Archived decisions

Contact: Neil Chester, ext: 6496 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The proposal is for a change of use from agricultural land to a waste transfer and recycling station at Sole Hill Farm, Sherfield English. The proposal is on a greenfield site in the countryside and is therefore contrary to the Development Plan. The proposal is not the Best Practicable Environment Option (BPEO) for the waste in question, due to the inappropriate location in relation to the source of the waste and lack of onsite recycling. It will generate up to 280 lorry movements per day on the A27. It would also give rise to an unacceptable noise impact. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.

2. Site

2.1 The application site, including access track, is approximately 0.72 hectares and is located on Sole Hill Farm, Sherfield English, near Romsey (see attached location plan). The site currently consists of two dilapidated barn structures, an area used to store silage bails and the existing farm access track. The site also extends into an adjacent field which is currently used for grazing. The access track has hedgerows on both sides.

2.2 To the north of the site is the main farm complex, comprising additional barns and the farm house. The farm house and an adjacent barn have recently been designated as Grade II listed buildings by the Secretary of State. There is agricultural land to the south, east and west. Immediately to the west of the proposed access track and opposite the proposed transfer station, is an area used for the storage of up to 40 skips which was granted planning permission by the County Council in July 2003 (Planning Permission TVS00121/4). The number of lorry movements associated with this site is restricted to six per day. Access to the application site is directly from the A27 via the existing farm track.

3. Proposal

3.1 The proposal is to construct a waste transfer station, including ancillary offices, toilets and parking. Initially it is proposed that the site will operate a throughput of approximately 200 tonnes of industrial commercial and household skip waste per day. It is anticipated that this throughput will rise. The material will be brought to the site in skips or roll-on/roll-off containers.

3.2 The deposited waste material will be spread by a 360 degree JCB digger, sorted manually and placed into one of four bays by a small shovel digger. It is proposed that each storage bay would hold approximately 40 cubic metres of waste. The sorting area will be covered to ensure the active waste is kept dry, noise impact is reduced and wind-blown litter is minimised.

3.3 Plastics and cardboard would be bailed before being sent to an appropriate recycling facility. All rubble and concrete would be sent off site, crushed and then sold. Soil and wood would be taken off site to an appropriate recycling facility. It is estimated that 60% of the total throughput will be transported to an appropriate recycling facility and 40% sent to landfill. The proposal is to use the Squabb Wood Landfill Site which is located to the east of Sole Hill Farm on the A27. Currently, Squabb Wood is not accepting waste and therefore the interim proposal is to use Pound Bottom Landfill Site, near Redlynch, Wiltshire.

3.4 To the northern end of the site it is proposed to erect a covered area for parking and servicing up to four lorries, a workshop and diesel oil store. The proposal is also includes an office, toilets and parking area. It is proposed to screen the development with a bund and additional planting.

3.5 At full operation the site will generate a maximum of 280 lorry movements per day. It is proposed to improve the access at the junction with the A27 and to provide two passing bays along the access road. It is also proposed to create a right hand turn lane on the A27 to prevent vehicles blocking the highway when turning right into the site.

3.6 The proposed hours of operations are between 0700 hours to 1800 hours on weekdays and 0700 hours to 1300 hours on Saturday.

4. Development Plan

4.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996 - 2011 (Adopted March 2000) MW1 refers to the waste hierarchy and MW2 refers to environmental impacts.

4.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) Policies 6 and 7 refer to environment impact and Policy 46 concerns waste transfer stations.

5. Consultations

5.1 Sherfield English Parish Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the site is inappropriately located in a rural, farmyard location and is an inappropriate activity for farm diversification. It is not located on a brownfield site or an industrial site;

(ii) the location of the site is likely to result in an increase in `waste miles' as it is located away from the source of waste;

(iii) potential pollution of nearby watercourses and groundwater;

(iv) increase in lorry movements through the village will cause a danger to pedestrians, result in overrunning of the verges and cause noise, dust and odour disturbance to neighbouring uses (including the recreation ground). In addition, the increased movements will result in mud and debris on the road;

(v) the road improvement proposals do not allow for two HGVs meeting on the access track;

(vi) the proposal is for sorting of waste and not for recycling. Furthermore, there is spare capacity at other waste transfer sites in the locale;

(vii) the proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area;

(viii) the proposal will have an adverse impact on the landscape character and ecology of the area; and

(ix) the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan.

