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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for a variation of condition to extend the period for commencement of infilling at Holmsley Gravel Pit. In view of the lack of activity at the site and the change in circumstances since the previous planning permission it is now considered that the proposal is unacceptable and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises an area of 5.63 hectares. The site is within the New Forest Heritage Area and proposed New Forest National Park. It is adjacent to a nature reserve, New Forest Special Area for Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The nearest houses are at Tothill, neighbouring the site. Heathfield Campsite adjoins the eastern boundary of the site.

2.2 Planning permission was granted in 1993 for infilling the site with some 135,000 cubic metres of inert waste over a period of about three years. The site would be restored to grassland for grazing. In 1999 planning permission was granted to extend the period for completion and to permit an alternative access via Black Lane. The planning permission has not been implemented. This application is for a variation of condition to allow a further five years for implementing the planning permission.

2.3 Access to the site would be onto Black Lane then to Forest Road, Lyndhurst Road and to the A35. There is a legal agreement for lorry routeing and works necessary to improve Black Lane.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted 17 December 1998) Policies 6 and 7 concern proposals for waste disposal, Policy 8 concerns proposals within New Forest Heritage Area and SSSIs, Policy 37 concerns proposals for landfill.

4. Consultations

4.1 New Forest District Council raises objection on the grounds that it would detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the New Forest Heritage Area.

4.2 Bransgore Parish Council opposes the application on the grounds of the dangerous nature of the Black Lane/Forest Road junction and the dangerous stretch of Lyndhurst Road from Forest Road to the A35. There is a serious traffic issue which requires reappraisal.

4.3 The Environment Agency raised no objection.

4.4 English Nature raise objection on the grounds that proposed widening of parts of Black Lane involve direct loss of SSSI habitat and the site has been used by protected species.

4.5 Council for National Parks have no comments.

4.6 Civil Aviation Authority - comments awaited.

4.7 Hampshire Wildlife Trust comment that since the original consent, the level of protection afforded to the New Forest through policy and legislation has increased significantly and that the land in its present condition is part of a matrix of habitats that make up and sustain the forest.

4.8 New Forest Committee have considerable concerns about further landfill operations within the area likely to become a National Park and considers environmental factors should be reconsidered as the site has developed its own character and mosaic of habitats adjacent to New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

4.9 The Highways Adviser raises no objection.

5. Representations

5.1 Councillor Waddington raises concern at the suitability of access via Black Lane, concern that the `close season' between 16 July and 30 August is not long enough and, given the lack of inert fill, he suggests that it would be better to opt for restoration as a nature reserve in keeping with the area and the proposed National Park.

5.2 33 letters of objection have been received, the majority being standard letters. The objections raised are that: access into Black Lane is inappropriate and dangerous for large vehicles, the area is attractive for campers (Holmsley and Heathfield camp sites) and therefore that lorry traffic is a hazard not only for local residents but also for visitors not expecting such traffic on narrow lanes; the campsites would be adversely affected, notwithstanding the proposed restriction to avoid working during summer school holidays; the extended period continues the threat of disturbance hanging over local residents; the lack of inert fill for infilling mineral sites, therefore no need; concerns at type of waste to be tipped; it is more appropriate to develop the site for nature conservation, being adjacent to a nature reserve and SSSI; and the adverse impact on the new Holmsley Airfield Memorial which is 20 metres from the site entrance.

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 Planning permission was originally granted for this site in 1993, and subsequently amended by the permission granted in 1999. The current planning application proposes a change in the commencement date but does not change any other aspects of the proposal consented previously. Therefore the main issues are whether there are changed circumstances, which warrant reconsidering the proposal.

6.2 It is considered that there are significant changes in circumstances related to the need for the development. The site itself was a gravel pit and was in a degraded state when planning permission was originally granted. However in the intervening period the site has regenerated to grassland and wetland, which is of nature conservation interest. It has developed a character appropriate for a location within the New Forest. In addition, in view of the very long period of inactivity at the site, it is not considered that the argument for the need for waste disposal, for inert waste, can be strongly justified.

6.3 There are clearly adverse impacts from the proposed development, in particular the environmental impact of the lorry traffic and consequences for adjoining land of the works required to accommodate the traffic. In addition the impacts of both the traffic and the operation of the site for the neighbouring camp site and local residents. In considering these impacts there is a high degree of protection for the area being within the New Forest. This being recognised by its inclusion within the proposed National Park.

6.4 It is considered that there is the need to reappraise the proposal because of the time that has elapsed, and the change in circumstances, since planning permission was originally granted. As a result it is concluded that the proposal would have adverse environmental impacts and that there is now no overriding need for the proposal. Therefore taking into account the sensitive location within the New Forest, and impacts for the SSSI, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 00056880M (extend the time for commencement) at Holmsley Gravel Pit, Holmsley, Bransgore (79851) be refused permission for the following reasons.

