APPENDIX

Contact: Judith Smallman, ext: 5461 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The proposal is for the use of land for the recycling of inert material to produce soils and secondary aggregates, including the use of screening and crushing equipment and siting of a portacabin office/mess room. The recommendation is that, subject to a legal agreement concerning lorry routeing, and revised details of the access conditions, permission be granted.

2. Site

2.1 The site (as shown on the attached plan) lies within the Blackwater Valley Strategic Gap, adjacent to the A331 on the Hampshire/Surrey border. Access to the site is via a private road from Government Road, which also forms the main access to the Hollybush Lane industrial area. The site is well screened on all sides, with the railway embankment forming the eastern boundary and woodland on the remaining boundaries.

2.2 Part of the site has the benefit of an Established Use Certificate for the following uses:

(i) standing, storage and dismantling of vehicles and machinery; storage of scrap and salvage materials;

(ii) use of building No 1 as a workshop/store in connection with the above; and

(iii) use of building No 2 for storage of salvaged vehicle components and salvaged domestic furniture and equipment.

2.3 In 1987 an Enforcement Notice was quashed at appeal. This has resulted in the application site, as part of a larger unit of land, being immune from enforcement action in respect of a mix of residential, agricultural and scrap storage uses.

2.4 Vehicular and pedestrian access is currently from Government Road. At the junction the access separates into two. The northerly road provides access to the development site which currently contains a car breakers yard, the southerly road, known as Gold Lane, serves Springlakes Country Club, Gold Valley Fisheries and a few residential properties.

2.5 Approximately 100 metres to the south-west of the application site access Government Road crosses a canal. Advance warnings of the bridge indicate that it has a maximum weight limit of 38 tonnes.

2.6 Due to height restrictions on Lakeside Road, which links with Government Road and Holly Bush Lane, and restrictions on Camp Farm Road, which is traffic calmed with speed humps and subject to a 20 miles per hour speed limit, the majority of traffic will join Government Road from Ordnance Road.

2.7 The applicant started bringing waste to the site and recycling at the end of last year. Planning permission has been sought since he was informed of the need for consent. The applicant has continued to bring waste to the site and export soils, although the recycling operations have stopped.

3. Proposal

3.1 Planning permission is sought to establish a recycling site for inert waste. The recycling activities will comprise crushing and screening of construction and demolition waste to recover soils and secondary aggregates for resale.

3.2 The construction and demolition waste is imported to the site in a range of the company's own vehicles, ranging from small skips to 32 tonne HGVs.

3.3 It is proposed that the imported waste will be tipped within the confines of the site. If a load is found to have an unacceptable level of non-inert waste, then it will be reloaded and removed from site for disposal at a suitable licensed facility. Any non-inert waste included within the load will be removed to a skip maintained on site for disposal at a suitably licensed waste disposal site. The tipping and storage area will comprise a level surface, which has been made up with hardcore material. The waste will be crushed and screened, as required, before being removed from the site for reuse elsewhere.

3.4 Waste awaiting treatment, and that awaiting transfer off site, will be stored in stockpiles on site. It is proposed that no stockpile will exceed 4 metres in height.

3.5 The site is proposed to handle a maximum of 1,000 tonnes of material a day. The anticipated truck movements will be approximately 50 to 70 deliveries per day, in addition to approximately 40 collections of material. It is estimated that the development could result in approximately 160 truck movements per day. However, the day-to-day level of material being imported, exported and stored at the site will vary depending on demand. It is proposed to provide lorry parking on site to accommodate up to six lorries.

3.6 Plant proposed to be used on site include an excavator, a Pegson Tracked Crusher, metro tack, or other similar plant and an Extec RoboTrac Screen or other similar plant. Buildings proposed include a portacabin office/mess room and toilet facilities.

3.7 Proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 0600 to 2000, Saturday 0600 to 1300 and not at all on Sunday and bank holidays.

3.8 The risk of pollution on this site is considered to be relatively low. The nature of the waste to be handled on site will be inert, and as such will not give rise to contaminated run-off. Any oil, fuel or chemicals stored on site will be located within a bunded area. The area will be designed to ensure that it can contain 110% of the total volume of all tanks or drums contained therein. All dirty water arising from the toilet facilities will drain to a sealed tank, which will be emptied on a regular basis.