5.2 Test Valley Borough Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the scheme will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and there is no overriding need for this type of development in the countryside;

(ii) the proposed scheme will result in an increase in the number of lorry movements which will have an adverse impact on the amenities of the residents of Sherfield English;

(iii) the proposed scheme would be visually intrusive in this location and is clearly visible from the A27, thereby significantly detracting from the character and appearance of the countryside; and

(iv) the scheme would result in a permanent change to the noise character of the area that will have detrimental effect on the amenities of local residents.

5.3 The Environmental Health Officer (Test Valley Borough Council) objects to the proposal because the noise impact would be unacceptable and would result in a permanent change to the noise character of the area, to the detriment of local residents. In addition, the noise report submitted by the applicant is inadequate to fully assess the impact of the proposals.

5.4 The Highways Adviser raises no objections to the proposal subject to a legal agreement to secure a right hand turn lane and a contribution towards the maintenance of the highway.

5.5 The Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposal.

5.6 Sherfield English Environmental Protection Society (SEEP) objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal is inappropriately located on a greenfield site in the countryside and does not accord with the proximity principle;

(ii) the increase in traffic is likely to have an adverse impact on the safety and amenity of the local highway network;

(iii) the proposal will have an adverse impact on the local landscape character;

(iv) the increase in noise and dust will result in an adverse impact on local residents;

(v) there is no overriding need for the development due to the spare capacity at existing sites; and

(vi) there is a risk of pollution arising from the site.

5.7 Wiltshire County Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the increase in lorry movements would double the number of HGVs on the A27, which is not designated as part of the lorry route network between Romsey and Whiteparish;

(ii) the assumption that 60% of waste is to be recycled is not substantiated and any decrease in this percentage will increase the number of HGVs passing through Whiteparish;

(iii) Wiltshire County Council is concerned by the existing numbers of HGVs using the A27, particularly the number of through movements that may be encouraged to use the A36;

(iv) Wiltshire County Council traffic counts indicate that there has been no reduction in HGV movements travelling from the west since the closure of Birchwood House Farm landfill site;

(v) the A27 is the main road through the village of Whiteparish and a considerable number of houses lie adjacent to the carriageway. This issue is not addressed by the applicant;

(vi) the HGV traffic on roads between the A36 and the landfill at Pound Bottom will result in an adverse impact on the local highway network; and

(vii) the applicant does not address the overall need for such a facility and location of the proposed transfer station is peripheral to Hampshire's waste markets. In addition, there is no existing landfill close to the proposed facility.

5.8 Salisbury District Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) increased traffic movements will have a detrimental impact upon quality of life and safety of local residents;

(ii) traffic statement does not address negative impacts in the context of South East Wiltshire;

(iii) proposal does not accord with the proximity principle; and

(iv) the consultation arrangements made by the County Council have not sufficiently informed parties in Wiltshire.

5.9 Wellow Parish Council objects to the proposal as it is contrary to the Development Plan and in an inappropriate location. In addition, it is likely to give rise to an unacceptable impact on the countryside and ecology of the area. The proposal may also give rise to an adverse impact in terms of noise, smell, dust, light or pollution and possible contamination of local waterways.

5.10 Melchett Park and Plaitford Parish Council objects as it considers the proposal to be located inappropriately in the countryside, not in accordance with the proximity principle and located too near to the New Forest Heritage Area. The Parish Council is also concerned by the impact of increased numbers of lorry movements on the local highway network and the potential impact of noise and increased lighting on local amenity. Finally, it is concerned that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area.

5.11 Whiteparish Parish Council objects to the proposal as the increase in lorry movements is likely to have an adverse impact on the safety and amenity of local residents. Furthermore the A27 is not part of the lorry route network and Whiteparish is involved in the Wiltshire Freight Quality Partnership (A27 Whiteparish Working Group) to facilitate a reduction of heavy traffic through the village.

5.12 The New Forest Committee has objected to the proposal because the increased traffic movements are likely to have a detrimental impact on the proposed New Forest National Park, which lies immediately to the west of Sole Hill Farm.

6. Representations

6.1 The local Member, Councillor Woodhall, has been informed of the proposal.

6.2 There have been 313 letters of objection to the proposal. The main reasons for objection are :

(i) increased lorry movements will have a detrimental impact on the safety and amenity of the local highway network;

(ii) the proposal would have an adverse impact on the local amenity by virtue of increased noise, odour, dust and light pollution;

(iii) the proposal is inappropriately located in the countryside and not on a brownfield site, which will result in unnecessary waste miles;

(iv) the proposal would result in pollution of local water courses and ground water supplies, including the watercress beds;

(v) there is no need for the development as existing sites have sufficient spare capacity;

(vi) the potential impact on the local ecology is unacceptable;

(vii) the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the landscape of the area;

(viii) for the reasons listed above the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan.

