Archived decisions

Contact: Julia Davey, ext 6732 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought to vary two conditions of the Mineral Review (ROMP) permission relating to monitoring and control of Crassula and the requirement for ecological monitoring at Ringwood and Ellingham quarries.

1.2 The recommendation is to grant approval for the revocation of these conditions, not because they are inappropriate or unreasonable but because it is considered that these issues are addressed by Condition (38) of the ROMP permission which covers the five year after-care period.

2. Site

2.1 Ringwood and Ellingham Quarry (also known as Ibsley Quarry) and Ellingham Pits (illustrated on the attached plan) extend across approximately 143 hectares of land north and south of Ellingham Drove, Blashford. As shown on the plan, it can be divided into three areas. The mineral review site extends across all three areas.

2.2 Area 1 was the active extraction area, currently almost completed, comprising Ibsley Water and the former plant site to the south of the lake. It is bordered by Ellingham Drove to the south, from where the site is accessed; Mockbeggar Lane to the north; and the A338 (Ringwood to Salisbury Road) to the west. The nearest residential properties are to the north along Mockbeggar Lane and to the east around Moyles Court School.

2.3 Ibsley Water forms part of the Blashford Lakes Reservoir scheme, where in 1992 planning permission was granted to vary a number of mineral permissions in the area to enable the after-use for water storage. The current after-use permitted by this 1992 planning permission was for a fully engineered reservoir contained within six metre high bunds. The requirement for a bunded reservoir was revoked through the ROMP permission whereby the restoration is to below-ground water storage bodies (ie the existing Ibsley Water and Ellingham Lake).

2.4 Area 2 comprises Mockbeggar Lakes and the north-east corner of Ibsley Water. Mockbeggar Lakes were formed some years ago following gravel extraction and have since been designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Ramsar site and a Special Protection Area (SPA). The Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust currently manages the area for nature conservation. The nearest properties to this part of the site are the same as for Area 1, along Mockbeggar Lane and by Moyles Court School.

2.5 Area 3 is Ellingham Lake, currently being used by the Ivy Lake Water Ski Club that relocated to Ellingham last year in accordance with its recent planning permission.

2.6 To the south of the old plant site, outside of the Mineral Review boundary, is the Conbloc plant, operated by Hanson. In 2001 this was granted planning permission to remain for a further 10 years.

2.7 The boundary of the New Forest National Park, as outlined in the Inspector's recommendations of 28 June 2004, lies to the east of the site. The site falls within the Bournemouth Airfield Safeguarding Zone and Bird Strike Area.

2.8 The mineral review permission with a modern set of planning conditions was issued on 31 March 2003.

3. Proposal

3.1 Planning permission is sought to develop the site and implement the ROMP permission without complying with Conditions (26) (monitoring and control of Crassula) and (39) (ecological monitoring programme) of Planning Permission 0065190M at Ringwood and Ellingham Quarries, Ibsley.

3.2 The applicant states that it is not responsible for, nor can it control, what plant species (be they alien or non-alien) choose to grow within the permitted area. It adds that Crassula Helmsii has established itself over the entire Blashford lakes complex both within the lakes (submerged) and (as far as the permitted area is concerned) on a small area of damp bank (emergent) to the north-west of Ibsley water. With its invasive nature Crassula can outperform native species.

3.3 The applicant considers that the mechanical control of Crassula is strongly inadvisable because the fragments that are produced by cutting or tearing can regrow and spread the infestation to new areas or reinfest areas already treated. It states that the only recognised and effective way to treat submerged Crassula is by chemical control using Diquat - a chemical that has now been banned. The applicant comments that other non-selective herbicides may be available but as this would involve very large quantities to control it at considerable cost this would make it unreasonable. Also, any significant loss of aquatic plant biomass during the winter months as a result of herbicide treatment could be contrary to the EU habitats directive.

3.4 The applicant also considers that to control the emergent Crassula to the north-west of Ibsley Water (where it is confined to a low boggy area) by the use of a chemical such as glyphosphate would be harmful to other plants in the area and ultimately futile as it would reinfest.

3.5 Condition (39) requires an ecological monitoring scheme to be submitted to include details for monitoring the features of interest for which the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar has been designated and the attributes required to maintain favourable conditions, including over-wintering waterfowl, breeding birds, aquatic plants, terrestrial plants and invertebrates, water depths and factors which may give rise to disturbance.

