Archived decisions
MINERALS AND WASTE PLANNING IN HAMPSHIRE
ANNUAL REPORT 2002/03
PHOTOGRAPH
October 2003
(SECOND DRAFT: Appendices not included)
The Corporate Aims of Hampshire County Council
Aim 1 Maximising life opportunities
Creating opportunities for the whole community
Aim 2 Stewardship of the environment
Protecting our environment and ensuring that Hampshire remains a place where people want to live
Aim 3 Achieving economic prosperity
Leading the development of a strong and sustainable economy
Aim 4 Building strong and safe communities
Working together with local people to build strong and safe communities for everyone
Aim 5 Improving services
Making sure services continuously improve to meet the changing needs of the whole community
Aim 6 Developing councillors and staff
Ensuring they have the appropriate training and resources to respond to the needs of the people of Hampshire
Note: Need to make reference to these in the text where appropriate
Cover:
Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03
Foreword by Executive Member for Spatial Strategy and Chairman of Regulatory Committee, Hampshire County Council
Photograph |
To be added |
Photograph |
Signature
Councillor Jonathan Glen
Executive Member for Spatial Strategy
Signature
Councillor John West
Chairman of Regulatory Committee
Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03
Contents: |
Page: | |
Summary |
1 | |
1. |
Introduction |
5 |
2. |
Monitoring and enforcement |
7 |
3. |
Planning applications and appeals |
13 |
4. |
Review of planning policy |
23 |
5. |
Meeting the need for minerals |
27 |
6. |
Meeting the need for waste management |
33 |
7. |
Good practice |
39 |
Appendices: |
43 | |
1. |
Minerals and Waste Planning Group and Other Contacts |
45 |
2. |
Minerals and Waste Sites in Hampshire |
47 |
3. |
Minerals and Waste Development in Hampshire |
77 |
Maps: |
After 89 | |
Minerals Sites in Hampshire |
||
Waste Sites in Hampshire |
||
Alison Quant BSc MSc MRTPI
Director of Environment
Hampshire County Council
The Castle
Winchester
SO23 8UD
October 2003
Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/3
· Summary
1. Introduction
This is the sixth Annual Report which meets a commitment in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan to prepare regular monitoring reports on minerals and waste.
The format is similar to previous years but more emphasis is placed on performance targets and actions. It is primarily for the financial year 2002/03 but includes information on minerals and waste development in Hampshire up to the end of October 2003.
The Report concludes that national and local performance targets for minerals and waste are only partially being met; actions are being taken to improve the service provided; but that resources are being stretched.
· Contacts for advice on minerals and waste planning and related matters in Hampshire are listed in Appendix 1.
2. Monitoring and enforcement
The Annual Report identifies that the monitoring and enforcement performance targets set out in the `Development Control (Enforcement) Policy' adopted in October 2000, are not being met.
These require all active mineral and waste sites to be visited at least four times a year, inactive sites at least once a year and complaints responded to within two days. During 2002, only 84% of the permitted sites received recorded monitoring visits, with less than three visits per site monitored. Complaints are normally responded to on the same day but the recording system requires updating.
The targets are not being met for a number of reasons including:
· an increasing number of sites (225) with planning permission, 53 new sites since 1 April 2001;
· increasingly complex operations, particularly waste developments;
· a consequent increase in the number and complexity of planning conditions requiring the submission of details for determination;
· a consequent increase in the number and complexity of planning conditions to be monitored and enforced;
· an increase in the number of Liaison Panels to be serviced; and
· an increase in complaints about the operation of sites to be responded to.
To improve the frequency, efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring visits and the recording of visits and complaints the following actions are being taken:
· a temporary, part-time monitoring officer has been employed, increasing the number of staff to 2.4 fte;
· the Site Inspection Report has been redesigned so that a copy is now signed by and left with the operator;
· a system of `risk based monitoring' is being developed;
· a new computer-based planning application system will be extended to include monitoring and enforcement.
· Minerals and waste sites are listed in Appendix 2 and indicated on Maps.
3. Planning applications and appeals
The Annual Report identifies that the performance targets set by government for determining planning application were met in 2002/03. These require at least 55% of `County Matter' applications to be determined within 13 weeks, excluding those with Environmental Statements and Mineral Review applications. During 2002/03 over 65% of these applications (40/61) were determined within 13 weeks.
Between 200/01 and 2002/03 the number of `County Matter' planning applications received each year progressively increased from 56 to 94 and the number determined from 48 to 65, an increase of 68% and 35% respectively. The number of applications remaining to be determined increased from 39 to 63 at the beginning of April 2003. However, many of those applications outstanding required action by the applicant, including the conclusion of legal agreements. Action has been taken to reduce the number outstanding which is now down to 34.
To maintain and improve the level of service, the Environment Departmental Management Board has adopted a Development Control Service Plan Review and Action Plan for Service Improvements. This Review identifies the following actions:
· adoption of a Development Control Service Policy setting out standards so that all stakeholders understand what is being provided and to what level;
· carry out a user satisfaction survey `piggy backed' on a statutory Planning Best Value Indicator survey;
· review use of the annual Members' Tours of sites to examine outcomes of planning decisions;
· instigate a site inspection strategy based on `environmental risk' to improve site inspection recording; and
· complete installation of and commission the new Development Control System.
The processing of planning applications is resource intensive, particularly given the complexity of `County Matters' and the interest they generate with the public. To improve the efficiency of the service, a new computer-based development control system went on-line in July 2003 to provide an electronic data link for applications from registration, through determination, to implementation and monitoring. Additional, temporary administrative staff was employed, while the new system was being implemented. This post has now been advertised to maintain improvements in the service and handle a continued increase in workload.
The number of appeals against refusal of planning permission and against enforcement action has also increased to date. Appeals are particularly resource intensive, both in administration and professional input, even where consultants are employed. The actions identified should help to address these peaks in workload.
· Minerals and waste planning applications determined or remaining outstanding are listed in Appendix 2
4. Planning policy
The Annual Report identifies that the performance targets set by government for minerals and waste planning policy, for an up-to-date Plan adopted in the past five years and the procedures in place for the speedy review of these plans, are only partially being met.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill currently progressing through Parliament is a fundamental review of the way authorities carry out their planning functions, including the format of development plans and community involvement. In tandem, a whole raft of new draft regulations, procedures and guidance is being produced by the ODPM and Regional offices for consultation.
The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan was finally adopted in December 1998 and ran to December 2001 with a seven year landbank for land-won sand and gravel to December 2008. A review of the minerals part of the Plan commenced with a series of stakeholder meetings in 2001/2002; an Issues Paper published for wider consultation in June 2002; and a study of the mineral resources in Hampshire, to ascertain where future resources might be worked. The aim was to publish a deposit version of the review of the minerals part of the Plan in late Autumn 2003.
However, the three planning strategic authorities reconsidered the approach to the review in the light of comments arising from the stakeholder dialogue and the implications of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. A review of waste policies is now being progressed and an integrated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF) is likely to be put on deposit in late Autumn 2004. The HMWDF will also form part of the Materials Resource Strategy launched in September 2003.
The resources committed to the review of the Plan are to be enhanced with one additional officer. However, the changes brought about by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, and the planning input necessary for the Materials Resource Strategy programme, will inevitably place pressure on tight resources to comply with the timetables for plans required by the Government.
5. Meeting the need for minerals
The Annual Report identifies that at the 2.7 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) allowed for in the Plan, a landbank exists of permitted reserves of sand and gravel, sufficient for only five years at the beginning of 2003 with a further 3.8 years provision identified in the Plan. However, sales for the past ten years have averaged 2.5mtpa, falling to 2.2mtpa in 2002. A number of sites are coming to the end of their permitted reserves and the rate of new planning permissions is not keeping pace with sales. With a few exceptions, this is mainly a reflection of the industry failing to submit applications rather than of the planning process. The future provision for sand and gravel and other minerals will be reviewed in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF) in the light of revised forecasts and apportionments identified in the Regional Minerals Strategy Consultation Draft published by South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in September 2003.
6. Meeting the need for waste management
The Annual Report also identifies a remaining permitted and licensed landfill capacity for non-inert waste sufficient for only two years at 2000/2001 input rates. In practice this is largely in only three remaining sites. However, the infrastructure necessary to meet Hampshire's Household Waste Strategy - energy recovery incinerators, materials recovery, waste transfer and composting facilities - are now in place or being constructed. The future provision for all waste management facilities will be reviewed in the HMWDF in the light of revised forecasts identified in the Regional Waste Strategy Consultation Draft published by SEERA in March 2003.
7. Good practice
Mineral working and subsequent restoration, with or without backfilling, is undertaken for the benefit of the community at large. In the majority of cases, this is undertaken without lasting environmental damage. Indeed, there are examples which have produced wider environmental benefits such as in wildlife habitat creation, in some cases of International importance or restoration to recreation. Examples are included in the Annual Report of where minerals and or waste developments in Hampshire have produced wider benefits in the archaeological and ecological fields, or where such developments have raised wider issues.
Most operators in Hampshire belong to the minerals or waste trade associations which require their members to adhere to Environmental Codes of Practice. Many larger minerals and waste companies operate Environmental Management Schemes both for their organisations and for individual operations. The County Council supports the principle of the use of these codes and management schemes and seeks to work with the minerals and waste industries so as to minimise the impacts of working and maximise the wider benefits to the communities affected through restoration and access.
Conclusions
Although efficiencies have or are being put in place, the Minerals and Waste Planning Service is constantly striving to meet increasing demands on the service. With well over 200 permitted minerals and waste sites in Hampshire at various stages of development, over 100 minerals and waste planning applications a year currently being processed and over 50 unauthorised activities investigated each year meeting targets is challenging.
· Monitoring and Enforcement -
Members have expressed a desire to increase the use of formal enforcement powers to deal with perceived abuses of the system. Enforcement of planning conditions, or of unauthorised development, is undertaken primarily through negotiation. Where formal enforcement action has been taken this has been successful. However, such action is usually only successful when all other means have been explored. Whether formal or informal action is taken, monitoring and enforcement is time consuming and, without the co-operation of the developer, is frustratingly slow for both the public and the authority. The options are to either focus effort where the risk is judged to be greatest or to increase resources. The consequence of focussed, `risk based' action is that public expectations that conditions are to be enforced elsewhere are not met, leading to an increase in complaints. If and when fees for monitoring are introduced by government, resources will need to be reviewed.
· Planning Applications -
Members have also expressed concern about the delay in progressing legal agreements once it has been resolved to grant planning permission and the late submission of applications for extensions of time. Progress has now been made in reducing the backlog of applications, although a number of draft agreements have been with applicants for some time. Progress is also being made in encouraging operators to submit applications for extensions of time well in advance, although there is no statutory requirement for them to do so. Government expects year-on-year improvement in performance, linked to increased application fees and possibly to Planning Delivery Grant. Increasing public involvement in the planning application and appeals process adds to pressures on the Service and needs to be kept under review.
· Planning Policy -
The review of minerals and waste policy is being given high priority in association with the Materials Resource Strategy. Stakeholder involvement in this process, involvement at the site selection and public inquiry stages are likely to add ton the pressures on the service and resources need to be kept under review.
The Minerals and Waste Planning Service has adapted to change over many years to keep abreast of the demands placed on it. Actions have been taken to address these changes and to improve the Service, but these actions also divert resources away from the day-to-day casework. The nature of minerals and waste planning is that programmes and procedures can easily be diverted by major applications, appeals and enforcement or the need to respond to and influence national and regional policy and initiatives. Resources can then be stretched to breaking point. Changes proposed in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the consequent regulations, procedures and guidance, may also impact further on the Service.
The recommendation to Members is to publish the Annual Report; and to endorse the actions taken to improve the Service.
