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

1. Summary

1.1 The proposal is to extend until the end of the year the hours of operation for the Southleigh Landfill Site to accommodate waste arising in South East Hampshire following the completion of the Paulsgrove Landfill Site. The application is generally the same as the proposal submitted last year which was refused planning permission, except some reduction in working hours has been incorporated in response to previous concerns. Onyx UK Limited have submitted an appeal against the refusal of planning permission as well as submitting this further planning application. The current application is accompanied by additional information to support the application, comprising an assessment of Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) and an assessment of alternative disposal sites. The recommendation is to grant planning permission.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The Southleigh Landfill Site, as shown on the attached plan, has planning consent for waste disposal up to 2013. The site takes household waste, commercial waste and waste from HWRCs. Access is from Emsworth Common Road. The nearest houses are at Gravel Pit Cottages which adjoin the western boundary of the site.

2.2 Municipal waste from South East Hampshire is currently disposed of at the Paulsgrove Landfill Site. The site is open at weekends and public holidays. The Southleigh Landfill Site is not used at present other than in emergencies. Capacity at Paulsgrove is coming to an end. It is anticipated that it will cease to take waste in June 2004. Therefore there is a need to continue to accommodate waste arising in the area following Paulsgrove's closure and before the new Energy Recovery Incinerator in Portsmouth is operational. The incinerator is under construction and it is expected to be commissioned at the beginning of 2005.

2.3 The current permitted hours of operation at Southleigh are 0700 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 hours on Saturday (apart from seven Saturdays a year at public holidays when hours can be extended to 1600 hours). The proposal is to extend the hours of operation to include Saturday afternoons, Sundays and public holidays up to 31 December 2004. The hours would extend from 1300 to 1600 hours (GMT)/1700 (BST) on Saturdays and 0800 to 1600 hours (GMT)/1700 (BST) on Sundays and public holidays. The hours would then revert to the current approved hours up to 31 January 2006. The additional traffic movements at the weekend and public holidays would be between 40 and 70 per day.

2.4 Additional information is provided in support of the current application.

2.5 First there is a list of the HWRCs that currently dispose of non-recyclable wastes at Paulsgrove Landfill Site at weekends and public holidays, and so will need alternative arrangements when Paulsgrove Landfill Site closes. These HWRCs are at Petersfield, Havant, Hayling Island, Waterlooville, Paulsgrove, Gosport, Segensworth and Bishops Waltham.

2.6 It is anticipated that waste from Petersfield and Bishops Waltham HWRCs will be delivered to the new Waste Transfer Station/Materials Recycling Facility at Alton when it is completed later this year. The Paulsgrove and Segensworth HWRCs have a limited buffer capacity for storing filled bins on the site but this storage is insufficient for peak periods (ie weekends and public holidays). The HWRCs at Havant, Hayling Island, Waterlooville, and Gosport have very limited space for storing filled bins. It is concluded that there will be severe operational difficulties for the HWRCs if there is no facility available to take full bins at weekends and public holidays.

2.7 Second, alternative disposal sites are considered. The alternatives considered are Portsmouth and Marchwood Energy Recovery Incinerators, Paulsgrove Landfill Site, Lidsey Landfill (Chichester), Fairoak Landfill, Alton Waste Transfer Station and Blue Haze Landfill (Ringwood).

2.8 Portsmouth Energy Recovery Incinerator and Marchwood Energy Recovery Incinerator are still under construction, so they are not currently available. Paulsgrove Landfill Site will not be available after June 2004. Lidsey Landfill has limited capacity and is restricted to West Sussex waste. Fairoak Landfill is not licensed for weekend and public holiday deliveries, it is not well placed to serve South East Hampshire and is accessed via rural roads. It is suggested that the use of these landfill sites would generate as much disturbance to neighbouring residents and greater adverse environmental impacts than using Southleigh Landfill Site.

2.9 Alton Waste Transfer Station will be able to take waste from Bishops Waltham and Petersfield HWRCs when operational in July, but is not well located for serving the remainder of South East Hampshire.