3.6 The applicant considers this condition to be unreasonable and not fairly related to the restoration of the quarry. It states that the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar designations cover an area of the quarry which has already been restored at the time of the Mineral Review determination and the operational part of the quarry has no such designations.

4. Development Plan

4.1 The main policies relevant to this application are attached as an appendix. The key policy is Policy 10 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) which states that Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities will impose conditions on planning permissions for minerals and waste development to minimise any adverse environmental, traffic or other impact resulting from the development and to ensure appropriate restoration and after-use of the site.

4.2 Supporting text in paragraph 4.4 of the Local Plan states that when imposing conditions the Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will have regard to any advice, comments and requirements of other relevant bodies, including English Nature.

5. Consultations

5.1 Ellingham, Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council states that the parish councillors do not feel that they have either sufficient information or expert knowledge to be able to make any worthwhile comment on the application. The Parish Council is content for a decision to be made by officers of the County and District Councils based on advice from their own expert consultants.

5.2 New Forest District Council raises objection to the proposal as the site lies adjacent to, and partly within, an SSSI. New Forest District Council states it is therefore important to monitor the ecological impact of the proposed development on the adjoining designated land, in order to ensure that alien species and operational methods do not harm the reasons for the designation of the land. It considers the proposal would be contrary to Policies DW-E31 and AV-1 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan.

5.3 The Environment Agency states that in relation to removal of Condition (26) (Crassula) the practicalities of controlling it over most of the site may make the proposed withdrawal of this condition appropriate, particularly with the removal of Diquat for weed control from 1 July. However with regard to Condition (39) it considers that the applicant's approach to request removal of this condition seems to lie outside the spirit and approach adopted in the published partnership Strategic Management Plan.

5.4 English Nature opposes the lifting of these conditions as it considers that further deterioration of the designated sites is likely to occur if these conditions are not met and if appropriate mitigation for the effects of the development are not fully implemented.

5.5 English Nature adds that the two conditions were included in the ROMP permission following the County Council's Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations, which concluded that the use of the land as a quarry was having, and is likely to continue to have, a significant effect on the designated international sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. In addition, both conditions relate to the potential of the restored quarry for beneficial after-use for nature conservation.

5.6 With regard to Condition (26), English Nature states the issue of Crassula invasion is significant because it suppresses the growth of other more diverse native wetland and aquatic species and thus inhibits the successful nature conservation after-use; and it is degrading existing designated sites through invasion. It also reduces potential food availability for wildfowl. English Nature considers the area covered by the ROMP is among the most seriously affected lakes and has been exacerbated by the applicant's actions (and lack of action). The applicant is responsible for securing a satisfactorily restored site suitable for beneficial after-use.

5.7 This responsibility applies also to Condition (39) (ecological monitoring). English Nature adds it is particularly disappointed that Hanson Aggregates is seeking relief from these conditions, in view of its national commitment to biodiversity in its Memorandum of Understanding with English Nature, revised in May 2003. In this Memorandum the company agrees, amongst other things, to work together with English Nature to achieve the highest state of nature conservation management on all land designated as SSSI under its control.

5.8 Countryside Agency states that it rarely comments on matters of policy in relation to individual proposals and, in view of its strategic policy involvement and its statutory priorities, has no formal representations to make on the application. It comments that this view is simply an expression of its priorities and should not be taken as implying a lack of interest, or indicate either support for, or objection to, any proposal.

5.9 Hampshire Wildlife Trust states that the revocation of these conditions would cause significant long-term harm to the nature conservation value of the site. It suggests other means and methods by which Crassula can be controlled and considers that an ecological monitoring scheme does in fact relate reasonably to the after-care and restoration of the quarry. It adds that the Wildlife Trust has entered into an agreement with New Forest District Council, Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water and Wessex Water to manage the site, together with other lakes, within the Avon Valley. This management agreement includes ecological monitoring of the site and, to some extent, the control of Crassula. However, the Wildlife Trust highlights the fact that establishment of the Crassula has been exacerbated because of the fluctuation of the water level whilst the gravel was being extracted. The Trust considers that Hanson has a duty to manage the land at least during the five year after-care period and has responsibilities that the company should honour.

5.10 New Forest Committee states that the two conditions were agreed by the applicant at the time of the original ROMP consent. They were designed to mitigate the effects of operational use on the SPA and to show (through appropriate monitoring) whether or not favourable conditions are being achieved. As such the New Forest Committee believes the conditions are still valid and should remain in place. It feels that the applicant should be held responsible for the after-care of the site in the short-term in order that the longer term future management, primarily for nature conservation, is not compromised.