Alison Quant
Director of Environment
October 2003
The information in this document can also be made available in a large print format. To obtain a copy, or for further information on the contents of the sixth Annual Report, please contact Roger Stow in the Minerals and Waste Planning Group of the Planning Department on 01962 846731 or e.mail [email protected]
1. Introduction
Minerals and Waste Planning in Hampshire: Annual Report 2002/03 is the sixth in the series. It meets a commitment in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan to prepare minerals and waste monitoring reports on an annual basis:
· to include the results of the regular monitoring of minerals and waste sites and to summarise any action taken to secure compliance with planning controls (see 2. Monitoring and enforcement);
· to include information on planning decisions taken (see 3. Planning applications and appeals); and
· to summarise the results of surveys undertaken and to report on the monitoring of the Authorities' policies for minerals and waste, including the extent to which they are being met or complied with and the success or failure of them in achieving the planning objectives of the Authorities (see 4. Planning policy; 5. Meeting the need for minerals and 6. Meeting the need for waste management).
The format of the Annual Report is similar to previous years but more emphasis is placed on meeting national and local performance targets. It is primarily for the financial year 2002/03 but includes information on minerals and waste development in Hampshire up to the end of October 2003. Information from different sources may be for different periods.
· Minerals and waste planning
Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth City Council and Southampton City Council are the Mineral Planning Authority and Waste Planning Authority for their areas. The three Authorities are jointly responsible for formulating minerals and waste policies; and for determining planning applications for minerals and waste development in their areas; and ensuring that this development is carried out in accordance with conditions attached to planning permissions and with associated legal agreements.
The mineral and waste planning functions of the County Council are carried out primarily in the Minerals and Waste Planning Group of the Environment Department with specialist advice from others in the Authority. The Group also processes planning applications for County Council development and consultations on planning applications of a strategic nature from the 11 District Councils in Hampshire and other sources.
The Minerals and Waste Planning Group comprises three teams, dealing primarily with Planning Policy; Planning Applications; and Monitoring and Enforcement, together with administrative and technical support. Responsibilities within the Group are set out in Appendix 1.
The net expenditure of the Minerals and Waste Planning Group in 2002/03 was £589,000 including £100,000 for consultants and legal advice, compared with £443,000 and £47,000 for the previous year. The increase in expenditure was due mainly to planned provision for additional staffing costs, consultants, advertising, legal expenses and the Minerals and Waste Local Plan ; and overspends on staff traveling, consultants, advertising, legal expenses and the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Income from planning application fees and searches was £152,000, compared with £133,500 in the previous year.
From 28 October 2002, the former County Planning and Surveyor's Departments merged in a new Environment Department. The Minerals and Waste Planning Group reports primarily to the Executive Member for Environment (Councillor Keith Estlin) or the Executive Member for Spatial Strategy (Councillor Jonathan Glen) and to Regulatory Committee (Chairman, Councillor John West) on planning applications.
The policies against which minerals and waste development proposals in Hampshire are considered are contained in the Hampshire County Structure Plan and in more detail in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
· Waste management and regulation
The County Council is also the Waste Disposal Authority responsible for arranging for the disposal of household waste collected by District Councils and waste delivered by householders to the Council's network of Household Waste Recycling Centres; including letting contracts in connection with these duties. The main, long-term contract for dealing with Hampshire's household waste, including Portsmouth and Southampton, is let to Hampshire Waste Services Limited (HWS), part of the Onyx Group of Companies.
The Minerals and Waste Planning Group works closely with the Environment Agency which is responsible for Waste Regulation, that is for ensuring that waste management activities in the County do not give rise to pollution of the environment or harm to human health. The Environment Agency's responsibilities in Hampshire are divided between four area offices - South East Thames, Hampshire & Isle of Wight, South Western and West Sussex.
· Environmental health
The Minerals and Waste Planning Group also works closely with Environmental Health Officers at the District Councils who have statutory powers to deal with the control of noise, dust and odours.
· Minerals and waste industries
With certain exceptions, minerals and waste development is undertaken by the Minerals and Waste Industry. However, the County Council continues to provide Household Waste Recycling Centres, operated under contract by the private sector; and undertakes the post closure management of landfill sites operated by the County Council prior to the letting of contracts to HWS. In Hampshire, the minerals and waste industry are mainly represented by the Quarry Products Association and Environmental Services Association.
· The Team Structure for the Minerals and Waste Planning Group and the main areas of responsibility are listed in Appendix 1 together with contacts in the Environment Department for advice on minerals and waste related matters and at Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils, the Environment Agency and the Trade Associations.
Copies of the Annual Report are distributed to those with an interest in minerals and waste planning. Further copies may be purchased from the County Council. The current County Structure Plan and Minerals and Waste Local Plan may be viewed on Hantsweb at: www.hants.gov.uk/environment/future.html .
2. Monitoring and enforcement
· Performance
Monitoring and enforcement targets are set out in `Development Control (Enforcement) Policy' approved in October 2000. These require all active minerals and waste sites to be visited at least four times a year, inactive sites at least once a year and complaints responded to within two days (see Monitoring). These targets are not are not being met.
To improve the frequency, efficiency ands effectiveness of monitoring visits and the recording of visits and complaints the following actions are being taken:
· Action - to increase the frequency of visits a temporary, part time, monitoring officer has been appointed;
· Action - to increase the efficiency of visits, and reduce the amount of subsequent paper work, the site inspection report has been redesigned;
· Action - to manage the monitoring service more effectively, a system of `risk based monitoring' is being developed;
· Action - to improve monitoring and enforcement and complaint recording, that element of Datawright planning application system is to be implemented.
· Monitoring and enforcement of minerals and waste development is undertaken by the Monitoring and Enforcement Team in the Minerals and Waste Planning Group (see Appendix 1). Responsibility for regulating waste development is shared with the Environment Agency, which monitors the conditions imposed on Waste Management Licences. Minerals and waste sites are listed by district and type of activity in Appendix 2; and `live sites' are also indicated on the two Maps at the end of the Report. Monitoring of sites in Portsmouth and Southampton is the responsibility of the City Councils.
· Monitoring
The County Council carries out regular monitoring of minerals and waste development sites to seek to ensure that operations are being carried out in accordance with planning permissions and the conditions and legal agreements attached to them; and that details required to be submitted under conditions following the grant of planning permission are received and determined at the appropriate time (see Submission of details). Breaches of condition, or where development is undertaken without planning permission, are usually resolved through negotiation. Where appropriate, formal enforcement action is taken (see Enforcement).
There are now over 225 permitted minerals and waste development sites in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton and these are listed by district in Appendix 2; and indicated on two Maps at the end of the Annual Report.
During 2002, 84% of the permitted minerals and waste sites in Hampshire were visited (compared with 65% in 2001), with an average of 2.9 visits per site monitored (2.8 visits in 2001). Whilst this is an improvement on last year, visiting all active mineral and waste sites at least four times a year and non-active sites at least once a year, in accordance with the adopted Development Control (Enforcement) Policy, October 2000, is proving difficult to achieve for a number of reasons:
· An increasing number of sites with planning permission; 53 new sites since 1 April 2001;
· Increasingly complex operations, particularly waste developments;
· A consequent increase in the number and complexity of planning conditions requiring the submission of details for determination; and
· A consequent increase in the number and complexity of planning conditions to be monitored and enforced;
· An increase in the number of Site Liaison Panels to be serviced; and
· An increase in complaints about the operation of sites to be responded to.
To increase the frequency of visits, a part time monitoring officer was appointed in November 2002 on a temporary contract to work two days a week (subsequently extended to 31 March 2004), increasing the number of monitoring officers to 2.4 fte.
To increase the efficiency of visits, and reduce the amount of subsequent paper work, the site inspection report has been redesigned, similar to that of the Environment Agency, so that a copy is now signed by and left with the site operator. Any breaches are immediately recorded and an appropriate time for action agreed.
The frequency of visits is dependent on the complexity of the operations; the stage they have reached; the need to monitor particular activities; and the resources required in consultation on submissions, enforcement and dealing with complaints. Therefore, to manage the monitoring service more effectively, a system of risk based monitoring is being developed, similar to but not as complex as that of the Environment Agency OPRA (operator and pollution risk appraisal) risk assessments.
Regular meetings also take place with staff at the Environment Agency to share monitoring experience at waste sites and with Waste Management staff in the Environment Department who monitor household waste management contracts under Project Integra. Liaison meetings are also held with operators where particular problems have been identified.
The existing computer-based system for recording monitoring, enforcement and complaints has proved unreliable and a new development control system, from Datawright, which came on-line for planning applications in July 2003, should provide an electronic data link for applications through determination, to implementation and monitoring once it is fully operational.
· Submission of details
Most minerals and waste planning permissions are granted subject to conditions which require the submission of details at a specified time after the decision date or before development or specific activities can commence; these include environmental management, landscaping, working, restoration and aftercare schemes (T&CP (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, Article 21 submissions). Such submissions are determined following referral to relevant consultees for evaluation and, where appropriate, amendments negotiated. In the twelve month period April 2002/2003, 38 detailed submissions have been approved for 24 sites (34 and 21 respectively in 2001/2002).
· Restoration and aftercare
Mineral working with or without subsequent landfill can be restored to a beneficial after-use such as agriculture, forestry, recreation of wildlife habitat. A Survey of Land for Mineral Workings in England 2000, published by the DTLR in May 2002 includes details of the areas of land permitted for mineral working but not yet reclaimed; areas subject to review, reclamation and aftercare conditions; and areas reclaimed since a previous survey in 1994. The survey for Hampshire showed a total of 1049 hectares of mineral workings not yet reclaimed of which 249 hectares (24%) were permitted but not yet worked. A total of 344 hectares were restored to an acceptable after use from 1994 to 2000, of which 173 hectares (50%) were restored to agriculture.
A number of mineral and landfill sites have since been restored and are in their aftercare periods, or extraction and infilling has now ceased and they are being restored (see Appendix 2). A review of the rate of restoration of mineral workings and landfill sites is long overdue but is not a high priority and is dependent on resources being available.
· Complaints
Complaints about the operation of permitted sites and about alleged unauthorised minerals and waste development are investigated and landowners, operators and complainants are advised of the planning position and any requirements, normally within 24 hours. During 2002/03, the Minerals and Waste Planning Group received 1xx complaints (104 in 2001) about alleged breaches of condition or unauthorised development and responded to xx% of these by the next day (xx% on the same day), and took appropriate action in all cases. Of the 1xx complaints, xx (xx%) related to breaches of condition at authorised sites (manual check required as computer output not reliable).
· Enforcement
Where breaches of planning control or other problems occur, these can usually be resolved by negotiation (informal action) leading to resolution of the breach or the submission of a planning application to regularise the breach. The County Council works closely with the Environment Agency, and with district council enforcement officers and with environmental health officers where such operations may be subject to controls other than under the Planning Acts. However, formal enforcement action is taken where there is a clear planning contravention and such action is necessary. The following formal actions (details below) have been taken since April 2002:
· Four Planning Contravention Notices (PCNs) have been served requiring information about activities on land or the nature of a person's interest in land, mainly relating to unauthorised waste disposal;
· No Breach of Condition Notices (BCNs) have been served requiring action to remedy breaches of planning conditions attached to planning permissions; and
· Two Enforcement Notices (ENs) has been served requiring the cessation of unauthorised minerals or waste development.
· Catts Farm, A339 Newbury Road, Headley (A A Cole) - suspected breach of planning control (importation and storage of waste material), PCN served 9 May 2002, importation removed;
· Woodleigh Farm, Funtley Road, Fareham (K Hoare) FA017 - suspected breach of planning control (landraising by importation of waste), PCN served 23 September 2002, application for re-instatement to agriculture using clean imported soils submitted February 2003, granted 15 April 2003;
· Ringwood Quarry, Snails Lane, Blashford (RMC Aggregates) NF099 - suspected breach of planning control comprising importation of material for retail sale and change of use of part of site to plant storage, PCN served 22 November 2002, not yet resolved;
· Hazle Cottage, Chase Road, Lindford, Bordon (A J Balch) EH144 - suspected breach of planning control(storage of full skips), PCN served 10 October 2002, EN served 20 February 2003 requiring importation of waste to cease and removal of all waster not associated with the EUC granted by EHDC for `Use of land as plant, haulage and breakers yard and yard for the storage of tyres and vehicles', appeal lodged 8 April 2003 and inquiry set for 2 September 2003; appeal dismissed and EN upheld as amended (see 3. Planning applications and appeals).
