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) 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. The recommendation is to grant permission, subject to a lorry routeing agreement and conditions.

2. Site

2.1 The site, illustrated on the attached plans, is an old farmyard, which includes a dilapidated/incomplete barn. The applicant states that the site has not been in agricultural use for at least 12 years and that during this time the site has had a number of occupiers carrying out a variety of activities, including light engineering, vehicle repairs and dismantling, and vehicle and equipment storage.

2.2 The Environment Agency has informed the County Council that it has received a number of complaints relating to burning of waste on the site. Investigations have revealed the burning of green waste by the landowner and the Agency is currently exploring the possibility of enforcement action in relation to one incident that took place on the site.

2.3 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 lies within the New Forest Heritage Area and the proposed New Forest National Park.

2.4 The application site lies to the south of the applicant's existing site, which egresses onto North Common Lane, opposite the New Milton Sand and Ballast quarry. Agricultural land borders the site to the east and adjacent to the south lies a poultry farm. Near the site access is the residential property `Matford View' and opposite the site access other residential development. To the south-west is a caravan and camping site. Other businesses, including plant nurseries, are located along Pitmore Lane. The applicant states that the site is approximately two metres lower in ground level than the existing site.

2.5 Permission for the applicant's existing waste transfer station expired on 30 June 2002 and an extension of time application for the existing site (Application No. 73737) was the subject of an appeal which was scheduled to be heard on 31 October 2002. This appeal was subsequently withdrawn, pending the determination of this application.

2.6 On 17 July 2002 a report was presented to this Committee on the site, seeking guidance from Members on taking enforcement action against the applicant with regard to Application No. 73737 (extension of time for existing waste transfer). Members resolved to authorise enforcement action but defer 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).

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 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, although the applicant states he would consider an 0730 start if this was considered to aid local amenity issues. There would be no operation on Sunday and bank holidays.

3.7 The maximum average daily throughput 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. It is proposed that approximately 22 metres of hedgerow would be removed to create the visibility splays but no specimen trees felled.

3.10 The applicant also states that moving the access away from its existing location at 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. It is proposed that the construction of the access would not require the demolition of any buildings or houses.

3.11 The existing site access onto North Common Lane would not be used in conjunction with the proposed operation but would remain as an agricultural access only.

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. The site will directly employ three people. Indirectly, 7 skip drivers and 10 tipper drivers are likely to use the site on a regular daily basis.

3.13 The applicant states that earth mounds and screening are proposed around the site to minimise any visual impact, 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. At the Wheel Inn junction (as shown on the attached plan), where Pitmore Lane joins Sway Road, the applicant proposes that traffic would split three ways - east, west and south.

3.15 The applicant has submitted a noise survey and a traffic survey. The latter was not submitted until December 2002 because of public gas works taking place on Sway Road during autumn 2002, which delayed the collection of accurate base-line information.

3.16 The applicant proposes that with regards to site drainage all surface run-off from sealed areas will be dealt with via interceptors and soakaways. The applicant states drainage will also be controlled as part of the waste licensing process and would be subject to Environment Agency approval.

3.17 The applicant has submitted as additional supporting information extracts from the recently released Hampshire `Business Development Needs Study, 2002', carried out by Hampshire County Council on behalf of the County Council and Portsmouth and Southampton Unitary Authorities.

3.18 The applicant states the following findings are relevant to the application:

(i) The report highlights concern at the lack of available employment and business expansion land in an area whose economic growth is outpacing much of the rest of the UK. Accordingly, the applicant asserts that the objectors to developments at Ambervale should welcome the fact that a suitable site for this type of operation has been identified. A number of alternative sites have been looked at and found wanting for various reasons. Notwithstanding this, the use of Ambervale will ensure that existing sites are available for other business uses.

(ii) The report also emphasises the application of the sequential approach to development and the need to focus first on `brownfield' sites.

(iii) There is a need for a "range of different sizes and types of sites" and "meet business demand in all parts of the County".

4. Development Plan

The following policies are relevant to this application:

4.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (adopted March 2000) Policies MW1, MW2, MW3, C2, EC3 and NF1 (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.

