Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext 6728

1. Summary

1.1 This report considers a proposal for variation of conditions to extend the time for continuing operations at Bordon Sandpit, Pickets Hill, Sleaford, Bordon for a further five years, to 13 March 2008. The recommendation is to refuse on the grounds of the adverse impact for nature conservation, risk of pollution to water resources, and need insufficient to justify disturbance to local residents.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, totals an area of 6.14 hectares. It was a former sand quarry, and also contains a concrete batching plant. The site, registered as common land (No CL 147), is next to the River Slea, and adjoins both Broxhead and Kingsley Commons Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Wealdon Heaths Phase II Special Protection Area (SPA), which are to the south-east of the site. The nearest houses adjoin the site.

2.2 Planning permission was granted in 1991 for sand extraction, landfill and use of plant to recycle construction waste. The permission was implemented on 14 March 1996, and the planning conditions require the cessation of mineral working and waste tipping on or before seven years from commencement, therefore requiring cessation by 13 March 2003. The proposal is for a variation of condition to extend the period for operating the site for a further five years, to 13 March 2008.

2.3 Following implementation there was no further activity at the site, until the beginning of February 2003 when the applicant took over the site. They have constructed an access road, hardstanding and bunds from construction waste, and used the site continuously for importing construction/demolition waste, and more recently for recycling, using a concrete crusher, trommel / soil screener to produce secondary aggregate and soils. Consequently the majority of the waste activity at the site has taken place following the expiry of the planning consent for tipping. The applicant was requested to cease tipping until the application was determined, but operations continued. However the applicant has recently written to state that they would wind down their operations to process and recycle waste such that within four months there would be no stockpiles at the site.

2.4 The site does not currently benefit from a Waste Management Licence, although there was a licence issued in the past to the landowner which was surrendered last year.

2.5 Although the period permitted for infilling has expired, the planning permission allows for a further two years to complete the restoration to heathland.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996 - 2011 (adopted March 2000) Policy MW2 concerns mineral and waste proposals.

3.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted December 1998) Policy 7 concerns mineral and waste proposals, and Policy 46 concerns recycling proposals.

4. Consultations

4.1 East Hampshire District Council: no comments received.

4.2 Headley Parish Council: raises no objection subject to conditions.

4.3 Kingsley Parish Council: no comments received.

4.4 Dockenfield Parish Council: raises objection on the grounds that the site is already closed, only restoration requirements remain; the site is common land, and the range of waste is unsuitable.

4.5 Environment Agency: no comments received.

4.6 South East Water: no comments received.

4.7 East Hampshire District Council Environmental Health Officer: raises no objection, subject to conditions.

4.8 English Nature: comments that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on Wealdon Heaths Phase II SPA nor Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSI. However they raise a holding objection on the grounds that the site itself is likely to have ecological importance for protected species.

4.9 Hampshire Wildlife Trust: raises a holding objection on the grounds that the site is likely to have developed ecological interest.

5. Representations

5.1 The local Member, Councillor Filer, raises an objection on grounds that the site was closed and did not have a Waste Management Licence, and the range of waste previously permitted was not now classified as inert.

5.2 Letters of objection have been received from five local residents on the following:

(i) the proposal is a violation of a registered common;

(ii) the access splay is inadequate;

(iii) issues of noise and dust;

(iv) proximity to water table, possibility of pollutants getting into the water supply;

(v) too close to dwellings; and

(vi) increased traffic on the A325.

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 The site has seen virtually no activity since being granted planning consent, the site only being intensively used since February this year. Consequently the majority of the development has been carried out by the applicant since the permission for waste tipping expired. In view of the lack of previous activity, the suitability of the site for landfill and recycling needs to be re-evaluated. The issues are whether this is still a suitable site for this activity, and whether a further period of five years would be acceptable.

6.2 At the time of the original consent the site had recently been part of an active sand quarry, and consequently was still in a disturbed state. The permission granted for landfill included restoration to heathland to complement the nearby SPA and SSSI. However, the inactivity at the site has resulted in the site regenerating to the extent that it is likely that nature conservation habitats of value have developed. The full extent of any regeneration is not clear and further detailed surveys would be necessary. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposals would not have an adverse impact on nature conservation.

6.3 The site is very close to the River Slea, and also close to the Headley Pumping Station which provides for domestic water supply. The range of wastes permitted include construction, demolition, civil engineering and solid, non-putrescible industrial and commercial waste, which are no longer considered to be inert. There is therefore a potential risk to these water resources from waste tipping at the site.

6.4 Objections have been raised on the grounds that the site is a registered common. Whilst this is correct, the legal advice is that this does not prevent the County Council from determining the planning application.

6.5 The operation of the site will cause disturbance to local residents, particularly in terms of noise and lorry traffic. The regeneration of the site, both in terms of nature conservation and visually, is such that there is less need to undertake landfill to provide environmental improvement. In view of this reduced need, the disturbance is not warranted.

Recommendation

That planning permission for a variation of condition (4) of planning permission F20310/7 to extend the time at Bordon Sandpit, Sleaford, Bordon (planning application F20310/019/CMA) be refused for the following reasons:

(i) The proposal is contrary to Policy 7(v) and (vii) of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that the site has developed nature conservation habitats which would be destroyed by the landfill proposal;

(ii) The proposal is contrary to Policy 7(ix) of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that there could be a risk to pollution of water resources; and

(iii) The proposal is contrary to Policy 7(i)of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that the need to restore the former mineral site does not warrant the disturbance to local residents.

8057/PDC

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN 1996-2011 (REVIEW) (ADOPTED MARCH 2000)

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.

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

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 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, smell or other cause; and

(v) the proposed site is located so as to avoid unacceptable impact on landscape, nature conservation and archaeological interests; and

(vi) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that there would be no significant risk of pollution or danger to public health or safety; 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.