Contact: Julia Davey, ext 6732

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought to relocate the existing waste transfer station (planning permission for which expired on 30 June 2002 and is the subject of an appeal) from land north of Pitmore Lane, Sway to land at Ambervale Farm, adjacent to the existing site. The applicant also proposes to operate an inert recycling facility from the new site and create a new access onto Pitmore Lane.

2. Site

2.1 The site is an existing former farmyard, which includes a number of dilapidated barns which have been used for the unauthorised dumping of a variety of materials.

2.2 The site is designated in the New Forest District Local Plan (1999) as being an area in which countryside and New Forest Heritage Area proposals apply. The site is actually located within the New Forest Heritage Area and the proposed designated New Forest National Park.

2.3 The applicant's existing waste transfer station is currently the subject of an appeal to be heard on 31 October 2002. The application site lies to the south of the existing site. Agricultural land borders the site to the east and to the south lies a poultry farm. Adjacent to the site access is the residential property `Matford View' and opposite the site access `Green Pastures'. To the south-west is a caravan and camping site.

2.4 The applicant states that the site is approximately two metres lower in ground level than the existing site.

2.5 At the County Council's Regulatory Committee on 27 July 2002 a report was presented to Members on the site, seeking guidance from Members on taking enforcement action against Mr Farwell with regards to application No. 73737 (extension of time for existing waste transfer). Members resolved to authorise enforcement action but defer the service of the Notices until 31 December 2002. This decision took into account the existence of this application for a replacement site, the appeal and Government Guidance on Planning Enforcement (PPG18) The date of the appeal hearing for the extension of time for the existing site (73737) on 31 October 2002 was made after the matter of enforcement was resolved at the July 2002 meeting.

3. Proposal

3.1 Planning permission is sought to relocate the existing inert waste transfer station (adjacent) and operate a recycling facility from the application site.

3.2 It is proposed to process up to 22,000 tonnes of inert waste per year. Processing and sorting of material would take place within one of the existing farm buildings to reduce the noise and dust impact of the operations and to lessen the impact of bad weather on the operations. As many of the external activities as possible would be located to the rear (east) of the existing buildings, which would also help to act as a noise and dust screen. The processing plant would include loading equipment and a shovel mounted screening unit producing a variety of coarse, medium and fine products.

3.3 The processing plant would be fully self-powered and all treatment would be dry, with the exception of dust suppression equipment.

3.4 Given the nature of the operation, the availability of suitable wastes for importation, and the onward sale of recycled products, the applicant expects that the operation will be implemented periodically rather than as a continuous operation.

3.5 The proposal differs from the existing site in that it would operate as a waste transfer and recycling facility independent of any associated landfill. The existing site was originally granted permission on the basis that it was ancillary to the landfill permission at Ambervale Farm.

3.6 Hours of working are proposed to be between 0700-1800 hours Monday to Friday and between 0700 and 1300 Saturday. There would be no operation on Sunday and bank holidays.

3.7 The maximum average daily output from the site is considered unlikely to exceed 80 tonnes per day. This is based on the assumption that approximately 75% of imported material would be suitable for recycling, with the remainder being transferred in bulk to a suitable landfill.

3.8 The proposal would create, as a worst-case scenario, 82 movements per day, with heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) accounting for 49% of all movements.

3.9 The proposal involves providing a new access onto Pitmore Lane. This would include the provision of visibility splays to the north and south. The applicant considers these could be constructed without any significant adverse impact on the existing vegetation, but states that some trimming back of existing shrubs would be required.

3.10 The applicant also states that moving the access away from the junction of Pitmore Lane with North Common Lane would reduce the impact of lorry traffic on those properties along Pitmore Lane which are located to the west of the existing site.

3.11 The existing access would not be used in conjunction with the proposed operation but would remain an agricultural access.

3.12 The applicant adds that the proposed relocation would enable the existing area to be fully restored to agricultural use and secure the continued employment of staff.

3.13 The applicant states that earth mounds and screening are proposed around the site, and to provide an effective green barrier between the existing stables and the recycling activities.

3.14 A lorry route turning left (south) out of the site along Pitmore Lane is proposed.

4. Development Plan

4.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (adopted March 2000) Policies MW1, MW2 and MW3 (see attached appendix).

4.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted December 1998) Policies 6, 7, 8 and 46 (see attached appendix).

4.3 Policies 46 and 8 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan are key policies in the determination of this application.

5. Consultations

5.1 The comments of the Council for National Parks are awaited.

5.2 Sway Parish Council states that at its meeting "held on 25 July the application was fully discussed. Taking into account objections from neighbouring properties and the fact the G Farwell Limited has made a considerable effort to find an alternative site, my Council supported the application. Councillor G Farwell declared a pecuniary interest and left the room during the discussion and decision making".

5.3 The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural affairs has no comment on the application.

5.4 New Forest District Council's Environmental Health Officer has requested that the applicant undertakes a new noise survey, including the BS4142:1997 assessment to take into account the noise from all on-site activities, eg lorry movements, loading shovel, riddling operations, etc. He has also requested some additional information on dust suppression.

