recent evidence of Bronze Age activity within the site and an archaeological evaluation will be required:
- this has been undertaken to the satisfaction of the County Council's archaeological advisor.
11.5 Taken at face value, the criteria in Preferred Area No. 4 of the HPSMWLP appear to have been met. However, aside from the specific criteria the Plan also states that permission will not be granted unless the County Council is satisfied that the area can be worked and restored without causing unacceptable impact.
11.6 The remainder of this report addresses the impact issues and other material considerations under headings that have been identified following consideration of all the comments made so far on the application (paragraph 9.4).
Hydrogeological and Hydrological Impacts
11.7 The issue of the potential hydrogeological and hydrological impact of the development on the Embley Wood SINC habitat complex and springs and wells adjacent to the site, dominate the ground water concerns raised by local people. Even those properties on Ryedown and Gardeners Lanes which are not within the SINC comprise wells, springs and ponds which also 'feed' the SINC. A commercial plant nursery on Gardeners Lane and a farm off Ryedown Lane are also affected by the local hydrology.
11.8 The Inspector's Report into objections to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (now HPSMWLP) into the site (1996) following the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Inquiry has been interpreted as requiring a thorough assessment and monitoring of land to the west and that at least several years' monitoring of neighbouring land is preferable before such an application is considered.
11.9 With relation to monitoring, the Inspector actually said in his Report "Notwithstanding the apprehension expressed by local residents, the [County] Council's intentions regarding monitoring are fully explained in Chapter 7. However, it would be for the [County] Council to initiate any enforcement action, which would necessarily require firm evidence of the contravention of any conditions attached to planning permission for working the site."
11.10 The Inspector's report is, however, quite clear. He agrees "it would be necessary to show that the working of the site would avoid damage to Mrs Sutton's particularly praiseworthy restoration of lowland heath after long term rhododendron infestation and Mr Bare's equally notable work in landscape improvement. In that connection Mrs Sutton submitted written representations referring to detailed investigation of the hydrological characteristics of the locality. However, I am satisfied that the requirement of criterion 9 as amended by PC A1-4.5 and FPC 124 for working the area that any application for planning permission should include a detailed hydrological study of any effects on the drainage regime of the locality or loss of habitat would provide a suitable safeguard".
11.11 The amendment to which the Inspector refers is, in essence, the criteria for working the site as listed in the HPSMWLP and repeated in paragraph 11.4 (ix) above, ie that "a hydrological study will be required to assess possible impact on ground water and on drainage of land and watercourses around the site, including Embley Wood and the ancient woodland to the west and the streams feeding the River Blackwater to the south-east".
11.12 This criterion requires the applicant to implement a study that assesses the possible impacts on land surrounding the site. It does not state the applicant has physically to access the surrounding land in order to adequately assess the impacts. Accordingly, the applicant has submitted a scheme that it states will ensure the protection of ground water quantity, quality and PH value.
11.13 The Inspector concluded that "the mineral content of this area is highly significant in relation to the county as a whole. In my view, the only serious objection concerns the possibility of adverse hydrological and ecological effects on neighbouring land. The criteria the Plan prescribes, that would require particularly full investigation, is part of the environmental statement in the submission of an application for planning permission. I find no other constraints are sufficiently severe that they are not likely to be satisfactorily overcome".
11.14 The Environment Agency has examined the proposal and has employed independent consultants to undertake an audit of the proposal. It raises no objection in principle to the proposal, subject to various legal agreements as detailed in section 7.10 of this report. Through both correspondence and presentations the Environment Agency has emphasised that it is not necessary to have additional information on land to the west of the site.
11.15 The objector's Consultant, who met with the County Planning Officer, the Environment Agency and the applicant to discuss his concerns, considers what is proposed to be the "second-best alternative"; the best being leaving the land untouched. He also considers that if development is proposed then best practice requires a hydrological survey of the Embley Wood SINC complex to be undertaken amongst other things.
11.16 Many of the objectors' concerns relate to the need for a lengthy period -several years - of pre-implementation hydrological monitoring and that, until risks are fully understood from pre-approval monitoring, the application should be refused. Residents state that the applicant's limitation to on-site monitoring was based on an "erroneous assumption" about them not permitting access. This concern about allowing access into part of the Embley Wood SINC complex appears to be reflected in one letter of objection which states "originally, the residents were approached by the developer with a request for permission to enter their properties and conduct hydrogeological investigations and ground water monitoring. The residents were advised that if they gave consent to the developer's request they could be said to have given tacit approval to the developer's application by cooperating and assisting him forward his intent, thereby compromising any future claim of violation of property or human rights. On advice the residents remained silent".
Clay Extraction
11.17 The proposal to create a 17 metre void through the extraction of clay and the use of that clay to restore the agricultural land post-mineral extraction has raised a number of objections from local residents. These objections predominantly relate to the view that extraction of clay for the purpose of restoring a mineral void is considered by the objectors to be contrary to policy. Objectors also refer to the report of the Inspector resulting from the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Inquiry (1996) and state that the Inquiry referred only to infilling the void "resulting from" gravel extraction and the reference to infilling being "ancillary to gravel extraction". The County Planning Officer considers that insofar as the extraction of clay is required for the engineering of the controlled waste landfill within the northern part of the site, the proposal to extract clay is in accordance with Policy 28. On the other hand, it is considered the extraction of clay, in order to backfill the remainder of the sand and gravel extraction void, does not accord with Policy 28 in that it is not needed for the lining or capping of the landfill but for the purpose of landfilling itself. However, given that the proposed clay extraction would take place entirely within the sand and gravel extraction area and that the clay would be used entirely within the site for the purpose of restoring the site, the application is not considered to be a significant departure from Policy 28. Whilst it is a material consideration in the determination of the application, it is not a critical issue.
Need for Mineral
11.18 The issue of need for the mineral has been raised. Government guidance in MPG6 'Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England' is that mineral planning authorities should aim to maintain a landbank of sand and gravel sufficient for at least seven years' extraction. Policy 17 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan states that permission will be granted for sand and gravel extraction in order to maintain landbanks of soft sand and sharp sand and gravel in accordance with this guidance. At the end of 2000 there was a landbank of sharp sand and gravel in Hampshire equivalent to only six years. Earlier this year, the former Roads and Development Sub-Committee resolved that, subject to a legal agreement, permission be granted for the extraction of 2.22 million tonnes of sharp sand and gravel at Bramshill Plateau. However, this is less than is required to maintain a seven year landbank. Taking this permission into account, the sharp sand and gravel landbank currently stands at 6.6 years and will have fallen to only 6.1 years by the end of 2001. There is therefore a strong current need for further reserves of sharp sand and gravel to be permitted. The proposed sand and gravel extraction at The Triangle (approximately 2.5 million tonnes) would increase the sharp sand and gravel landbank by the equivalent of 1.2 years, raising it to just above the seven year level at the end of 2001.
11.19 Objectors also refer to paragraph 4.6 of the HPSMWLP, which states that "where proposals include both the extraction of minerals and the disposal of waste by subsequent infilling of the void, the need for the development will be assessed on the basis of the need for the extraction of the mineral alone."
11.20 The need for the mineral has been established and therefore the need for the disposal of waste is a material factor in the determination of this application.
Need for Landfill
11.21 The most recently published information on landfill capacity is contained in the Environment Agency's Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000 for the South East. This shows that at April 1999 there was in Hampshire (including Portsmouth and Southampton) a total of 11.2m m³ of remaining landfill voidspace permitted and licensed for non-inert (biodegradable) waste, but that of this total only 6.7m m³ was available for non-inert waste disposal. (The remaining 4.5m m³ of voidspace would be taken up by engineering, cover and capping material.) At the 1998/99 rate of input of non-inert waste to landfill sites in Hampshire (0.95m tonnes = 1.14m m³), this 6.7m m³ of voidspace was sufficient for only 5.9 years of landfilling, ie only until early 2005.
11.22 Since April 1999, an additional 1.0m m³ (gross) of landfill voidspace has become available for non-inert waste, at East Horton Farm Sand Quarry, Fair Oak. Also, an additional 1.7m m³ (gross) of voidspace has been permitted for landfilling of non-inert waste at Apsley Farm, Hurstbourne Priors, although the use of this voidspace has not yet been licensed by the Environment Agency. Assuming Apsley Farm will become available, these sites increase the voidspace for non-inert waste by the equivalent of approximately 1.4 years (at the 1998/99 input rate), effectively extending the life of non-inert voidspace in Hampshire until late 2006. Therefore, at the 1998/99 rate of landfilling, there is currently only approximately 5 years non-inert landfill voidspace remaining in Hampshire. This voidspace is nearly all contained at the following seven sites: Chatsworth/Blue Haze, Ringwood Forest; Efford, Lymington; Squabb Wood, Romsey; East Horton Farm, Fair Oak; Paulsgrove, Portsmouth; Southleigh Forest, Havant; and Apsley Farm, Hurstbourne Priors.