4. Development Plan

4.1 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (HPSMWLP) (Adopted 17 December 1998) Policy 7 concerns proposals for waste development and Policy 46 concerns proposals for waste recycling.

4.2 Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 Policy C2 concerns restricting development in the countryside and Policy G1 concerns the prevention of coalescence.

4.3 Rushmoor Local Plan 1996-2011 - site is within the Blackwater Valley Towns Strategic Gap.

5. Consultations

5.1 Guildford Borough Council strongly objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the site is outside the urban area of Rushmoor and is within the countryside and identified strategic gap;

(ii) the proposed use is considered to be a bad neighbour use. Poor justification has been given for the siting of the proposal in this location;

(iii) concern that the proposal would generate a significant amount of noise. No noise assessment has been submitted with the application;

(iv) no details of how any dust generated by the development would be dealt with; and

(v) proposed hours of operation are excessive.

5.2 TAG Aviation UK Limited states that the presence of non-inert waste will affect the local bird population and will need to be strictly controlled. If this is required by condition no objection is raised.

5.3 Blackbushe Airport raises no objection provided non-inert waste is stored in the skip as set out in paragraph 5.3 of the resubmission.

5.4 English Nature is concerned that there may be the potential for aerial deposition of dust from works operations which could affect the chemistry of the Basingstoke Canal in this location. It recommends that advice is sought from the Environment Agency and that permission is only granted if the Environment Agency is satisfied that the proposed development will not lead to pollution of the Basingstoke Canal Site of Special Scientific Interest.

5.5 Surrey County Council raises no objection in principle, subject to conditions relating to noise and dust, and a legal agreement relating to traffic.

5.6 Environment Agency Southern raises no objection, subject to conditions.

5.7 Rushmoor Borough Council objects as insufficient information has been submitted to enable the proposal to be fully evaluated. In particular:

(i) insufficient information has been provided to justify need for the development on this site which lies within open countryside;

(ii) no mitigation measures are proposed to protect residential amenity from noise and dust and the proposed hours of working are too long;

(iii) no information has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no odours, effect from pollution, surface water run-off and flooding as a result of the screening/crushing activities;

(iv) the access road into the site is not suitable for intensive use by lorry vehicles and there are no proposals to improve it. Doubt that improvements can be made because the road crosses land that is outside the ownership and control of the applicant;

(v) the impact of any HGV accessing the site has not been properly quantified;

(vi) the traffic routeing impact has not been sufficiently assessed by the Traffic and Transportation Appraisal Report in terms of all available routes to the site; and

(vii) the traffic survey to establish the current use appears inadequate for the extent of the level of activity likely to be associated with the proposed development.

5.8 The local Member, Councillor Kimber, has been informed of the proposal.

5.9 Blackwater Valley Countryside Partnership objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) Visual degradation of the landscape of the Valley. The surrounding trees are inadequate to screen the large piles of debris, especially at the eastern end of the site.

(ii) Inadequate security of the screening. To maintain the screening the trees need protection and correct management. The land and trees are not in the ownership of Gold Farm so their future is not secure. There does not appear to be a management plan or funding to ensure the long term effectiveness of the trees as a visual screen.

(iii) Adverse impact upon the adjacent Gold Farm Fishery, one of the main recreational features in the Blackwater Valley.

(iv) Light pollution due to security lights and early and late working at the depot which will have an urbanising effect on this part of the Valley.

(v) The site lies within the floodplain and is hydrologically connected to the River Blackwater. Pollution of the river must be avoided.

(vi) Site restoration is a major concern. If the application is refused it is hoped that Hampshire County Council will enforce complete restoration.

5.10 The Highways Adviser is in discussion with the applicant and is seeking improvements to the visibility splays and rationalisation of the access to the site. An update on the current position will be reported at Committee.

5.11 Ash Parish Council objects for the following reasons:

(i) too close to a residential area;

(ii) breaches the Blackwater Valley Strategic Open Gap Policy;

(iii) potential traffic movement along Lakeside Road; and

(iv) disruption to residents in relation to noise and dust

and proposes an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is carried out.

