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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought to extract 810,000 tonnes of sand and gravel at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea. There is considerable local objection to the proposal, including from the Parish Council and a local residents' group. The proposal is a departure from the Development Plan because it is not in a preferred area. There is, however, a need for sand and gravel extraction outside of preferred areas to maintain the landbank required by policies in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal does not give rise to any significant adverse impacts. It is recommended, therefore, that permission be granted, subject to conditions.

2. Site

2.1 The application site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises some 22.5 hectares of agricultural land at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea, near Lymington. The land is currently farmed and supports a small beef herd and forage crops. The A337, which links New Milton and Lymington, is to the north of the site. Downton Lane lies immediately west of the site. Along the Lane is a ribbon development of houses and the Shorefield Caravan Park. The caravan park also extends along the southern boundary. There are more houses opposite the site on the A337 (including several listed buildings). Downton Farm Cottages are within the application site and accessed from the A337. Blackbush Copse adjoins the boundary of the site at the southerly tip and extends in a northerly direction along the eastern boundary. There is more agricultural land beyond Blackbush Copse to the east. Blackbush Road is the most northerly extent of Milford-on-Sea and is approximately 100 metres from the application site. The main village of Milford-on-Sea begins some 350 metres to the south of the site.

2.2 The land generally slopes away from the A337 from north to south. There is a wooded area along the north-east corner of the site, which continues along the northern and western boundaries. Tree planting has taken place along this northern boundary to form screening of views from the north. A belt of trees extends from north to south between the Shorefield Caravan Park and the application site. Blackbush Copse screens the southern and much of the eastern boundary.

2.3 Blackbush Copse is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The area comprises both wet and dry ancient woodland. The is one primary and several outlying badger setts within the boundary of the application site.

2.4 The existing access to Downton Manor Farm is off the A337, which is part of the local lorry route network.

3. Proposal

3.1 Planning permission is sought for the extraction of 810,000 tonnes of high quality sand and gravel from 17 hectares of agricultural land at Downton Manor Farm. The proposal is to extract approximately 150,000 tonnes of mineral a year between 2007 and 2013. However, the rate of extraction will be determined by demand from the construction industry. The proposed commencement of extraction is programmed to coincide with the cessation of extraction and final restoration at Manor Farm, Pennington, which has been a significant source of construction materials in south Hampshire since 1963. Planning permission is required now to enable the development of necessary infrastructure for the site, such as the haul road, prior to extraction commencing in 2007.

3.2 The proposal would be worked in six phases (see attached working plan) with each phase taking approximately one year to extract. Each phase would be progressively restored following extraction. Mineral will be extracted using a hydraulic excavator and loaded directly onto lorries for removal. The proposal is to export the sand and gravel `as won'. The mineral will then be taken to an existing site at Caird Avenue, New Milton for washing and grading.

3.3 It is proposed to construct a new access onto the A337 to the west of the existing access. The first 50 metres of the haul road will be surfaced with concrete or tarmacadam, and the majority of the haul road will be surfaced with compacted gravel. It is proposed to bund the haul road to reduce any noise impacts associated with the lorries.

3.4 The proposal will generate an average of 60 lorry movements per day, ie 30 lorries into and out of the site, which equates to one movement every ten minutes. Currently, the lorry traffic from Manor Farm Quarry in Pennington uses the A337 to transport mineral to Caird Avenue, New Milton - a distance of approximately seven kilometres. The proposal is for Downton Manor Farm to replace the Pennington Quarry. The distance between Downton Manor Farm and Caird Avenue is approximately three kilometres. The output from Manor Farm, Pennington has historically been some 250,000 tonnes per year - 100,000 tonnes a year greater than the proposed output from Downton Manor Farm.

3.5 The proposed hours of operation are between 0700 and 1700 Monday to Friday. There will be no extraction or lorry movements on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays. No working will take place after dark during winter months and it is not currently proposed to erect floodlighting.