11.23 Under the EU Landfill Directive 1999, the amount of biodegradable municipal waste disposed to landfill is required to be reduced nationally as follows: by 2010 to 75% of that produced in 1995; by 2013 to 50% of that produced in 1995; and by 2020 to 35% of that produced in 1995. (The biodegradable content of municipal waste has been estimated by the Environment Agency to be around 60%.) However, it is not yet clear how these national targets are to be implemented locally.
11.24 The need for non-inert landfill should be reduced as recycling increases and as new energy from waste (efw) incineration capacity comes on stream. The Basingstoke efw plant is under construction and the Marchwood plant has now been permitted. A decision is still awaited from the Secretary of State on the proposed Portsmouth efw plant. Assuming the latter is approved, there will eventually be a combined efw incineration capacity in Hampshire of 420,000 tonnes per annum. The household waste recycling/composting rate in Hampshire was 21% in 1998/99, increasing to 23% in 2000/01. The Government has set national targets to recycle at least 25% of household waste by 2005, 30% by 2010 and 33% by 2015, and has set individual authority targets for 2003/04 and 2005/06. These vary for authorities in Hampshire, but are above the national average, being up to 33% by 2003/04 and 40% by 2005/06. However, over recent years arisings of municipal waste have been increasing by around 3% per annum.
11.25 Of the 0.95m tonnes of non-inert waste landfilled in Hampshire in 1998/99, 66% was municipal waste, 27% was industrial and commercial waste, and 7% was special waste. The only Government target for industrial and commercial waste is by 2005 to reduce the amount sent to landfill to 85% of that landfilled in 1998. It must therefore be assumed that the great majority of this waste stream will continue to require disposal by landfilling. There will be a large continuing need for disposal of municipal waste by landfill, at least until all the planned efw incineration infrastructure is in place and operating. However, even with the new efw plants and with increased recycling, there will still be a significant continuing need for landfill for that element of the municipal waste stream that is not or cannot be recycled or composted and for residues that cannot be dealt with in any other way. Even assuming that by 2005/06 a recycling/composting rate of 40% for all municipal waste is reached across the whole of Hampshire and that 420,000 tonnes per annum of efw incineration capacity is in place, with an annual increase in waste arisings of 3% per annum there would still be some 180,000 tonnes (216,000 m³) remaining to be landfilled, not including residues from the incinerators. Adding industrial and commercial waste (taking into account the Government's landfill reduction target) and special waste would give a total non-inert landfill requirement of at least 460,000 tonnes (552,000 m³) in 2005/06. It is therefore clear that there will be a significant ongoing need for landfill capacity for non-inert waste in Hampshire well beyond the next five years.
11.26 There is no specific Government guidance on the amount of permitted landfill provision (landbank) that Waste Planning Authorities (WPAs) should seek to maintain. The Government's National Waste Strategy states that most waste should be treated or disposed of within the region in which it is produced. PPG10 `Planning and Waste Management' (1999) says provision should be made within each region for facilities with sufficient capacity to manage the quantity of waste expected to need to be dealt with in the area for at least ten years. This policy of regional self-sufficiency is reiterated in RPG9 `Regional Planning Guidance for the South East' (2001), which goes on to state in Policy INF3 that WPAs should aim to make provision for a sufficient range and number of facilities for the reuse, recovery and disposal of waste that will need to be managed within their areas. This effectively endorses the 1997 SERPLAN guidance `Revised Waste Planning Advice - A Sustainable Waste Planning Strategy for the South East 1996-2010' (SERP160) that each county should be self-sufficient in the provision of waste disposal facilities. A new Regional Waste Management Strategy for the South East is in the early stages of preparation, but in the meantime the 1997 SERPLAN guidance is still relevant and, in the light of PPG10, the aim should be to make provision to meet waste management needs for at least the next ten years.
11.27 In view of the current uncertainties over rates of waste arisings, future rates of recycling and composting, implementation of efw incineration capacity, and requirements at local level for reductions in landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste, it is very difficult to assess the requirement for non-inert landfill in Hampshire over the next ten years. However, it is quite clear that the current provision will not last ten years. Indeed, it is unlikely to last much beyond five years. There is therefore a need for additional landfill capacity for non-inert waste to be permitted in Hampshire. The proposed non-inert landfill voidspace at The Triangle (approximately 2.1m m³) would make a significant contribution towards meeting this need, in that it would add the equivalent of nearly two years non-inert landfill capacity at the 1998/99 input rate for Hampshire.
Best Practicable Environmental Option
11.28 The best practicable environmental option (BPEO) has been defined by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as `the outcome of a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term'.
11.29 It is not currently clear the extent to which BPEO assessment is appropriate in respect of individual development proposals, how such assessments should be undertaken, and by whom. The applicant has not submitted a specific BPEO assessment for the waste disposal element of the proposed development at The Triangle, apart from an evaluation of landfill need. That evaluation identifies a significant landfill shortfall in Hampshire beyond 2006, which conclusion is supported by the analysis of need for landfill set out above.
11.30 However, national guidance indicates that the decision maker should consider the BPEO. PPG10 states that WPAs should consider the provision of waste management facilities within the context of the BPEO. In the National Waste Strategy 2000, BPEO is seen by the Government as a tool to help decision-makers to manage waste more sustainably. It states that, in determining BPEO, the Government expects those making decisions to take account of three key considerations: the waste hierarchy; the proximity principle; and self-sufficiency. It also states that when considering the BPEO, decision-makers need to have regard to international obligations, the national policy framework, and policy guidance at regional and local level. This indicates that BPEO is an important part of the planning decision-making process for waste management development. This is supported by the case of R v Bolton MBC ex parte Kirkham, 1998, in which Mr Justice Carnwath held that BPEO was a material consideration for planning authorities but that the weight to be given to it in a particular case was a matter for the authority, and it did not mean that a full BPEO assessment had to be carried out in each and every case.
11.31 The assessment of need set out above concludes that there is a current need for additional non-inert landfill capacity to be permitted in Hampshire. That assessment takes into account the obligations under the EU Landfill Directive, national and regional policy guidance, the principle of self-sufficiency, and the waste hierarchy. Under the waste hierarchy, landfill should be considered the waste management method of last resort. However, as the assessment of need set out above shows, even with substantial increases in the amounts of municipal waste being dealt with by methods higher up the hierarchy (ie by recycling, composting and efw recovery), there will continue to be a significant need for disposal by landfill over at least the next ten years. Indeed there will always be a need for some landfill for waste that cannot be dealt with in any other way. For industrial and commercial waste, landfill is likely to be the means of dealing with most waste for the foreseeable future, since large increases in recycling or other methods of management higher up the hierarchy are not expected, as reflected in the Government's limited landfill reduction target for this waste stream.
11.32 Having established there is a need for additional non-inert landfill capacity in Hampshire, the issue of whether it is appropriate that this need be met in part at The Triangle should be considered. Under the proximity principle, waste should be managed as near as possible to its place of production, because transporting waste itself has an environmental impact. The Triangle is relatively well located in relation to one of the main areas of production of both municipal and industrial and commercial wastes, ie the South West Hampshire sub-region (Southampton and adjacent Districts). However, of the seven principal currently permitted non-inert landfill sites in Hampshire, four are located within this sub-region (Chatsworth/Blue Haze, Efford, Squabb Wood, and East Horton Farm). It would be preferable to have a more even geographical spread of landfill sites across Hampshire, closely related to the main centres of waste production, but non-inert landfill sites can only be located where suitable geology, good access and acceptability of environmental impacts coincide. Current Development Plan policies for landfill strongly prefer the infilling of mineral working voids over landraising on undisturbed land. The location of suitable mineral working sites is directly related to the distribution of workable sand and gravel deposits, which are predominantly located in the South West sub-region of Hampshire. In this context, the current distribution of non-inert landfill sites, with four in the South West sub-region, should not be interpreted as meaning that the landfill proposal for The Triangle does not accord with the proximity principle.
