Contact: Julia Davey, ext 6732

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of two landforms of imported inert waste at Owls Lodge Farm, Longparish. The landforms would be associated with the clay pigeon shooting that takes place on the site. The recommendation is that permission be refused as the development is contrary to waste planning policy.

2. Background

2.1 The site, illustrated on the attached plan, extends across 10 hectares of land south of the village of Longparish within the valley of the River Test Heritage Area.

2.2 The site is within land, operated as a clay pigeon shooting club, which is currently enclosed by earth bunds to the east, south and west, in accordance with a previous planning permission granted by Test Valley Borough Council.

2.3 Planning permission was granted by the Borough Council for static shooting (which takes place from trenches in the southern part of the site), and for mobile clay pigeon shooting (extending to the northern part of the site) which is yet to be implemented. This involves club members carrying traps around the site.

2.4 Last month, June 2002, a Judicial Review application against the decision of Test Valley Borough Council to grant permission for the shooting was withdrawn by the local residents concerned. It is understood this was partly because of a lack of substantial noise evidence to support their case.

2.5 In the centre of the site is a dome of earth already constructed as a backdrop to the static shooting. This `dome' does not currently have planning permission and, on the advice of the Borough Council, was incorporated into this application.

2.6 There have been some noise complaints from one or two local residents which have never been substantiated by the Borough Council.

3. Proposal

3.1 Planning permission is sought to construct a new landform to the north of the site, enabling the existing shooting area to be fully enclosed, through the importation of approximately 78,000 cubic metres of inert waste. The bund created (landform B) would be approximately 570 metres long and 5 metres high at a maximum.

3.2 The justification for this landform is twofold. Firstly, it would enable the applicant to farm his land to the north of the site, which currently has an agricultural use restriction on it. This restriction was imposed by Test Valley Borough Council to protect the safety of agricultural workers in case pellets from the shooting being fired across the land. However, the land is currently in agricultural use. The second reason is to protect residents from noise, particularly that which will be created by the mobile shooting yet to be implemented.

3.3 Retrospective planning permission is also sought for the earth dome (landform A) that has been created in the centre part of the site to create a backdrop to the static shooting that takes place in the southern part of the site.

3.4 The applicant proposes that importation of material for landform B would take place between the hours of 0730 and 1700 Monday to Saturday over an unspecified period. The applicant states it is difficult to suggest a time period as the contract would depend on the availability of locally suitable material.

3.5 By way of additional information the applicant states that the shooting ground is bunded for safety and sound protection, as advised by the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association's 'Code of Practice'. The applicant also states that Longparish Parish Council has asked, in correspondence to the Borough Council, for the northern area to be bunded and gave total support to the application at a recent Parish Council meeting.

3.6 The applicant states that, as a sign of goodwill to those objectors who consider his site is causing rubbish to blow on to their land, he would erect a stock proof netting fence. He states, however, that the rubbish is from the A303 not from his land.

3.7 The applicant has also subsequently submitted two noise surveys undertaken in relation to his site and the Borough Council has copies of these. The reports were undertaken in relation to the application submitted to the Borough Council for shooting at Owls Lodge Farm. The first was undertaken by BRE (Building Research Establishment Limited) Consultants (report dated 1 October 2001) for a group of Longparish residents. The assessment was based on a test shoot at Vale Farm and Southside Farm. It concluded that shooting from the site is highly likely to cause annoyance and high shooting noise levels would at selected locations "be in the low 60's dB". It stated that the background levels at Vale Farm and Southside Farm were 39 and 43 dB LA90 respectively and concludes that planning permission should not be granted for a major shoot at Owls Lodge Farm.

3.8 The second survey was undertaken by ARUP Acoustics for Test Valley Borough Council at the same time. It concludes that "the results of the field measurements show that for the most non-advantageous weather conditions the noise exposure of the nearest noise sensitive receptors is not such that annoyance would definitely be expected and neither is it of such value that annoyance is ruled out. Accordingly, it is recommended that this application should not be refused on noise grounds but it should be allowed with conditions attached to control the level of noise exposure expected".

4. Development Plan

4.1 The following policies apply to the proposal (see attached appendix):

Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) (adopted March 2000) - MW1, MW2, MW3, R3, C1 and C2.

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted December 1998) -37, 39, 42, 6 and 7.

5. Consultations

5.1 The Environment Agency and the County Surveyor (Waste Management) raise no objection to the proposal.

5.2 The County Surveyor (Highways) raises no objection to the application, subject to a routeing agreement for lorries to turn south out of the site entrance to ensure that no traffic will pass through Longparish, unless collecting material from a site within the village.

5.3 The Health and Safety Executive states that there are no reasons on major hazard grounds for advising against the granting of planning permission.

5.4 Longparish Parish Council raises no objection to the proposal.

5.5 The Environmental Health Officer initially raised no comments or observations regarding the application. He states the last complaint received from a local resident was on 8 November 2001. The Environmental Health Officer was unable to determine whether the complaint was justified. His personal view is that "the proposed earthworks are unlikely to give significant improvement to the residents of Longparish with regard to noise from static shooting". With regard to the future implementation of sports shooting, the Environmental Health Officer states that he is unable to estimate how much of an effect the proposed bunding would have because of a lack of noise information. If permission is granted for the development he recommends that the sports shooting is aimed south, away from Longparish towards the A303.