4.4 New Forest District Local Plan (1999) - Policies NF-B2 (New Employment Uses in the New Forest) and NF-RB1 (Re-use of buildings in the New Forest).

5. Consultations

5.1 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.

5.2 The Council for National Parks objects to the proposal because of the conflict it would have with the National Park statutory purposes and with the requirements to protect and enhance the special character of the area. It considers that the proposal is a departure from the Development Plan.

5.3 Sway Parish Council, whilst initially supporting the application stating that G Farwell Limited had made considerable effort to find an alternative site, has since changed its stance and withdraws support for the proposal.

5.4 New Forest District Council's Environmental Health Officer requested that the applicant undertook 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. This survey was submitted.

5.5 The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection, in principle, to the proposal. He states that his main concern relates to noise emanating from the site and that it is important to note that there will be times when noise from the site would be audible to local residents.

5.6 He requests that the following condition is added to any permission that may be granted:

"The rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level, determined to be 44 dB LAeq, 15 minutes, by more than 5 dB(A) between the hours of 0700 and 1800 Monday to Friday and between 0700 and 1300 on Saturday.

The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises (currently Matford View, Pitmore Lane, Sway). The measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with BS4142:1997. There shall be no working outside the hours stated above."

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

5.8 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.

5.9 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.

5.10 The County Council (Highways) raises no objection, in principle, to the proposal. It is stated that there have been eight injury accidents in total over three years 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. It is recommended that there should be a lorry routeing agreement which ensures that traffic turns southwards out of the site and at the Wheel Inn junction, at Sway Road, lorries should turn only west and east but not southwards.

5.11 The Gordleton Action Group submitted a video to the County Council (Highways) showing vehicles accessing the entrance gate to the application site (and Ambervale Farm) on 14 October 2002. The movements recorded by this survey were compared with the classified Sound Advice traffic survey information submitted by the applicant.

5.12 It is concluded that the traffic movements observed in the video survey are higher than the flows recorded in the survey undertaken on behalf of the applicant. There are differences in the survey conditions in each case, but the information provided on behalf of the applicant appears to be consistent for a typical situation. The video produced for Gordleton Action Group shows that there is the potential for the number of traffic movements associated with the Farwell site to be increased to a higher level than that established in the initial traffic survey by Sound Advice. It also shows that there is the potential for additional capacity in the access, the local roads and junctions without creating any significant accident and safety concerns.

5.13 Objectors have raised issues about traffic from the Gordleton Industrial Estate, including the recent planning permission for an Ambulance Station and a current application for residential development on land near the estate (which is contrary to Policy). Objectors have also raised concern about the Buckland Rings Conservation Area. All these matters have been taken into account but none have given reason to object to the application. In summary, therefore, there is no highway objection to the proposal, subject to a lorry routing agreement ensuring that traffic splits east and west at the Wheel Inn junction.

5.14 New Forest District Council's Arboricultural Officer states that he would be concerned if the proposals involved the loss of any of the mature oak trees. He considers it would be more sensible to use the existing access or move the proposed new access to a position opposite Burnleigh which would keep it well away from the larger trees, albeit a breach of the hedge would still be required.

5.15 The Council for the Protection of Rural England objects to the proposal on the basis that it is inappropriate development within the New Forest Heritage Area. It is concerned about the cumulative impact of the development being detrimental to the rural character of the area. It considers the access to the site is unsuitable for the anticipated traffic, particularly at the Wheel Inn crossroad and where the route passes through the Buckland Conservation Area.

6. Site Visit

6.1 The Committee undertook a site visit on 30 September 2002 to consider the Pitmore Lane application in the light of local concerns. At the site visit the Committee met representatives of New Forest District Council and Sway Parish Council and a number of local residents. The comments of those present are outlined in the ensuing paragraphs.

Comments of the Chief Planning Adviser at Site Visit

6.2 The Chief Planning Adviser described the application and confirmed that up to 22,000 tonnes of inert waste per year would be processed and sorted within one of the existing farm buildings. The proposal entailed use of a derelict former farmyard and the relocation of an existing waste transfer station on adjacent land in respect of which permission had expired on 30 June 2002 and was now the subject of an appeal. The surrounding area was not purely residential but also contained other industrial facilities.