7. Site Visit

7.1 In the light of local concerns the Committee undertook a site visit on
12 March 2004 and met representatives of Wiltshire County Council, Salisbury District Council, Sherfield English Parish Council, the Sherfield English Environmental Protection Society and the applicant. The comments of those present are outlined below.

7.2 The Chief Planning Adviser described the application and drew particular attention to the maximum amount (50,000 tonnes) of household, industrial and commercial waste which would be dealt with per annum. He confirmed that the A27 would be used to access the site and that waste would come from the Southampton, Salisbury and Andover areas. He referred to the considerable opposition generated by the proposal on account of its location in the countryside and that the nearest houses were 200 metres from the site.

7.3 The Wiltshire representatives advised that their objections had been well summarised in the briefing note for the visit (paragraph 5.7 above). The representatives of Salisbury District and Sherfield English Parish Councils drew attention to their objections (paragraphs 5.8 and 5.1). A representative of SEEP advised that the farmhouse and barn are now listed as Grade II buildings.

7.4 The applicant commented that efforts had been made to take on board comments submitted by local residents and others. He confirmed that material would be tipped from skips on to hard standing and then sorted into bays prior to being removed from the site to recycling depots. The only noise generated by the operation should be that from the digger and a shovel loader. The application did not entail concrete crushing. The nature of the waste meant that there would be a small amount of putrescible waste which would be dealt with in accordance with Environment Agency guidelines. The access track would be resurfaced and passing bays constructed; adjacent hedgerows would not be affected. A lorry routeing agreement would be drawn up to cover lorries visiting the site and residues would be tipped at Pound Bottom in Wiltshire if not at the Squabb Wood site at Shootash which was currently closed.

7.5 The Chief Planning Adviser confirmed that landscape issues and details of site levels would be addressed in his report. The Chief Highways Adviser confirmed that the development could result in a large increase in vehicles using the A27 which, whilst not a local lorry route, was used by a certain number of lorries; he recognised the possible effect of the traffic generated on amenity, capacity and safety. Whilst the access was suitable, provided visibility improvements are carried out, there remained highways concerns.

8. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

8.1 Policy 2 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan states that the Waste Planning Authority will normally grant planning permission for waste development, subject to other policies of the Plan, providing they are satisfied that the proposal pays regard to the hierarchy of waste management options. The proposal accords with this policy by facilitating the diversion of waste from landfill. The key issue is whether Sole Hill Farm is an appropriate location for such a use in relation to BPEO and whether it will result in an adverse environmental or highways impact.

8.2 The main policy context for the proposal is provided by Policy 46 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan that states the Waste Planning Authority will normally permit proposals for the storage, transfer and recycling of waste within an existing industrial site, an area of land permanently disturbed by development (brownfield site) or at a waste disposal site. National policy guidance excludes farmyards from the definition of a brownfield site. The application site should therefore be considered a greenfield site within the countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy.

8.3 Approximately 80% of the material imported into the proposed transfer station is anticipated to be commercial and industrial waste, and a large percentage of this from the building industry. The main target area of the proposed transfer station comprises the smaller towns and villages lying between the urban areas of Salisbury, Andover, Winchester, Southampton and Ringwood. However, the majority of construction and demolition waste arises from urban locations. Moreover, the majority of the applicant's current collections are from urban areas including Southampton, Winchester and Romsey. There is no evidence to suggest that sufficient waste is available within the target area and there is a significant likelihood that the waste will be sourced from urban areas, as it is currently. Therefore, in terms of the proximity principle and the generation of `waste miles' the site location is considered inappropriate and unacceptable.

8.4 The proposal is for a waste transfer station, including some sorting. The advice of the Environmental Health Officer is that the use of a soil screener and wood chipper at the site would result in an adverse noise impact. Therefore, it is unlikely that a recycling facility as originally proposed would be considered acceptable in environmental terms and accordingly, the recycling element has been removed from the proposal. It is proposed that all sorted waste will be taken to specific recycling facilities in Salisbury, Otterborne, Eastleigh or Marchwood or sent directly to landfill. It is desirable for waste transfer and recycling facilities to be integrated to reduce the generation of `waste miles'. In this respect the proposal does not represent the BPEO.

8.5 Local residents and SEEP are concerned that the proposal will result in an unacceptable noise impact. The site is in the countryside and background noise levels are notably low. The proposed noise attenuation measures include the erection of a fence along the north and west boundaries of the site and a restriction on the Saturday operating hours. However these mitigation measures would not reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Consequently the proposals would have an unacceptable environmental impact due to noise.

