Contact: Neil Chester, ext 6496

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the importation of inert waste materials to achieve land raising on a 2.7 hectare area of agricultural land off Steplake Lane, Sherfield English. The applicant states that the land is waterlogged for long periods of the year and the raising of levels is intended to result in a more productive use of the land for grazing and silage. The proposal would, however, result in a significant increase in traffic movements along Steplake Lane. There are strong concerns over the impact that the increased level of traffic will have on the road structure, the safety of other road users and the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area within the proposed New Forest National Park.

1.2 Therefore, it is recommended that the application be refused, because of the implications for the highway and the amenity of the local area.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The application site, illustrated on the attached plan, is approximately 2.7 hectares and is located within a six hectare parcel of agricultural land off Steplake Lane, Sherfield English. At present this land is let to a third party via a grazing agreement and receives three cuts per year for silage.

2.2 The site lies adjacent to the New Forest Heritage Area and is within the boundary of the proposed New Forest National Park. It is also adjacent to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), which has been designated because of its status as an area of ancient semi-natural woodland. A tributary of the River Blackwater runs along the western and southern boundaries of the site.

2.3 The proposal is to raise the level of the land by the importation of inert construction and demolition waste to improve drainage and, therefore, increase agricultural productivity. The applicant states that two-thirds of the site suffers from frequent waterlogging and this makes it necessary to regularly remove the livestock from the site, and also restricts the collection of silage in these areas.

2.4 A scheme was submitted to Test Valley Borough Council (TVBC) for importing recycled soils to raise levels to improve drainage. TVBC agreed with the applicant that the scheme fell within Class A, Part 6 Schedule 2 of the 1995 Order and therefore planning permission was not required for this scheme.

2.5 The works permitted by the GPDO consist of the importation of 90,000 cubic metres of recycled soils over a six hectare area. This will result in land raising by a maximum of three metres. This work can be carried out, notwithstanding the decision of the County Council regarding this planning application.

2.6 This application seeks to replace some of the recycled soils permitted under the GPDO with inert construction and demolition wastes. The proposal is to import 90,000 cubic metres of material, comprising 65,500 cubic metres of waste and 25,000 cubic metres of recycled soil. The applicant states that this is the only difference between the GPDO works and those proposed within this planning application. The applicant also states that the wastes are needed to achieve agricultural improvement more efficiently.

2.7 In terms of the planning application material will be transported to the site along the A27 and then down Steplake Lane. The proposed site access is directly off Steplake Lane and an access track to the site has been created under the GPDO.

2.8 The proposed hours of working are between 0700 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 on Saturday. No lorry movements are proposed for Sunday or Bank holidays. The proposal will generate between 35 and 75 deliveries of waste per day over a 12 month period. The applicant states that lorry movements will be no greater than those required for the GPDO scheme.

2.9 Noise will be generated by the development as a result of vehicles delivering material to the site and plant spreading the waste and soils. The handling of the proposed material may lead to dust but will be controlled by the use of water sprays. The applicant states that the generation of noise and dust will be no greater than that under the GPDO scheme.

2.10 The proposal is to import inert material and therefore, it is not expected to generate any odour or attract pests, vermin or birds.

2.11 The applicant proposes to restore the site to grassland, which can be used for grazing of cattle and cutting of silage.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) (adopted March 2000) Policy MW7 concerns land raising using waste (see attached appendix).

3.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted December 1998) Policies 6 and 7 concern environmental and landscape considerations; Policy 39 refers to land raising and Policy 42 to the environmental effects of land raising.

4. Consultation

4.1 Melchet Park and Plaitford Parish Council objects to the proposal on both highway and environmental grounds. The road is used by walkers, horse-riders and local children travelling to the new recreation ground. The Parish Council is concerned for the safety of other road users on Steplake Lane, particularly as the road is largely single lane.

4.2 Sherfield English Parish Council has made no comment on the proposal.

4.3 Wellow Parish Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that it will have a significant adverse impact on the local environment; the risk of pollution of the River Blackwater is high; the road access to the site is unsuitable and use by lorries would be dangerous.

4.4 The Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions, including the provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system.

4.5 Test Valley Borough Council's Environmental Health Officer is concerned about the nature of the material to be imported to the site. He would like to see details of how the applicant intends to ensure that only inert wastes will be imported to the site.

4.6 The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) raises no objection to the proposal. However, it questions how the importation of waste materials will achieve the agricultural improvement more efficiently. DEFRA also comments that materials that may result in the damage of agricultural machinery should not be present in the profile to a depth of at least one metre from the surface.

4.7 The County Surveyor (Highways) states that visibility from the site is poor and is therefore substandard. In addition, Steplake Lane has a width varying from 3.7 metres to 4.9 metres and is of insufficient width for a car and lorry to pass, which is unsatisfactory. The County Surveyor has asked that the applicant addresses these issues in order to safely accommodate the proposed development traffic.

4.8 English Nature raises no objections to the proposal as the application should not adversely affect any statutory designated sites. However, the application site is adjacent to a SINC. The site is also adjacent to a watercourse, upstream of its confluence with the River Blackwater. English Nature is concerned that the importation of waste may lead to the pollution of the watercourse and therefore argues that this proposal does not constitute sustainable development.

4.9 The Ramblers' Association objects to the proposal as Steplake Lane is an important link in the local footpath network and this development will lead to conflict with other road users, including walkers.

4.10 Sandra Gidley MP has written to express concerns about the likely traffic impact of the proposal. She also raises concerns that the importation of waste may result in contamination of the stream that borders the application site.

