Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext 6728 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for a waste recycling facility for screening and crushing pre-sorted waste to provide secondary aggregate at Bordon Sandpit, Sleaford. The recommendation is to grant planning permission. because, although a departure from Development Plan Policy, it is considered that there is a need for further recycling facilities and the environmental impacts can be controlled. On balance, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for a 12 month period, subject to conditions. This gives the applicant the opportunity to demonstrate that the site can be operated in an acceptable manner fully in accordance with proposed conditions. However if this cannot be demonstrated then it would be a significant material consideration for any application to extend the period further.

2. Site

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, totals an area of 1.10 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 required the cessation of mineral working and waste tipping on or before seven years from commencement, therefore requiring cessation by 13 March 2003. A planning application for an extension of time was refused planning permission earlier this year. The refusal was on the grounds that the site has developed nature conservation habitats which would be destroyed by the landfill proposal, there could be a risk to pollution of water resources and the need to restore the former mineral site does not warrant the disturbance to local residents.

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

2.4 Following implementation there was no further activity at the site, until the beginning of February 2003 when the applicant took over the site. The applicant has constructed an access road, hardstanding and bunds from construction waste, and used the site continuously for importing construction/demolition waste, and 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. In addition, the site does not currently benefit from a Waste Management Licence.

2.5 The proposal is for the continuation of the current activities for 12 months. It is anticipated that the site would take about 75000 tonnes of waste. Wood would be separated for processing elsewhere, metals would be removed for recycling and soil hardcore builders rubble would be recycled at the site. Non recyclable material would be removed to a land fill. A further noise report and ecological report have been submitted. The applicant states that a consent for 12 months would enable them to prove that the site would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the local environment.

2.6 It is anticipated that the proposal would generate about 40 lorry movements per day on average, with a maximum of 60 during any one day. Access would be via the existing entrance and then to the A325.

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 raises objection on the grounds that it would cause undue disturbance to neighbouring residents due to the level of activity proposed.

4.2 East Hampshire District Council's Environmental Health Officer has concerns about the effect of noise and dust on local residents. He proposes conditions to adequately control noise and dust and, if attached to any planning consent, would not raise formal objection. Also comments that if during the 12 month period the applicant has not demonstrated that the noise and dust can be adequately controlled this could prejudice the view of future applications.

4.3 South East Water raises no objection, subject to conditions.

4.4 Environment Agency - final comments awaited.

4.5 English Nature comments that following the submission of the ecology report, the proposed mitigation measures are supported, but has concerns at drainage from the operational area and the impact of noise and dust in relation to the Wealdon Heaths Phase II Special Protection Area.

4.6 The County Council's Highways Adviser raises no objection, subject to conditions to restrict the number of lorry movements and maintain the visibility splay to the east.

4.7 Headley Parish Council raises objection on the same grounds that the previous application was refused and, in addition, on the grounds that the site is a registered common and the proposal is contrary to Policy 46 (iii) (c) as the site is not an active landfill site.

4.8 Kingsley Parish Council raises objection on the same grounds as the previous refusal and, in addition, that the site is a registered common; it does not comply with Policy 46 as it is not an industrial site nor allocated for industry; it is not an active landfill site and it is not brownfield. The Parish Council considers there are adequate facilities for recycling locally, permission having been granted at Selborne Brickworks for recycling building and demolition waste.

4.9 Dockenfield Parish Council

4.10 Whitehill Parish Council raises objection on grounds of additional lorry movements on the A325 through Whitehill/Bordon, which is unacceptable. Also comments that additional lorry traffic would add to congestion, pollution and delays, with roadworks programmed for the A325 in the next 12 months and proposed construction of Hindhead Tunnel.

5. Representations

5.1 Councillor Filer raises objection.

5.2 Letters of objection have been received from four local residents. The objections are on the grounds of unacceptable level of lorry traffic at the junction with the A325, adverse impact for nearby mushroom growing business, the site is registered common land, the access is onto C102, a narrow country lane, pollution risk for Headley Pumping Station, additional traffic on A325, the site is not a brownfield site, above an aquifer, inadequate visibility splays at entrance, noise nuisance, dirt and dust, as site entrance adjoins Vine Cottage (about 70 metres from the bungalow).

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 The application is clearly retrospective as the operations have been ongoing since the beginning of the year, and the site has operated without planning permission or a waste management licence. Whilst this cannot be condoned, the current application has to be considered on its merits. The issues are principally the same as those associated with the previous application, which was refused planning permission. These were the impact on the nature conservation interest which has developed within the quarry, potential for pollution of water resources; the impact for local residents from noise, dust and lorry traffic, and the issue of the site being registered common land. In addition, the proposal is a departure from policy as the site does not meet the location criteria within Policy 46. The consideration is whether the need for recycling is such as to warrant a departure from policy, and whether the proposal is environmentally acceptable.

6.2 The concern about nature conservation is less significant with this application. The land is already in use, it is not proposed in this application to extend further into the quarry, and so affect areas which have not been disturbed. Also, the ecological report proposes mitigation to protect the remaining interest. However, there are still concerns about drainage and the impact of noise and dust on the nearby European site.

6.3 The proposal is for the recycling of inert construction and demolition waste, and consequently is not likely to raise the same level of concern about pollution as the previous application which would have allowed a wider range of waste. It is also noted that South East Water, who operates the nearby Headley Pumping Station, is not raising objection to this proposal.