· North Common, Sway (G Farwell) NF075 - EN served 1 May 2003 requiring cessation of use of land as waste transfer station and removal of all material and plant, submission of restoration plan and restoration of land; appeal lodged 16 June 2003 and inquiry set for 5 November 2003 (see 3. Planning applications and appeals).
A growing cause for concern is an increase in incidents including threats and intimidating behaviour towards monitoring and enforcement (and other minerals and waste planning) staff, both from people dissatisfied with what they perceive as a failure on the part of the regulatory authorities to control development or from developers resentful of interference in their business. Whilst there have been no incidents of physical abuse since 1999, a recent case of personal threats against officers necessitated a written warning from the Chief Executive that such behaviour against staff undertaking legitimate investigations was unacceptable and if repeated would be reported to the Police. This action was endorsed by Members.
In January 2003, the County Council responded in detail to a consultation paper `Review of the Planning Enforcement System in England' published in September 2002 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
In October 2002, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Enforcement Officers' Group was revived, with the County Council providing the secretariat, to provide a planning enforcement forum for the districts, unitary authorities and county council. Special meetings were also convened to prepare a joint response to the Review consultation referred to above.
· Prosecutions
The County Council also works closely with the Environment Agency on enforcement cases, including through court action where this is appropriate. The following minerals and waste development sites have been subject of prosecutions by the Environment Agency since April 2002:
· Woodhams Farm, Kingsworthy (Mr E Grinyer) ENFWR026 - breach of Section 71 Notice relating to failure to provide information to the EA about the deposit of waste without a licence on his land, pleaded guilty to one charge at Southampton Magistrates Court on 3 April 2002, fined £1,500 with £500 costs;
· Woodhams Farm, Kingsworthy (Mr C I Collins) ENFWR026 - deposit of waste on land without Waste Management Licence, pleaded guilty to one charge at Southampton Magistrates Court on 25 July 2002, fined £1,000 with £500 costs;
· Willments Shipyard, Southampton (Mr C I Collins) SN039 - deposit, keeping and disposal of controlled waste, pleaded guilty to one charge at Southampton Magistrates Court on 25 July 2002, fined £3,000 with £500 costs;
· Selborne Brickworks, Selborne (T J Landfill) EH015 - accepting unauthorised waste and producing fraudulent records, pleaded ??? at Alton Magistrates Court on xx October 2003, fined £20.000 with £3,956 costs.
· Liaison Panels
It has been a long established practice of the County Council to support the creation of local site liaison panels comprising representatives of local communities, operating companies and the regulatory authorities. The purpose of these panels is to discuss on and off-site operations and development progress, particularly with regard to restoration, and to foster understanding of the needs of the different parties affected by mineral and waste operations. Formal `Terms of Reference' for Site Liaison Panels were adopted by the Regulatory Committee in July 2002. The following panels have met since April 2002 (number of times in brackets to be added):
· Chineham Incinerator, Basingstoke (Hampshire Waste Services) BA019 - ( )
· Netley Landfill, Hound (Onyx) EA027 - (.);
· East Horton Farm, Fair Oak (SITA) EA083 - ( );
· Selborne Brickworks, Selborne (T J Landfill) EH015 - ( )
· Southleigh Forest, Rowlands Castle (Onyx) EH018 - ( );
· Wallington Depot, Fareham (SITA) FA064 - ( );
· Blackbushe Metals, Yateley (SimsMetal UK) HR032 - ( );
· Manor Farm, Finchampstead/Chandlers Farm, Yateley (RMC) HR038 - ( );
· Manor Farm, Pennington (Hampshire Waste Services/New Milton Sand & Ballast) NF042 - ( );
· Bleak Hill, Harbridge (RMC) NF091 - ( );
· Mount Pleasant, Sway (New Milton Sand & Ballast) NF095 - ( );
· Marchwood Incinerator, Marchwood (Hampshire Waste Services) NF226 - ( )
· Squabb Wood, Embley (Viridor) TV072 - ( );
· Birchwood House Farm, Sherfield English (SITA) TV106 - ( );
· Manor Farm, North Baddesley (SITA) TV119 - ( );
· Stockbridge Oilfield (Pentex) WR080 - ( ); and
· Raglington Farm, Shedfield (SITA) WR105 - ( ).
Other site liaison panels may be arranged or recalled in 2003/2004 for Humbly Grove Oilfield (Star Energy) BA057; Horndean Oilfield (Star Energy) EH058; Rookery Farm, Fareham (Raymond Brown) FA032; Eversley Common, Eversley (Lafarge) HR040; Farlington Redoubt (Lift & Shift) HV017; Yokesford, Braishfield (Ace Liftaway) TV188; Badminston Farm, Fawley (RMC) NF161; Mockbeggar, Ibsley (SITA/Tarmac) NF186; and Bury Farm, Marchwood (Marchwood Aggregates) NF172.
3. Planning applications and appeals
· Performance
The targets set by government for determining minerals and waste planning applications were met in 2002/2003. These require at least 55% of `County Matter' applications to be determined within 13 weeks, excluding those with Environmental Statements and Mineral Review applications.
To ensure that this level of service is maintained, a Development Control Service Plan Review and Action Plan for Service Improvements was adopted by the Department Management Board in April 2003. This Review identifies the following actions:
· Action - to adopt a Development Control Service Policy setting out service standards so that all stakeholders understand what is being provided and to what level;
· Action - to carry out a user satisfaction survey `piggy backed' on a statutory Planning BVI survey;
· Action - to review use of the Annual Members Tours of sites to examine outcomes of planning decisions.
· Action - to instigate a site inspection strategy based on `environmental risk' to improve site inspection recording (see 3. Monitoring and enforcement).
The Development Control Service is also required to operate to high standards of professional and technical competence, probity, transparency and responsiveness to all its stakeholders.
· The processing of planning applications, including for the County Council's own development, and strategic consultations from district councils, is undertaken primarily by the Planning Applications Team in the Minerals and Waste Planning Group (see Appendix 1). Minerals and waste sites are listed by district and type of activity in Appendix 2; and `live sites' are also indicated on the two Maps at the end of the Report. Minerals and waste policies and applications are listed by type of activity in Appendix 3.
· The application process
Minerals and waste development in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton is controlled by the respective Mineral or Waste Planning Authorities. Minerals and waste planning applications in Hampshire (outside of Portsmouth and Southampton) are first recorded on the appropriate District Planning Authority Register. They are then screened by a Case Officer (see also Environmental Impact Assessment and Habitats Reviews) before being publicised by the County Council by site notice, neighbour notification and press notice. The County Council then consults the appropriate statutory and other bodies. All representations and consultee responses received are logged; acknowledged; and addressed in the committee or delegated report. Respondents are advised of their rights to make representations to Regulatory Committee and of the decision.
Planning applications for minerals and waste development in Hampshire are normally determined by the County Council's Regulatory Committee. However, the Director of Environment has delegated powers to determine applications for developments which are in accordance with policy and which raise no material objections; or refuse those which are contrary to policy. This enables non-controversial applications to be determined more quickly and allows more time for debate on more complex applications.
The Best Value Review of the development control service, planned for 2002/2003, was abandoned following publication of the Audit Commission's advice in `Development Control and Planning' in March 2002 and the Planning Officers Society's `A Good Practice Note for County Matter Planning Authorities - a drive for Quality' in June 2002. Instead, the advice contained in these documents was used to undertake a more simplified, pilot Development Control Service Plan Review and an Action Plan for Service Improvements was adopted by the Departmental Management Board in April 2003 comprising:
· Adopting a Development Control Service Policy setting out service standards so that all stakeholders understand what is being provided and to what level - September 2003;
· Carrying out a user satisfaction survey `piggy backed' on a statutory Planning BVI survey - December 2003;
· Reviewing use of the Annual Members Tours of sites to examine outcomes of planning decisions - July 2003;
· Instigating a site inspection strategy based on `environmental risk' to improve site inspection recording - October 2003 (see 3. Monitoring and enforcement).
A new computer-based development control system purchased from Datawright went on-line in July 2003 to provide an electronic data link for applications from registration, through determination, to implementation and monitoring.
· Planning applications
A total of 65 minerals and waste planning applications - `county matter' applications were determined by the County Council in 2002/2003, including three Mineral Review applications, and 60 (92%) were granted. This compares with 55 applications determined in 2001/2002, including one Mineral Review application, and 49 (89%) were granted,. Four application were dismissed on appeal in 2002/2003 (see Planning appeals) and 9 applications were withdrawn.
Of the 65 applications determined in 2002/2003, 33 (51%) were determined under Delegated Powers; compared with 24/55 (44%) in 2001/2002.
The number of planning applications received during 2002/2003 increased to 94, compared with 63 in 2001/2002 and 56 in 2000/2001. A total of 63 outstanding planning applications, registered but yet to be determined, remained at the end of March 2003, compared with 42 and 39 applications at the end of March 2002 and 2001. Action has been taken to reduce the number outstanding down to 36 at the end of October 2003.
The majority of applications outstanding beyond 13 weeks were awaiting action by the applicant, including completion of legal agreements. Additional legal resources have been committed to reduce the number of long-outstanding legal agreements in the past year.
Of 61 minerals and waste planning applications determined by Hampshire County Council in 2002/2003 (excludes Environmental Impact Assessment and Review applications, see below), 40 (65.6%) of were determined within 13 weeks. The performance target (BV109) set by Government for determining such applications was 55% in 2002/2003.
New procedures which came into force on 5 September 2003 (Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003) requires planning authorities to give reasons for approval from December 2003 for all applications received from that date and from March 2004 for all cases outstanding.
· Refusals
Nine planning applications have been refused permission as contrary to policy since April 2002, and one application for a Certificate of Lawfulness (see panel below). Four of these have been subject of appeals (see Planning appeals).
· Construction of screening bunds around perimeter of poultry houses (TVS07437/13) at Woodington Farm, East Wellow, Romsey (J&W Waste Management) TV061, received 5 October 2001, refused 3 January 2002 (Regulatory Committee 28 November 2001) - the proposal is contrary to HPSMWLP Policy 37 in that there is insufficient justification for the waste tipping, the bund is an alien feature in the landscape and there is concern about pollution risk from the waste tipped (see Planning appeals).
· Construction of a new landform for the purpose of aiding and screening clay pigeon shooting practice (TVS06331/8) at Owls Lodge Farm, Longparish (B Faulds) TV190, received 28 March 2002, refused 19 July 2002 (Regulatory Committee 17 July 2002) - the proposal is contrary to HPSMWLP Policy 39 in that there is no need in the area for landfill capacity that cannot be met by the infilling of mineral workings and there are other practicable means of disposal available.
· Import inert construction and demolition wastes, including concrete, brick, earthspoils, soils and sub soil, in place of a proportion of the recycled soils permitted under GPDO (TVS09717)at Pilgrims Farm, Steplake Lane, Wellow Wood Road, Sherfield English (P C Dovey)TV197, received 4 July 2002, refused 25 October 2002 (Regulatory Committee 23 October 2002) - the impact of the proposal on the amenity and safety of the highway would cause harm which is not outweighed by the need for the development, contrary to HCS Policy MW7 and HPSMWLP Policies 6(i), 6(ii), 7(ii), 39 (including paragraph 6.63) and 42 (see Planning appeals).