1. The proposal is contrary to Policy 8 (i) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that the proposal would be detrimental to the landscape and character of the New Forest Heritage Area and Proposed New Forest National Park and there is no overriding need for the development to take place.

2. The proposal is contrary to Policy 8 (iii) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that the necessary highway improvements would have a detrimental impact on the New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

3. The proposal is contrary to Policies 7 (vii) and 37 (v) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that there would be a detrimental impact for nature conservation.

4. The proposal is contrary to Policy 6 (i) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that there is not a clearly established need which outweighs the adverse environmental impacts and the disturbance to local residents from noise and lorry traffic.

8511/PC

APPENDIX

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

Policy 6

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority is satisfied that:

(i) there is a clearly established need for the development (as assessed in relation to the other relevant policies of the Plan) which outweighs any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to cause; and

(ii) the development would not be likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of adverse environmental, traffic or other impact, pollution risk or danger to public health, particularly in respect of any of the factors specified in Policy 7 and measures would be taken to ensure that any such impacts would, as far as is practicable, be minimised; and

(iii) the proposals provide for the satisfactory working or operation and landscaping of the site and for its satisfactory restoration and landscaping at the cessation of the operations or use or at the end of the life of the facility to a condition suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use which is compatible with adjoining land uses and the planning policies for the area.

Notwithstanding any need there may be for waste disposal, permission will not normally be granted for mineral extraction with restoration by infilling with waste materials unless there is a need for the mineral to be extracted.

Policy 7

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals and waste development provided they are satisfied that, where appropriate, the proposed development pays due regard to:

(i) the relationship of the proposal site to other properties and land uses (particularly residential and other environmentally sensitive properties) and the likely effects of the proposed development on the locality by reason of noise, dust, smoke, fumes, illumination or any other factor and the need for buffer zones between the development and residential and other properties;

(ii) the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected, in terms of highway capacity and safety and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements required could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact;

(iii) the likely visual impact of the proposed development and the need for additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development;

(iv) the need to safeguard the character and amenities of individual settlements and to safeguard open gaps between settlements from permanent development which would cause long-term harm to the function of the land;

(v) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to protect and safeguard sites of nature conservation, geological, archaeological, historic, architectural and landscape importance and their settings;

(vi) the extent and quality of agricultural land to be taken by the proposed development and the proposals for its subsequent restoration and the likely effects of the proposals on farm structure and management;

(vii) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to maintain the distinctive character of the landscape; the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard and protect individual species, habitats and landscape features, including woodland, trees and hedgerows; and the likely effects of the proposed development on forestry and woodland management;

(viii) the likely effects of the proposed development on sites used for recreation and public rights of way and the need to protect or secure the satisfactory diversion of public rights of way;

(ix) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard the flow and quality of watercourses, water supplies, floodplains, groundwater, the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the level of the water table in the locality and the likely effects of the proposed development on the immediate setting of any river;

(x) any potential danger to aircraft from birds being attracted to the site;

(xi) the possible amenity implications of any landfill gas that might be generated at the site and of any provisions that might need to be made to deal with it; and

(xii) the likely cumulative impact of the proposed development in combination with any other significant development taking place or permitted to take place in the locality and the need to minimise the impact of mineral extraction and waste disposal operations by securing, where appropriate, the phased release of sites and progression of working and restoration.

Policy 8

Applications for planning permission for minerals or waste development in the following areas will not be granted save when the development would not prejudice the purpose of the designation and where there is an overriding need for the development to take place in the public interest:

(i) the New Forest Heritage Area;

(ii) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

(iii) National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites);

(iv) Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings;

(v) Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, and sites on the National Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.

Policy 37

The Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for waste disposal by landfilling provided they are satisfied that:

(i) the waste to be disposed of cannot practicably and reasonably be reduced, re-used, recycled or processed at a resource recovery plant and there is a proven need for the disposal of the waste by landfilling which cannot reasonably be met by other suitable existing or permitted waste disposal facilities within a reasonable distance of the source of the waste by the preferred areas in Policy 38; and

(ii) the proposed landfilling would normally take place within a mineral working site that:

(a) is an active extraction site; or

(b) has been unsatisfactorily restored and landfilling would enable satisfactory restoration to be achieved; or

(c) has been restored below original levels and there would be an environmental benefit from the raising of levels by infilling; and

(iii) the proposed site is located near to and has adequate access to the Hampshire Lorry Route Network (as shown on the proposals map), so that the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable traffic impact (including the environmental impact of traffic) on the local highway network; and

(iv) the proposed site is located and the proposal includes adequate measures to ensure that no unacceptable impact would be likely to be caused to the occupants or users of houses, other residential buildings, schools, hospitals and other environmentally sensitive buildings and land uses by reason of noise, dust, fumes, smell or other cause;

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

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