6.3 A new access was proposed onto Pitmore Lane and the applicant had agreed to enter into a lorry routeing agreement which would entail vehicles turning left out of the site in a southerly direction.

6.4 The Chief Planning Adviser drew particular attention to Policy 46 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan which sets out the criteria for waste recycling facilities.

Comments of the New Forest District Council Representatives at Site Visit

6.5 The District Planning Officer advised that an objection was being raised on balance, whilst the importance of such sites was recognised this one would be located inappropriately within the New Forest Heritage Area.

6.6 The District Arboricultural Officer advised of his concerns about the impact of the proposed access on an adjacent oak tree.

6.7 The District Environmental Health Officer confirmed that a noise report was awaited on the proposal; the consultant who would be preparing the report confirmed that the work would be completed within the next few days.

6.8 Local District Councillors confirmed their objection on highway grounds, including the additional traffic which would be generated through Pennington.

Comments of the Agent for the Applicant at Site Visit

6.9 The agent for the applicant advised that the proposed site was two metres lower than the existing one and had been identified as a brownfield site by the County Council. The new proposal would be subject to waste licence and planning conditions and the operations would be carried out within a building, thus reducing the amount of noise generated.

Comments of Local Residents at Site Visit

6.10 Local residents present made the following points:

(i) The site is within the New Forest Heritage Area and the proposed New Forest National Park.

(ii) The site had never been used as a farmyard and the building to be used was in fact half finished.

(iii) Alternative sites exist in the Lymington and Sway areas.

(iv) The site is at ground level and not two metres below it.

(v) Pitmore Lane, which floods in the winter, is not suitable for the extra lorry traffic which would be generated; much use is made of the lane by horse-riders.

(vi) Hours of opening would be excessive.

(vii) The proposed access would be excessively close to existing access points onto the lane.

(viii) There would be adverse impact on a barn owl currently nesting in the structure (in response to this point the agent for the applicant advised that mitigation measures, including the provision of alternative nesting sites, would be examined).

Comments of the County Council (Highways) at Site Visit

6.11 Pitmore Lane is covered by a 40 mph speed limit and in accordance with this speed limit visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 120 metres are required to be provided by the applicant. Whilst these visibility splays can be achieved, it will involve the loss of some hedgerow.

6.12 Wheel Inn junction: accident reports from the last three years show that there have been accidents at this junction. However, safety remedial works are currently being implemented.

6.13 The local lorry route is the A337 and the route to the site will be via the Sway Road C430. This road is largely rural in character and for much of its length there are no footways and the roadside verges are easily damaged by overrunning. At its eastern end the road has a series of tight bends. Over most of the length the road is wide enough to allow the passage of a lorry and a car. The main problem would be the meeting of two large lorries. In the information supporting the application, the applicant reports that the traffic levels will amount to 82 movements per day.

6.14 Whilst accidents have been recorded along this stretch of road, there have been no accidents involving site traffic from waste sites.

6.15 Whilst it is acknowledged that the roads in the vicinity of the site are not ideal, it is appreciated that it is difficult to find suitable sites for waste transfer stations that do not generally have highway issues surrounding the local road network.

7. Representations on Current Application

7.1 The local Member, Councillor Thornber, has raised concerns about traffic impact of the proposal on the locality.

7.2 District Councillor Paul Hickman raises concerns about traffic issues in the locality.

7.3 The County Council has received representations from 47 local residents and the local residents' forum `The Gordleton Action Group'. Nine of the these representations support the application; thirty-eight object 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;

(xx) access directly opposite track to Pitmore Farm;

(xxi) currently flooding on Sway Road, application would exacerbate this. Water-table very high at local residences in winter, particularly around Wheel Inn;

(xxii) appeal decision (1998) for development of Gordleton Pub (next to Wheel Inn) is relevant and raises concern about impact on the Buckland Rings Conservation Area;

(xxiii) no street lighting in Pitmore Lane;

(xxiv) the site is only lower because Farwell's adjacent landfill is overfilled;

(xxv) barns on site were erected without planning permission and track record of landowner was well known to locals for his lack of respect to environment;

(xxvi) Farwell continued to operate without permission;

(xxvii) barn owl resident on site;

(xxviii) residential development planned adjacent to Gordleton Industrial Park.