4.11 The local Member, Councillor Woodhall, has been informed of the proposal.

4.12 As a result of neighbour notification the County Planning Officer has received 60 letters of objection to the proposed development. The objections are primarily on the basis of deterioration of the highway, highway safety and the general inadequacies of the lane for the size and amount of traffic proposed. Steplake Lane is used by cyclists, walkers and horse-riders and objectors comment that this proposal would adversely affect the amenity of the area. Another source of concern is that the access to a new recreation ground is near to the junction of Steplake Lane and the A27. There is conflict between the increased traffic and children crossing the road to the recreation ground. Many objectors express concern that approval of this application will set a precedent for similar applications in the area.

5. Borough Council's Views

5.1 Test Valley Borough Council has objected to the proposal as it would result in an unacceptable change to the volume, pattern and nature of road traffic to the detriment of the environment and the amenities of nearby residents, users of the adjacent road and other local facilities. The proposed development would also increase traffic and cause a danger to pedestrians and other road users of the local road network.

6. County Planning Officer's Comments

6.1 The proposal is to import soils and inert construction and demolition waste to achieve an agricultural improvement through improved drainage. The field is currently used for grazing and silage. The applicant states that this use has been limited by the regular waterlogging of the site. Although the proposal may result in some agricultural improvement, it is considered that the benefit would be marginal. In addition, it is not clear how the importation of waste will achieve an agricultural improvement more efficiently than the work proposed under the GPDO.

6.2 DEFRA also comments that it is not explained within the application how the proposals would achieve an agricultural improvement more efficiently than those proposed under the GPDO.

6.3 The justification for this development is therefore questionable. Policy 39 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted 1998) states that planning permission for the disposal of waste by land raising should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 6.63 of the Plan states that Councils will not normally support this type of waste disposal operation "unless they are genuinely required for the purposes of agricultural land improvement, ... and the operations would not have any unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact".

6.4 Steplake Lane is of insufficient width to accommodate the traffic associated with the proposal. It is a rural lane which is used by local people for walking, equestrian activities and cycling. The amenity value of Steplake Lane would be severely compromised by the proposed increase in traffic. The lane is also crossed to the north by children accessing a new recreation ground. The safety of other road users would be compromised by the proposal. Although the applicant has indicated that he would carry out works to achieve an adequate road width and address highway safety, it is considered that any such measures would be likely to affect the character of the lane adversely. This would result in a reduction in the amenity value of the rural lane, which would be unacceptable.

6.5 The woodland at the south of the application site forms an important link between two SINCs, Plaitford Wood to the south-west and Sack Copse to the east. It is important to maintain and protect this link to ensure the integrity of the existing SINCs. There is concern that by altering the drainage patterns of the site the adjoining woodland will become flooded, to the detriment of its nature conservation value.

6.6 A stream running along the western and southern boundary of the application site is a tributary of the River Blackwater and eventually the River Test. There are concerns that by infilling with construction and demolition wastes the chemical composition of the sub-surface water may be changed and cause pollution of the watercourse. This is recognised by the Environment Agency, although the Agency believes that this can be satisfactorily mitigated by implementing a surface water drainage scheme and so does not raise objection in principle.

6.7 The site is located within the proposed boundary of the New Forest National Park. The proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the character and amenity of the area and therefore will adversely affect the proposed National Park.

6.8 Residents have raised concerns regarding the advertising of this application. The application form stated that the land was a part of Pilgrims Farm, which is incorrect, and this information was used to publicise the proposal. The application was not readvertised however, as the site notice had served its purpose by bringing the proposal to the attention of the local residents. The Waste Planning Authority fulfilled its statutory requirements on this matter.

6.9 The applicant argues that the planning authority must compare the proposal being put forward with what would be expected to happen if permission were refused (the "fall back" position). The applicant states that Test Valley Borough Council agreed that clean, segregated soils may be deposited on the site and, as a consequence, 90,000 cubic metres of material will be brought onto the site irrespective of whether this application is granted. Therefore, the applicant argues that the Waste Planning Authority cannot refuse this application on any grounds, other than the type of material to be imported.

6.10 However, each application must be determined on its merits and the TVBC ruling is not a reason to grant permission if the proposal is for any reason considered unacceptable. It should be noted however, that the applicant may implement the scheme using recycled soils if the Waste Planning Authority refuses permission to implement using construction and demolition waste.

6.11 On balance, it is considered that the highway issues and the amenity of the area are more important considerations than the merits of this proposal. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.

Recommendation

That planning permission for the importation of construction and demolition waste for an agricultural improvement at Pilgrims Farm, Steplake Lane, Wellow Wood Road, Sherfield English (Application No. TVS 09717) be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the local highway. The road is of insufficient width, the visibility splays from the site access are inadequate and road safety could be compromised. The need for the development does not outweigh substandard highway and access arrangements. Therefore, this development would be contrary to Policy MW7 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and Policies 7(ii) and 42 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

2. The proposal involves waste disposal by land raising and would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the local amenity value of the area. The proposed lorry movements would change the nature of Steplake Lane, which is currently an attractive largely single width rural lane, and any highway improvements would be likely to affect its character significantly. The proposal would also have a detrimental effect on a site within the proposed New Forest National Park. Therefore, this development would be contrary to Policies 6 (i), 7(ii), 39 and 42 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

7333/NC

APPENDIX

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

Policy MW7

Waste disposal by landfilling will only be permitted within mineral working sites that are active or unrestored or have been unsatisfactorily restored or where there would be an environmental benefit from the raising of levels. Land-raising will normally be permitted only 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 and provided that the development would not have unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact.

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

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.

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 landraising 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.