Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext 6728

1. Site and Proposal

1.1 The site, illustrated on the attached plan, totals an area of 2.85 hectares between the A31 and the railway on the outskirts of Alton and Holybourne. The nearest houses are Bonhams Farm (about 350 metres to the north), Hawbridge Farm (about 350 metres to the south) and Badgers Bank (about 350 metres to the east). The land to the east is a field and to the west is a rail-linked oil terminal. The site currently contains a redundant warehouse, three Nissen huts and smaller ancillary buildings. The maximum height of the existing building is about 14.6 metres, with an eaves height of 11.5 metres. The proposal is to demolish these buildings and construct a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF), waste transfer station and ancillary depot uses.

1.2 The MRF building would measure 114 metres x 45.5 metres with a maximum height of 15.2 metres in a central elevated section. It would be a steel portal-framed building with profiled steel sheeting and roller shutter doors. The MRF is designed to separate card, paper, plastics and cans from co-mingled dry recyclable waste. This is undertaken using a combination of mechanical (conveyors, screens, belt sorters and air blowers) and hand sorting techniques. The sorted recyclables would then be baled and transported to reprocessing facilities elsewhere in the country.

1.3 The waste transfer station would be a continuation of the MRF building, of the same construction, measuring 37 metres x 45.5 metres with a maximum height of 12.97 metres. The purpose of the building is to take locally collected non-recyclable waste, which would then be loaded by mechanical shovel into larger vehicles for bulk transportation for waste treatment, processing or final disposal.

1.4 The proposal includes the development of a depot for local waste collection vehicles. A two storey office and amenity building would be constructed adjacent to the road frontage. A workshop/store, measuring 31 metres x 12.5 metres x 7.8 metres to the eaves, would form an extension to the waste transfer building. The workshop would enable vehicle and plant maintenance to be carried out on-site. In addition, two external weighbridges and a single storey weighbridge office would be installed at the site entrance. There would also be areas for car parking, overnight parking for waste collection vehicles and a hardstanding for storage of wheelie bins and empty waste collection containers. There would also be fuel storage and vehicle wash-down facilities. The proposal includes 60 car parking spaces for staff and 19 lorry parking spaces for the depot proposal.

1.5 The initial throughput would be about 67,000 tonnes of waste per year, rising to an expected 125,000 tonnes of waste a year by 2006. The facility would have a capacity to increase to 190,000 tonnes per year, if required. The waste would comprise domestic collected waste, mixed dry recyclables, Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) waste and commercial waste. The expected volumes by 2006 would be 30,000 tonnes of domestic collected waste, 75,000 tonnes of dry recyclables, 10,000 tonnes of HWRC waste and 10,000 tonnes of commercial waste.

1.6 Access to the site would be via the existing access onto the A31. The proposal includes modifications to extend the slip road acceleration lane where it joins the A31. The anticipated heavy goods vehicle (HGV) traffic based on the expected 2006 throughput would be 238 movements per day (166 for the MRF and waste transfer station, 72 for the depot). However, the initial traffic movements on commissioning are expected to be lower at 156 daily movements. All HGV traffic travelling to the site would be routed along the A31, those approaching the site from the west would go past the site to the Bentley slip road and then back to the site from the east. The applicant is prepared to enter into a legal agreement to secure compliance with this routeing. Whilst the proposal is based on road transport use, the location adjoining the railway is recognised, and an area within the site has been safeguarded for a possible rail link if feasible in the future.

1.7 The proposed main MRF/waste transfer building would be a large modern industrial structure. The applicant comments that attention has been paid to its architectural design to reduce the massing and provide a varied elevation. In addition, landscape planting is proposed alongside the A31, as well as `gapping up' of existing vegetation.

1.8 The development would provide employment for about 100 people, including drivers, shift and part-time employees. The facility would be capable of 24 hour working, with the main operating hours between 0600 and 2200.

2. Environmental Statement

2.1 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

2.2 The Environmental Statement meets the requirements of the Regulations and describes the development, provides the planning context and considers the environmental effects in terms of landscape and visual impact, traffic, ecology, noise, archaeology, land quality, water issues, odour and dust.

2.3 The conclusion is that the proposal would help achieve the increased rates of recycling needed to deliver national and county targets. The proposal would be an improvement on the current land use in visual and landscape terms. There are no significant environmental effects arising from the development that cannot be mitigated through the project design.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted December 1998) Policy 46 concerns proposals for recycling and waste transfer (see attached appendix).

4. Consultation

4.1 Froyle Parish Council comments that overall it is not opposed to the development, but there is the potential for considerable environmental impact on the surrounding area. These concerns are visual impact, traffic, lighting, odour, noise and wind-blown debris. The Parish Council wishes to object, but would consider withdrawing objection if concerns were resolved.