5.6 Sport England supports the application on the basis that the new landforms would both improve the amenity of neighbouring villages and properties, as well as making the existing clay pigeon shooting range more effective and safe.

5.7 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not wish to comment on the principle of the proposals. It notes that the site is within an Area of Grade 3 agricultural land and that there is a need for a detailed method of working, to avoid loss of existing topsoil, and to grass seed the bunds.

5.8 Barton Stacey Parish Council's comments are awaited.

5.9 The local Member, Councillor Pierce, has been informed of the application.

6. Representations

6.1 Objections have been received from three local residents on the following grounds:

(i)there is no need for any further tipping in Longparish;

(ii)the Borough Council assured local residents that noise would not be a problem when the shooting school was granted planning permission;

(iii)rubbish from existing tipping blowing onto adjacent land and measures need to be taken to protect adjacent land (to the east) from lead shot;

(iv)concern about measures to be taken to ensure tipping is inert;

(v)need justification that landform B will reduce noise levels;

(vi)questions why the Borough Council has not taken enforcement action over current agricultural use of restricted field to the north;

(vii)concern over control of any imported material, would a waste licence be required;

(viii)what reassurance that visual and nature conservation aspects will not be harmed and that the amenity of local residents will not be adversely affected; and

(ix)confirmation that Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

6.2 White & Bowker Solicitors, on behalf of the Longparish Residents' Action Group, hoped that this application, along with the Borough Council's permission for the shooting school on the site (TVN06331/5), should be determined before the Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court which were to take place on 21 and 22 June 2002. The Solicitors considered that the High Court may quash the shooting school permission, making this current application for a noise bund unnecessary. In the event, this comment is no longer relevant as the application to the High Court on behalf of the Residents' Action Group was withdrawn.

6.3 White & Bowker also consider a screening process should be undertaken for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

7. Borough Council's Views

7.1 Test Valley Borough Council's views are awaited.

8. County Planning Officer's Comments

8.1 The principle of this proposal is contrary to Policy 39 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan which states that planning permission for the disposal of waste by land raising will normally only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the need for landfill capacity cannot be met by the infilling of mineral workings and there is no other reasonably practicable means of disposal available.

8.2 The development proposed is twofold and partly retrospective. Landform A is the existing landform to the north of the shooting area. Landform B is the proposed earth bund to the north of the site.

8.3 Landform A, which has been in existence for a number of years, appears not to be the subject of any complaint and Test Valley Borough Council has not taken any enforcement action against this landform. There is no question that a backdrop to the existing static shooting is necessary and that any enforcement action would result in significant disturbance because it would involve the removal of a significant quantity of waste. However, the merits of this aspect of the development have to be considered in conjunction with the rest of the application.

8.4 Most of the application concerns landform B which is the proposed landform to the north of the site. The justification for this landform is given as the need to protect existing residents in Longparish from noise caused by the shooting and to render an existing agricultural restriction on land to the north unnecessary.

8.5 It is understood that the Environmental Health Officer has not so far been able to justify any noise complaints made and it is clear that the Borough Council granted permission for the shooting without the requirement for a northern screening bund. On the issue of noise, the Environmental Health Officer is not giving enough justification to warrant a departure from planning policy. It is noted, however, that the test shoots undertaken for the Borough Council and for local residents in 2001 were not that clear-cut in conclusion. There appears to be a question-mark from these reports over the degree of noise that could be caused by the shooting. However, the Environmental Health Officer, despite the issue being raised, has not referred to these reports as evidence to support the need for a bund.

8.6 It is therefore considered that there is no exceptional need with regards to noise to warrant a departure from policy by permitting landform B.

8.7 The second justification for landform B relates to the applicant's need to farm the land north of the proposed bund without risk of enforcement action from the Borough Council. The Borough Council is currently processing an application to remove the condition restricting agricultural use.

8.8 Whilst the comments of the Borough Council are awaited, it is considered that, based on the comments from the Environmental Health Officer, no exceptional need can be justified to warrant a departure from policy and to allow the importation of 78,000 cubic metres of inert waste to construct landform B.

8.9 In the light of the policy objection and no clear justification for allowing a `departure', permission should be refused. It is noted that landform A is on balance acceptable as there is little merit in the disturbance that would be caused by the activity of removal of the feature. Unfortunately this is only one aspect of the application and is insufficient to allow a permission for all of the proposal.

Recommendation

That planning permission for the construction of two landforms at Owls Lodge Farm, Longparish (Application No. TVN06331/8 be refused on the grounds that it would be contrary to Policy 39 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that there is no need in the area for landfill capacity that cannot be met by the infilling of mineral workings and there are other practicable means of disposal available.