6.4 There is concern at the impacts of noise and dust from the operations on site and from the lorry traffic associated with the proposal adversely affecting nearby local residents. The past operation has given rise to complaint. However, it is noted that the Environmental Health Officer is not raising objection, subject to suggested conditions. The applicant has stated that the reason for the application is to demonstrate that the site can be operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, if planning permission is granted this would be in accordance with the conditions proposed by the Environmental Health Officer. Whilst the application is for 12 months, the company clearly wishes to operate from the site for a longer period. If acceptability cannot be demonstrated during the 12 months proposed, it would be a material consideration for any future application to extend the period.

6.5 The proposal is a departure from the Development Plan, as the site does not meet the location criteria in Policy 46. It is not industrial land, nor is it allocated for industry, and it is not a brownfield site. Whilst the site had planning permission for land fill, this has expired and so the site is not an active consented land fill. Therefore, the issue is whether the need for recycling is such as to warrant an exception to policy. It is considered that there is a significant need for additional facilities for producing secondary aggregate if recycling targets are to be achieved this could warrant an exception to policy, provided a site was environmentally acceptable. The site is a registered common, however, the legal advice is that this is not a planning consideration and any proceedings arising from the relevant property legislations is for the interested parties to initiate independantly.

6.6 In conclusion, it is considered that unlike the previous application for extending the time for landfill, the concerns about nature conservation and potential pollution can be adequately controlled and mitigated by conditions. It is also considered that there is a need for further recycling facilities to meet recycling aspirations. On balance, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for a 12 month period, subject to conditions. This gives the applicant the opportunity to demonstrate that the site can be operated in an acceptable manner fully in accordance with proposed conditions. However, if this cannot be demonstrated then it would be a significant material consideration for any application to extend the period further.

Recommendation

That, subject to no objection being raised by the Environment Agency, planning permission in respect of temporary permission to operate a waste recycling operation, involving the imporation of waste material, screening and crushing of pre-sorted material to produce secondary aggregate, and the export off site of both processed and non-processable material at Bordon Sandpit, Sleaford (Application No. F.20310/022/CMA) be granted, subject to the following conditions/refused permission for the following reasons:

Time Limit

(1) This permission shall be limited to a period of one year from the date of this permission, by which time all importation of waste and recycling shall cease and the site restored in accordance with the scheme approved under condition (10) within a period of one month.

Reason: To provide for the completion and progressive restoration of the site within the approved timescale.

Noise

(2) Noise generated by operations at the site shall not exceed 50dB(A) Leq (1 hour) when measured at Stone Cottage, Vine Cottage, The Bungalow and Trottsford Farm.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(3) Within one month of the date of this consent a noise attenuation and monitoring scheme shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include measures to restrict/minimise disturbance from reversing bleepers. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Dust

(4) Within one month of the date of this consent a dust management scheme shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include details of measures for the suppression of dust from all plant (including crusher, trommel and screener), road vehicles and stockpiles. The scheme shall also include details of a dust monitoring programme. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason; In the interests of local amenity.

Hours of Working

(5) No concrete crusher, trommel or screener located on the site shall be operated outside the hours of 0900 and 1630 Monday to Friday. They shall not be operated at weekends or public and Bank holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(6) No vehicle shall enter or leave the site and no working (excluding the crusher, trommel and screener), maintenance or repair of plant and machinery shall take place except between the hours of 0800 and 1730 Monday to Friday, and 0800 to 1300 Saturday. There shall be no operations on Sunday, Bank holidays and public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Highways

(7) The number of lorry movements shall not exceed 40 per day, Monday to Friday, or 20 on Saturday. A record of all lorry movements associated with the site shall be kept on site, which will be available for inspection by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(8) The visibility splay to the east shall be maintained at the site entrance. Vegetation being maintained at a maximum height of 1 metre within the visibility splay.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

Pollution Control

(9) Within one month of the date of this consent, a drainage scheme shall be submitted for the operational area to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To prevent pollution and adverse impact for nearby areas of ecological importance.

(10) Nothing, other than clean, dry, non-putrescible waste material comprising topsoil, subsoil, brickwork, concrete, stone, clay, plaster, sand, and silica or mixtures of the above materials shall be deposited at the site.

Reason: To prevent water pollution.

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

(11) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any Order amending, replacing or re-enacting that Order:

(a) no fixed plant or machinery, building, structures and erections, or private ways shall be erected, extended, installed, or replaced within the site without the prior approval in writing of the Waste Planning Authority;

(b) no additional lights or fences shall be installed or erected at the quarry/landfill unless details of them have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and bearing in mind the degree of discretion otherwise allowed by the GPDO.

Restoration, Aftercare and Afteruse

(12) Restoration of the site shall comprise:

(a) the removal of all machinery, plant, buildings and structures, crushed rock, concrete structures, liners and haul roads;

(b) regrading and replacement of soil to the approved levels and contours and restoration of the site to a state suitable for heathland;

(c) all such work shall be carried out within one month of the date on which the importation of waste to the site ceases.

Reason: To secure the restoration of the site.

(13) An aftercare scheme showing the steps to be taken to restore the physical characteristics of the land, so far as it is practicable to do so, to a condition suitable for heathland shall be submitted for the approval of the Waste Planning Authority by not later than one month from the date of this permission.

Reason: To secure satisfactory restoration.

(14) Aftercare of the restored area of land shall take place for a period of five years and in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory restoration.

8303/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 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.