6. Representations

6.1 There have been 661 letters of objection received, the majority of which are standard letters. The main concerns are:

(i) area is of high recreational value;

(ii) development will be built on strategic gap land;

(iii) local roads cannot cope with more heavy traffic;

(iv) area has many rare animals and plant species;

(v) there is a high water-table in this area;

(vi) site is not screened from sight;

(vii) dust and noise generated;

(viii) effect on the floodplain;

(ix) contrary to local plan policies; and

(x) operating times are totally inappropriate.

7. Site Visit Report

7.1 The Committee undertook a site visit on 12 July 2004 to consider the Gold Farm application in the light of local concerns. At the site the Committee met representatives from Guildford Borough Council, Ash Parish Council, Rushmoor Borough Council, local residents, the applicant and the applicant's agent. A Surrey County councillor attended as an observer. The comments of those present are outlined below.

Comments of the Chief Planning Officer at the Site Visit

7.2 The Chief Planning Officer described the application and advised that the application site lay within an existing industrial site and was currently used for a number of other activities which were covered by an existing Established Use Certificate. The proposed site would be used for the recycling of inert material to produce soils and secondary aggregates, and would include the use of screening and crushing equipment and the siting of a portacabin office/mess room. The construction and demolition waste would be transported to the site in 32 tonne lorries, where it would be stock piled, crushed and then reloaded and sold for reuse elsewhere. Access to the site would be from Government Road and via Ordnance Road, the preferred route. A maximum of 160 lorry movements per day was anticipated. It was confirmed that in response to the consultation procedure, a total of 747 (figure has since been amended to 661) letters had been received and that a letter of complaint had been received about unauthorised activity on Easter Sunday.

Comments of Rushmoor Borough Council at the Site Visit

7.3 Rushmoor Borough Councillors were concerned with results of the traffic study, the amount of traffic that would be generated, the proposed operating times at the site and the lack of an environmental impact study. The Chief Planning Officer advised that, according to the regulations, the proposal was a Schedule 2 application for which an EIA was not mandatory. The matter was now out of time.

7.4 The District Planning Officers drew attention to two bungalows situated on the site, one of which was not in the ownership of the applicant and independently used. They expressed concern at the height of the existing stockpiles, their closeness to the dwellings and lack of any retaining walls.

Comments of Guildford Borough Council at the Site Visit

7.5 Local District Councillors were concerned about the problem of ensuring that the lorries kept to the specified route when using the site. Attention was drawn to the noise and dust that would be generated and the closeness of 450 houses in the vicinity.

Comments of Local Residents at the Site Visit

7.6 Local residents present made the following points:

(i) the map accompanying the Members' Briefing Note was inaccurate, it had omitted the Old Farm housing estate of 457 houses to the north east, the Wimpey site of 450 houses currently under construction to the south west and the Project Connaught Residential area to the west. (Copies of the amended map were circulated at the meeting.);

(ii) increased traffic arising from new housing and increased numbers of children at risk on busier roads;

(iii) concerns about highway safety due to conflict with pedestrians and cyclists, in particular children going to school, and a lack of a pavement in Government Road;

(iv) doubted that the lorries would keep to the specified route and to the speed limit, road unsuitable for heavy traffic;

(v) visibility splays at the access to the site were less than the required 60 metres either side of the access road;

(vi) site located within a strategic gap and designated conservation areas on either side;

(vii) concerns about the effect on the lakes within the nearby Lakeside Park and Gold Valley Lakes adjacent to the site on the other side of the railway line;

(viii) an environmental impact assessment should be carried out due to the effect on the high water-table in the area; the Environment Agency had recently spent a considerable sum on carrying out improvements; the existence of a bat cave within 100 metres and a loss of natural habitat if trees were felled;

(ix) two serious accidents nearby within last three years, although not in Government Road; and

(x) the problem of dust creation when lorries loaded and unloaded.

Comments from the Applicant at the Site Visit

7.7 The applicant confirmed that the lorries would keep to the specified route as 97% of the lorries could not fit under the bridge in Lakeside Road. He advised that the most up-to-date crushing equipment would be used, which would spray the dust with water and create less noise than that of the adjoining road. A maximum of 500 tonnes would be crushed daily. An independent traffic survey had been commissioned and carried out by Bellamy Roberts who had advised that the increase in traffic would be at an acceptable level. He maintained that visibility at the access junction was 100 metres either way. In response to the letter of complaint he confirmed that no unauthorised activity had taken place in connection with his course of work and advised that the site was used by others.

