Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext 6728

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought to extend the time for the operation of the concrete block plant at Ellingham Drove, Ibsley for a further 12 years, together with retention of vehicular access and the formation of a landscape screen bund. The recommendation is to grant planning permission, subject to conditions.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The site, illustrated on the attached plan, comprises an area of 4.5 hectares on the southern boundary of the Ibsley Airfield gravel pit, adjoining the processing plant, which is operated by Hanson Aggregates. The access is from Ellingham Drove and then to the A338. The nearest houses are at Moyles Court, which is about 200 metres from the site. The nearby lakes, resulting from mineral extraction, are within the Avon Valley (Bickton-Christchurch) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Avon Valley Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar site. Whilst the site is outside the New Forest Heritage Area, it is within the area proposed for the New Forest National Park.

2.2 The current planning permission requires the removal of the plant and the restoration of the site by 31 December 2002 or the completion of the extraction at Ibsley Airfield quarry, whichever is the sooner. It is anticipated that extraction at the quarry would be completed by the end of 2002. The application is to retain the concrete block plant for a further 12 years.

2.3 The concrete block plant has historically been supplied with aggregate from the adjacent Ibsley Airfield quarry. The retention of the plant will necessitate the importation of aggregate. The proposal is to continue supply from other local quarries, such as Blashford Quarry. The applicant is prepared to enter into a legal agreement to restrict the supply of gravel to the plant from quarries in the Avon Valley.

2.4 The proposal includes an amendment to the current access, which would no longer be required for the gravel pit, additional bunding and landscaping. It is also proposed to restrict working hours and not allow removal of any gravel from beneath the site.

2.5 The applicant proposes to set up a community fund by donating 0.03 pence for every square metre of concrete block sold from the site which, at current production levels, would amount to £20,000 per year. The fund would be administered by a charitable trust involving Hanson Concrete Products (the applicant), Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water plc (the landowner) and local community representatives. The fund would be secured through a legal agreement.

2.6 The concrete block plant provides a wide range of high quality products. The applicant comments that there is only one other concrete block plant in Hampshire, which does not have the capacity or product range to be able to supply the market should the Ibsley plant close. In view of the size and cost of a modern plant, the applicant considers it unlikely that a replacement plant would be constructed in Hampshire. Consequently, the market would be supplied from plants outside the county, with a resultant increase in the distance travelled by vehicles to reach the Hampshire, Southampton and Bournemouth markets, mainly on Hampshire roads. A Transport and Sustainability Statement has been submitted with the application.

2.7 The applicant has submitted a noise assessment which concluded that noise from the plant's operation is contained to acceptable levels. A visual assessment has also been submitted which concluded that the retention of the concrete block works would be offset by the proposed landscaping.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policy 35 concerns minerals processing and manufacturing plant (see attached appendix).

4. Consultations

4.1 The County Surveyor (Highways), Environment Agency and New Forest District Council's Environmental Health Officer raise no objection.

4.2 English Nature comments that it does not anticipate that the continued use of the concrete block plant will have significant impacts on wildlife. However, the application does not address restoration and after-use once the use ceases. Restoration should provide for opportunities for enhancement of the interests in the area in the longer term.

4.3 The Hampshire Wildlife Trust has no observations.

4.4 The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds raises no objection but comments that it should be ensured that the site is restored taking measures to further wildlife conservation and enhancement.

4.5 The New Forest Committee raises objection because:

(i) it is considered to be an inappropriate type of activity to take place within the Heritage Area (sic), in that it involves industrial use of a large site distant from any built-up area, within an area of some landscape and ecological sensitivity; and

(ii) it involves the use of Ellingham Drove by heavy commercial vehicles which is also detrimental to the character of the area.

4.6 The New Forest Committee understands that the original reason for locating the plant in this area, ie the presence of active mineral workings nearby, no longer exists, in that these workings will soon cease. There would not be any other special justification in terms of, for example, national need, that would override the normal policy objections to such a proposal that would prevail in a National Park.

4.7 The Council for National Parks raises objection on the grounds that the continuation of the industrial use would be inappropriate within the proposed National Park area. The applicant has not demonstrated a national need, lack of alternatives or that the proposal is in the national interest. The proposal is in conflict with national policy as there are no exceptional circumstances. Therefore, there is no special justification to allow this departure.

4.8 Ellingham Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council supports the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the plant is well screened and not obtrusive to the area;

(ii) it is well run and causes minimal disturbance or inconvenience;

(iii) it creates local employment; and

(iv) the management maintains regular liaison meetings and meaningful consultation with the Parish Council and is anxious to play an active role in the local environment and local community.

4.9 The local Member, Councillor Mrs Heron, raises no objection.

4.10 A total of 19 letters of support have been received. Whilst the majority have been employees or associated with the concrete block works, letters of support have also been received from the RAF Ibsley Historical Group, and the nearest local residents consider that the application should be approved.

5. District Council's Views

5.1 New Forest District Council comments that whilst the use is clearly not one that should be perpetuated for any longer than necessary, a temporary permission may be appropriate and it suggests a four year period.

6. County Planning Officer's Comments

6.1 The concrete block works were initially developed on the basis of being supplied from the adjacent Ibsley quarry, and so were in accordance with policy. With the completion of mineral extraction the block works would in future be dependent on imported aggregate, which would not have the same level of policy support. In addition, the works are within the area proposed to be included in the New Forest National Park, although outside the boundary of the New Forest Heritage Area, which raises a further policy issue.