· Improvement of waste transfer and recycling facility including contruction of new building (02/50472/005) at Wessex Construction and Plant Hire Co Ltd, New Lane, Havant (Wessex Construction) HV042, received 9 September 2002, refused 28 November 2002 (Regulatory Committee 27 November 2002) - the proposal is contrary to HPSMWLP Policies 7(i) and 46(iv) in that it has not been demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impact for local residents by reason of noise and dust from the operations proposed; Policies 7(ii) and 46 (vii) in that the proposed building would have an unacceptable visual impact on the locality; and Policies 7(ii) and 46(ii) in that it had not been demonstrated that the lorry traffic associated with the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact by reason of highway safety and disturbance to local residents, other road users and pedestrians.
· Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for storage of waste (F25432/007/CMA77) at Hazle Cottage, Chase Road, Lindford, Bordon (A J Balch)EH144, received 12 November 2002, refused 24 January 2003 (Delegated) - it was considered that inadequate evidence had been provided that would demonstrate, on a balance of probability, that the site had been used for the storage of waste for ten years (see Planning appeals)
· Temporary storage of waste in skips (0202957HCM W14155/07) at The Old Tin Barn, Owslebury, Nr WinchesterWR189, received 20 November 2002, refused 27 February 2003 (Regulatory Committee 26 February 2003) - the proposal is in an inappropriate within the countryside and would cause an adverse impact on the amenity of local residents which is not outweighed by the need for the development, contrary to HCS Policies C1, C2 and MW2(i) and HPSMWLP Policies 6(i), 7(i) and 46(iv).
· Proposed inert waste material transfer station, recycling facility and construction of new vehicular access (75507) at Ambervale Farm, Pitmore Lane, Sway (G Farwell) NF075, received 28 June 2002, refused 10 April 2003 (Regulatory Committee 26 February 2003) - the development is contrary to HCS Policies MW2(i), MW3 and HPSCSP Policies 6(ii), 7(ii)(v, 8(iv)46(ii) in that it is undesirable in highway terms to permit development in a rural area poorly situated with respect to the A337 and the Strategic Road Network; it is undesirable with regards to the environmental impact of traffic to permit development in a rural area poorly situated with respect to the A337 and the Strategic Road Network whereby the development may bring about the need for road improvements that may affect the setting of Buckland Rings, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (see Planning appeals).
· Construction of industrial building, weighbridge and office/mess facilities, waste recycling, storage and treatment (W00480/33 03/01240/HCM) at Units D and E Pegham Industrial Estate, Lavey's Lane, Titchfield (Pegham Services LLP) WR192, received 12 May 2003, refused 23 July 2003 (Regulatory Committee 16 July 2003) - the proposal is contrary to HPSMWLP Policy 46(ii) in that the additional traffic generated by the development would cause an unacceptable conflict with other highway users, and an unacceptable environmental impact for residents and businesses along Fontley Road, Segensworth Road and Mill Lane.
· Temporary change of use to allow the storage of waste in skips/containers and the parking of vehicles loaded with waste in containers (W00480/34 03/01336/HCM) at Unit D Pegham Industrial Estate, Lavey's Lane, Titchfield (Pegham Services LLP) WR192, received 27 May 2003, refused 23 July 2003 (Regulatory Committee 16 July 2003) - the proposal is contrary to HPSMWLP Policy 46(ii) in that the additional traffic generated by the development would cause an unacceptable conflict with other highway users, and an unacceptable environmental impact for residents and businesses along Fontley Road, Segensworth Road and Mill Lane.
· Recycling construction and demolition waste for agricultural improvement works on the farm (F20619/013/CMA) at Venthams Farm, Froxfield Green (Hugh Toomer) EH146, received 19 March 2003, refused 7 August 2003 (Regulatory Committee 16 July 2003) - the proposal is inappropriately located within the countryside and would cause an adverse impact on both the ecology ands landscape value of the area, which is not outweighed by the need for the development, contrary to HCSP Policy MW2 and HPSMWLP Policies 6(i), 46(iii) and 46(v); and the proposal would cause an unacceptable traffic impact on the local highway network contrary to HCSP Policies MW2 and MW6 and HPSMWLP Policies 6(i), 7(ii) and 37(iii).
· Temporary permission to operate a waste recycling operation, involving the importation 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 (F20310/022/CMA) at Bordon Sandpit, Sleaford (Zebra Waste) EH046, received 7 July 2003, refused 24 October 2003 (Regulatory Committee 22 October 2003) - the proposal is contrary to HPSMWLP Policy 46(ii) in that the lorry traffic generated by the proposal would have an unacceptable impact for local residents and other road users; Policy 46(iii) in that it is not within an existing industrial site or on land permitted or allocated for industrial development, it is not on a brown field site, and it is not at a waste disposal landfill site; and Policy 46(iv) in that there would be an unacceptable impact for local residents by reason of noise and dust.
· Environmental Impact Assessment
The `Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999' require the submission of an Environmental Statement with projects likely to have significant environmental effects, before development consent can be granted. In 2000 the Regulations were amended to extend the requirement for an EIA to Reviews of mineral planning permissions (see Review of mineral planning permissions). Every new planning application is screened under the Regulations to determine whether or not an Environmental Statement is required. Ten Environmental Statements (ES) have been received since April 2002 (see panel below).
· Redevelopment of the site to form Materials Recovery Facility, Waste Transfer Station and ancillary depot uses at Gibbs-PalmerPremises, Farnham Road, Upper Froyle, Alton (Hampshire Waste Services) EH141, ES received 8 April 2002, application granted 2 April 2003 (Regulatory Committee 17 July 2003) following completion of legal agreement concerning the provision of a financial contribution to highway safety works on the A31 and lorry routeing.
· Environment Act 1995: Review of Mineral Planning Permission (00065190M) at Ringwood and Ellingham Pits, Ellingham Drove, Ibsley (Hanson Quarry Products) NF101, ES and revised details received 8 May 2002, application determined 31 March 2003 (Regulatory Committee 26 February 2003).
· Construction of an agricultural irrigation reservoir with the removal of surplus materials (minerals and soils) arising in the course of construction (75228) at Land North of Ripley, Ringwood (JHR Manners, Avon Tyrell Estate) NF232, ES received 17 May 2002.
· Oil exploration borehole (0202134HCS W17981) at Matterley Farm, Itchen Valley, Winchester (Pentex Oil UK) WR186, ES received 20 August 2002, application granted 14 January 2003 (Regulatory Committee 8 January 2003).
· Further planning application for clay extraction (F20661/038/CMA) at Selborne Brickworks, Honey Lane, Selborne (Forestry International Exports) EH015, ES received 15 January 2003.
· Environment Act 1995: Review of Mineral Planning Permission (F24847/014/CMA) for the determination of conditions at Kingsley Sand Quarry, Kingsley, Bordon (Tarmac Southern) EH025, ES received 24 February 2003, application determined 30 May 2003 (Regulatory Committee 28 May 2003).
· Installation and operation of gas gathering, processing and control facilities, construction of 2.1 kilometre gas gathering pipeline and continuation of the oilfield until 2025 at Humbly Grove Oilfield, Lasham (Star Energy) BA057, ES received 20 May 2003, application granted 3 October 2003.
· Environment Act 1995: Review of Mineral Planning Permissions, application (78402) for the determination of conditions at Bleak Hill, Somerley (RMC Aggregates Southern) NF091, ES received 27 May 2003, application determined 25 July 2003 (Regulatory Committee 16 July 2003).
· Extension to green waste composting facility (BDB/56369) at Little Bushywarren Copse, Herriard (Hampshire Waste Services) BA103, ES received 21 July 2003, application granted 1 October 2003 (Regulatory Committee 10 September 2003).
· North western extension to Ibsley Quarry for the extraction of sand and gravel (79451) at Ibsley (Mockbeggar) Quarry, Ibsley, Ringwood (Tarmac) NF186, ES received in September 2003
· Planning appeals
Three minerals and waste planning appeals have been determined since April 2002, of which one was allowed and planning permission granted. Six planning appeals, including one enforcement appeal, remain outstanding.
New procedures which came into force on 5 September 2003 (Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003) amend the period for submission of appeals from six months to three months from the date of refusal, or grant of permission in the case of conditions, for applications submitted after 5 September 2003.
· North Camp, Farnborough (Lafarge Aggregates) RM005 - an appeal against the decision of the MPA to refuse planning permission (00/00692/CMA) for importation of construction/demolition waste, its storage, processing and despatch as secondary aggregates, lodged 16 January 2002, dealt with by written representations, appeal dismissed 18 June 2002. The inspector concluded that the cumulative impact of both operations (including the reactivation of the concrete batching operation which has permission) would be to compromise the integrity of this part of the Strategic Gap, and together they could not be considered to maintain its rural appearance. The degree of harm that is likely to be caused would not be outweighed by the policy support for the proposed development (APP/Q1770/A/02/1081628).
· Woodington Farm, East Wellow, Romsey (Dr P Pilbrow) TV061 - an appeal against an Enforcement Notice requiring removal of all imported materials that form a bund and restoration of the site to its original condition by 18 March 2002, served 16 January 2002, lodged 11 February 2002, informal hearing 17 September 2002 (APP/Q1770/C/02/1083808), appeal failed 15 October 2002, noticed upheld and planning permission refused for the deemed application. However, the requirements were varied and the period for compliance extended to enable time for a regarding and planting scheme to be devised, submitted, approved and implemented. Because implementation depends on the planting season, the period for compliance relates to that season, but with a specific end date of April 2004. The inspector concluded that a combination of regrading, seeding and planting would overcome the harm to amenity. In addition, regarding would enable assessment of some of the materials forming the bund and removal of any which might cause pollution. Though this would not eliminate the risk because not all of the material would be able to be analysed, the regarding process would reduce it to an acceptable degree.
· Woodington Farm, East Wellow, Romsey (J&W Waste Management) TV061 - appeals (APP/Q1770/A/02/1083261 & APP/Q1770/A/02/1083262) against the County Council's decision to refuse planning permission (TVS07366/2) for a revised restoration scheme and (TVS07366/3) and for an extension of time, dated 3 December 2001, lodged 12 February 2002, informal hearing 17 September 2002, appeals dismissed 15 October 2002. The inspector concluded that the proposed restoration scheme, and its increased height compared to both the existing tip and the approved scheme, would thus cause an unacceptable impact in the local landscape, contrary to the aims of Local Plan Policy 37(v); unacceptable impact on the occupiers of these houses (Greenwood Cottages), by reason of noise from passing traffic, would be contrary to the aims of Local Plan Policy 37(iv); whether there is any need for further tipping here weighed against permission; none of the arguments advanced in support of the appellant's case is so cogent to outweigh the reasons leading to the conclusion that neither appeal should be allowed.
· The Triangle, Ridge, Romsey (Viridor Waste Management) TV051 - an appeal (APP/Q1770/A/02/1089228) against the County Council's decision to refuse planning permission (TVS08924) for the extraction of sand and gravel from land with restoration to agricultural land using on-site clays and controlled wastes, lodged 26 April 2002, `recovered' for determination by SoS 17 May 2002, public inquiry commenced 5 November 2002; appeal dismissed 7 April 2003. The First Secretary of State (SoS) concluded that there was a need for sand and gravel locally to maintain a 7 year landbank in Hampshire and that this site is a preferred area for sand and gravel extraction in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. However, Development Plan policies require the balancing of harm against need. The SoS considers that the harm from the proposal in terms of its effect on the nature conservation value of Embley Wood, and the inadequate measures put forward to mitigate against the potential hydrological and hydrogeological effects, would clearly outweigh the need for the proposal. Additionally, the extraction of clay from the northern third of the site to create a void for landfilling and the use of clay for restoration of the other two thirds of that land, would be in conflict with the sixth criterion of Preferred Area 4 as well as with MWLP Policy 28. The Sos did not consider that the Environmental Statement submitted adequately complied with the T&CP(EIA)(E&W) Regulations 1999. However, he noted that Regulation 3(2) of the Regulations requires that consideration be given to the environmental information submitted before granting planning permission. In this instance, the SoS is satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to refuse planning permission on other grounds without the need to consider this matter further or require further information under Regulation 19. The SoS considered that there were no material considerations sufficient to indicate a decision other that in accordance with the development plan.