11.33 As set out elsewhere in the report, there are strong reasons for the proposed non-inert landfill being included as part of the overall proposal for sand and gravel extraction and restoration at The Triangle. It will ensure the progressive restoration of the mineral working site back to agricultural land by backfilling the void, in the shortest practicable time, in accordance with the criteria for working the site set out in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. In this respect, the proposal for non-inert landfill is a preferable option to either backfilling with inert waste or restoration at a lower level without backfilling. Consequently, in this regard, and having regard to Policy 37 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, The Triangle would be an appropriate site to make a contribution to the overall need for non-inert landfill in Hampshire.
11.34 The overall assessment is that, taking all relevant circumstances into account, the proposal for non-inert landfill at The Triangle is an acceptable waste management option in terms of BPEO. With regard to the waste hierarchy it is recognised that in the short and medium term landfill will continue to be a necessary method of management for significant amounts of non-inert waste (municipal and industrial and commercial), and there is a current need for further non-inert landfill capacity to be permitted in Hampshire. The provision of further landfill capacity would not prejudice the move towards increased recycling/composting and recovery of waste in accordance with Government policy and targets, and it would not conflict with Government guidance on waste management: the Government recognises that landfill will remain the BPEO for certain wastes and in certain locations. The Triangle proposal also accords with the proximity principle and the principle of self-sufficiency, in line with regional policy. Furthermore, it accords with policies for landfill in the Structure Plan and the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and is an acceptable means of ensuring restoration of the proposed mineral workings at The Triangle in accordance with the requirements of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Amenity Impacts
11.35 Objectors are concerned about potential noise, dust and odour impacts from the site upon their amenities. They are also concerned about pests drawn to the putrescible waste deposited as part of the proposal in Area 1; notably vermin, seagulls and flies.
11.36 The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal, which currently sets a distance of 250 metres between the edge of Area 1 and properties to the west and north-west of the site. However, at the most recent Stakeholder Dialogue Workshop on 6 August, the applicant offered to increase the distance between the nearest property to the west and Area 1 to 300 metres. This change can be secured by a planning condition.
11.37 One objector considers the distance should be even greater than this, ie 400 metres away, and refers in correspondence to a number of appeal decisions where distances between landfill sites and houses extend beyond 250 metres.
11.38 Using past appeal decisions to dictate buffer zones on other non-associated sites is unwise. Each site is different and consequently each site should be addressed on its merits. Indeed, in 1998 a planning appeal at Sherfield English secured the principle of a 100 metre minimum stand-off between residents and putrescible waste. In this application a 100 metre buffer would not be considered reasonable, but 300 metres is reasonable, according to the Environmental Health Officer on the grounds of environmental issues such as odour, dust, noise and vermin.
11.39 To the east of the putrescible waste area lies Pauncefoot Cottages, which is within the 250 metre buffer zone. Whilst the Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal as it stands, the applicant has written to the County Planning Officer stating that the landowner, Broadlands Estate, will rehouse the tenants of Pauncefoot Cottages temporarily whilst controlled waste disposal is taking place. This can be secured by legal agreement.
11.40 It should be noted that the majority of the site being worked for gravel (Areas 2 and 3) is not being infilled with controlled waste but with on-site clay. Consequently, the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the 100 metre stand-off proposed is acceptable to contain dust and noise when combined with acoustic bunds and protective planning conditions controlling factors such as silencers, special reversing alarms and water dowsing to help control dust.
Landscape and Visual Impact
11.41 The main landform issue raised by the proposal is whether the contours proposed for the northernmost field (to be filled with controlled waste) are acceptable visually in the context of their surroundings. The Development Plan criteria for this Preferred Area state that infilling of the area with waste materials will only be permitted provided that satisfactory restoration of the land can be achieved. Infilling may be restricted to inert waste materials only if this is considered necessary to protect local amenity or the environment of the area or surrounding land. If the landform here is considered unacceptable, then the use of this land for controlled waste would need to be excluded from the proposal because of the gradients required for run-off by the Environment Agency from a 'capped' landfill site. Objections to the landform in the northernmost field are noted.
11.42 In making a decision on this landform issue, a number of other factors need to be weighed in the balance. Firstly, by digging much deeper in the northern field to create the waste void, inert material in the form of clay is provided on-site to infill the whole application area following mineral extraction, thus avoiding the need to import increasingly scarce inert waste over a potentially long period. This is a positive element of the proposal. The supply of inert waste is uncertain and therefore any scheme relying on this material from external sources could leave the site potentially unrestored, and with activity upon it, for many years. Such delay would be likely to have an adverse impact on the environment and on local residents by way of ongoing continued disturbance. It is acknowledged that any need for the importation and deposit of controlled waste in order to restore the site also has to be balanced against any adverse environmental or other impact such disposal may cause. In this case the most significant impacts of such disposal are potential amenity impacts to local residents, in particular the north-west area of Gardeners Lane; any adverse hydrological impact to land west of the site; and any adverse impact to Hedgerow No. 12. The latter has been retained through negotiation with the applicant and is now also protected by Tree Preservation Orders.
11.43 However, whilst the issue of the landform in the northernmost field, where controlled waste is to be deposited, has raised some concerns, its environmental impact is not considered to be significant. If controlled waste is to be imported then the proposed scheme is considered acceptable from a landscape viewpoint.
11.44 In relation to Hedgerow No. 12, the County Council's arboricultural officer has concluded that it will be adequately protected, provided there is a 15 metre protective zone between the centre line of the hedgerow and the extraction and infill either side of it.
Health
11.45 The risk to public health has been assessed by the Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority, in consultation with the Chemical Incident Response Service at Guy's and St Thomas's Hospitals, London, which provides a specialist service in assessing potential health effects of chemical releases. The advice concludes that "there appears to be little or no research that focuses solely on landfill sites disposing of domestic waste - in view of the difficulties in identifying any health effects attributed to hazardous waste sites, the likelihood of domestic sites causing any risk to health is remote". Following receipt of this advice, the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) published a study on the possible link between landfill sites and certain health problems. The study looked at all identified landfill sites in Great Britain operating between 1982 and 1997, using routinely collected health information. It covered three quarters of the population of Great Britain. The study concluded that it is not clear at present that landfill sites are causing these effects and that other explanations are possible. SAHSU recommends that further research be done and this recommendation has been supported by the Government. The Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority was consulted on this report and concluded that "at the present time, it cannot be said that there is no risk from landfill sites. However, I still feel that the likelihood of sites disposing of domestic waste causing any risk to health is remote". This advice relates to domestic landfill sites generally across the nation, as well as specifically to the application site.
Consideration of Alternatives
11.46 Alternative layouts and options were discussed by the County Council through negotiations with the applicant and other consultees, such as the Environmental Health Officer, at the time of the initial submission of the application. The applicant's wish to infill part of the site (Area 1) with controlled waste, and to infill the remaining mineral void with in-situ clay, stems from the applicant's desire to:
(i) avoid importation of inert waste, which is an unreliable source of waste and could mean the site is left open and unrestored for many years;
(ii) ensure the area of putrescible waste infilling takes place on that part of the site where clay of the right engineering quality is present (Area 1);
(iii) ensure Areas 2 and 3 are restored to original ground levels as quickly as possible by using on-site clays extracted from Area 1;
(iv) ensure that the area of putrescible waste infilling takes place on that part of the site (Area 1) where there would be least landscape and visual impact, because of the need to have steeper slopes on areas of putrescible waste infill for drainage reasons; and
(v) try and ensure that any amenity impacts to residents on Gardeners Lane are minimised. The topography and existing and proposed screening on the higher land to the north of the site assist the objectives of reducing visual, landscape and amenity impacts of the development.
11.47 The use of clay to restore the site has raised a number of objections from local residents on the basis that it is contrary to planning policy. Some residents consider it would be preferable to leave the clay in-situ and restore the site by infilling the mineral void (which would be an average of 3.5 metres deep across Areas 1, 2 and 3) with imported putrescible or inert waste. Others consider the mineral should be worked and the land restored at low level without any infilling. The majority would like the land to remain permanently unworked.
11.48 The County Council attempted to undertake a formal analysis of the working and restoration options of the site for the benefit of objectors as raised at the last Stakeholder Dialogue Workshop. However, the Environment Agency is currently unable to comment on any option in detail because it is unable to undertake a full assessment and analysis of each option, due to time and resource restrictions. Without the Agency's advice on working and restoration analysis is impracticable. It should, however, be noted that the County Council has a duty to determine the application put before it. Negotiation with the applicant has secured revisions to the application as outlined previously, but the applicant does not consider inert landfill the only option acceptable. Moreover, for the main environmental reasons of geology, hydrogeology, amenity and landscape, Area 1 is considered to be the most practical option for the disposal of controlled waste.