The Gordleton Action Group also requested that the traffic count be conducted by Hampshire County Council to ensure `professionalism and impartiality'. It suggested survey points and requested that the traffic survey be deferred until a period of not less than two weeks after the completion of the gas roadworks on Sway Road.

7.2 The Gordleton Action Group states that the last traffic flow survey was undertaken in 1988 and that since then the Gordleton Industrial Estate has vastly increased the volume of traffic, particularly HGVs.

7.3 It adds that planning permission has also been granted for four developments which will further increase traffic:

(i) the ambulance station in Hannals Way - Sway Road/Silver Street and Pitmore Lane will both be `blue light' routes serving the communities of New Milton, Ashley, Hordle and Sway;

(ii) the new hospital at Ampress;

(iii) the new industrial estate at Ampress; and

(iv) the new Roman Catholic Primary School in Ramley Road.

7.4 The Gordleton Action Group also wishes to highlight that during the summer, traffic on the roads will be heavier due to holidaymakers; traffic to and from the chicken farms varies significantly depending on the rearing/catching stage; Doughology was a major UK pizza manufacturer based on Gordleton Industrial Estate employing 130 people which went into receivership on 3 December 2002. It was responsible for much of the HGV traffic on Sway Road and could resume with new owners.

8. Comments of Chief Planning Adviser

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 The applicant has put forward evidence that the application area is a brownfield site within the New Forest Heritage Area. The applicant states the land and the `barn' have not been used for agricultural purposes. It is noted that the land has been the subject of complaints from local residents to the Environment Agency about burning of green waste on the site and that the Agency is considering taking enforcement action against an incident of importation of green waste. Whilst the land and barn (which has an incomplete roof) do not appear to have been used recently for agricultural purposes, there is evidence of other activities having taken place. On balance the site has been subject to development and should be classified as `brownfield'.

8.3 The `departure from policy' stance of New Forest District Council is noted in this regard, but even if evidence were to be provided that proves the site has been used for recent agricultural purposes, in accordance with Policy MW3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review), it is not considered that the development is likely to cause material harm to the Heritage Area. The location of the site, accessed off Pitmore Lane on which there are a variety of businesses and other uses, including plant nurseries, poultry units, a camp site, welding business and quarry, should be noted.

8.4 Policies for rural diversification are also relevant, ie Policies NF1, C2 and EC3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) and Policies NF-RB1 and NF-B2 of the New Forest District Local Plan. The information supporting Policy NF-B2 (paragraph D4-11) states the reuse and adaptation of rural buildings for business purposes can make a significant contribution to the diversification of the rural economy. Similarly, paragraph D12.2, supporting Policy NF-RB1 states " Changes in both the profitability of farming and its methods of working have in recent years led to pressure for agricultural buildings to be put to other uses ....." The Structure Plan (Review) Policy EC3 echoes the need to support farm diversification and use of existing buildings and also notes "a healthy rural economy is essential to maintain the independence of the self-sufficiency of rural communities ..... and helps provide local employment to meet local needs".

8.5 The applicant proposes a maximum of 82 lorry movements per day. However, New Milton Sand and Ballast operates the Mount Pleasant Sand and Gravel Pit which is also accessed off North Common Lane and generates between 80 and 120 lorry movements per day. This site has consent until 2008, but at the current rate of working the site is likely to be completed before this date. In order to restrict lorry movements to current levels, a limit of 44 movements per day for the new facility can be imposed, rising to the 82 movements on completion of the Mount Pleasant Sand and Gravel Pit, whichever is the sooner. In the longer term this would result in a net reduction in lorry traffic generated in this area.

8.6 Traffic surveys have been undertaken on Sway Road as a means of understanding whether local concerns about the highway impacts of traffic on Sway Road are justified. It is concluded that the local highway network is able to cope safely with the additional traffic created by the development. However, the three-way lorry routeing at the Wheel Inn junction proposed by the applicant is not considered acceptable. A two-way (east-west) routeing at the Wheel Inn junction would be more acceptable.