5.5 The Environment Agency raises no objection in principle to the development, subject to conditions.

5.6 The New Forest Committee states that the operation of this type of recycling facility provides considerable environmental benefit, both by reducing the amount of inert waste that would otherwise be disposed of to landfill and by providing a viable replacement for primary source aggregates. It would also provide local employment opportunities. However, the Committee states that the application raises a number of issues:

(i) it does not agree with the view that Ambervale Farm is a brownfield site just because the current owner has allowed the existing buildings to become dilapidated and being used for unauthorised tipping of waste;

(ii) the application is for the establishment of a new facility rather than relocation of an old one;

(iii) increase in traffic movements;

(iv) if granted, the area would continue to suffer from blight associated with such operations such as noise, dust, increased traffic and adverse impact on landscape character and quality;

(v) removal of established hedgerow interspersed with mature and semi-mature trees would interrupt a wildlife corridor and the proposed kerbing at the access would have an urbanising effect on the character of the area; and

(vi) the proposed access is directly opposite a dwelling and near a camping and caravan site.

5.7 Overall, the Committee has concerns about the siting of the proposal within the New Forest Heritage Area and within the proposed New Forest National Park.

5.8 Whilst the final comments of the County Surveyor are awaited he states that there have been eight injury accidents in total along the proposed lorry route between the site and the A337. One of these accidents was on Pitmore Lane where the driver lost control near the junction with Mount Pleasant Lane. Four of the eight accidents were at the junction of Pitmore Lane with Sway Road and all involved turning movements. Two of the eight accidents were on Sway Road between its junction with Pitmore Lane and the A337 and one at the junction with Mount Pleasant Lane, which was serious. None of the accidents involved HGVs or LGVs. On this basis the County Surveyor considers the lorry route acceptable.

5.9 The local Member, Councillor Thornber, has been informed of the proposal.

6. Representations

6.1 The County Council has received representations from 15 local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

(i) no need for the facility;

(ii) the increased traffic would be dangerous and increase the risk of accidents to an already dangerous route, including Sway Road and the Wheel Inn crossroads. "Gordleton industrial estate was not allowed to expand because the appeals inspector, as well as New Forest District Council, stated that Sway Road in its present form was simply incapable of taking more HGV traffic." New ambulance station proposed at Gordleton industrial estate will also increase traffic;

(iii) adverse impact on the landscape character of the area;

(iv) Mr Farwell's existing site operates 60 movements per day. Mr Farwell should offer to pay for safe footpaths for pedestrians before considering expanding his business. Danger also to cyclists and horse riders;

(v) approximately six accidents this year on Pitmore Lane;

(vi) dust and dirt blowing on washing and windows from skip vehicles;

(vii) Sway has no mains drainage systems, so how and where will dirty vehicle wash water and foul drainage go to;

(viii) existing lorries from chicken farm and flower lorries from nurseries cause chaos at Wheel Inn crossroads as cannot turn corner without crossing over to other side of road;

(ix) debris falling off skip lorries;

(x) already have to live with smell from chicken farm;

(xi) access area floods;

(xii) the Parish Council is unelected and does not represent the views of the parish outside the village; residents of Pitmore Lane are unrepresented at parish level;

(xiii) residents had to put up with quarry and landfill for over ten years;

(xiv) New Forest District Council does not consider site to be brownfield;

(xv) the proposed two metre bund is not high enough to prevent the activity being seen;

(xvi) Mr Farwell should use his depot at Crabbswood Lane, Sway for all waste activities;

(xvii) existing machinery noisy; public complaints about Farwell carry no weight at all;

(xviii) there are other sites available, such as Gordleton industrial estate, which has adequate access, etc;

(xix) there are alterative sites at Manor Farm, Pennington; and

(xx) access directly opposite track to Pitmore Farm.

7. District Council's Views

7.1 New Forest District Council states that on balance it is considered that objection should be raised to this proposal on the basis of its impact on the character of this part of the New Forest, and, subject to the outcome of consultations on highways, possibly also on traffic safety grounds.

8. Issues

8.1 The main issues raised by the application are:

(i) whether the application complies with policy;

(ii) whether there is a local need for the proposed facility;

(iii) whether the proposal would have a significant landscape impact on the character of the New Forest Heritage Area;

(iv) whether the proposed lorry route is considered acceptable from a highway safety point of view; and

(v) whether the proposal would have a significant environmental impact on local amenity by way of noise, dust and traffic.

8.2 At the time of writing this briefing note the County Council is examining the landscape impact of the proposed access and the applicant is preparing additional information on existing shrubs and trees within and close to the proposed access and visibility splays, and also a noise report as required by the Environmental Health Officer.

7418/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.

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 8

Applications for planning permission for minerals or waste development in the following areas will not be granted save when the development would not prejudice the purpose of the designation and where there is an overriding need for the development to take place in the public interest:

(i) the New Forest Heritage Area;

(ii) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

(iii) National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites);

(iv) Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings;

(v) Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, and sites on the National Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.

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, small 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.