Environmental Impact Assessment
11.49 There are three issues relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment:
(i) Whether the contents of the ES complies with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, which transpose the relevant European Directives.
(ii) Whether all the 'environmental information' has been taken into consideration.
(iii) Whether a proper assessment can be made in the absence of details with regard to pre-treatment of waste as required under the Landfill Directive.
11.50 The first relates to a list of topics set out in Schedule 4 of the Regulations and are replicated in Appendix 1. The minimum information required is detailed in Part 2 of the Schedule, while an ES should also contain information detailed in Part 1 as is "reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and which the applicant can ... reasonably be required to compile ...". The fulfilment of the requirements can be objectively evaluated as they are simply based upon the supply of descriptions of the development; measures to avoid/remedy adverse effects; data needs; an outline of alternatives if studied by the developer and inclusion of a non-technical study. All this has been done. Whether the information is sufficiently comprehensive and of the right quality is another matter, which is addressed in other parts of the report. For the purposes of the Regulations the contents of the ES is complete.
11.51 The second issue is the requirement under Regulation 3 for the County Council to consider the environmental information, which includes the ES, representations from consultees and the public. This report summarises the environmental information and allows Members to make a decision that accords with the requirements of the Regulations.
11.52 The final point relates to the future requirement to pre-treat waste to landfill in order to reduce its harmful effects. The ES does not address this but in effect adopts a 'worst case scenario' by assuming the deposit of untreated waste and assesses this accordingly. This approach would not invalidate the ES.
Human Rights
11.53 The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2 October 2000, places more emphasis on the protection of the individual when the local authority exercises discretion in planning decisions. The environmental impact of a planning decision on a neighbouring property brings into play the right for home, privacy and family life (Article 8). Article 1 of the First Protocol is also relevant and refers to the entitlement of every person to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. In addition, Article 6 concerns the right of the individual to a fair and public hearing when civil rights are being determined.
11.54 The County Council is a public authority which, in the exercise of its statutory powers to determine this application, must not act in a way which is incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. To do so would render such action unlawful and any person affected by such an unlawful determination would have the right to put the issue before an English Court which may include compensation by way of damages or could involve quashing the decision against which the complaint is made.
11.55 It has been suggested that the County Council has shown bias in processing the application in contravention of Article 6 in that it has:
(i) overridden recommendations of the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector with regard to The Triangle Preferred Area;
(ii) cooperated with a potential developer by holding a public meeting in conjunction with him before an application was submitted; and
(iii) compromised the evidence of the Environmental Consultant employed by local objectors.
11.56 Advice from Counsel has been taken on this and other matters. He advises that the County Council gave proper consideration to the Inspector's recommendations in accordance with the Development Plan Regulations. Moreover, the Courts have given support to the view that the adopted local plan should be looked to in preference to rejected Inspector's recommendations. He also advises that there are sufficient judicial remedies available to prevent the County Council contravening Article 6 while the Council's position has not been compromised by pre-application meetings. Both the Government and Local Government Association recommend as good practice for planning authorities to enter pre-application discussions on planning proposals.
11.57 With regard to allegations of contravention of Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol these are matters for Members to consider with regard to the facts. It is not disputed that the development would have some impact on local residents, but the advice is that this would be within accepted standards. However, Counsel's advice is that even if Members decide that there is an interference with human rights they must take into consideration whether there is any justification. Here the County Council should take into account wider public interests, including economic well-being as expressed by the need to develop sites for sand and gravel and waste disposal. To summarise, Members must balance the needs between the general interest and an individual's rights.
11.58 Overall, it should be noted that the Courts have taken a robust attitude to claims under the Human Rights banner when planning issues have been brought before them. The general trend is to endorse the actions of planning authorities where the decision making has been transparent, inclusive of the various interests and fair. The actions of the County Council with regard to this application have all these features and a challenge to a favourable decision would be defendable.
11.59 Having considered all the aspects of this application it is not considered that a grant of planning permission in this case would bring the County Council into conflict with the provisions of the Human Rights Act. Human Rights are not absolute. Applicants and landowners also have rights, as well as local residents. A balanced judgement needs to be made on this issue.
Impact on Romsey
11.60 Sixty four objections have been received from residents of Romsey, predominantly on grounds of odour carried by prevailing winds; increase in traffic; despoliation of countryside and pollution of the River Test. It is considered that residents would not suffer undue impacts to local amenity from the site about one kilometre away. Traffic flows would be less than they are at present with the Ridge Quarry and landfill still in operation. The countryside would be restored to existing levels, apart from the controlled waste zone in Area 1. However, the area would be enhanced environmentally by way of balancing ponds managed for nature conservation; additional planting; and the protection of historic hedgerows. To conclude, Romsey's residents' objections are not considered to be significant in the determination of this application.
Other
11.61 Other issues include local residents' concern about hydrogeological impacts that could affect the foundations of their properties, especially those which are listed buildings. The Environment Agency considers there would not be a hydrogeological or hydrological impact from the proposal to surrounding land. Consequently, potential subsidence is not considered to be an issue in the determination of this application.
12. Conclusion
12.1 Development Plans are at the heart of the planning system. They provide the framework against which the social, economic, environmental and other consequences of individual development proposals are weighed in the balance to ensure consistent and predictable decision making. Where there is a relatively up to date development plans it is necessary to decide whether the proposal is in accordance with that plan and then to take into account any other material considerations in reaching a decision. In principle, any consideration which relates to the use and development of land is capable of being considered a material consideration.
12.2 The Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2001 (Review) and the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan provide an up to date development plan framework for considering the application at The Triangle.
12.3 The site is a Preferred Area for mineral and waste disposal in the HPSWMLP. The proposal has merits. It has a good access onto a main road and is well screened. It should also be noted that it would provide for aggregate and landfill capacity both of which Hampshire has a shortfall. Indeed, if the application is refused other similar proposals of less merit could emerge.
12.4 There are no objections on grounds of:
(i) amenity (from the Environmental Health Officer);
(ii) hydrology and hydrogeology (and related ecology) (from the Environment Agency and Southern Water);
(iii) highways (from the County Surveyor);
(iv) landscape (from the County Council's Landscape Officer); and
(v) ecology (from the County Council's Ecology Officer and Hampshire Wildlife Trust).
However, there are objections from the Parish Councils and a last minute holding objection from English Nature. Local residents are very concerned about the potential impacts the development could have on their lives and on the local environment. The most common area of concern is the risk of hydrological impact on land to the west of the site. With relation to Embley Wood, there is fear that if there is a problem with either the quantity or quality of water entering the SINC complex it could significantly harm the ecological balance of the site.
12.5 The proposal represents a departure from the HPSMWLP insofar as the proposed access is different to that referred to in the criteria for working the site and the extraction of clay to backfill the sand and gravel extraction void is contrary to Policy 28 of the HPSMWLP. Neither departures, for reasons explained in paragraphs 11.4(iii) and 11.17, are significant either on their own or in combination to warrant withholding planning permission.
12.6 The critical material considerations when determining the application are amenity, health and hydrogeological impacts. The latter is bound up with the nature conservation sensitivities of the nearby Embley Wood.
12.7 Amenity covers a broad canvass of issues: dust, noise, visual intrusion; some are actual and some are perceived. Nevertheless, they are all important and cannot be given too much weight bearing in mind the proposed mitigations and the intrinsic designs of the development with the large `stand-offs' from the operational areas and the edge of the site. It is acknowledged that some residents will be aware of some amenity impacts from time to time, but these are judged to be within environmental standards. It is noted the Environmental Health Officer is of a similar view.
12.8 The recent publicity about health impacts from landfill has raised the concern about this matter. However, it would be most unwise to translate this into a ground for refusal for a particular application, given the failure of the research so far to demonstrate any direct causal impact. The perception of a risk is, nevertheless, an amenity issue.
12.9 The most difficult matter to make a judgement on concerns the hydrogeological impacts on the local nature conservation designations covering Embley Wood. There is no doubt the habitat is exceptional and frail and a significant change in its water resources would be serious. However, the advice from the Environment Agency is unequivocal - it does not object and considers sufficient information is available to support this judgement. It considers off-site hydrogeological information is not essential to the decision and that a monitoring regime to manage mitigation measures - if needed - is sufficient. It should be noted that the Agency is not only responsible for safeguarding water resources and pollution control, it has a general duty to protect and promote the environment. On the other hand the objectors query this in the most strongest terms and feel that, given the sensitive ecological context of the site, more research should be undertaken before a conclusion about the impacts can confidently be made. In effect they are invoking the `precautionary principle'. It should be noted that the objectors' Consultant articulates these concerns also and English Nature is maintaining a `holding objection' on the matter.