8.7 The environmental impact of traffic on the local amenity could be further restricted by a planning condition restricting traffic movements, were permission resolved to be granted, to limit numbers of vehicles. However, it is very much a matter of judgment on what levels of heavy goods vehicles are acceptable in an area served by minor roads.

8.8 Concerns about off-site drainage would be dealt with as a licensing matter by the Environment Agency, which has raised no objection in principle to the proposal. On-site drainage would also be covered by pre-development planning conditions on any permission that may be granted.

8.9 The visual impact of the development is considered to be acceptable and would be enhanced by way of a landscaping scheme to be submitted by way of conditions attached to any consent that may be granted.

8.10 The issues raised about amenity impacts are an important consideration but the site is further from houses than the existing operation and located behind some large sheds. Similarly, it is noted that the Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions which would control amenity issues such as noise and dust.

8.11 Alternative sites have been suggested but all have had to be rejected. There are access problems at the former scrap-yard at Vaggs Lane, Hordle, and land ownership/economic issues at the former Ampress Works, Lymington and the Manor Farm Landfill, Pennington - which is a short life site in any case. In respect of the redundant highway land near New Milton and the former gravel pit/landfill at Mount Pleasant, there are 'greenbelt'/countryside policy constraints.

8.12 There is a need for such a business, partly demonstrated by current activity on the existing site. The applicant is also restricted on how far he can relocate from the central core of his offices and business at Tower View, Crabbswood Lane, Sway. The business has been said to serve mainly a three mile radius. This means that whatever the site, it is more likely than not to be within the New Forest Heritage Area.

8.13 The applicant runs a locally established business, serving the local community and providing local employment. The issue raised by the Gordleton Action Group's video, which appears to show approximately 60 movements per day egressing the existing site, is being investigated to see whether it is legally possible to serve any enforcement action on the applicant. It should be noted that if Members resolve to refuse the application it should be accompanied by a resolution to take enforcement action to remove plant and hardstandings on the existing site and restore the land to agriculture.

8.14 In summary, the perfect site for construction recycling is unlikely to be found particularly in the New Forest Heritage Area. The decision has to be a judgement on the relative merits of the case. It is considered that there is a need:

(i) for the waste facility;

(ii) to continue to provide local employment;

(iii) for farm diversification to aid the rural economy; and

(iv) to relocate and expand an existing local business within the New Forest Heritage Area. Any loss of hedgerow vegetation to create the new access is not considered to be so detrimental to the character of this part of the New Forest Heritage Area as to warrant refusal of the application. Also, despite objections on traffic related issues on balance it is recommended that permission for the development be granted.

Recommendations

1. Subject to a legal agreement covering lorry routeing and a contribution to highway maintenance, planning permission for an inert waste material transfer station and recycling facility and construction of a new vehicular access at Ambervale Farm, Pitmore Lane, Sway (Application No. 75507) be granted, subject to the following conditions:

Time Limit

(1) The development to which this permission relates shall be begun no later than the expiration of six months beginning with the date of this permission. Written notification of the commencement shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Layout

(2) No development shall commence until details of the site layout, including location of offices, weighbridge, hard surfacing, walls, fencing and haul roads, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities and the efficient operation of the site.

Hours of Working

(3) No vehicle shall enter or leave the site and no working shall take place except between the hours of 0730 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0730 to 1300 Saturday. There shall be no operations relating to the development on Sunday and recognised public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Types of Waste

(4) No waste other than those waste materials defined in the application shall enter the site.

Reason: Waste materials outside these categories raise environmental and amenity issues which would require consideration afresh.

Access

(5) No development, except the construction of the access, shall commence until the access road, visibility splays, parking and manoeuvring provision have been laid out, constructed and surfaced in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. These areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for these purposes for the duration of this permission. The visibility splays shown on the approved drawings shall be provided and maintained free of obstruction.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(6) The surfacing of the site access shall be maintained in accordance with an approved maintenance regime until such time as it is no longer required for these operations.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and safeguarding the local environment.

(7) Prior to work commencing on site, details of measures to be taken to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site being deposited on the public highway shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The measures shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure that mud is not carried onto the public highway in the interests of highway safety.