2.10 Blue Haze Landfill is licensed and available for accepting waste. However it is located at the extreme west of Hampshire, some 55 kilometres from Paulsgrove. It is therefore suitable for serving South West Hampshire but too far away to be suitable for South East Hampshire.

2.11 It is concluded that there is no suitable alternative disposal site in proximity to South East Hampshire that logistically could meet the residue disposal needs with lesser environmental or residential amenity impacts.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policies 6 and 7 concern proposals for waste development.

4. Consultations

4.1 East Hampshire District Council raises objection on the grounds that "the proposed extension of opening hours could result in an incremental increase in noise and dust problems which would detrimentally harm the amenities of the surrounding properties. This is contrary to the provisions of Policy GS5 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Periodic Review".

4.2 Havant Borough Council raises objection on the grounds:

(i) "that the additional activity and traffic movement within and surrounding the site (ie on the highway network) particularly at weekends and bank holidays, will have an adverse impact upon the amenities of occupiers of the cottages to the south-west of the access to the site (namely Bodgers Cottage and two Gravel Pit Cottages) and the occupiers of those residential properties that front onto Bartons Road;

(ii) as you will be aware the Horndean Road/Emsworth Common Road/Bartons Road staggered crossroads is on the Highway Authority's "High Risk" personal injury accident list and low cost remedial measures have been implemented within the last year. Additional traffic manoeuvres at this junction are of concern to the Borough Council; and

(iii) the condition of Emsworth Common Road requires investigation to ensure that it is capable of taking additional heavy commercial vehicle traffic."

4.3 The Environmental Health Officer (East Hampshire) comments that given that the additional waste is likely to come from the HWRCs, it is suggested that the hours of operation on the landfill site reflect those at the HWRCs.

4.4 The Environmental Health Officer (Havant) - no comments have been received.

4.5 The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal.

4.6 Rowlands Castle Parish Council objects to the proposal as it would create additional unwanted traffic, noise, pollution and unwanted odours, at a time when local residents are wanting to have some quality time in their own homes and gardens.

4.7 Westbourne Parish Council raises strong objection in that additional lorry traffic at weekends and bank holidays would have an unacceptable environmental impact for local residents.

4.8 Chichester District Council - no comments have been received.

4.9 West Sussex County Council - no comments have been received.

4.10 Emsworth Residents Association - no comments have been received.

4.11 The Highways Adviser comments that the additional traffic movements are not significant, relative to existing traffic movements. For the three years to February 2002 there have been six accidents at Emsworth Common Road/Bartons Road. None of which involved HGVs. Low cost safety measures were introduced during 2002 and since October 2002 there have been no accidents associated with the staggered crossroads. Therefore no objection to the proposal is raised.

4.12 The Head of Waste Management supports the application. The HWRC network plays a pivotal role in meeting recycling targets (40 percent for 2005/06) and minimising avoidable landfilling of household waste. About 50 percent of the county's recycling achievement is due to the HWRC service. In volume terms, some 100,000 tonnes of materials were recycled at HWRCs during the nine months to December 2003 from a total delivery of 186,000 tonnes. The HWRC service is extremely popular and demand is increasing. Four of the five busiest sites are located in the south-east of the county. Visitor numbers for the eight HWRCs in the south-east are estimated at between 10,000 and 12,000 on a typical Sunday. Havant HWRC is the busiest site in the county and along with Waterlooville, the two closest sites to Southleigh, attract some 3,500 visitors on a Sunday. Analysis of waste types and typical site use suggests between 250 and 300 tonnes of residential waste will need to be removed on Sunday.

4.13 Disruption to the service frustrates attempts to maximise recycling and minimise landfill and also frustrates the public who want to use the service when it is most convenient to them. At peak times or during servicing periods queueing times can be lengthy. Increased disruptions and longer site closures will inevitably lead to loss of public goodwill and use of the service.

5. Representations

5.1 Councillors Mrs Byrom, Gillett and Wheeler have been informed of the proposal.

5.2 Four letters of objection have been received from local residents. These objections are on the grounds of unacceptable disturbance from the operation of the site, principally from the lorry traffic, noise, mud on the road and odour, and extending operations to weekends and public holidays. Also that there is insufficient justification as there are alternative solutions to the management of HWRC waste at weekends.