3.6 A 150 metre buffer zone is proposed between the extraction phases and the residential properties and caravan park to the west of the site. It is also proposed to erect soil bunds, three metres high on the western boundary of the site to reduce visual and noise impacts on neighbouring properties. Further planting is proposed along the northern section of the haul road and to the east of Downton Manor Farm House.

3.7 It is proposed to progressively restore the quarry to lakes, woodland and agricultural fields. A series of lakes will be created to the east of the site prior to extraction commencing. This is necessary to manage the hydrology of the site and surrounding area. The main wooded area dissects the site from north to south. The western portion of the extraction site will be restored to agriculture and bordered by hedgerow and woodland. A veneer of imported soils and sub-soils (no greater than 1.5 metres deep) will be mixed with one metre of overburden to achieve finished levels approximately 2.5 metres above the base of the quarry. It is proposed to explore opportunities to open a permissive footpath around the restored site. The proposed after-uses of the site are agriculture and woodland.

4. Development Plan

4.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (adopted 2000) Policies MW2 and MW5 concern mineral extraction.

4.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted 1998) Policies 7 and 17 concern mineral extraction. Policy 20 refers to proposals for mineral extraction, which are located outside of a Preferred Area.

5. Consultations

5.1 The local Member, Councillor Rice, has been informed of the proposal.

5.2 Lymington and Pennington Town Council has been informed of the proposal.

5.3 Milford-on-Sea Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal is not a preferred area within the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and was rejected at the Local Plan Inquiry;

(ii) the site is in a greenbelt;

(iii) the farm has a good proportion of high-grade agricultural land;

(iv) the proposal would involve extraction to a considerable depth over 40 acres, require large piles of soil at the edge of the farm (not the edge of the extraction), a 20 tonne lorry movement every 10 minutes, and the use of excavators, lorries, bulldozers, pumps and generators and possibly floodlighting;

(v) the proposal would result in unacceptable noise, dust and disturbance to residents and many thousands of visitors currently attracted to the area;

(vi) the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on surrounding land-uses, including quiet rural areas and environmentally sensitive areas;

(vii) gravel extraction would remove the natural mechanism for managing local hydrology. Milford-on-Sea has flooded in the past and if the delicate balance were upset there would be an increased risk of future flooding;

(viii) the proposal would generate large numbers of lorry movements using the A337, the junction with the farm;

(ix) the proposed hours of operation would require working outside of daylight hours in winter. Therefore, floodlights would be necessary and this would create unacceptable light pollution;

(x) the proposal is contrary to Policies 7 and 20 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan; and

(xi) the proposal must be considered as part of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework adoption process to allow adequate consideration of alternative sites and to fully engage local people in the decision-making process.

5.4 The Environmental Health Officer (New Forest District Council) is concerned by the potential dust problem created by lorries depositing mud and debris on the highway. However, no objections have been raised.

5.5 New Forest District Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal is not a preferred area for mineral extraction in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan;

(ii) the need for minerals in the area does not provide adequate justification to depart from the Development Plan;

(iii) the proposal will cause environmental harm; and

(iv) the proposal will adversely affect tourism in the area.

5.6 The Environment Agency has no objection to the principle of the proposal subject to a condition to ensure the detailed restoration scheme does not adversely effect the hydrological integrity of the wet flush habitats to the east of the site.

5.7 The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) raises no objections to the proposal. It is noted that the proposal will be taking a substantial area of agricultural land. However, Defra considers that the restoration will be to "beneficial conditions" and is pleased to note the good practice proposed for soil handling.

5.8 The Highways Adviser raises no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions to control the deposit of mud/debris on the highway, maintenance of adequate visibility splays, and details of the proposed access. The Highways Adviser considers that visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 120 metres are suitable at the access to the site. The proposed visibility splays are based upon a speed survey submitted in support of the application. He has considered all the accident records within the vicinity of the site and notes that many of the accidents occur at junctions with substandard visibility splays. Moreover, the HGVs associated with the current proposal are currently travelling between Pennington and New Milton and have not been involved in personal injury accidents to date.