7273/JD

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN 1996-2001 (REVIEW) (ADOPTED MARCH 2000)

Policy MW1

Planning authorities will, through policies and proposals in local plans and day-to day development control:

(i) seek to ensure an adequate supply of minerals and provision of waste management facilities to meet needs having regard to the need to: maintain the environmental quality and diversity of Hampshire, including the protection of living conditions; safeguard important socio-economic interests; prevent pollution; and protect features of particular environmental or historical importance including those listed in Policy MW3, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and historic parks and gardens;

(ii) seek environmental enhancement and public benefits through minerals and waste development;

(iii) conserve and prevent unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources and encourage efficient use of materials;

(iv) encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregate materials; and

(v) seek the management of waste in accordance with the following hierarchy;

1.reduction of waste;

2.re-use of waste;

3.recovery of waste (recycling, composting, energy from waste); and

4.waste disposal;

having regard to the proximity principle and the principle of best practical environmental option.

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 R3

In the countryside, permission for tourist, recreational and sporting development will be granted if:

(i)it assists the local economy; or

(ii)it relieves recreational pressure on the New Forest; or

(iii)it meets local recreational or community needs; or

(iv)it involves the re-use or adaptation of existing buildings;

and provided that:

(a)the proposed development is compatible with the character of the countryside;

(b)any proposed new building and structures are ancillary to an outdoor recreational or sporting use, small in scale and unobtrusive so as to maintain the open character of the countryside;

(c)the proposed development is consistent with the transport and environment policies of this Plan; and

(d)the proposal does not rely on any associated development contrary to the policies of this Plan (such as, for example, housing or business uses) to secure its economic viability.

Policy C 1

For the purposes of this Plan the countryside is defined as the area outside existing and proposed built-up areas delineated in local plans. These countryside and built-up areas will include any coast, including the tidal parts of rivers, within them.

In delineating these areas in local plans and through day-to-day development control, local planning authorities will:

(i)promote the conservation and enhancement of the countryside; and

(ii)pay particular regard to avoiding or minimising any adverse effect which development would have for those interests of importance acknowledged in the other policies and proposals in this Plan.

Policy C2

Within the delineated countryside permission will normally only be granted for:

(i)development which is essential for agriculture, horticulture or forestry or other development for which a rural location is essential;

(ii)the re-use or adaptation of existing buildings, particularly to assist the diversification of the rural economy;

(iii)development which is approved under the other policies of the Plan.

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

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 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 39

The Waste Planning Authorities will normally only grant planning permission for the disposal of waste by landraising in exceptional circumstances where the need for landfill capacity cannot be met by the infilling of mineral workings and there is no other reasonably practicable means of disposal available.

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.

Policy 6

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority is satisfied that:

(i)there is a clearly established need for the development (as assessed in relation to the other relevant policies of the Plan) which outweighs any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to cause; and

(ii)the development would not be likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of adverse environmental, traffic or other impact, pollution risk or danger to public health, particularly in respect of any of the factors specified in Policy 7 and measures would be taken to ensure that any such impacts would, as far as is practicable, be minimised; and

(iii)the proposals provide for the satisfactory working or operation and landscaping of the site and for its satisfactory restoration and landscaping at the cessation of the operations or use or at the end of the life of the facility to a condition suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use which is compatible with adjoining land uses and the planning policies for the area.

Notwithstanding any need there may be for waste disposal, permission will not normally be granted for mineral extraction with restoration by infilling with waste materials unless there is a need for the mineral to be extracted.

Policy 7

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals and waste development provided they are satisfied that, where appropriate, the proposed development pays due regard to:

(i)the relationship of the proposal site to other properties and land uses (particularly residential and other environmentally sensitive properties) and the likely effects of the proposed development on the locality by reason of noise, dust, smoke, fumes, illumination or any other factor and the need for buffer zones between the development and residential and other properties;

(ii)the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected, in terms of highway capacity and safety and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements required could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact;

(iii)the likely visual impact of the proposed development and the need for additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development;

(iv)the need to safeguard the character and amenities of individual settlements and to safeguard open gaps between settlements from permanent development which would cause long-term harm to the function of the land;

(v)the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to protect and safeguard sites of nature conservation, geological, archaeological, historic, architectural and landscape importance and their settings;

(vi)the extent and quality of agricultural land to be taken by the proposed development and the proposals for its subsequent restoration and the likely effects of the proposals on farm structure and management;

(vii)the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to maintain the distinctive character of the landscape; the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard and protect individual species, habitats and landscape features, including woodland, trees and hedgerows; and the likely effects of the proposed development on forestry and woodland management;

(viii)the likely effects of the proposed development on sites used for recreation and public rights of way and the need to protect or secure the satisfactory diversion of public rights of way;

(ix)the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard the flow and quality of watercourses, water supplies, floodplains, groundwater, the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the level of the water table in the locality and the likely effects of the proposed development on the immediate setting of any river;

(x)any potential danger to aircraft from birds being attracted to the site;

(xi)the possible amenity implications of any landfill gas that might be generated at the site and of any provisions that might need to be made to deal with it; and

(xii)the likely cumulative impact of the proposed development in combination with any other significant development taking place or permitted to take place in the locality and the need to minimise the impact of mineral extraction and waste disposal operations by securing, where appropriate, the phased release of sites and progression of working and restoration.