Comments of the Members at the Site Visit

7.8 The local Member was unhappy with the accuracy of the report plan which had not shown the extent of the new housing estates within the immediate locality. He thanked Mrs Armes, a local resident, for the updated plan of the area.

7.9 Having regard to the inaccuracy of the report plan given to Members an environmental assessment should be carried out before a decision was reached.

7.10 No noise assessment had been carried out.

7.11 It would appear to be a retrospective planning application.

8. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

8.1 There is a considerable public interest in this application judging by the number of letters of objection. It should be noted that the vast majority are standard letters and addressees are well scattered beyond what any reasonable person would consider as the area of impact. It should also be noted that only 20 out of a total 105 neighbours notified have responded.

8.2 In making a planning assessment on the acceptability of this application some key facts must be borne in mind.

8.3 First; the site is very well contained. There is a busy railway on one side and a busy road on another. The site is also surrounded by trees. Accordingly the site is visually unobtrusive and though the casual passer by in the winter may be able to see some activity this cannot be accorded any major amenity impact.

8.4 Second, there is an extant Certificate of Lawful Use covering the site and adjacent land. The Certificate has broad parameters and enables a wide range of activities to take place with their impact on amenity, nature conservation, and traffic completely unregulated. This existing uncontrolled situation must be taken into consideration.

8.5 Third, the site complies with Policy 46 of the HPSMWLP and unless there is evidence that other issues are material this presumes in favour of the application.

8.6 With regard to other issues it is noted that there are concerns raised about noise, dust, odour. However, the Environment Agency is not objecting and experience of this type of recycling demonstrates that planning conditions and controls imposed by other bodies are more than adequate to control impacts to acceptable standard. It also should be further noted that the housing areas - the attached map has been updated since the Site Visit - are, with the exception of the bungalows previously referred to, far enough away and themselves closer to other `industrial' activities to not be adversely affected.

8.7 On the matter of traffic it is accepted that the access does require improvement. This matter is being addressed and implementation can be required by planning conditions. With regard to the wider disturbance the main access route meets highway standard and a lorry routeing agreement would direct traffic to this. It is accepted that extraneous traffic might appear `off route' but the chances of this happening are no more than would be generated from the established use. The concern that Lakeside Road might be used is noted, however, the restricted bridge will prevent use of this route.

8.8 The concerns of English Nature are noted but its views are in deference to the Environment Agency attitude to protecting the water environment. The Agency does not object and given the situation it is difficult to see how a properly regulated recycling operation would have an adverse ecological impact.

8.9 Finally, the issue of whether the application should be an EIA Development has been raised. The application falls below the minimum site area threshold (the `discretionary project') of Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, and it is considered that sufficient environmental information to evaluate the impact of the proposal has been submitted. However, it should be noted that the proposal is for processing inert wastes which are unlikely to have major environmental impact.

Recommendations

That, subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to lorry routing and the receipt of amended plans to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority which improve visibility splays to the site and rationalise the access and conditions, planning permission in respect of the use of land for the recycling of inert material to produce soils and secondary aggregates, including the use of screening and crushing equipment and siting of a portacabin office/messroom at land at Gold Farm, Government Road, Aldershot (04/00433/HCC) be granted 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 (summary attached) and would not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience.

Conditions

Commencement

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Hours of Working

(2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority no heavy goods vehicles shall enter or leave the site and no plant or machinery shall be operated, except between the hours of 0700 to 1800 from Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1300 on Saturday, and there shall be no working on Sunday or recognised public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Protection of Water Environment

(3) Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

(4) There shall be no development including hardstanding and fences within a buffer zone five metres wide alongside the ditches/watercourses on site.

Reason: To maintain the character of the ditches/watercourses, provide undisturbed refuges for wildlife using the river corridor, and to prevent pollution.

(5) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a landfill gas risk assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Where a risk from migrating gas is identified, appropriate works to mitigate the effects of gas shall be incorporated in detailed plans to be approved by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect people on or close to the site from the risks associated with mitigating landfill gas.