5.9 Downton And Milton Against Gravel Extraction (DAMAGE) strongly objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal is a departure from the development plan insofar as it is not a preferred area for mineral extraction;

(ii) the proposal is located within a Green Belt;

(iii) the need for gravel extraction at this site to maintain a 7-year landbank is questionable as there are other preferred areas yet to be extracted and recent permissions which add to the landbank;

(iv) the alternative sites to Downton Manor Farm have not been adequately considered;

(v) insufficient detail of the proposed access has been submitted to enable the Highways Adviser to form a judgement;

(vi) the visibility splays from the proposed access are inadequate;

(vii) the proposal would have an adverse impact on the local highway network;

(viii) the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the landscape and visual amenity of the area;

(ix) the proposal would have an adverse impact on local hydrology and would result in increased flooding;

(x) the proposal would have an adverse impact on ecology, particularly Blackbush Copse SINC;

(xi) the proposal would have an adverse impact on local amenity by virtue of increased noise and dust. Furthermore, the proposal fails to adequately address these issues; and

(xii) the proposal would have an adverse impact on tourism in the area.

6. Representations

6.1 There have been 1,240 letters of objection to the proposal. The principal reasons for objection are:

(i) the proposal will result in an adverse impact on the local highway network, both in terms of safety and amenity;

(ii) the proposal will result in an unacceptable impact on local amenity by virtue of increased noise, dust and odour;

(iii) the proposal is premature and should be considered holistically as part of the review of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan;

(iv) the proposal will reduce local house prices and affect local businesses by reducing tourism;

(v) the proposal will adversely impact on the Green Belt, countryside location and local ecology;

(vi) the proposal will cause flooding in the local area and result in pollution of controlled waters;

(vii) the proposal is located in a rural, countryside location, is a greenfield site and is located in close proximity to the New Forest National Park;

(viii) gravel extraction will have a significant adverse impact on the Shorefield Caravan Park. The County Council has a duty to look after the tourists who visit the location; and

(ix) the proposal represents the `thin-end of the wedge'. If permission is granted then it will inevitably result in further applications for extensions to the quarry, a waste transfer station, and a landfill site.

6.2 Mr Desmond Swayne MP considers the proposal is inappropriately located close to Milford and in particular the Shorefield Caravan Park and therefore objects to the proposal.

7. Background and Planning History

7.1 An application to extract sand and gravel, and to erect a processing and batching plant with ancillary facilities at Downton Manor Farm (Application No. 050554M) was submitted to the County Council in August 1992. A proposal at Ashley Manor Farm, a site near Milford-on-Sea on the A337, was also submitted in 1992 by the same applicant. In June 1994 the Downton Manor Farm proposal was withdrawn and the applicant promoted the Ashley Manor proposal in isolation, as the need for both proposals could not be justified. The County Council subsequently refused the latter proposal and this refusal was upheld at appeal.

7.2 On 1 September 2003 New Milton Sand and Ballast (NMS&B) submitted a planning application for a change of use from agricultural buildings to a waste transfer facility and formation of a new access at Downton Manor Farm (Application No. 79324). On 13 August 2004 NMS&B submitted the current proposal for sand and gravel extraction at Downton Manor Farm. In January 2005 the County Council requested that NMS&B submit further information to clarify the impacts of the proposal, particularly in relation to hydrology and ecology. Further information was submitted in July 2005 and was advertised by means of a site notice, a press advertisement and by neighbour notification. On 13 June 2005 the original application for the waste transfer station was withdrawn. An alternative proposal was subsequently submitted at Manor Farm, Pennington, which was approved at the Regulatory Committee meeting on 20 July 2005.

8. Report of the Site Visit

8.1 The Committee undertook a site visit on 3 October 2005 and met representatives of Milford-on-Sea Parish Council, New Forest District Council and the applicants. Local residents were also present.

8.2 The Chief Planning Adviser introduced the application and outlined the key features. He explained that the site was currently being farmed and supported a beef herd and crops. The proposed application would extract 810,000 tonnes of sand and gravel from 17 hectares of agricultural land over six years from 2007 to 2013 and would replace the quarry site at

Pennington. He displayed a plan to Members which indicated the proposed restoration of the site. A total of 1,231 letters of objection had been received.