Lorry Routeing

(8) Prior to commencement of landfill operations a sign shall be erected (and thereafter maintained) at the quarry/landfill site exit, advising drivers of vehicle routes agreed with the Waste Planning Authority (where wider signage is necessary, it is important to require prior approval of the location and form of these signs).

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with agreed routeing.

(9) Lorry movements to and from the site shall be restricted to 44 per day, rising to a maximum of 82 movements per day on cessation of working at Mount Pleasant Sand and Gravel Pit on Pitmore Lane. A daily record of lorries entering and leaving the site shall be kept at the site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority on request.

Reason: To limit the volumes of traffic in the interests of the amenity of residents on and near the approaches to the site.

Noise

(10) The rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level, determined to be 44 dB LAeq, 15 minutes, by more than 5 dB(A) between the hours of 0730 and 1800 Monday to Friday, and 0730 and 1300 on Saturday. The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises (currently Matford View, Pitmore Lane, Sway). The measurements and assessments shall be made in accordance with BS4142:1997. There shall be no working outside the hours stated above.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(11) No development shall take place until a detailed scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority specifying:

(i) noise monitoring and recording procedures;

(ii) noise suppression measures; and

(iii) procedures to be adopted in the event of the maximum permitted noise levels being exceeded.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and of local residents.

(12) Prior to work commencing on site, details of dust control measures shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The details shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Drainage and Pollution Control

(13) No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the drainage and disposal of surface water has been submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall be implemented as approved prior to the site becoming operational and maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site.

(14) No sewage or trade effluent (including vehicle wash or vehicle steam cleaning effluent) shall be discharged to any surface water drainage system.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

(15) Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through he interceptor.

Reason: To prevent pollution to the water environment.

(16) Drainage from waste sorting/storage areas, workshops, refuelling areas and vehicle wash down shall not be discharged to any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway. All surface water from roofs should be piped to an approved surface water drainage system using sealed downpipes. Open gullies should not be used.

Reason: To prevent pollution to the water environment.

(17) Inspection manholes shall be provided and clearly identified on foul and surface water drainage systems. Soakaways shall not be located in areas identified as contaminated land.

Reason: To prevent pollution to the water environment.

(18) Any facilities for the storage of fuels shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.

Reason: To prevent pollution to the water environment.

(19) No development shall commence until details of completion of construction of the existing building, within its existing footprint have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of local amenities.

Landscaping

(20) No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the landscaping and after-care of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include details of:

(i) positions, species and sizes of all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained and the proposals for their protection throughout the operation;.

(ii) positions, species, density and initial sizes of all new trees and shrubs;

(iii) any hard landscaping proposed;

(iv) earth mounding and/or other landscaping measures to screen the site;

(v) programme of implementation of the scheme; and

(vi) arrangements for subsequent maintenance;

(vii) replacement of any existing trees or new trees that die, become diseased or severely damaged during implementation of or within five years of completion of the development.

The scheme as approved shall be carried out in full (unless with the prior approval of the Waste Planning Authority in writing to a variation).

Reason: The provision and maintenance of a satisfactory degree of landscaping is considered essential in the interest of visual amenity.

Nature Conservation

(21) Details of the measures to relocate the barn owl shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved measures shall be implemented as approved before works commence on site.

Reason: To protect the barn owl nesting at the site.

2. That enforcement action on the applicant's existing waste transfer station at North Common Lane, Sway (Application No. 00057104M) be deferred until six months from the date of this permission or implementation of the development subject of this permission, whichever is the sooner.

7740/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 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.

Policy EC3

In addition to the provisions of Policy EC1, the following types of development will normally be permitted having regard to the countryside policies of the Plan:

(a) within and adjoining rural settlements:

(i) use by businesses of existing buildings;

(ii) workshops, industries and businesses appropriate in scale and location to the settlement or site;

(b) outside rural settlements:

(i) use by businesses of existing buildings provided that the buildings have not become so derelict that they could be brought back into use only by complete or substantial reconstruction;

(ii) buildings associated with agriculture, horticulture or forestry.