12.10 Essentially the issue is one of `risk' and the amount of information required to address the risk. The objectors clearly consider an absolute precautionary approach is appropriate and that permission should not be given. On the other hand the advice of the principal agencies and officers with responsibility for the key areas of concern consider that the risk is manageable. Accordingly, on the basis of the information submitted so far, there are no grounds for refusing the application.
Recommendation
That, having taken into account the environmental information as required by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 and subject to:
(i) Section 106 agreements being entered into by the County Council to cover off-site highway and access improvements and lorry routeing; hydrological and hydrogeological monitoring and mitigation (including a financial bond); provision for alternative water supplies for specific water abstractions as an additional mitigation measure. The inspection and maintenance of remedial works both during and after completion of works; after-use and long term ecologically sensitive after-use and management of the site (including hedgerow management); provision of a footpath along the western edge of the site; and an agreement to secure temporary vacation of tenants of Pauncefoot Cottages; and
(ii) the procedures under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan and Consultations) (Departure) Directions 1999 being discharged;
planning permission in respect of the extraction of sand and gravel with restoration back to agricultural land using on-site clays and controlled wastes at The Triangle, Ridge (Application No. TVS 08924) be granted, subject to the following conditions:
Time Limit
(1) The development hereby permitted shall commence within five years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement of the development shall be sent to the Mineral Planning Authority seven days prior to such commencement.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to enable the Mineral Planning Authority to monitor the operations and to ensure compliance with this permission.
(2) The winning and working of minerals hereby permitted shall be limited to a total period of 13 years from the notified date of commencement of the development by which time extraction operations shall have ceased and the site have been restored within a further period of six months in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition (39) below and shall be the subject of after-care for a period of five years unless otherwise stated by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To provide for the completion and progressive restoration of the site within the approved timescale in the interest of local amenity.
(3) No tipping/deposit of waste material shall take place after the expiration of 14 years from the date on which development commences. If the approved levels have not been achieved by that date, the applicant/developer shall within six months submit a scheme for the restoration of the site using on-site materials plus imported subsoil and topsoil only, and the removal of all ancillary equipment. Such a scheme to provide for complete restoration of the site (including landscaping) within a further 12 months or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. Once such a scheme has been approved, it shall be implemented in full within 12 months of the date on which the scheme is approved, unless a variation is agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To secure the proper restoration of the site within a reasonable and acceptable timescale.
(4) The developer shall notify the Mineral Planning Authority in writing within one month of the dates of commencement and completion of the following:
(i) implementation of advance planting;
(ii) soil stripping and acoustic bund construction;
(iii) hedge removal/tree felling;
(iv) entering a new phase of tipping;
(v) completion of each tipping phase;
(vi) completion of restoration of each tipping phase;
(vii) completion of the landscaping/planting scheme;
(viii) implementation of tipping of controlled waste;
(ix) construction of access; and
(x) construction of balancing ponds.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to control the development and to monitor the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission.
Working Programme
(5) The working, phasing and restoration programme for the site shall be carried out in accordance with the principle approved by way of Plan No. VWM/TRI/LAY/03A (August 2000). Prior to the development commencing, a detailed working scheme, including such matters as 'stand-offs' (including a 300 metre buffer zone between the controlled waste area and residential properties to the west), maximum depths of extraction, fencing, operational layout, phasing and restoration of the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing. Operations on the application site shall be carried out in accordance with the working scheme, as approved, and no part of the operation specified therein shall be amended or omitted without the prior written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. The working scheme shall include a 1:2500 scale plan illustrating the above, including acoustic protection measures and a minimum of a 100 metre stand-off zone from nearby houses to help avoid adverse impact on local amenity.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to control the development and to minimise its impacts on the amenities of the local area.
(6) Soil stripping, excavation of minerals, tipping and restoration shall take place progressively such that no more than seven hectares are taken from agricultural use and left open at any one time, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure control over the area of land that is left open and unrestored at any one time.
Restriction of Permitted Development Rights
(7) Notwithstanding the provision of parts 4, 21, 24 and 25 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification:
(i) no fixed plant or machinery, building, structures and erections or private ways shall be erected, extended, installed, or replaced within the site without the prior approval in writing of the Mineral Planning Authority; and
(ii) no additional lights or fences shall be installed or erected at the quarry/landfill unless details of them have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: There is a need here, in view of its location adjacent to residential properties on Gardeners Lane and the final level difference between existing and proposed levels on the controlled waste tipping area, to secure control over additional plant and machinery in the interests of the amenity of the area and bearing in mind the degree of discretion otherwise allowed by the General Planning Development Order.
Hours of Working
(8) No vehicle shall enter or leave the site and no working shall take place except between the hours of 0700 and 1730 Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 on Saturday. No operations shall take place on Sunday or recognised public holidays.
Reason: In the interests of local amenities.
Tipping Limits and Finished Levels
(9) Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority, landfill and surface restoration levels on the final day of tipping and topsoiling shall accord with the Pre-Settlement Plan No. VWM/TRI/PRE/04 REV.B (October 2000).
Reason: To ensure the proper restoration of the site in accordance with the approved plans.
(10) Before the commencement of each phase of the mineral extraction and landfill operations subject of this permission, the perimeter boundary of the extraction and controlled waste tipping area, and the boundary of the inert tipping phases shall be clearly defined on site and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority. Thereafter:
(i) no waste shall be deposited outside those areas approved for that purpose; and
(ii) a full site survey shall be carried out (and submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for its approval) at intervals of not less than every 12 months starting from the date on which tipping operations commence.
Reason: To ensure the proper restoration of the site in accordance with the submitted plans.
(11) As the operation approaches final fill levels and in any case before the final grading of cover and before the spreading of subsoil, the surface levels shall be checked by competent land surveyors to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority. Thereupon markers shall be erected to indicate the approved final fill levels, approved restored surface level and any appropriate approved intermediate levels.
Reason: To ensure proper restoration of the site.
Landfill Gas and Leachate Control/Monitoring
(12) No waste shall be deposited until details of the location and design of the proposed leachate pre-treatment/holding lagoons, gas flare and pump, gas utilisation generation and buildings and security compound fencing have been submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To retain control over the detailed appearance and treatment of these proposals in the interest of the amenity of the area.
Access and Routeing
(13) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority no development, apart from site preparation works and the construction of the new access, shall commence until the access road, visibility splays, parking and manoeuvring provision have been laid out, constructed and surfaced in accordance with the details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. These areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for these purposes for the duration of this permission. The visibility splays, as approved, shall be provided and maintained free of all obstruction.
Reason: To ensure the access road is constructed with due regard to highway safety and the local environment.
(14) Upon completion of the new access road improvements referred to in Condition (13) above, all access to and egress from the site shall be via the new access hereby granted off the A3090. No other access shall be used by traffic entering or leaving the site. Appropriate signs and markings, which shall first have been approved by the Mineral Planning Authority, shall be provided and implemented prior to the new access being brought into use.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
(15) Prior to commencement of quarrying/landfill operations a sign shall be erected (and thereafter maintained) at the site exit, advising drivers of vehicle routes agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of local residents.
(16) No loaded lorries shall leave the site unsheeted except those carrying stone with a diameter in excess of 500 millimetres.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of local residents.
(17) Best practicable means/steps shall be taken to ensure that all lorries and plant vehicles associated with the development leaving the site are in such condition as not to emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway. In particular (but without prejudice to the foregoing), efficient means shall be installed prior to the commencement of operations and thereafter maintained and employed at all times during all operations for cleaning the wheels of all lorries leaving the site associated with the development.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent mud and dust getting on the highway.
(18) The surfacing of the site access and the haul road up to the point of the wheel washing facility (approved by way of Condition (17) above) shall be maintained in a good state of repair and kept clean and free of mud and other debris at all times until completion of site restoration and after-care.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and safeguarding the local environment.
(19) A drainage system shall be installed and maintained to ensure that no slurry or water from the development site flows onto the public highway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to prevent water getting on the highway.