8.3 The applicant's agent explained that Phase I, in the first year, before the construction of the quarry, would create lakes to protect the streams. He advised that a detailed hydrological study had been carried out to the land and the proposed lakes would hold the water from the site and release it into the streams in a controlled way. The final design of the lakes and level was yet to be designed. He confirmed that the access into the existing farmyard would not be required and would be blocked off. Members noted that the northern boundary would be well-screened, all trees at Blackbush Copse would remain and there were no plans to create a waste site. A paper was circulated to all Members by the applicant's agent asking them to note a number of points.

8.4 The Milford-on-Sea Parish Council representative reported that the Parish Council's primary concerns related to the close proximity of the site to Milford-on-Sea, the creation of the soil bunds and the impact on Shorefield Caravan Park as a major employer in the area.

8.5 Members noted comments from the New Forest District Council representative on noise levels affecting holiday makers.

8.6 Councillors Kendal and Rice, the local Members, were present at the site visit and stated concerns about the proximity of the site to Milford-on-Sea, the nearest local village, the access to the proposed site, the new speed limit along Christchurch Road, the number of accidents at the junction of Christchurch Road and Downton Lane and the direction of the winds from the site creating dust pollution.

8.7 Councillor Mrs Dickens asked about protecting the badger setts and the applicant's agent explained that there were two setts, one was not on the site and the other would be moved under licence with badger workers which would take a year to complete.

8.8 Members then visited Shorefield Caravan Park to view the impact that the proposal would have on the Park and its residents with regard to the boundary and the proposed three metre high and ten metre deep grass bund. Finally, at the request of local residents and the Parish Council, Members walked along the footpath to the south of the site and visited several properties on Blackbush Road.

9. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

9.1 The proposal is a departure from the Development Plan because it is not within a `preferred area' identified by Policy 19 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP). However, Policy 17 of the MWLP states that planning permission will normally be granted for the extraction of sand and gravel provided that such a permission is necessary to maintain a landbank with planning permission for extraction in accordance with the most recent national and regional policy guidance. Furthermore, Policy 20 of the MWLP states that permission will be granted for mineral extraction outside of a preferred area, if there is a need for additional permitted reserves of sand and gravel which cannot reasonably be met from within the preferred areas and it can be demonstrated that working of such land would be equally acceptable to working within a preferred area.

9.2 In addressing the test of Policy 17 it is necessary to consider the need to maintain a landbank of sand and gravel reserves in Hampshire. The attached appendix highlights the key calculations in determining the existing landbank in Hampshire. In summary, the existing landbank for sand and gravel is 4.3 years, which is significantly below the seven year requirement. The proposal at Downton Manor Farm is specifically to extract sharp sand and gravel. Therefore, it is relevant to consider the existing landbank for sharp sand and gravel, which is currently 4.9 years. Again, this is significantly below the seven year requirement.

9.3 To accord with Policy 20 (i)(a) it is necessary to demonstrate that the need to maintain the landbank cannot reasonably be met from within the preferred areas. With regard to the preferred areas it is considered that only the sites at Roke Manor and Plumley Wood are likely to be promoted. There is little indication that an application will be submitted for extraction at Roke Manor in the near future, and it is anticipated to provide only a relatively small amount of gravel and is therefore considered of marginal significance. Plumley Wood is more a substantial site (5.5 million tonnes of gravel) but the indication is that there is unlikely to be an application until mid-2006 at the earliest. Furthermore, notwithstanding that they are within preferred areas, there is no guarantee that these sites will be acceptable. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal at Downton Manor Farm accords with Policy 20 (i)(a).

9.4 The second test of Policy 20(i) requires that it can be demonstrated that working of Downton Manor Farm would be equally acceptable to working within a preferred area. This requires detailed consideration of the likely impacts of extracting sand and gravel from Downton Manor Farm.

9.5 The majority of local objectors, including DAMAGE and the Parish Council, are concerned about the impact of proposal on the local highway network. This concern also relates to visibility splays at the proposed new access onto the A337. Particular concern relates to the suitability of the A337 for HGVs.