6.2 The applicant states that it is proposed to continue to supply the works from locally sourced aggregate, albeit not from a quarry adjoining the site, therefore arguing that the logic of having the concrete block plant close to the source of aggregate still applies, and there would not be long distance importation. In addition, the applicant states that there continues to be a need in Hampshire and Dorset for the building products, which would have to be served from distant sources if the existing plant closes. The proposed retention of the plant would not be in accordance with Policy 35 of the Local Plan, because it is not within or adjacent to the extraction site. However, it is accepted that there are aggregate reserves processed through the nearby Blashford Pit which would supply the concrete works and that this is preferable to long distance imports. The applicant is willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure this restriction. Therefore, the proposal is a departure, but for a temporary period the principle of local supply could still be met. Accordingly, beyond that time local supply of aggregate would stop and it would be a breach of the principles of sustainability to allow the plant to operate after 2010.

6.3 The site is not within the New Forest Heritage Area, but is within the area proposed for the New Forest National Park. Although it is a large industrial site, it is not intrusive because it is well screened, with additional landscaping proposed as part of this proposal. There will continue to be mineral extraction activity in the vicinity for some years. A legal agreement is also proposed to provide substantial funding for local environmental improvements during the lifetime proposed for the concrete block works. In addition, the application is for a temporary period. Therefore, whilst recognising the sensitivity of a location within a proposed National Park, it is not considered that the temporary retention of the works, even for the period requested, would be prejudicial in the long term to the area if designated as being within the National Park. Whilst not in accordance with current National Park policy, the proposal is for a temporary period, with restoration of the site on completion. The restoration details can be required by conditions to ensure that restoration is appropriate for a site within a National Park and adjacent to important nature conservation sites.

6.4 In conclusion, it is considered that although the proposal is a departure from policy and the site is within the area proposed for the New Forest National Park, the proposal is for a temporary period, its operation has not in the past caused environmental problems and the site is well screened and not intrusive. Therefore, it is considered that the temporary continuation, with additional landscaping, would not be prejudicial to the area nor prejudice the long term restoration of the area appropriate for a National Park.

Recommendation

That, subject to a legal agreement to provide a community fund for the benefit of the community and environment within the Blashford Lakes area and the restriction of aggregates to those from the Avon Valley, and the procedures under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan and Consultations) (Departures) Directions 1999 being discharged, planning permission in respect of the variation of condition to retain the concrete block plant, and retention of vehicular access and formation of a landscape screen bund at Ellingham Drove, Ibsley, Ringwood (Application Nos. 72196 and 73193) be granted, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The concrete block works shall be removed and all hardstandings, stockpiles and materials shall be removed by 31 December 2010, and the site restored in accordance with Condition (4) below by 31 December 2011.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity and because the development is not suitable for permanent retention.

(2) Machinery and plant shall only be worked and vehicles shall only enter or leave the site between 0600 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0600 and 1400 Saturday. In addition, routine maintenance may be carried out between 1400 and 1800 hours on Saturday.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(3) Block storage shall be restricted to the block works and block storage area as shown on drawing no. 321/3.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(4) Within three months of the date of this consent a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority in writing. The scheme shall specify the height of the bunds, types, size and species of all trees and shrubs to be planted, details of all trees to be retained, details of fencing/enclosure of the site, timescales for carrying out the work and the provision of future maintenance. Any trees or shrubs which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(5) Within five years of the date of this consent a restoration scheme shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall provide for the restoration of the site and landscaping following the removal of all buildings, plant, structures, hardstandings, stockpiles and bunds. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(6) Within six months of the date of this consent an environmental management scheme shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include measures for monitoring and mitigation for noise and dust. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To monitor and control environmental impacts in the interests of local amenity.

6817PDC

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN (ADOPTED 17 DECEMBER 1998)

Policy 35

In cases where it is not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, the Mineral Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals processing and manufacturing plant and other development ancillary to the extraction, landing or unloading of minerals within the boundaries of, or adjacent to, mineral extraction sites, aggregates wharves and rail-head aggregates depots, provided that:

(i) in the case of processing plant, it is required to process minerals either extracted from the mineral working site, landed at the wharf or delivered by rail to the depot;

(ii) in the case of manufacturing plant, the greater part of the minerals to be used to manufacture the product will be either extracted from the mineral working site, landed at the wharf or delivered by rail to the depot, and the manufacturing activities will remain ancillary to the primary use of the site as a mineral extraction site, aggregates wharf or rail-head aggregates depot;

(iii) in the case of other ancillary development, the development is required solely in connection with the administration or servicing of the mineral working site, wharf or depot;

(iv) the plant or other development is to be designed, constructed and landscaped so as to minimise any adverse impact on the amenities of the area and, in any case, it would not be likely to give rise to any unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact;

(v) the size, type and nature of the plant or other development are appropriate to the scale of the mineral extraction site, aggregates wharf or rail-head aggregates depot for which it is required; and

(vi) the plant, structure or building would be removed as soon as extraction of minerals from the mineral working site has permanently ceased or the use of the aggregates wharf or rail-head aggregates depot has ceased and the site would be restored to a satisfactory condition suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.

Where permission is granted for minerals processing or manufacturing plant at or adjacent to a mineral extraction site, this will be subject to conditions preventing the importation of material from elsewhere, with the exception of material that is necessary for the operation of the plant but is not, or was not formerly, extracted from the mineral extraction site.