· Land at North Common Lane, Sway (G Farwell) NF075 - an appeal (APP/Q1770/A/02/1093774) against the failure of the Waste Planning Authority to give notice of its decision within the appropriate period of an application (73737) for permission for continued use of a waste transfer station lodged 2 July 2002, withdrawn 24 October 2002.
· Ambervale Farm, Pitmore Lane, Sway, Lymington (G Farwell) NF075 - an appeal (APP/Q1770/A/03/1118751) against refusal of planning permission (75507) for a waste transfer station and inert materials recovery facility lodged 3 June 2003, public inquiry to be held 5 November 2003 (jointly with appeal below).
· Land at North Common Lane, Sway (G Farwell) NF075 - an appeal (APP/Q1770/C/02/1118307) against an Enforcement Notice requiring the use of the land as a waste transfer station to cease and removal of all material used in connection with the waste transfer station from the land and plant from the site, submission of an approved restoration plan and restoration of the land in accordance with the plan lodged 16 June 2003, public inquiry to be held 5 November 2003 (jointly with appeal above).
· Hazel Cottage, Chase Road, Lindford, Bordon (A J Balch) EH144 - appeals (APP/Q1770/X/03/1110178) against refusal to grant a Lawful Development Certificate for storage of waste materials lodged 19 February 2003 and (APP/Q1770/C/03/1113494) against an Enforcement Notice requiring importation of waste to cease and removal from the site all waste not associated with the Established Use Certificate granted by East Hampshire District Council under reference F24532/1/EUC34 on 28.05.02 which allows "use of land as a plant, haulage and breakers yard and yard for the storage of tyres and vehicles" lodged 8 April 2003, joint public inquiry held 2 September 2003 (including an appeal against an Enforcement Notice served by EHDC concerning the use of the land as a skip hire business); appeals dismissed, enforcement notices upheld as corrected and LDC not issued 16 September 2003.
· Pilgrims Farm, Steplake Lane, Wellow Wood Road, Sherfield English (P C Dovey)TV197 - appeal (APP/Q1770/A/03/1115518) against refusal of planning permission to import inert construction and demolition wastes, including concrete, brick, earthspoils, soils and sub soil, in place of a proportion of the recycled soils permitted under GPDO (TVS09717), lodged 23 April 2003, public inquiry to be held 11/12 November 2003.
· Review of mineral planning permissions
The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995 introduced new powers for the review of mineral planning permissions, requiring the phased submission of planning applications for the determination of modern working and restoration conditions at all mineral sites1.. Six mineral sites have been subject of Initial and Periodic Reviews under the Environment Act 1995 since April 2002 of which one remains outstanding. One further application is required to be submitted in 2003 (see panel below).
· Rabbitfield Hill, Frith End (Grundon) EH063 - received 8 March 2002, determined 30 May 2002 (F20310/018/CMA) (First Periodic);
· Snails Lane, Blashford (RMC Aggregates) NF099 - received 28 March 2000, determined 17 June 2002 (68940) (Initial);
· Ringwood Pit, Ellingham (Hanson Aggregates) NF101 - received 30 October 1998, revised details received 8 May 2002, determined 31 March 2003 (00065190M) (Initial);
· Warren Farm/Downend Quarry, Fareham (Onyx) FA025 - received 27 March 2003 (P/03/0616/MW) (First Periodic);
· Lode Farm/Rookery Farm, Kingsley (Tarmac) EH025 - received 24 February 2003, determined 30 May 2003 (F24847/014/CMA) (First Periodic);
· Bleak Hill, Harbridge (RMC Aggregates) NF091 - received 27 May 2003, determined 28 July 2003 (78402) (First Periodic);
· Stockbridge Oilfield, South Wonston (Pentex) WR080 - application required 18 November 2003 (First Periodic)
1. The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 required Interim Development Order Permissions (IDOs), granted after 21 July 1943 and before 1 July 1948, to be `Registered' by 25 March 1992 or they would lapse; and applications for determination of modern working and restoration conditions to be submitted within 12 months of registration or, if the site was dormant, before extraction could recommence. Permissions granted prior to 21 July 1943 have already lapsed. The Environment Act 1995 covers mineral planning permissions granted after 30 June 1948, comprising: an Initial Review and updating of mineral planning permissions where the predominant permission was granted before 22 February 1982; and the Periodic Review of all mineral planning permissions thereafter every fifteen years.
· Habitats Reviews
Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994, the County Council is required inter alia to undertake a Habitats Review of all extant permissions for minerals and waste development, not yet fully implemented, where sites of international importance and species designated under the European `Birds and Habitats Directives' may be affected. Four sites have had initial assessments which concluded in consultation with English Nature that they are unlikely to have a significant effect and that an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations is not required. A further four sites within the Blashford Lakes complex, are currently nearing completion of an `in combination' assessment (see panel below). The Habitats Review work is being progressed during 2003.
Each new planning application is subject to screening under the Habitats Regulations to determine whether there is any likely significant effect; being on or near a European site or containing a European species. Where necessary, an appropriate assessment is undertaken. Some xx minerals and waste planning applications which had issues of relevance to the Regulations were screened since April 2002; none were subject of an appropriate assessment.
· Beacon Hill, Ewshot (Cranstone Bros) HR005 - determined 6 November 2002 that Appropriate Assessment not required.
· Warren Heath, Bramshill (RMC Aggregates) HR042 - determined 6 November 2002 that Appropriate Assessment not required.
· Holmsley Landfill, Bransgore (New Milton Sand & Ballast) NF109 - determined 7 February 2003 that Appropriate Assessment not required.
· Badminston Farm, Fawley (RMC Aggregates) NF161 - determined 7 February 2003 that Appropriate Assessment not required.
· Blashford Quarry, Blashford (Tarmac) NF097 - an `in combination' assessment nearing completion.
· Snails Lane, Blashford (RMC Aggregates) NF099 - an `in combination' assessment nearing completion.
· Ringwood Pit, Ellingham (Hanson Aggregates) NF101 - an `in combination' assessment nearing completion.
· Mockbeggar, Ibsley (Tarmac) NF186 - an `in combination' assessment nearing completion.
· Challenges
The County Council, as Mineral Planning Authority and Waste Planning Authority, has not been the subject of any complaints of maladministration or injustice to the Local Government Ombudsman or of Judicial Review since April 2002.
4. Planning policy
· Performance
The targets set by government for minerals and waste planning policy are for an up-to-date Plan adopted in the past 5 years and the procedures in place for a speedy review of these plans. The Plan was adopted in December 1998 and so fails to meet this target in December 2003. However, procedures are in place for the following action:
· Action - a programme is in place for an integrated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF) to be placed on deposit in late Autumn 2004.
· Action - a Materials Resource Strategy was launched in September 2003with the first of a programme of Stakeholder Workshops planned for December 2003.
· The monitoring and review of minerals and waste policy is undertaken primarily by the Planning Policy Team in the Minerals and Waste Planning Group (see Appendix 1). Details on the monitoring of minerals production and reserves are contained in 5. Meeting the need for minerals and on waste arisings and treatment in 6. Meeting the need for waste.
· Minerals and Waste Development Framework
The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan was adopted by the three councils in December 1998. The Plan period is to December 2001 with a seven year landbank for sand and gravel to 2008. A review of the Plan has commenced, beginning with the minerals part of the Plan. A series of stakeholder meetings were held in 2001 and 2002, led by independent consultants, and an Issues Paper was published for wider consultation in June 2002. A study of the mineral resources in Hampshire, to ascertain where future resources might be worked, has also been progressed. The aim was to publish a deposit version of the review of the minerals part of the Plan in late Autumn 2003.
However, the three authorities have reconsidered the approach to the review in the light of comments arising from the stakeholder dialogue and the implications of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. They now consider that a review of waste policies should be urgently progressed and that an integrated Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (HMWDF) be prepared. It is now likely that the new HMWDF will be put on deposit in late Autumn 2004.
· Materials Resource Strategy
A new approach to waste management is being adopted in Hampshire which views waste as a resource and recognises that goods and products have a life cycle which can impact on the environment in many ways. Re-use, recycling and recovery of waste would be part of an holistic system whereby the extraction and production of primary resources is reduced and the use of recycled and secondary materials is maximised. The Materials Resource Strategy, launched in September 2003, will provide an integrated overarching approach to all the work in the minerals and waste field. The Strategy will embrace and drive the work on three areas (see below): the Hampshire Natural Resource Initiative; The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework and the Project Integra Strategy. A programme of Stakeholder Workshops is planned for December 2003.
· Regional Minerals Strategy
The draft Regional Minerals Strategy for South East England was published by the Regional Assembly (SEERA) for consultation in September 2003. The Strategy, which focuses on the period to 2016, sets out policies and proposals to strike a balance between the essential requirements of the regional economy for minerals and manufactured products with the environmental impact arising from their extraction, processing and transport. The Strategy is needed partly to replace obsolete targets and apportionment for aggregates production in the region, and partly to give clear guidance for all minerals. The core strategy for minerals seeks to encourage more efficient use of minerals; make significantly more use of recycled materials; import sufficient minerals that cannot supplied from indigenous resources; make use of an anticipated increase in aggregate resources from the English Channel; and meet the residual portion of anticipated demand for minerals from sites in the region, subject to demanding extraction, transport and restoration standards. The Strategy and policies set out a sustainable approach to the provision for minerals and minerals processing and promote a `hierarchy of actions' based on a natural resource management ethos.
The Regional Minerals Strategy seeks to apportion the reduced levels of production of landwon aggregates suggested in National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregate Provision in England, 2001-2016, published by ODPM in June 2003. For the region, the reduction is from 16.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) to 13mtpa of landwon sand and gravel. This reflects the fact that earlier forecasts of construction material needs were exaggerated, notwithstanding 10 years of steady economic growth which the region has experienced, and increased rates of re-use and recycling of construction materials and marine sources. The proposed 13mtpa landbank is apportioned to Mineral Planning Authorities with Hampshire's share reduced from 2.7mtpa to 2.52mtpa, of which 0.72mtpa is apportioned to the proposed New Forest National Park.
· Regional Waste Management Strategy
The draft Regional Waste Management Strategy for South East England, `No Time to Waste', was published by the Regional Assembly (SEERA) for consultation in March 2003. The Strategy is part of a suite of reviews of selected policies in Regional Planning Guidance (RPG9). The Strategy formally covers the period up to 2016 but also looks further ahead, setting out a vision and framework looking to 2026 and beyond. The Strategy is based on the need to change the way waste is dealt with in the region, and change quickly. It proposes a reversal of the mix of disposal facilities within the next 20 years, so that most waste is re-used and recycled or recovered and a diminishing fraction is disposed of to landfill.
Given this necessary scale of change, the draft Regional Waste Management Strategy puts forward two strategy options for consultation, with a possible third variant of the two. The first option exceeds the targets for recycling and recovering set by Government and the European Commission. The second option envisages meeting the statutory targets but not exceeding them and would therefore see the creation of new facilities running at a slower pace. Hampshire has recommended adoption of the first option. SEERA has not yet published the results of the consultation process.
· Hampshire Natural Resource Initiative
The Hampshire Natural Resource Initiative (HNRI), launched in September 2002, aims to achieve a step change in the way natural resources are perceived and used in Hampshire. Natural resources encompass minerals and waste, as well as energy, water, air, soils, biodiversity and climate change. The HNRI seeks to work in partnership with individuals, community groups, commerce and industry to influence and create positive actions at global, national, regional and local levels to implement real change. By working together, HNRI can improve the environment and enhance the quality of life of all those who live and work in Hampshire, having regard to those who will follow in the future. More information on HNRI can be found at www.hnri.co.uk .