Dust, Vermin and Litter Control
(20) No development shall be commenced until an ambient dust survey has been implemented so that a baseline and threshold level can be agreed. Also, no development shall be commenced until a scheme to minimise the emission of dust from the development hereby authorised (including such measures to monitor emissions as considered necessary) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include the water spraying of access and haul roads to suppress dust in periods of prolonged dry weather and shall be implemented in full and the suppression equipment thereafter maintained in accordance with the manufacturers instructions for the duration of the permission, unless with the prior written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority for a variation.
Reason: To protect public health and residential amenity.
(21) No landfilling of controlled waste shall be commenced until a scheme to minimise rodents and scavenging birds and for bird control has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The approved scheme to control scavenging birds during hours of daylight shall be implemented throughout the life of the site seven days a week, and during periods of site closure, unless otherwise agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To protect public health and residential amenity.
Perimeter Bunds and Storage Embankments
(22) All storage bunds above ground level intended to remain in situ for more than six months or over the winter shall be grassed over/vegetated in accordance with a scheme covering vegetation establishment and management that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to bund construction. Such scheme shall include details of weed control and other necessary maintenance. The seed mixture and the application rates shall be approved in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority not less than one month before it is expected to complete the formation of the storage bunds unless otherwise agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To reduce the impact of the development on the locality.
(23) All screen mounds shall be such that the outward facing slopes shall not exceed a gradient of 1 in 3 and the tops of the mound shall be undulating, to avoid an "engineered" appearance. Mounds shall be seeded to grass or a grass/shrub mixture and thereafter maintained throughout the operational life of this permission.
Reason: To reduce the impact of the development on the locality.
Noise
(24) Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme of noise mitigation shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval in writing. This should include:
(i) section details of bunding and fencing around the perimeter of the site;
(ii) measures to mitigate against any adverse noise impact of the proposed gas plant which should also ensure that the night-time standard of BS 4142 will be met;
(iii) details of maximum noise levels from all operations throughout 12 months of the year;
(iv) details of reversing alarms;
(v) details of phasing and movement of acoustic bunds as development progresses;
(vi) additional information on the noise produced at conveyor changeover points.
The scheme shall be fully implemented as approved.
Reason To safeguard the amenity of the area.
(25) All plant and machinery shall operate only during the permitted hours, except in emergency situations, and shall be silenced at all other times in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. Any emergencies to be notified to the Mineral Planning Authority within 24 hours of their occurrence.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.
(26) Noise monitoring surveys shall be implemented as and when required by the Mineral Planning Authority in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority within 12 months of the date of this certificate.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.
Drainage and Water Protection
(27) No development hereby permitted shall be brought into use until a detailed scheme to accommodate surface water runoff, including that of adjacent areas dependent on the area for their own drainage, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. No development shall take place except in accordance with the approved scheme and plan(s).
Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site, the protection of the hydrology of the watercourse and prevent landscape damage arising from consequential engineering works.
(28) No development shall take place until a scheme for monitoring the hydrological and hydrogeological effects of the works on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved and shall include a minimum of 12 months' pre-extraction monitoring. The scheme should be designed and operated to adequately monitor in particular the performance of the hydrological mitigation measures detailed in Section B of the Environmental Statement (as revised) submitted with the Planning Application. The methods and extent of this monitoring shall be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority prior to any works commencing. The effects and performance of the mitigation measures should be assessed on a yearly basis and a report submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for agreement. Any necessary changes to the submitted mitigation measures should be agreed with the Planning Authority before being implemented on site.
Reason: To prevent derogation of water resources in the surrounding area.
Water Protection and Pollution
(29) Any oil, fuel, lubricant and other potential pollutants shall be handled on the site in such a manner as to prevent pollution of any watercourse or aquifer. For any liquid other than water, this shall include storage in suitable tanks and containers which shall be housed in an area surrounded by bund walls of sufficient height and construction so as to contain 110% of the total contents of all containers and associated pipework. The floor and walls of the bunded areas shall be impervious to both water and oil. The pipes should vent downwards into the bund.
Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution of watercourses and aquifers.
(30) No disposal of waste materials shall take place within ten metres of the boundary of any public highway or watercourse.
Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the area.
Landscaping
(31) No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the landscaping of the site, including any ground recontouring where appropriate to allow for advance planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include details of:
(i) the location, species, density and initial sizes of all new trees and shrubs to be planted;
(ii) the programme of implementation of the scheme; and
(iii) the arrangements for subsequent maintenance.
The scheme as approved shall be carried out in full unless with the prior approval of the Mineral Planning Authority in writing to a variation.
Reason: The provision and maintenance of a satisfactory degree of landscaping is considered essential in the interest of visual amenity.
(32) The approved scheme of landscaping/restoration of areas shall be carried out in the planting season coinciding with or immediately following preparation of each phase for planting, in accordance with the programme of implementation approved in Condition 31 above, and shall be so maintained thereafter. Within five years of planting, any trees, shrubs or other plants that die, become diseased, are removed or damaged, shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of a similar size and species in accordance with the details of the approved scheme unless the Mineral Planning Authority gives written approval to any variation.
Reason: The provision and maintenance of a satisfactory degree of landscaping is considered essential in the interest of visual amenity.
(33) No development shall commence until a scheme of advance and early screen planting, including a programme of implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of local amenities.
(34) No development shall commence until details of fencing to be erected to protect existing trees and features of interest on the site such as the edges of protected hedgerow have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority and implemented before the development commences.
Reason: In the interests of local amenities.
(35) The existing trees/bushes/hedges to be retained within the site shall be retained/protected/enhanced in a manner, including protective margins between landfill/hedges, to be approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority before the development commences for the duration of the development and shall not be damaged, destroyed, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped during that period without the previous written approval of the Mineral Planning Authority. Any such trees removed without permission or dying or being seriously damaged or diseased during that period shall be replaced in the following planting season with trees of such size and species as may be approved with the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
Soil Stripping and Storage
(36) All topsoil, subsoil and overburden stripped prior to disposal of waste shall be stored separately and retained on site for use in site restoration. No indigenous topsoil or subsoil shall be used for daily cover during waste disposal operations.
Reason: All soils are required on site to ensure a satisfactory restoration of the land.
(37) All work of soil stripping, stockpiling and reinstatement should be carried out when the material is in a dry and friable condition, and then only along clearly defined routes, both when being moved to storage locations and to final surface position. Topsoil and subsoil shall be transported, and not bladed from a stockpile to position of placement or vice versa.
Reason: To minimise structural damage and compaction of the soil and to aid the final restoration of the site.
(38) Inspection on a regular basis (frequency to be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority prior to waste disposal) shall be undertaken by the site operator to determine if the site is being used for the harbouring or breeding of vermin or insects. Action shall be taken to eradicate vermin or insects if they are found on the site. A written record of inspections shall be kept for access by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of local amenity.
Restoration
(39) The site shall be progressively restored in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of:
(i) the nature and extent of the intended organic/nature conservation after-uses of the site; the agricultural use of the site and the amenity use of the site;
(ii) the sequence and phasing of restoration showing clearly the relationship to the working scheme;
(iii) details of soil depths, types of soil and soil specifications and methods of laying soils, or other materials as appropriate for restoration to the approved land-use which will include deciduous woodland; and, creation of ponds/wildlife habitats;
(iv) the ripping of any compacted layers of cover where appropriate to ensure the adequate drainage and aeration, such ripping should normally take place before placing of any topsoil;
(v) the finished surface being left free from rubble and stones which would hinder cultivation, where appropriate;
(vi) the machinery to be used in soil placement and spreading operations;
(vii) the reinstatement of the plant site and access roads by clearing plant, buildings, machinery and concrete or brickwork, deep cultivation in both directions to remove rocks and other obstructions, replacing of subsoil and then topsoil previously stripped from the sites;
(viii) monitoring of settlement and remedial measures to be adopted;
(ix) a timetable for implementation; and
(x) any other matters as relevant.
Reason: To ensure that the site is restored in an orderly manner to a condition capable of beneficial after-use and in the interests of amenity of local residents.
(40) Except where otherwise approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority, the progressive restoration scheme shall be implemented upon cessation of waste disposal operations in each phase of the development and each area shall be restored to the after-use specified. Likewise all areas of hardstanding, not marked on the scheme of working to be retained post completion of restoration, including site compounds, access and haul roads shall also be restored to the specified after-use.
Reason: To ensure that the site is restored in an orderly manner to a condition capable of beneficial after-use and in the interests of the amenity of local residents.