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 The proposed extension of hours is practically the same as those proposed last year and refused planning permission, except that some reduction in hours of working has been incorporated in response to previous concerns. Consequently the issues are the same as with the previous application. These are the need to balance the disturbance to local residents, particularly from the associated lorry traffic, with the need to maintain the waste management service, in particular the service provided by HWRCs.

6.2 Inevitably there will be disturbance to local residents particularly at sensitive times at weekends and public holidays. The main impact will be the lorry traffic. The objections by local residents to this disturbance is not unreasonable and should not lightly be discarded. An important issue in this regard is the need and benefit to the wider community, and whether there are suitable alternative sites to accept the waste.

6.3 The County Council is committed to providing the HWRC service as an important community facility. The Head of Waste Management confirms that HWRCs contribute 50 percent of the total domestic recycling achievement in Hampshire. The HWRC service is crucial to the overall achievement of statutory recycling performance targets in the county, which by 2005/06 must increase from the current 24 percent to 40 percent. The HWRCs at Havant, Segensworth, Gosport and Paulsgrove are the four sites which handle the most waste in the network. Therefore the sites at most risk from disruptions if suitable disposal facilities are not available would be the busiest HWRCs in the county.

6.4 It is a fact that the main periods of use for the HWRCs is at weekends and public holidays. The consequence is the need for reception facilities for the full bins, otherwise the HWRC would have to close and the service offered undermined. The application is supported by additional information which includes details of the HWRCs in South East Hampshire. It is clear that only two, Paulsgrove and Segensworth, have some buffer capacity although this is insufficient for peak periods. The other sites do not have such a capacity.

6.5 The alternatives to the Paulsgrove Landfill Site, set out in the application, are the facilities which could be made available. Other than Alton Transfer Station serving Bishops Waltham and Petersfield, the other sites are either distant from the area or would result in greater environmental and amenity disturbance than the use of the Southleigh Landfill Site.

6.6 It is recognised that the Regulatory Committee took a view with the previous application that the need for the use of the site had not been established and consequently the disturbance to local residents was unacceptable. The current application provides further information to justify the need for these extended hours and therefore the proposal should be reconsidered in the light of this additional information.

6.7 Although there would be disturbance to the amenity of local residents there is clearly an established need. Meeting this need by changing the operating hours in the manner proposed would not materially harm the character of the area, and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience. Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the proposal accords with policy and it is recommended approval be granted.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of temporary variation of the hours of working for the receipt and disposal of Local Authority waste at Southleigh Landfill Site, Havant (F27242/009/CMA) be granted permission for the following reason and subject to the following conditions.

Reason for Approval

It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan (summarised as attached)and although there would be disturbance to the amenity of local residents from lorry traffic there is a clearly established need, it would not materially harm the character of the area particularly taking into account the short period involved, and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience.

Conditions

Hours of Working

(1) Except with the prior approval of the Waste Planning Authority in writing, no operations authorised or required by this permission shall be carried out and plant shall not be operated other than between the hours of 0700 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 on Saturday; except that:

(i) until 31 December 2004 operations may take place on Saturday between the hours of 1300 and 1600 (GMT)/1700 (BST) for the receipt of Local Authority waste only;

(ii) until 31 December 2004 operations may take place on Sunday and recognised public holidays (except Christmas Day and Boxing Day) between the hours of 0800 and 1600 (GMT)/1700 (BST) for the receipt of Local Authority waste only;

(iii) between 31 December 2004 and 31 January 2006 operations may take place between the hours of 1300 and 1600 on seven Saturdays per year preceding or following recognised public holidays for the receipt of Local Authority waste only; and

(iv) within 100 metres of Gravel Pit Cottages, operations are restricted at all times to between the hours of 0700 and 1700 Monday to Friday and 0700 and 1300 hours on Saturday.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Advice Note

All other conditions of the planning permissions at Southleigh Landfill Site remain in force.

8703/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.