· Project Integra Strategy
Hampshire's integrated household waste strategy, Project Integra, has been developed through a partnership between the County Council, the two City Councils, the 11 District Councils and the private waste disposal contractor, Hampshire Waste Services Ltd (HWS). It is an aim of the strategy to increase recycling of household waste eventually to 40%. The 25 year waste disposal contract awarded to HWS in 1997 requires it to put in place the infrastructure necessary to deliver the strategy, including: material recovery facilities (MRFs); transfer stations; composting centres; three energy recovery incinerators; a possible anaerobic digestion plant and landfill sites. The Project Integra Strategy will examine household waste collection and disposal arrangements up to 2020, including the Hampshire Household Waste Recycling Strategy.
5. Meeting the need for minerals
· Performance
Provision for meeting the need for minerals is subject to national and regional Minerals Planning Guidance (MPG), currently being reviewed. MPG6: Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England currently requires Mineral Planning Authorities to maintain a landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel sufficient for at least seven years extraction. The adopted Minerals and Waste Local Plan allows for a landbank of 2.7mtpa.
The landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Hampshire at the beginning of 2003 was sufficient for only five years with a further 1.7 years provision identified in the Plan. However, sales for the past ten years have averaged 2.5mtpa, falling to 2.2mtpa in 2002. A number of sites are coming to the end of their permitted reserves and the rate of new planning permissions is not keeping pace with sales. With one exception, The Triangle Ridge, this is a reflection of the industry's failing to submit applications rather than of the planning process.
· Action - the future provision for sand and gravel and other minerals will be reviewed in the HMWDF in the light of revised forecasts and apportionments identified in the Regional Minerals Strategy Consultation Draft published by SEERA in September 2003.
· Minerals in Hampshire
Hampshire contains extensive deposits of economically valuable minerals. In particular, the County is a significant source of sand and gravel for use as aggregates in the construction industry. Chalk is worked for agricultural lime and as an aggregate. Clay is used for brick making and for engineering works on landfill sites. Oil and gas are produced as an energy source and industrial raw material. In addition, marine-dredged sand and gravel is landed at wharves, mainly in and around Portsmouth and Southampton, and crushed rock is imported by road, rail and sea. Further details about minerals development in Hampshire are included in Appendices 2 & 3 and Map 1.
The County Council undertakes Annual Monitoring (AM) surveys of aggregates on behalf of the South East England Regional Assembly. These examine sales and reserves of land won sand and gravel; landings of marine dredged sand and gravel and crushed rock; and rail imports of construction aggregates.
· Land won sand and gravel
Sales of land-won sand and gravel from Hampshire, from 1993 to 2002, are shown in Table 5.1, compared with total sales for the South East England region. The average annual sales in Hampshire over the period were 2.5 million tonnes of all sands and gravels (0.6 mt soft sand; 1.9 mt sand and gravel), an average of 18.7 percent of sales in the South East England region over the period 1993 to 2002. Sales in eight of the past ten years have been below the 2.7 million tonnes per annum level provided for in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Table 5.1: Hampshire Sand and Gravel Sales 1993 to 2002 (thousand tonnes)
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 | |
Soft Sand |
457 |
554 |
488 |
568 |
504 |
901 |
752 |
711 |
504 |
386 |
Sand & Gravel |
2,143 |
2,201 |
2,074 |
1,741 |
1,927 |
1,803 |
1,807 |
1,699 |
1,789 |
1,807 |
Total |
2,600 |
2,755 |
2,562 |
2,309 |
2,431 |
2,704 |
2,559 |
2,410 |
2,293 |
2,193 |
SEE Region |
14,800 |
15,495 |
13,780 |
12,826 |
12,872 |
13,369 |
13,580 |
12,630 |
12,449 |
11,484 |
% of Region |
17.6 |
17.8 |
18.6 |
18.0 |
18.9 |
20.2 |
18.8 |
19.1 |
18.4 |
19.1 |
Source: Hampshire County Council Aggregates Monitoring 1993 - 2002; and
Aggregates Monitoring 2002 for South East England (SEERAWP 03/?) SEERAWP November 2003
The permitted reserves of land won sand and gravel in Hampshire at the beginning of 2003 were 13.7mt comprising 2.4mt of soft sand and 11.3mt of sharp sand and gravel (see Table 5.2). This compares with 14mt at the beginning of 2002. Planning permission for extraction of an additional 2.22mt of sand and gravel (since revised to approximately 2.0mt) was finally granted in 2002 as an extension to Bramshill Quarry, Eversley (Preferred Area 1) HR042 following completion of legal agreements. An application for extraction of 2.35mt of sand and gravel at The Triangle, Ridge (Preferred Area 4), refused permission in 2001, was dismissed on appeal in April 2003 (see 3. Applications and appeals). Five further planning applications for sand and gravel extraction totalling 1.6mt have been granted in 2003 or remain to be determined (see Minerals development). The breakdown of permitted reserves between soft sand and sharp sand and gravel has changed due to re-assessments of the reserves at some sites (see Appendix 3).
The landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Hampshire at the beginning of 2003 was sufficient for only five years at 2.7mtpa allowed for in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, or 3.5 years for soft sand (at 0.68mtpa) and 5.6 years for sharp sand and gravel (at 2.02mtpa). Unless significant further planning permissions are granted, either within Preferred Areas identified in the Local Plan or as extensions to existing sites, production of sand and gravel from pits in Hampshire will continue to decline.
Table 5.2: Hampshire Sand and Gravel - Sales, Permissions and Reserves and Landbank 2002 (thousand tonnes)
Permitted reserves at 1.1.2002 |
Sales during 2002 |
Permissions granted during 2002 |
Permitted reserves at 1.1.2003 |
Landbank at 1.1.2003 (in years) | |
Soft Sand (Building Sand) |
4,136 |
386 |
0 |
2,382 |
3.50 |
Sharp Sand and Gravel |
9,867 |
1,807 |
1,995 |
11,347 |
5.62 |
Total - All Sand and Gravel |
14,003 |
2,193 |
1,995 |
13,729 |
5.08 |
Note: Landbank supply requirement of 2.7mt pa comprising 0.68mt soft sand and 2.02 sharp sand and gravel
Source: Hampshire County Council Aggregates Monitoring Survey 2002
The Minerals and Waste Local Plan was adopted in December 1998 with a shortfall of 2.02 million tonnes in the preferred area provision for sand and gravel for the period to 2008. However, comparing the permitted reserves at the beginning of 2003 (from Table 5.2) plus the remaining 18.4mt Local Plan provision (including PA4 The Triangle, Ridge) with the Local Plan supply requirement shown in Table 5.3, there is no longer a shortfall in provision for sharp sand and gravel (+3.5mt) but there is a small under-provision for soft sand (-1.3mt).
If the revised sub-regional apportionment of 2.52mt per annum proposed in the draft Regional Minerals Strategy were to be adopted then the equivalent supply requirement to 2008 would be 15.1mt, an overall surplus of 3.2mt.
Table 5.3: Hampshire Sand and Gravel Supply Requirement 2003 to 2008 (thousand tonnes)
Permitted reserves (at 1.1.2003) |
Local Plan provision (at 1.1.2003) (Local Plan Table 4) |
Supply requirement 2003-2008 (Annual x 6 years) |
Total provision 2003-2008 (Shortfall(-)/ Surplus(+) 2003-2008) | |
Soft Sand (Building Sand) |
2,382 |
400 |
4,080 |
2,782 (-1,298) |
Sharp Sand and Gravel |
11,347 |
*4,230 |
12,120 |
15,577 (+3,457) |
Totals |
13,729 |
4,630 |
16,200 |
18,359 (+2,159) |
*Local Plan Provision reduced by two permissions totalling 3.11mt granted in PA2 Bramshill Plateau in 2000 and 2003
Source: Hampshire County Council Aggregates Monitoring Survey 2002 and
Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan
· Marine dredged sand and gravel
Landings of marine dredged sand and gravel at wharves in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton (shown in Table 5.4) have averaged 1.6 mt a year in the period 1993 to 2002, about 26 percent of landings in the South East England Region over the period 1992 to 2001.
Table 5.4: Hampshire landings of marine dredged sand and gravel 1992 to 2002 (thousand tonnes)
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 | |
Hampshire |
1,503 |
1,744 |
1,748 |
1,478 |
1,366 |
1,525 |
1,638 |
1,620 |
1,733 |
1,847 |
SEE Region |
5,788 |
7,074 |
7,039 |
5,810 |
4,920 |
5,942 |
6,137 |
6,404 |
6,502 |
na |
Source: Hampshire County Council Aggregates Monitoring 1993-2002; and
Aggregates Monitoring 2001 for South East England (SEERAWP 02/11) SEERAWP December 2002
· Marine imports of crushed rock
Marine imports of crushed rock to wharves in Hampshire (shown in Table 5.5) have averaged 285,000 tonnes a year over the period 1998 to 2002, about 7 percent of marine imports to the South East England Region.
Table 5.5: Hampshire marine imports of crushed rock 1991 to 2000 (thousand tonnes)
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 | |
Hampshire |
na |
na |
na |
na |
na |
161 |
193 |
306 |
328 |
436 |
SEE Region |
2,810 |
1,890 |
2,480 |
2,000 |
2,315 |
2,230 |
2,620 |
5,170 |
3,790 |
na |
Source: Hampshire County Council Aggregates Monitoring 1993-2002; and
Aggregates Monitoring 2002 for South East England (SEERAWP 03/?) SEERAWP November 2003
· Rail imports of construction aggregates
Rail imports of construction aggregates to rail depots in Hampshire (shown in Table 5.6) have averaged 742,000 tonnes a year in the period 1993 to 2002, about 20 percent of imports to the South East England Region.
Table 5.6: Hampshire rail imports of crushed rock 1992 to 2001 (thousand tonnes)
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 | |
Hampshire |
903 |
1,092 |
1,019 |
638 |
518 |
592 |
546 |
623 |
731 |
757 |
SEE Region |
4,000 |
4,800 |
4,100 |
3,000 |
3,000 |
3,600 |
3,100 |
4,300 |
na |
na |
Source: Hampshire County Council Aggregates Monitoring 1993 - 2002; and
Aggregates Monitoring 2000 for South East England (SEERAWP 01/10) SEERAWP November 2001
· Secondary and non-aggregate minerals
Monitoring of non-aggregate minerals, including provision for Chalk, Clay and Oil and Gas, are referred to in Appendix 3. The recycling of secondary aggregates from construction and demolition waste are also referred to in Appendix 3 and 6. Meeting the need for waste.
· Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund
An Aggregates Levy, introduced by the Finance Act 2001, set at £1.60 per tonne of primary aggregates produced, came into force on 1 April 2002. Some of the revenue will be allocated to an Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund to reduce damage to the environment from extracting aggregates by improving areas where extraction has taken place; helping reduce demand for primary aggregates; and promoting new methods for extracting and moving aggregates to reduce environmental damage. It is too early to judge what impact the Aggregates Levy will have on aggregates supply.
· Minerals development
A summary of the policies in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan for meeting the need for each type of minerals development, and relevant planning applications remaining outstanding are set out in Appendix 3. However, the following minerals applications and decisions are particularly significant:
· Warren Heath, Eversley (RMC Aggregates) HR042 - an application (00/00679/CMA) for extraction of sand and gravel from land adjoining A30 Hartford Bridge Flats and A327 (the remainder of Preferred Area 2), yielding a further 2.22 million tonnes, with retention of existing processing plant and ancillary facilities, submitted in May 2000, approved in April 2001, was finally granted in November 2002 following completion of legal agreements for heathland restoration, securing a permissive way marked footpath, access to the footpath and archaeological works. Further details were reported in the Annual Report 2001.