Noise and Dust

(6) Noise from operations carried out on the site measured or predicted as dBLAeq, 1 hour levels, shall not exceed the background noise level at the boundary of any residential property (measured as dB LA90) by more than 10 dBA during hours of operation with a maximum allowable noise level of 55 LAeq, 1 hour at the boundary of any residential property during the same hours. Temporary works necessary to the operation of the site for creating baffle mounds and construction of new permanent landforms can exceed the noise control criteria set out above at the boundary of any residential property up to a maximum of 70 dB LAeq, 1 hour, for up to eight weeks in any 12 month period.

Reason: To prevent noise disturbance to the residents of the nearest houses.

(7) Prior to commencing operations details of dust suppression measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority in writing. The approved measures shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Boundary Treatment

(8) Prior to the commencement of development details of the treatment to the boundary to protect adjoining trees shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing, the details implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Height of Stockpiles

(9) The height of any stockpiles shall be restricted to four metres.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Light Pollution

(10) No lighting shall be provided on site unless previously approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent light pollution.

Restriction of Material

(11) Only construction and demolition waste shall be brought onto the site.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Highways

(12) Lorries shall only leave the site "left" only onto Government Road and Ordnance Road and enter the site "right" only from the same direction.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(13) Measures shall be taken to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site being deposited on the public highway. The measures shall be implemented and maintained for the duration of the development and no lorry shall leave the site unless its wheels and chassis have been cleaned sufficiently to prevent mud being carried onto the highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(14) All loaded lorries, except those only carrying aggregate over 50 millimetres, shall be sheeted or have their loads otherwise enclosed before leaving the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(15) Prior to commencing operations improvements to the access to Government Road shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

(16) Notwithstanding the provisions of Parts 4, 8 and 25 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order):

(i) fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures and erections or private ways shall not be erected, extended, installed or replaced at the site without the prior agreement of the Waste Planning Authority in writing;

(ii) no telecommunications antenna shall be installed or erected without the prior agreement of the Waste Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area.

Planning Informatives

The proposed activity will require a waste management licence from the Environment Agency in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (eg watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld.

8836A/JS

APPENDIX

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY STRUCTURE PLAN 1996-2011 (REVIEW) (ADOPTED MARCH 2000)

Policy C2

Within the delineated countryside permission will normally only be granted for:

(i) development which is essential for agriculture, horticulture or forestry or other development for which a rural location is essential;

(ii) the re-use or adaptation of existing buildings, particularly to assist the diversification of the rural economy;

(iii) development which is approved under the other policies of the Plan.

Policy G1

To prevent neighbouring urban areas from merging into one another, strategic gaps, comprising land which has a predominantly open and/or rural appearance, will be maintained between:

Fareham/Stubbington and Fareham Western Wards/Whiteley (the Meon Gap);

Fleet and Aldershot/Yateley;

The Blackwater Valley towns (Aldershot to Yateley) and the County Boundary (the Blackwater Gap);

Southampton and Eastleigh.

The precise boundaries of these gaps will be defined in local plans with the objectives of preventing coalescence and protecting the separate identity and amenity of the urban areas they separate. Only land necessary to achieve these long-term objectives will be included.

Permission will only be granted for development even in accordance with other policies in the Plan where:

(i) it cannot more suitably be located elsewhere; or

(ii) it would not compromise, individually or cumulatively with other existing or proposed development, the integrity of the gap.

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

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 46

The Waste Planning Authorities will normally permit the use of land and the erection of plant and buildings for the recycling, transfer, storage and other treatment or handling of waste (excluding waste processing facilities covered by Policy 45) provided that:

(i) the proposed site is located near to the likely source(s) of waste and/or the market(s) for the recycled or recovered materials; and

(ii) the proposed site is located close 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

(iii) the proposed site is located:

(a) within an existing industrial site or on land which is permitted or allocated for industrial development; or

(b) within an area of land in the countryside that has already been disturbed by permanent development (a brownfield site); or

(c) at a waste disposal landfill or landraising site provided that the proposed development is connected with the waste disposal operation and is for a temporary period commensurate with the operational life of the waste disposal facility; 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; and

(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; and

(vii) the proposed site is located and, if necessary, the proposal includes landscaping measures to ensure that the development would not cause unacceptable visual intrusion.