5.11 The Council for National Parks has no comments on the application.

5.12 Aerodrome Safeguarding (Bournemouth Airport) considers that the information provided by the ecological monitoring would identify the potential for an increase in the risk of an aircraft bird strike in an operationally sensitive area and therefore objects to the development proceeding without complying with Condition (39).

5.13 The local Member, Councillor Mrs Heron, has been informed of the proposal.

6. Representations

6.1 At the time of writing this report no representations have been received.

7. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

7.1 The conditions of this application were agreed with the applicant before the Mineral Review permission was determined at Committee in February 2003. There are a number of other conditions attached to the ROMP permission addressing restoration after-care and after-uses of the site. In particular, Condition (38) includes a requirement for details to be submitted to bring each phase of the restored land to the required standard for use for nature conservation.

7.2 The two conditions subject of this application were imposed because the County Council was unable to require a legal agreement for long-term nature conservation management on the ROMP application. The purpose of ROMP applications is to determine, ideally through agreement, a modern set of conditions for the site in question under the Environment Act 1995. This is different legislation from the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 where the County Council is able to impose conditions and require legal agreements.

7.3 The applicant was not willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement for the site independent of the ROMP permission, which caused concern to English Nature because of the SSSI/SPA/Ramsar designations which lie within the ROMP boundary. The conditions were a compromise to ensure that the land was at least monitored and managed for nature conservation purposes for the five year after-care period.

7.4 The key policy against which this application is being determined is Policy 10 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998). This states that Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities will impose conditions on planning permissions for minerals and waste development to minimise any adverse environmental, traffic or other impact resulting from the development and to ensure appropriate restoration and after-use of the site. It is considered, therefore, that it was reasonable to condition that the applicant monitor and manage the site for nature conservation for the five year after-care period.

7.5 However, it is also noted that at the time the ROMP was determined the Hampshire Wildlife Trust was in the process of negotiating an agreement with Wessex and Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water Companies and the District Council to manage the site longer term for nature conservation purposes, and is currently managing the land to this end. The agreement was finalised after the ROMP permission was issued in the knowledge that Hanson would manage and monitor the site for a period of five years.

7.6 The policy objection raised by New Forest District Council is noted as is the objection raised on airport safeguarding and bird strike. As the Hampshire Wildlife Trust will be monitoring the site, it is considered that the bird strike objection is unfounded.

7.7 In summary, it is considered that if Members resolve to grant the applicant relief from these two conditions (26 and 39 of ROMP 00065190M) the nature conservation management and after-use would not be jeopardised. This is because Condition (38) (after-care) addresses these issues.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of the application for development of land without complying with Conditions (26) (monitoring and control of Crassula) and (39) (ecological monitoring programme) of Planning Permission 00065190M at Ringwood and Ellingham Quarries, Ibsley, Ringwood (81757) be granted for the following reason and subject to the following condition:

Reason for Approval

Other after-care conditions of the ROMP permission (00065190M) address the issue of Crassula management and ecological monitoring.

Condition

(1) That with the exception of Conditions (26) and (39) which have been revoked by way of the permission, all other conditions relating to Planning Permission 00065190M remain valid.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity and the nature conservation interests of the site.

8843/JD

APPENDIX

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

Policy 10

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will impose conditions on planning permissions for minerals and waste development to minimise any adverse environmental, traffic or other impact resulting from the development and to ensure appropriate restoration and after-care of the site. Where such impacts cannot adequately be controlled by conditions, the Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will seek appropriate planning obligations and/or legal agreements in order to control operations and/or to secure the enhancement of the environment or benefit to the local community.

NEW FOREST DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN (ADOPTED NOVEMBER 1999)

Policy AV-1

Avon Valley Lakes: nature conservation

The northern part of Ibsley Water, Ivy Lake, Mockbeggar Lakes, Rockford Lake, and any new lakes created by mineral workings in the Avon Valley will be safeguarded for nature conservation. Development which would prejudice this use will not be permitted.

Policy DW-E31

Nature conservation sites

Development will not be permitted which would have an adverse effect on sites of nature conservation value as follows:

a Ramsar sites or sites identified under European Communities Directives, including Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs); or

b Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); or

c National Nature Reserves (NNRs); or

d Local Nature Reserves (LNRs).

This includes development on land adjoining such areas, or which could otherwise have an adverse effect on them.

Proposals will be assessed in accordance with the relative status of the designation, ie whether it is internationally, nationally or locally designated.