· The Triangle, Ridge (Viridor Waste Management) TV051 - an application (TVS08924) for extraction of sand and gravel, south of Romsey and west of the A3090, with restoration to agriculture by landfilling with controlled wastes and on-site clay (Preferred Area 4), yielding 2.35 million tonnes, refused permission in October 2001 was dismissed on appeal in April 2003 (see 4. Planning applications and appeals). Further details were also reported in the Annual Report 2001.
· Lower Farm, Pennington (New Milton Sand and Ballast) NF042 - an application (74405) for an extension of mineral extraction, south west of Lymington, infilling with waste and restoration to agriculture, yielding 310,000 tonnes of sand and gravel, received in March 2002, was approved in September 2003 as a `departure' from the Local Plan. Departure procedures required the authority to advise the Secretary of State of the intention to grant planning permission but to allow 21 days for the application to be `called in'. It was not `called in' and permission was granted on 22 October 2003.
· Land North of Ripley, Ringwood (JHR Manners, Avon Tyrell Estate) NF 232 - an application (75228) for construction of an agricultural irrigation reservoir with the removal of surplus materials (minerals and soils) arising in the course of construction, yielding some 400,000 tonnes of (principally) sand and gravel, submitted in May 2002, was approved in July 2003 subject to a legal agreement securing a financial contribution of £20,000 for transport improvements in Ringwood and to no objection being raised by the Civil Aviation Authority. The proposal, which was accompanied by an Environmental Statement, is to extract the sand and gravel and construct the reservoir over a period of four years. The application is not yet determined.
· Ibsley (Mockbeggar) Quarry, Ibsley, Ringwood (Tarmac) NF186 - an application (79451) for a north western extension to Ibsley Quarry for the extraction of sand and gravel, yielding some 509,000 tonnes, with restoration to a landscaped lake for nature conservation was received in September 2003. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The proposed extension would commence after extraction had ceased at the main quarry with extraction completed within 33 months with three months for final restoration. The application is not yet determined.
· No new permissions for aggregates recycling were granted in 2002. One application (00/00692/CMA) for importation of construction and demolition waste, its storage, processing and despatch as secondary aggregates (50,000 tonnes pa) at North Camp, Farnborough (Lafarge Aggregates) RM005, refused in July 2001, was dismissed on appeal in June 2002 (see 4. Planning applications and appeals).
6. Meeting the need for waste management
· Performance
Provision for meeting the need for waste is subject to national and regional Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), currently under review.
The Annual Report also identifies a remaining permitted and licensed landfill capacity for non-inert waste sufficient for only two years at 2000/2001 input rates. In practice this is largely in only three remaining sites. However, the infrastructure necessary to meet Hampshire's Household Waste Strategy - energy recovery incinerators, materials recovery, waste transfer and composting facilities - are now in place or being constructed.
· Action - the future provision for all waste management facilities will be reviewed in the HMWDF in the light of revised forecasts identified in the Regional Waste Strategy Consultation Draft published by SEERA in March 2003.
· Waste in Hampshire
Waste generated by households, commerce and industry and from construction and demolition in Hampshire is collected, treated and disposed of at recycling, transfer, recovery, processing and landfill sites throughout the County. Further details about waste development in Hampshire are included in Appendices 2 & 3 and Map 2.
The Minerals and Waste Local Plan contains policies (see Appendix 3) aimed, as far as possible, at Hampshire being self-sufficient in dealing with its waste arisings. In the preparation of the Local Plan the County Council developed a range of scenarios to assess Hampshire's waste disposal requirements, particularly for landfill, over the period to 2001. These scenarios included varying assumptions on rates of recycling and the introduction of new resource recovery (energy from waste) plants. Planning permissions have been granted for the two non-inert landfill sites identified specifically as preferred areas in the Local Plan and for three energy from waste plants (see below), for which sites were identified as preferred sites in the Plan. Other permissions have been granted for waste management facilities and details are included in Appendix 3.
The County Council, as Waste Planning Authority, monitors waste development to ensure compliance with planning conditions. However, with the exception of household waste, it does not monitor the quantity of waste produced in Hampshire; how it is treated; and the landfill capacity remaining to take waste which cannot be recovered or recycled. For these it is dependent on the Environment Agency. The latest monitoring data currently available from the Environment Agency on waste inputs and waste capacity is for the year ending March 2001, data for 2002 for Hampshire is still being collated.
· Waste inputs
In 2001, about 3.5 million tonnes (mt) of waste was deposited at authorised waste management facilities in Hampshire (see Table 6.1 which also includes totals for South East England), of which 2.7mt (77%) was deposited at landfill sites (both open gate and restricted user) and 0.8mt (23%) at open gate licensed waste treatment processes. Some 1.0mt of waste was handled at transfer stations including civic amenity sites. About 55 percent of the waste landfilled in Hampshire (1.47mt) was inert/C&D wastes.
Table 6.1: Summary of inputs to Hampshire and South East England waste management facilities in 2000/2001 by waste type and type of facility (000s tonnes)
Waste deposited at landfill sites and treatment facilities |
Waste deposited at open gate treatment facilities by type |
Waste transfer | ||||||||||
Landfills |
Treatment facilities |
Total |
Materials recycling facility |
Physical-chemical treatment |
Incineration (storage at) |
Metal recycling |
Chemical treatment |
Composting |
Other biological treatment |
Waste transfer |
Civic amenity | |
Hampshire |
||||||||||||
Inert/C&D |
1,470 |
258 |
1,728 |
0 |
258 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
365 |
93 |
Municipal |
629 |
58 |
687 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
53 |
0 |
395 |
48 |
I&C |
562 |
442 |
1,004 |
98 |
12 |
2 |
290 |
0 |
0 |
41 |
137 |
0 |
Special |
13 |
41 |
54 |
9 |
27 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
Total |
2,674 |
799 |
3,473 |
112 |
297 |
6 |
291 |
0 |
53 |
41 |
901 |
141 |
South East |
||||||||||||
Total |
14,922 |
3,286 |
18,208 |
160 |
1,978 |
6 |
903 |
4 |
193 |
41 |
5,015 |
714 |
Source: Strategic Waste Management Assessment Annual Update 2001: South East, Environment Agency 2002
· Waste capacity
Remaining disposal capacity at licensed landfill sites in Hampshire, at the beginning of April 2001, was about 12.7 million cubic metres (mm3). The majority of this was at open-gate sites (see Table 6.2 which also includes totals for South East England). There was about 1.9mm3 of void space in Hampshire at sites limited to taking inert/C&D wastes; 8.2mm3 of void space was available at sites that could also accept non-inert wastes including household, industrial and commercial wastes; and 2.4mm3 at sites suitable for special wastes.
Table 6.2 Remaining disposal capacity at licensed landfills in Hampshire and South East England on 1.4.01 by type of waste (000s cubic metres)
Disposal capacity in open-gate landfills |
Disposal capacity in restricted-user landfills | |||||||
Inert/C&D |
Non inert |
Special |
Total |
Inert/C&D |
Non inert |
Special |
Total | |
Hampshire |
1,940 |
8,235 |
2,364 |
12,538 |
56 |
100 |
0 |
156 |
South East |
12,676 |
57,280 |
53,321 |
123,278 |
187 |
4,381 |
230 |
4,568 |
Source: Strategic Waste Management Assessment Annual Update 2001: South East, Environment Agency 2002
· Non-inert and special wastes
At the beginning of April 2001, the remaining disposal capacity at existing open-gate landfill sites in Hampshire licensed to accept non-inert and special wastes (including municipal, industrial and commercial wastes) totalled approximately 10.6 million cubic metres (mm3).
Since 1 April 2001, a further 1.0mm3 (gross) of permitted landfill capacity for non-inert wastes has been licensed at East Horton Farm, Fair Oak EA083. A revised restoration scheme granted in July 2003 for this site added a further 200,000m3 plus capacity. In addition, 1.7mm3 (gross) of voidspace permitted for landfilling of non-inert waste at Apsley Farm, Hurstbourne Priors BA031 has not yet been licensed by the Environment Agency and there are some doubts over whether it will become available.
However, not all of this capacity is available for landfilling of non-inert waste. In the Environment Agency SWMA 2000 the assumption is that 40% of gross non-inert landfill voidspace will be taken up by inert site engineering activities, daily cover and capping. Table 6.3 provides a summary of the remaining capacity, at April 2001, including for South East England, and a calculation of potential life expectancy. For Hampshire, of the 10.6mm3 suitable for non-inert wastes only 6.4mm3 was available for waste, sufficient only for 4.4 years at 2000/2001 inputs.
Table 6.3: Voidspace, deposits and remaining capacity at landfill sites licensed for non inert and special waste (000s cubic metres and 000s tonnes)
Capacity available in open-gate sites |
Inputs 2000/2001 |
Life Expectancy 1.4.01 (1.4.00) (years) | ||||
Sub-region |
Voidspace 1.4.01 (000s m3) |
Capacity 1.4.01 | ||||
cap/cover (40%)* (000s m3) |
Waste (60%) (000 m3) |
all (000s tonnes) |
non-inert (000s tonnes) | |||
Hampshire |
10,598 |
4,239 |
6,359 |
2,662 |
1,204 |
4.4(5.9) |
South East Region |
110,601 |
44,240 |
66,361 |
14,026 |
7,306 |
7.6(6.6) |
Note*: The average proportion of void required for engineering work in site construction, daily cover and capping to comply with government recommended practice has been calculated and deducted in order to give a more accurate impression of potential remaining landfill life. The calculation of life expectancy is somewhat theoretical as it compares residual `waste' capacity with non-inert inputs at an average placed density of 1.2m3 per tonne but it does provide a good general indication of the maximum remaining life in each sub-region.
Source: Strategic Waste Management Assessment Annual Update 2001: South East, Environment Agency 2002
If the voidspace at Fair Oak EA083 (1.2mm3 gross) is added to the non-inert and special waste capacity at 1 April 2001 the bio-degradable waste capacity is increased from 6.4mm3 to 7.1mm3; and the life expectancy is consequently increased from 4.4 years to 4.9 years from 1 April 2001, just over two years from now not allowing for any increase in inputs since April 2001.
The currently permitted and licensed non-inert landfill voidspace is nearly all contained at the following six sites: Chatsworth/Blue Haze NF105; Efford NF042; Squabb Wood TV072; Fair Oak EA083; Southleigh EH018; and Paulsgrove PT001. Squabb Wood TV072 is currently closed and otherwise only Fair Oak EA083 and Chatsworth/Blue Haze NF105 have significant remaining capacity.
A Survey of Planning Information on Waste Management Facilities in South East England in 2001 shows the theoretical throughput capacity of permitted waste management facilities in Hampshire, including inert, construction and demolition, industrial and commercial and municipal wastes, was approximately 2.0 million tonnes, twice the throughput in 2000/2001.
The County Council has commissioned consultants to undertake a baseline report rolling forward the waste arisings, voidspace and forecasts for Hampshire from April 2001, including examining the individual waste streams; glass, paper, plastic, green waste.
· Project Integra
Hampshire's Project Integra partnership (see 4. Review of planning policy) handled some 897,500 tonnes of waste (predominantly collected household and commercial and amenity waste) in 2002/2003, compared with 878,000 tonnes in 2001/2002. Total household waste, excluding soil and rubble, bric-a-brac and commercial waste, was 846,545, compared with 812,000 tonnes in 2001/2002.
Some 191,500 tonnes (22.6%) of the household waste handled by Project Integra was recycled or composted in 2002/2003, compared with 151,000 tonnes (18.6%) in 2001/2002. Recycling is achieved mainly through the County Council's Household Waste Recycling Centres and District Council recycling systems, in particular kerbside collections. The recycling rate has increased from under 8% in 1994/95. Household collections of recyclable waste materials were available to 648,000 homes by the end of 2002, compared with 618,000 in 2001. These collections are supported by materials recovery facilities (MRFs) located at Portsmouth PT031 and Otterbourne (Winchester) WR018. Planning permission was granted for a new facility at Alton EH141 in April 2003 (see below).