4.2 Alton Town Council raises no objection and recognises the need for the development. Comments that colour of buildings should not be grey as proposed; light pollution should be minimised; measures for vermin control agreed; planting along A31 frontage increased; hours of working restricted to between 0800 and 1800 Monday to Saturday; lorries routed to avoid right turns out of site and avoid A339 to Basingstoke via Alton; crash barriers should be installed in the central reservation of A31; and low noise surfacing of road should be considered. A noise condition is suggested. The Town Council considers the site to be totally inappropriate for an incinerator and requests an undertaking not to request permission for an incinerator in the future.

4.3 Binsted Parish Council raises no objection. It welcomes the routeing proposal to use Bentley slip road and requests this routeing also applies to construction traffic. Due to the accident record the Parish Council requests crash barriers are installed in the central reservation opposite the site. It also requests tree planting with larger trees alongside A31 and additional planting at rear of site to screen views from Hawbridge Farm.

4.4 The Holybourne Village Association comments that it is prepared to respond in a positive and constructive manner. It has some concerns about the proposal and major worries about the longer term implications, which are:

(i) Traffic volume - concern that lorry traffic servicing the site could have a bad effect on the roads in Alton, although Holybourne not directly affected. If going to/from Basingstoke suggests routeing via M3 and Blackwater Valley Road.

(ii) Noise - noise potential problem from lorry traffic and machinery operating within site. Opposes the proposed hours of operation, should not operate outside normal working hours.

(iii) Visual impact - reducing visual impact is a key point. Onyx receptive to suggested alternative colour scheme, lighting proposed to be low level and directed downwards, and need for landscape screening with fast growing native species.

(iv) Odour - potential for odour from waste transfer station, need for odour neutralising procedures.

(v) Future development - major cause for concern, would like safeguards that the site, or neighbouring oil terminal, will not be expanded for more intensive operations or used for the construction of an incinerator.

4.5 The County Surveyor (Highways) states that the access to the site is via the existing arrangements to the A31 but with some modification. Whilst there is no gap in the central reservation opposite the site, there are three gaps about one kilometre from the site at the `Hen and Chicken' public house. These are for local traffic and to serve the public house and adjacent petrol filling station. There are no restrictions banning U-turns at this junction, and it has a poor safety record which includes fatalities. The applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to route HGVs avoiding use of this U-turn. Consideration is being given to improvements at this junction regarding safety, and the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards appropriate measures. In addition, the slip onto the A31 needs lengthening and the parking layby amending. These would also be covered by the legal agreement. The site is alongside the railway and the potential for use of rail has been discussed with the applicant, who is keen to make use of the facility if possible, but it is unlikely that negotiations with the rail operators and likely destination points could be achieved in the short term. In conclusion, the proposal is acceptable in highway terms, given its location on a strategic lorry route, the existing use of the site and its impact on the highway network. Therefore, subject to the completion of a legal agreement and conditions, no objection is raised.

4.6 The County Surveyor (Waste Management) supports the proposals, as it would provide MRF capacity to deliver statutory recycling objectives and the waste transfer station would provide a needed local delivery point for household waste.

4.7 The Environment Agency (South East Thames) raises no objection, subject to conditions.

4.8 East Hampshire District Council's Environmental Health Officer recommends that the hours of operation be restricted to between 0630 and 2200 and details be required of pest control and type of equipment.

4.9 Railtrack raises no objection, subject to conditions.

4.10 Councillors Scott, Filer and Ludlow have been informed.

5. District Council's Views

5.1 East Hampshire Borough Council's views are awaited.

6. County Planning Officer's Comments

6.1 In principle, the proposal is in accordance with policy as the site is an existing industrial/commercial site. The site is some distance from housing and has direct access to the A31, which is a strategic lorry route. There is a clear need for the MRF to meet Hampshire's recycling requirements, and there is the need for the waste transfer station and depot to provide a local facility for the local household waste collection service.

6.2 The issues are the impact of the proposal on the locality in terms of visual amenity (both due to the scale of the proposed building and lighting), lorry traffic, hours of operation, noise and odour, and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

6.3 There are strong local concerns about possible future developments at the site, in particular about the possible future construction of an incinerator at or alongside the site. The planning application does not propose any such development. If an incinerator was proposed it would require a separate planning permission. However, it is not possible to require the undertaking sought by Alton Town Council and Holybourne Village Association that no further proposal will be sought.

7236/PDC

APPENDIX

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

Policy 46

The Waste Planning Authorities will normally permit the use of land and the erection of plant and buildings for the recycling, transfer, storage and other treatment or handling of waste (excluding waste processing facilities covered by Policy 45) provided that:

(i) the proposed site is located near to the likely source(s) of waste and/or the market(s) for the recycled or recovered materials; and

(ii) the proposed site is located close 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

(iii) the proposed site is located:

(a) within an existing industrial site or on land which is permitted or allocated for industrial development; or

(b) within an area of land in the countryside that has already been disturbed by permanent development (a brownfield site); or

(c) at a waste disposal landfill or landraising site provided that the proposed development is connected with the waste disposal operation and is for a temporary period commensurate with the operational life of the waste disposal facility; 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; and

(vii) the proposed site is located and, if necessary, the proposal includes landscaping measures to ensure that the development would not cause unacceptable visual intrusion.