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

1. Summary

1.1 At its meeting on 24 November 2004, this Committee considered an application for use of land for a permanent facility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste and associated development, including aggregate and compost importation for blending purposes, retention of concrete batching plant and extension of time for existing silt ponds for landfill purposes. The Committee refused planning permission.

1.2 The applicant has written to state they will be appealing against the refusal of planning permission and would wish to continue the current permitted activities at Ridge pending the outcome of the appeal.

1.3 The current planning permissions on the site require the removal of the concrete batching plant and the recycling plant by 31 March 2005 and the restoration of the site to agriculture by 30 June 2005.

1.4 The decision for the Committee to consider is, in the event that the operations continue beyond 21 March 2005, whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity meriting protection in the public interest. Any enforcement action should be commensurate with the seriousness of the breach of control it is intended to remedy.

1.5 It is recommended that authority is given to take enforcement action to secure the cessation of the use for recycling, concrete batching and landfilling and secure the restoration of the site. However, if an appeal is submitted prior to the expiry of the current permissions, that the implementation of the enforcement action is deferred pending the determination of the appeal.

2. Enforcement

2.1 At its meeting on 24 November 2004, this Committee considered an application for use of land for a permanent facility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste and associated development, including aggregate and compost importation for blending purposes, retention of concrete batching plant and extension of time for existing silt ponds for landfill purposes. Members considered that the application represented an unjustified departure from the Development Plan. The application was refused as the need for the facility had not been demonstrated and because the development would be contrary to Policy 46(iii) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

2.2 The applicant has written to the County Council stating that they will be appealing against the refusal of planning permission, and would wish to continue the currently permitted activities at Ridge pending the outcome of the appeal. It is recognised that there are currently long delays with appeals such that it could be 12 months before any appeal decision is made.

2.3 The current planning permissions on the site require the removal of the concrete batching plant and the recycling plant by 31 March 2005 and the landfilling restoration of the site to agriculture by 30 June 2005.

2.4 Therefore this raises the question of what action should be taken when the current temporary permissions expire.

2.5 The local planning authority has a discretion as to whether to take enforcement action. The decision for the Committee to consider is whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity meriting protection in the public interest. Any enforcement action should be commensurate with the seriousness of the breach of control it is intended to remedy.

2.6 In coming to a decision, Members have to be `reasonable' and balance a number of factors, pertinent to this site.  The quarry and landfill site has operated at Ridge Lane for many years (the quarrying having been ongoing since the 1960s) without significant or regular complaint, and there is vehicular access onto the main A3090 Romsey-Ower dual carriageway without passing any houses on Ridge Lane. The existing recycling facility has been operated since 1994 without, until recently, any complaints to the County Council. Two complaints have been received recently from a resident of Ridge Lane about increase in noise from the recycling facility and from a resident of Gardeners Lane about reversing bleepers. There was no objection from the Environmental Health Officer in principle to the application subject to conditions. In addition if enforcement action is taken the 21 employees at the site could be made redundant as the operators would be required to remove all the plant, including minerals processing plant, from the site.

2.7 In these circumstances it is recommended that authority is given to take enforcement action to secure the cessation of the use for recycling, concrete batching and landfilling and secure the restoration of the site. However if an appeal is submitted prior to the expiry of the current permissions, the implementation of the enforcement action is deferred pending the determination of the appeal.

Recommendation

That:

(a) The taking of enforcement action be authorised, including the serving of enforcement notices if necessary, to secure the cessation of the use for recycling and concrete batching at Ridge following the expiry of the current permissions; and

(b) If an appeal against the refusal of planning permission TVS 4326/14 is submitted prior to the expiry of the current permissions, the implementation of enforcement action is deferred pending the outcome of the appeal.

9124/JD