Resource recovery - the use of waste as a source of materials and energy - forms part of Hampshire's household waste management strategy through the provision of: materials recycling facilities (MRFs) - mechanical sorting and recovery of dry recyclable materials; aerobic composting - producing soil conditioners and mulches from `green' garden waste; landfill gas collection; energy from waste incineration; and other higher technology systems being considered for the future including anaerobic digestion, and gasification. Details of these facilities are included in Appendix 3.
· Construction and Demolition Waste
In 2002, the ODPM published the Survey of Arisings and Use of Construction and Demolition Waste in England and Wales in 2001. This provides national and regional estimates of the amounts of construction and demolition (C&D) waste produced, recycled, re-used and disposed of in England and Wales. It also includes an assessment of the amounts of C&D waste and soil used as a substitute for primary aggregates. In the South East region, of an estimated 13.44mt of C&D waste produced, 57% was recycled as aggregate or soil or used for landfill engineering or recycling with the remainder being used to backfill quarry voids, spread on registered exempt sites or disposed of to landfill. The response rate to the survey precludes further breakdown to county level.
· Landfill Directive
The EU Landfill Directive, which came into force in July 2001, introduces new measures to prevent or reduce negative effects on the environment from landfilling of waste for the whole lifecycle of the landfill. The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 required operators to submit Site Conditioning Plans for all existing sites to the Environment Agency by July 2002 and for all sites to be classified as `hazardous', `non-hazardous' or `inert', to determine what types of waste can be accepted at the landfill in the future. It is too early to judge what impact the Regulations will have on the management of waste, although some sites have `closed' for the receipt of waste and remain to be restored. The Landfill Directive also sets targets for a reduction in landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste over the next 20 years.
· Waste management development
A summary of the policies in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) for meeting the need for each type of waste management development, and relevant planning applications remaining outstanding are set out in Appendix 3. However, the following waste applications and decisions were particularly significant:
· Chineham Incinerator, Old Basing (Hampshire Waste Services) BA019 - was officially opened by the Princess Royal on 26 September 2003. The new incinerator has the capacity to process 90,000 tonnes a year, which comprises about 60 percent of the municipal waste arising in North Hampshire. Energy released by incineration will be harnessed to generate approximately seven megawatts of electricity.
· Marchwood Incinerator, Marchwood (Hampshire Waste Services) NF226 - is expected to be operational in September 2004. Construction commenced in July 2002. The incinerator will have the capacity to process 165,000 tonnes a year from south west Hampshire together with the waste transfer of 25,000 tonnes a year, the latter being recyclables and waste not suitable for incineration. The energy released will be harnessed to generate approximately 14 megawatts of electricity.
· Portsmouth Incinerator, Portsmouth (Hampshire Waste Services) PT031 - is expected to be operational in 2005. The proposed incinerator will have a capacity to process 165,000 tonnes a year from south east Hampshire. The energy released will be harnessed to generate approximately 14 megawatts of electricity.
· Farnham Road, Upper Froyle, Alton (Hampshire Waste Services) EH141 - Permission (F33619/004) for a materials recycling facility, waste transfer station and depot uses, submitted in April 2002, was granted in April 2003 following completion of a legal agreement to provide a financial contribution to highway safety works and lorry routeing on the A31, and that the applicant be requested to pursue as a priority opportunities for connecting the site to the rail network and transferring freight from the road. The initial throughput would be 67,000 tonnes per annum rising to 125,000 tonnes by 2006 with a theoretical capacity of 190,000 tonnes. The waste will comprise domestic collected waste, mixed dry recyclables, HWRC waste and commercial wastes.
· Little Bushywarren Copse, Herriard (Hampshire Waste Services) BA103 - permission (BDB56369) for an extension to the green waste composting facility, submitted July 2002, was granted in October 2003. The application, which was a departure from the development plan, was not called in for determination by the Secretary of State. The extension will increase the capacity from 18,000 to 75,000 tonnes per annum.
· Bar End Road, Winchester (Hampshire County Council; Winchester Eco Centre) WR183 - three applications for natural resource recovery uses and/or B1/B2 uses; construction of a Household Waste Recycling Centre including parking, site office and sales area, revised access and site drainage; and a training centre where scrap furniture is reconditioned for re-use, an education centre for courses in ecology and bio-diversity and an administrative centre for Winchester Alliance for Mental Health were granted in September 2003.
· Ten new planning permissions involving some xxx,000 cubic metres of inert landfill, 25 new waste processing facilities and 15 new or replacement wastewater treatment plants have been granted since April 2002.
7. Good practice
Mineral working and subsequent restoration, with or without backfilling, is undertaken for the benefit of the community at large. In the majority of cases, this is undertaken without lasting environmental damage. Indeed, there are examples which have produced wider environmental benefits such as in wildlife habitat creation, in some cases of International importance or restoration to recreation. The following paragraphs are examples of where minerals and or waste developments in Hampshire have produced wider benefits in the archaeological and ecological fields, or where such developments have raised wider issues.
The archaeological implications of mineral extraction are considered in the planning process, within guidance set out in `Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 (PPG16) : Archaeology and Planning'. Archaeological conditions are attached to planning permissions to ensure that archaeological concerns that have been raised are addressed (e.mail: [email protected]).
· At Badminston Farm, Fawley (RMC Aggregates) NF161, following on from the excavations of the burnt mounds last year, further evidence of Bronze Age domestic occupation has been recorded on the higher and drier plateau above the earlier shoreline which now lies beneath the mud flats of the western shore of Southampton Water. Several Late Iron Age/Roman ditches have also been observed perhaps forming part of a field system. Evidence for subsequent field patterns has also been recovered in the form of medieval and post medieval ditches.
· At Eversley Quarry (Lafarge Aggregates) HR040 two possible Bronze Age barrows (burial mounds) had previously been identified in the southern area of the site. Both had previously been examined with evaluation trenches although no conclusion of their date or function was reached. The two mounds were subsequently archaeologically excavated. This revealed that each mound was formed by the up cast from an enclosing ditch which measured 8m in diameter. The only dating evidence was a few fragments of mid 19th century pottery. One of the mounds was constructed over a rutted cart track. It is possible that the mounds were built as part of an army exercise which took place in the area in 1792 designed to prepare the army for the threat posed by the French revolution and the emergence of Napoleon.
· The archaeological work investigating the extensive remains of the medieval and post medieval salt industry is ongoing at Efford Pennington (Hampshire Waste Services) NF042. Last year saw the finish of an extensive programme of topographic survey recording the earthwork remains of the salterns. Areas which had to be stripped for both drainage works and for the construction of a bentanite wall were also archaeologically observed. This work revealed the most significant find to date, large circular ring ditches believed to be the remains of either houses or workshops. The pottery from these features dates to the later Iron Age or Roman period and is our first definitive evidence of pre-medieval salt working. The site lies on a slightly higher area of land overlooking the medieval salterns suggesting that it was probably situated on the shoreline in the Roman period.
The ecological implications of mineral extraction and landfill are considered in the planning process, within guidance set out in `Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 (PPG9) : Nature Conservation'. Ecological conditions are attached to planning permissions to ensure that ecological concerns that have been raised are addressed. The protection of habitats, species or features of ecological value requires an ongoing commitment from both the industry and the authority. Certain habitats such as heathland on landfill, reed-beds on old silt-lagoons and sustainable sand martin cliffs are all proving more difficult to achieve than originally thought (e.mail [email protected]).
· Steady progress continues to be made on the review of consents under the Habitat Regulations. This has included the completion of the in-combination Appropriate Assessment of various permissions likely to affect the Avon Valley SPA/Rasmar site within the Blashford Lakes complex. The conclusion of this assessment being used to guide the review of Blashford Lakes Strategic Management Plan. In addition work is progressing on the Appropriate Assessment of the effects of extraction and infilling at Marchwood Quarry NF172 on the Solent & Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar and Solent Maritime cSAC. Further work this year will focus on clarifying whether there are any outstanding permissions likely to affect the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, the Wealden Heaths SPA or the River Itchen cSAC.
· This year saw the first re-survey of Hampshire's Sand Martins since 1999. In total 22 sites were visited of which 10 supported colonies breeding Sand Martin totalling just over 2,000 breeding pairs. Unfortunately this represents a 28% decline since 1999. There may be many reasons for the decline of this species, however, it is hoped that in the future greater co-operation between the authority and site operators that the population of Hampshire's Sand Martins will fair better in the future. Examples of this include new Sand Martin faces that have been created as part of site restoration at Rabbitfield Hill, Sleaford EH063 and at Chapel Farm, Lockerley TV112 and new cliff faces cut at sites such as East Horton Farm, Fair Oak EA083. Further guidance on how to care for this species will be issued to all operators later this year.
· Conditions and legal agreements with site operators and land owners have helped to ensure sites are restored to help achieve targets set within the Hampshire's Biodiversity Action Plans. The following include examples of three priority BAP habitats; ancient semi-natural woodland, heathland and reedbed. *** ha of derelict hazel coppice has been restored on woodland within the Herriard Estate in association with Onyx's development of the waste facility at Little Bushywarren BA103. Many sites are in the process of being restored to heathland, recent examples include; *** ha that are currently being created as part of the restoration of the Eversley Common HR040, by Lefarge, *** ha of heathland that have been restored at Burnt Hill, Ringwood Forest, in association Tarmac's extraction of minerals at Nea Farm NF106. Woodlark, a priority BAP species, have recently been recorded breeding for the first time on this site following the removal of extensive areas of rhododendrons and bracken. The creation of heathland on former landfill sites continues to be much more difficult. The number of lakes with shallow waters margins, which should support small areas of reedbeds, are either planned, or have been, created at a number of sites within the Blashford Lakes complex. It is hoped that with greater co-operation from site operators and land owners that even further positive enhancements in habitats can be achieved in the future.
The total extent and variety of habitats and species associated with mineral and waste sites throughout Hampshire is impressive and includes many Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats and species. The total contribution that these sites can make to Hampshire's biodiversity should not be under estimated. The conservation and enhancement of existing habitats and the creation of new ones means that the industry can make a very important contribution towards achieving a range of targets set out in the Hampshire BAP. A specific Action Plan for the industry is required to highlight existing and potential biodiversity on mineral sites and to help address problems and opportunities and to set realistic targets for the future.
The restoration implications of mineral extraction are also considered in the planning process, within guidance set out in `Mineral Planning Guidance Note 7 (MPG7) : The Reclamation of Mineral Workings'. Landscape and restoration conditions are attached to planning permissions to ensure that landscape concerns that have been raised are addressed and sites are restored to an acceptable after-use. The restoration of mineral workings and landfill sites can achieve benefits in terms of improved landscape quality. A number of sites have been restored in recent years and are in aftercare, or extraction and infilling has now ceased and sites are being restored, although no new examples are at the stage where they warrant special mention (e.mail: [email protected]).
Most operators in Hampshire belong to the minerals and/or waste trade associations which require their members to adhere to Environmental Codes of Practice. Many larger minerals and waste companies operate Environmental Management Schemes both for their organisations and for individual operations. The County Council supports the principle of the use of codes of practice and environmental management schemes and seeks to work with the minerals and waste industries so as to minimise the impacts of working and maximise the wider benefits to the communities affected through restoration and access.
Appendices
Contents: |
Page: |
Appendix 1: The Minerals and Waste Planning Group and other contacts |
45 |
Appendix 2: Minerals and waste sites in Hampshire |
47 |
Appendix 3: Minerals and waste development in Hampshire |
77 |
Maps: Minerals and Waste Sites in Hampshire |
After 89 |
Contents: |
Page: |
1. Minerals Sites in Hampshire 2003 |
after 89 |
2. Waste Sites in Hampshire 2003 |
after 89 |
NB: The maps include only those sites which are `active', `dormant' or otherwise `permitted' and exclude sites which are `restored', restored but `in aftercare', or otherwise `lapsed' or `closed'