8.6 Wiltshire County Council objects to the proposal due to the impact on the highway network within Wiltshire. The initial proposal was to transport the residual waste in a large loader (36 ton) lorry to the landfill site in Pound Bottom via Whiteparish. The road through Whiteparish is particularly narrow and considered unsuitable for further HGV traffic in terms of highway safety and amenity. However the applicant asserts that the Squabb Wood Landfill will reopen in Spring 2005. Access to this site would be acceptable in highway terms and would result in the majority of HGVs travelling in an easterly direction along the A27 and reduce the impact of lorries in Wiltshire. However the Highways Adviser is concerned that contribution towards highway maintenance would therefore be necessary to ensure the proposal would not result in an adverse impact to the highway.

8.7 There is strong local concern that the proposal will result in an adverse impact on the local highway network. Whilst there is concern that two large loader HGVs cannot pass on the access track to the site, this is primarily an operational matter. The proposed widening of the access to create a bell-mouth at the junction with the A27 enables it to safely accommodate two 36 tonne large loaders, thereby preventing queueing on the highway by lorries turning left onto the access track.. Moreover, the proposal is to provide a right hand turn lane to enable the additional HGVs to safely and conveniently turn right into the access track. Therefore, subject to the implementation of these structural works, and the financial contribution referred to above, there is not a highways objection.

8.8 The proposed mitigation measures are considered sufficient to address the landscape impact. The proposal is not to alter or impact on the Grade II listed buildings and therefore the impact of the proposal is considered negligible in this respect.

8.9 Local residents and SEEP raise concerns that the proposal will adversely impact on the ecology of the area, particularly in terms of bats, badgers and the hedgerows adjacent to the access track. Notwithstanding that there are bats in the area, there is no evidence to suggest that they are roosting on the site. Disused badger setts have been identified on the farm, however there is no evidence that they are using the site. The hedgerows are considered to be ancient and therefore are protected under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Notwithstanding the value on the hedgerows, the access track can be upgraded, including the installation of passing bays, without impacting on them.

8.10 The pollution and drainage concerns can be satisfactorily addressed and the Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal, confirming the requirement for a Waste Management Licence.

8.11 The proposal is not without merit, there is a need for small-scale transfer stations to facilitate the diversion of waste from landfill. The proposal can mitigate against any adverse highways impact and the ecological and landscape have been addressed. However, the proposal is located on a greenfield site and has an unacceptable noise impact. It is therefore contrary to the Development Plan. It is also considered that the proposal does not meet the requirement of BPEO the proximity principle as it is now a waste transfer facility (as the recycling activities have been deleted) due to its inappropriate location in relation to the source of waste and location of recycling facilities. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be refused.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of proposed construction of a waste transfer and recycling station including the demolition of existing agricultural buildings, construction of ancillary offices, toilets, workshop, diesel store, parking and improvements to access road at land at Sole Hill Farm, Sherfield English be refused planning permission for the following reasons.

1. The application would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents by reason of increased noise. The need for the development does not outweigh the adverse noise impact and this would be contrary to Policies 7 (i) and 46 (iv) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

3. The proposal is inappropriately located within an area of land in the countryside that has not already been disturbed by permanent development. Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policy 46 (iii) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

3. There is not a clearly established need for the development at this location which outweighs any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to cause. Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policy 6 (i) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

8699/NC

APPENDIX

Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) (Adopted March 2000)

Policy MW1

Planning authorities will, through policies and proposals in local plans and day-to day development control:

(i) seek to ensure an adequate supply of minerals and provision of waste management facilities to meet needs having regard to the need to: maintain the environmental quality and diversity of Hampshire, including the protection of living conditions; safeguard important socio-economic interests; prevent pollution; and protect features of particular environmental or historical importance including those listed in Policy MW3, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and historic parks and gardens;

(ii) seek environmental enhancement and public benefits through minerals and waste development;

(iii) conserve and prevent unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources and encourage efficient use of materials;

(iv) encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregate materials; and

(v) seek the management of waste in accordance with the following hierarchy;

1. reduction of waste;

2. re-use of waste;

3. recovery of waste (recycling, composting, energy from waste);

and

4. waste disposal;

having regard to the proximity principle and the principle of best practical environmental option.

Policy MW2

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

(i) any adverse environmental or other impacts that the development would be likely to cause are outweighed by a clearly established need for the development; and

(ii) the proposals, where applicable, include a satisfactory scheme of working and landscaping including details of lorry routeing and, in all cases, include satisfactory measures to ensure that the development would not have any unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact; and

(iii) the proposals, where applicable, provide for the satisfactory and prompt restoration and after-care of the site to a high standard and to a landform compatible with the local landscape and suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted 17 December 1998)

Policy 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.