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.

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 General Permitted Development Order (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 When determining this application the County Council must pay regard to the decision made by Test Valley Borough Council concerning the raising of land levels by importing recycled soils onto the site. The works can be carried out under the GPDO (1995) and can take place notwithstanding the outcome of this application.

6.2 The County Planning Officer is currently seeking Counsel's advice on the County Council's legal position regarding this application and, principally, the extent to which the County Council is restricted by Test Valley Borough Council's decision under the GPDO (1995).

6.3 The County Planning Officer is also further investigating the highways and traffic implications of this proposal.

7423/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.