153. This policy provides guidelines for judging proposals for industrial, commercial, farming and forestry development on land outside existing or proposed built-up areas as defined in local plans. It provides for development in the countryside and development within or adjacent to rural settlements intended to encourage appropriate rural enterprise, providing it is consistent with the Plan's countryside and other policies and is appropriate to its surroundings. Enterprise related to the development of tourist, recreational and sporting facilities is covered by Policy R3.

154. A healthy rural economy is essential to maintain the independence and self-sufficiency of rural communities and an attractive, well-managed countryside. The aim of the policy is to support development which is essential to meet the needs of the rural economy. Farm diversification is a crucial element in helping to support agriculture, horticulture and woodland management. It enables alternative sources of income to sustain the core business of farming and helps provide employment opportunities to meet local needs. The continuing viability of farming may depend on a diversification of activities in order to support the existing agriculture uses. In such cases the conversion and re-use of existing buildings, adapted for a new enterprise, may be appropriate, providing that their rural character is retained and the historic or architectural importance of the buildings is not damaged.

Policy NF1

To protect the special character of the New Forest, development, even in accordance with other policies of this Plan, will only be permitted where individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development, it will not harm the flora, fauna, geological, archaeological or landscape character of the New Forest and will:

(i) help maintain the traditional commoning regime of grazing and management which contributes to the landscape and ecological character of the New Forest; and/or

(ii) help maintain the social and economic well-being of communities in the New Forest Heritage Area; and/or

(iii) promote the enjoyment and understanding of the Area by the public.

Once the boundary of the New Forest Heritage Area has been defined in local plans, it should be regarded as permanent unless there are exceptionally strong reasons for altering it. Any alterations to the boundary should only be undertaken through the local plan process.

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.

NEW FOREST DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1999)

Policy NF-RB1

Re-use of buildings in the New Forest.

Permission will be granted for the re-use of buildings in the New Forest for:

b employment uses in accordance with Policy NF-B2, Section D4;

provided that:

i in the case of agricultural or forestry buildings, the building is genuinely redundant in its existing use and not capable of fulfilling any beneficial agricultural use; and

ii the proposed use will not have an unacceptable impact on the character or amenities of the New Forest by visual intrusion, or material increases in traffic or pollution, including noise and light; and

iii the building is appropriate in scale and appearance to its location, and can be converted without significant extension or alteration to its external appearance or detriment to itself or its surroundings; and

iv the building is structurally sound, and can be re-occupied without re-building; and

v the building can be provided with access, car parking and services without works detrimental to the character of the New Forest.

In the case of re-use of agricultural buildings, permitted development rights may be withdrawn for new farm buildings at the agricultural holding concerned.

D12.1 This policy is intended to enable the re-use or change of use of existing buildings which are appropriate to their New Forest setting, are a re-usable resource capable of conversion without major reconstruction (i.e. they can be refurbished economically to meet the required standards such as Building Regulations and Factory Act provisions), and are on sites which meet highway and other local authority standards. The policy enables the use of a building to change to an alternative use which is considered to be appropriate in the New Forest under the policies of this local plan. The building to be re-used should be suitable for the new use proposed without the need for additions or extensions.

D12.2 Changes in both the profitability of farming and its methods of working have in recent years led to pressures for agricultural buildings to be put to other uses. While the local planning authority is sympathetic to these needs it is also concerned to ensure that the particular interests of the New Forest are best served when considering the re-use of farm and forestry buildings.

Policy NF-B2

New industrial/office/business uses will only be permitted in the New Forest in existing buildings, in accordance with Policy NF-RB1, Section D12. In appropriate circumstances restrictive conditions may be used to control the type of business use permitted if this is necessary to ensure that the type of use remains appropriate to the building and its location in the longer term.

D4.11 Policies of this local plan direct new employment uses to built-up areas outside the New Forest, and specifically to sites allocated for these uses. However, the re-use and adaption of rural buildings for business purposes can make a significant contribution to the diversification of the rural economy, bringing new life and activity to rural communities. The local planning authority will be concerned to ensure that any employment use permitted will be of an appropriate scale and character compatible with its New Forest location, and will not have an adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on the New Forest environment. Accordingly the local planning authority will make use of restrictive conditions on planning permissions granted where the use of such conditions will enable a particular proposal to be permitted but a more general unrestricted permission for an employment use would be considered unacceptable.