(41) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority by way of Condition 39 above, on those parts of the site where inert waste only will be tipped, the uppermost two metres of waste materials shall be free from any large solid objects and be graded in accordance with the final tipping levels hereby approved and shall be ripped using appropriate machinery to a minimum depth of 600 millimetres; and on those parts of the site where non-inert waste has been tipped, the tipped waste shall be capped in accordance with any permit granted by the Environment Agency in respect of the disposal of controlled waste prior to the area being restored to approved plans and details.
Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily restored.
(42) In the event the Mineral Planning Authority advises the operator that non-inert tipping is unacceptable in any cell, an alternative scheme for restoring it (remedial measures) shall be submitted within three months to the Mineral Planning Authority and implemented within twelve months as approved.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to adequately control the development and to ensure that the land is restored to a condition capable of beneficial use.
(43) In the event of a cessation of importation of waste to the site, prior to the completion of the approved restoration scheme, which the Mineral Planning Authority considers to be a permanent cessation; a restoration scheme, to include details of after-care, shall be submitted in writing for approval to the Mineral Planning Authority, within six months of the cessation of importations. The approved scheme shall be implemented within three months of the written approval unless otherwise approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Mineral Planning Authority to adequately control the development and to ensure that the land is restored to a condition capable of beneficial use.
(44) After-care of each restored area of land shall take place for a period of five years (unless otherwise specified in this certificate or by way of legal agreement forming part of this consent) and in accordance with the approved outline and detailed schemes, beginning when restoration is completed in accordance with Condition (39) above.
Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily restored.
(45) An after-care scheme, specifying such steps as may be necessary to bring each phase of the land restored under Condition (39) above to the required standard for use for agriculture, nature conservation and amenity shall be submitted for the approval of the Mineral Planning Authority not later than two years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To ensure the restored land is correctly husbanded.
(46) The submitted after-care scheme shall specify in outline the programme of after-care. The programme shall include provision for an annual site meeting with the Mineral Planning Authority to discuss the detailed after-care programme on the restored land.
Reason: To ensure the restored land is correctly husbanded.
Nature Conservation
(47) No tree felling, bush/scrub removal or tree or hedge maintenance/ground clearance or grass cutting shall take place during the annual bird nesting season 1 March to 1 September unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect bush/tree and ground nesting birds.
(48) Prior to the development commencing and prior to any tree felling taking place a bat survey shall be undertaken of potential/existing bat roosting sites and submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority. The survey should include hibernation recommendations for timings and methodology of operations that take place on potential bat roosting sites/hibernation sites which should only be carried out in the months of September-November. Should any roosting sites/hibernation sites need to be removed, this should occur at a time to be agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority in writing. It should be noted that a Bat Workers Licence will be necessary for any works disturbing existing bat roosts.
Reason: To protect existing bat roosting and hibernation sites.
(49) No site clearance or soil stripping will be undertaken until it has been confirmed that no protected species such as woodlarks are nesting on the site, and/or all protected species specified by English Nature have been translocated with, if necessary, elements of their support habitat. Any methodology for translocation of such species is to be agreed beforehand by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To protect rare species.
(50) Prior to the commencement of the development, details of badger tunnels through proposed bunds and 'flap' doors in fences shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval and then implemented prior to extraction operations commencing.
Reason: To allow badgers inhabiting setts to the west to continue to forage on the site.
Archaeology
(51) No development shall take place within the area outlined on Plan A until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: The site is identified as being of high archaeological interest.
Miscellaneous
(52) From the commencement of the development to the cessation of the use hereby permitted a copy of the terms of this planning permission including all documents permitted and any documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission (or amendments approved pursuant to this permission) shall be displayed at the office on the site and shall be made known to any person(s) given responsibility for the management or control of operations on site.
Reason: To enable an easy reference and to encourage compliance with the requirements of this permission (so as to ensure the orderly operation and restoration of the site).
(53) Any skips stored on the land shall be incidental to the landfilling of the site and shall be confined to an area and stored to a height which shall have previously been approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
(54) Prior to the commencement of the landfill operations details for odour suppression shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval in writing.
Reason: In the interests of local amenity.
(55) Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the precise location of the conveyor tunnel crossing points to the west, and east of the A3090; the design details of the crossing and measures for the protection of existing trees and hedgerows at the crossing points shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval in writing.
Reason: In the interests of local amenity.
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 |
Extraction of sand and gravel with restoration back to agricultural land using on site clays and controlled wastes at The Triangle, Ridge, near Romsey (Application No. TVS 08924) (County Council Ref. TV 051) |
County Planning Department |
6720/JD
APPENDIX 1
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 - Schedule 4
PART I
1. Description of the development, including in particular:
(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;
(b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used;
(c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light , heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.
2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.
3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.
4. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from:
(a) the existence of the development;
(b) the use of natural resources;
(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,
and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.
5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.
6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part.
7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.
PART II
1. A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development.
2. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects.
3. The data required to identify and access the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment.
4. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.
5. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Part.
APPENDIX 2
HAMPSHIRE, PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN
Policy 19
The Mineral Planning Authority will grant planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel from land within the following preferred areas, as shown on the proposals map inset maps:
Area 1 - North of Welshman's Road, Mortimer West End;
Area 2 - Bramshill Plateau, Hartley Wintney/Eversley;
Area 3 - Roke Manor, Shootash;
Area 4 - Gardeners Lane (The Triangle), Ridge;
Area 5 - Bleak Hill, Harbridge;
Area 6 - Plumley Wood and Farm, Ringwood Forest;
Area 7 - Blue Haze (North), Ringwood Forest;
provided that the development proposals meet the specific criteria for the preferred area as set out in the text accompanying the proposals map inset maps.
Policy 27
The Mineral Planning Authority will permit the extraction of clay from land within the following preferred areas, as shown on the proposals map inset maps:
Area 8 - Selborne Brickworks, Selborne; and
Area 9 - Michelmersh Brickworks, Michelmersh;
provided that:
(i) the clay is only to be used for the manufacture of bricks and/or tiles at the adjacent brickworks; and
(ii) there is a need for additional permitted reserves of clay to enable the continued production of bricks and/or tiles at the adjacent brickworks which outweighs any adverse environmental, traffic or other impact that the development would be likely to cause; and
(iii) the development proposals meet the specific criteria for the preferred area as set out in the text accompanying the proposals map inset maps.
Policy 28
The extraction of clay (excluding borrow pits) from outside the preferred areas specified in Policy 27 will not be permitted unless the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that there is a clearly established need for the clay for the lining or capping of landfill sites which cannot reasonably and satisfactorily be met from another source and that the need outweighs any adverse environmental, traffic or other impact that the development would be likely to cause.
Policy 37
The Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for waste disposal by landfilling provided they are satisfied that:
(i) the waste to be disposed of cannot practicably and reasonably be reduced, re-used, recycled or processed at a resource recovery plant and there is a proven need for the disposal of the waste by landfilling which cannot reasonably be met by other suitable existing or permitted waste disposal facilities within a reasonable distance of the source of the waste or by the preferred areas in Policy 38; and
(ii) the proposed landfilling would normally take place within a mineral working site that:
(a) is an active extraction site; or
(b) has been unsatisfactorily restored and landfilling would enable satisfactory restoration to be achieved; or
(c) has been restored below original levels and there would be an environmental benefit from the raising of levels by infilling; and
(iii) the proposed site is located near to and has adequate access to the Hampshire Lorry Route Network (as shown on the proposals map), so that the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable traffic impact (including the environmental impact of traffic) on the local highway network; and
(iv) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that no unacceptable impact would be likely to be caused to the occupants or users of houses, other residential buildings, schools, hospitals and other environmentally sensitive buildings and land uses by reason of noise, dust, fumes, smell or other cause; and
(v) the proposed site is located so as to avoid unacceptable impact on landscape, nature conservation and archaeological interests; and
(vi) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that there would be no significant risk of pollution or danger to public health or safety.
Policy 42
The Waste Planning Authorities will not permit the disposal of waste by landfilling or land raising where they consider there is a significant risk that the type(s) of waste proposed to be deposited would:
(i) cause pollution of surface drainage or groundwater; or
(ii) give rise to the production of landfill gas such that it would cause an environmental problem in the locality; or
(iii) give rise to any other unacceptable environmental or other effect in the locality.
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN 1996-2011 (REVIEW) (ADOPTED 27 MARCH 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 MW3
Permission will not be granted for minerals and waste development which is likely to cause material harm to any of the following designated areas and sites:
The New Forest;
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
Special Areas of Conservation;
Special Protection Areas;
Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites);
Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
National Nature Reserves;
nationally important archaeological sites and monuments, whether scheduled or not, and their settings;
Conservation Areas;
Listed Buildings; and
Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest on English Heritage's National Register;
except where the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority considers that there is an overriding need for the development to take place in the public interest which outweighs the harm that would be caused, having regard to the level of protection given to the designation concerned in legislation or government guidance.
Policy MW6
Planning authorities will seek a reduction in the quantity of waste requiring treatment or disposal, including a significant reduction in the quantity of non-inert waste disposed by landfilling.
The waste 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, the provision of sufficient facilities to meet the need for the management of all unavoidable waste (excluding special waste) arising in Hampshire.
Having regard to Policy MW1(v), permission will be granted for:
(i) facilities for the re-use and recycling of waste, including the production of secondary and recycled aggregate materials;
(ii) facilities for composting, anaerobic digestion, incineration with energy recovery and other methods of resource recovery waste processing sufficient only to cater for unavoidable non-inert waste which is not re-used or recycled;
(iii) landfill capacity sufficient only for the disposal of unavoidable waste which is not re-used, recycled or processed; and
(iv) waste transfer stations to serve areas of local waste processing and disposal facility shortage;
provided that the development would not have unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact.
Policy MW8
The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan will establish the need for waste management facilities in Hampshire. Sites for waste management development will be identified in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan including, in particular, sites for a network of integrated non-inert waste management facilities and for the landfilling of inert and non-inert wastes. As far as is practicable and environmentally acceptable, sites will be located to enable the provision of adequate facilities to serve the main waste producing centres in Hampshire.
APPENDIX 3
LIST OF OBJECTORS
APPENDIX 4
SITE VISITS
1. The former Roads and Development Sub-Committee undertook a site visit on 15 November 2000 to consider the Ridge application prior to a report being submitted to the formal meeting in December 2000. At that meeting the Sub-Committee deferred taking a decision to enable further discussions with local interests to take place, and accordingly responsibility for determining the application passed to this Committee. It was felt that a site visit should be undertaken so that Members could familiarise themselves with the site and hear local comments.
2. Introduction
2.1 The Committee visited the site on 22 August 2001 and met representatives of Test Valley Borough Council and Romsey Extra and Wellow Parish Councils, together with local residents. The comments of those present are outlined in the ensuing paragraphs.
3. Comments of the County Planning Officer
3.1 The County Planning Officer stressed that no decision on the application would be taken at the site visit. He felt that the report circulated before the visit addressed most of the comments which had been raised and advised that any points made in correspondence received since the preparation of the report would be adequately covered in the final report on the application. The County Council was still undertaking the formal analysis of the working and restoration options for the site.
3.2 The County Planning Officer drew attention to recent references in the press to research undertaken by the small areas statistics unit on the effects of landfill sites. As outlined in the report for the site visit the Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority had assessed the risk to public health, but had been asked to reconsider their views in the light of the press references described above.
4. Comments of Those Present
4.1 Comments were made by those present at the site visit as follows:
(i) The representative of Romsey Extra Parish Council advised that a further letter of objection had been sent in and drew particular attention to the disturbance of the clay being against County Council policy and concerns about the impact of the workings on the ecology of the western slope of the site. Hydrology was the key to the whole area.
(ii) Mr Biggs circulated a detailed letter to all Members of the Committee and his comments are addressed further on in this report. He felt that many of the issues discussed at the mediation sessions had not been included in the site visit report and was concerned about its impartiality.
(iii) Mr Leeman opposed the tipping of household waste at the site in view of the possible adverse impact on future generations.
(iv) Mrs Sutton was concerned about misrepresentations in the site visit report and drew attention to a letter which she had submitted to the Chairman on the evening before the visit. The County Planning Officer confirmed that this letter would be addressed in the report to the Committee. She felt that there should be a 400 metre gap between workings and nearby properties as per a recent requirement imposed on a permission for an agricultural development.
(v) Mr Bare advised that he was the owner of Kentford Farm which comprised 130 acres of hard worked land and 12½ acres of lakes. The farm was utterly dependant upon local water supplies and he was concerned that the application, if granted, might result in their contamination.
(vi) Mr Bradshaw was concerned about noise, dust and odours and advised that the level of dust had increased since a gas main had been laid along the edge of the field; he felt that dust levels would increase if this development went ahead. He stressed the need to take measurements at the current time before any works start on the site and was concerned about the possible impact on the foundations of houses along Gardeners Lane.
(vii) Dr Yorston advised that he would write to the Chairman concerning health issues.
(viii) Mr Robertson was concerned about some inaccuracies in the briefing note and felt that the Committee should inspect the areas surrounding the whole site as well as the site itself.
(ix) The representative of Wellow Parish Council expressed her support for the views of Romsey Extra Parish Council, in particular the concerns relating to hydrology.
(x) The representative of the applicants felt that technical issues had been addressed and stressed the need for the mineral and the resultant void space.
5. Comments of Councillors
5.1 Concerns were expressed about the possible effect on water tables and in response the County Planning Officer drew attention to the role of the Environment Agency in assessing effects. Attention was drawn to the views of hydrological consultants which had been outlined at the previous site visit on 15 November and it was requested that the Regulatory Committee be advised of these views.
5.2 In response to a request the County Planning Officer agreed to add an appendix to this report setting out the details of the mediation process.
5.3 Members were reminded that a further site visit would be held on 20 September for the benefit of local residents who had been unable to attend the 22 August visit. It was agreed that during this second visit Members of the Committee would be shown the various properties near to the site and that an itinerary would be drawn up, eg local residents and suitable transport provided for Members from an initial meeting point in the area.
6. Report on the Second Site Visit
6.1 Mr Robertson spoke initially on behalf of objectors and stressed their concern that the application might potentially change the surrounding landscape and have an adverse impact on hydrology and the various nature conservation areas.
6.2 Two stops were first made at land owned by Mr Bare of Kentford Farm and he drew attention to the large amount of time and effort spent in creating land which as fit for agricultural use which had entailed installation of an extensive drainage system. A pond created by Mr Bare was also visited. His main concern was in respect of water pollution and the replacement of gravel as a permeable substance by clay which is impermeable and which might thus adversely affect ground water flows.
6.3 A commercial nursery using spring water to crow salad crops and other plants was also viewed.
6.4 Members next visited land owned by Mr and Mrs Sutton of Gardeners Lane and Mr Sutton first gave a short talk on the conservation work that had been carried out on his land over several years. Wildlife expert, Mr Taverner then advised of the richness of the land for dragonflies of which 23 species had been identified amounting to 75% of the entire dragonfly species that breed in the southern area of the country. This thus made it one of the most important areas for dragonflies in Britain and in addition there is a large bird and butterfly population.
6.5 Environmental consultant, Mr Allen, drew attention to the high acidity of the water in some of the areas and the plants and animals that co-exist there and his concerns of possible impact of the development on such areas.
APPENDIX 5
Criteria for Working Preferred Area No. 4 (Summary) - any application to work this area should, in particular, address the following:-
(i) Unworked margins and screening advance planting prior to extraction, and no mineral extraction on the southernmost field;
(ii) an assessment of the potential environmental impact of noise, dust and traffic;
(iii) access shall be to a realigned Gardeners Lane close to its junction with the A3090.
(iv) extraction shall not commence until it has ceased at the existing Ridge Quarry to the south-east. Working shall be phased;
(v) only one sand and gravel processing plant will be permitted to be in operation at Ridge (ie the preferred area and the existing Ridge Farm Site to the south-east). The area could be served by conveyor under the A3090 to the existing Ridge processing plant site;
(vi) restoration should be progressively to agricultural land of a quality equivalent to that existing by backfilling with waste materials to a landform appropriate to the area;
(vii) infilling with waste materials will only be permitted provided that satisfactory restoration of the land can be achieved. Infilling may be restricted to inert waste materials only, if this is considered necessary, in order to protect local amenity or the environment of the area or surrounding land;
(viii) soils and overburden - removal and storage for restoration;
(ix) a hydrological study will be required to assess possible impact on groundwater and on drainage of land and watercourses around the site, including the Embley Wood habitat complex to the west and the streams feeding the River Blackwater to the south-east;
(x) an ecological and landscape evaluation will be required. Existing trees and hedgerow should, as far as is practicable, be retained and protected;
(xi) an archaeological evaluation will be required.
The Plan adds that permission will not be granted unless the Council is satisfied that the area can be worked and returned without causing unacceptable impact.