9.6 The Highways Adviser raises no objections to the proposal. He notes that there will be no net increase in lorry movements on the A337 because the Downton Manor Farm proposal replaces the existing quarry at Pennington. Furthermore, the A337 is part of the Hampshire local lorry network and therefore, in principle it is acceptable for lorry traffic.

9.7 DAMAGE is concerned that the proposed visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 120 metres are unacceptable. The visibility splays are based upon a survey of actual speeds rather than the current speed limit, which is 60 miles per hour. The Highways Adviser is satisfied that the proposed visibility splays accord with accepted standards. In summary, the Highways Adviser does not consider that the proposal will adversely impact on highways safety. In drawing this conclusion the Highways Adviser has taken into consideration all of the relevant accident records for the A337, including those submitted by DAMAGE.

9.8 There is local concern that the proposal will adversely impact upon the Green Belt. The fundamental principle of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently undeveloped; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. In this respect mineral development need not be contrary to Green Belt policy because of the temporary nature of a quarry. The proposal at Downton Manor Farm is for a temporary period of six years. Moreover, the proposal is to progressively restore the site to an open mixture of woodland, agricultural land and lakes. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not compromise the integrity of the Green Belt.

9.9 It is considered that the proposal is acceptable is landscape terms. Views of the site from adjoining properties and publicly accessible areas are limited and it is proposed to operate with a 150 metre buffer zone from the Shorefield Caravan Park and the adjoining footpath. The progressive restoration of the site will ensure that large areas of stripped land are not visible. The principle of the final restoration scheme is considered appropriate and acceptable.

9.10 There is local concern that the proposal will result in an increase in noise which is unsuitable in a rural area and will adversely impact upon the amenity of local residents and the Shorefield Caravan Park. Furthermore, there is concern that the proposed bunds around the perimeter of the site are being provided for operational rather than acoustic reasons. This concern is noted. However, the proposal is a relatively `low-key' operation, which utilises a single excavator that will load a maximum of 30 lorries per day.

9.11 A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal. The main conclusions of the assessment are that although background levels are low, the proposal will not give rise to a significant noise impact as a result of the extraction activities. The creation of the bunds and construction of the haul road will give rise to a temporary noise impact, however, noise levels will remain within acceptable standards for these activities.

9.12 The Environmental Health Officer raises no noise objection to the proposal. It is considered that the proposal can operate within acceptable noise standards and any significant noise will be for a temporary period only.

9.13 The Parish Council, DAMAGE and local residents are also concerned that the proposal will result in an adverse dust impact. The potential for a dust nuisance is limited at a gravel extraction site because it is usually worked damp. Additionally, the perimeter of the site is largely wooded and this fact together with the buffer zone will further reduce the impact of any dust created. The main dust issue relates to mud and debris being carried by lorries onto the haul road and public highway. It is considered that this issue can be satisfactorily controlled by planning condition.

9.14 There are several badger setts located within the application site. However, only a single sett will be directly affected by the proposed extraction. It is proposed to relocate this sett under licence from English Nature. A 30 metre buffer zone is proposed around the other setts.

9.15 The main ecological issues relate to the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The SINC comprises both wet and dry woodland. This is a sensitive habitat and is reliant on maintaining the hydrology of the area, including Danes Stream and the integrity of several wet flushes which appear in the application site. The proposal has been revised to ensure that the wet flushes are outside of the extraction area and thus, it will not adversely impact upon them.

9.16 The first phase of the proposal is to extract gravel from the eastern part of the site. The restoration of this phase would create lakes to act as storage lagoons for surface and groundwater, enabling a controlled release of water into Danes Stream and thus protecting the integrity of the SINC. It is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the ecology of the SINC. Furthermore, the Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions.

9.17 DAMAGE comments that there should be a robust assessment of alternative sites for gravel extraction prior to considering the proposal. The fact that there are preferred areas which have not yet been worked is noted in paragraph 9.3. The proposal at Downton Manor Farm is not proposed as a replacement for the existing preferred areas but rather is it is being considered in addition to them. Currently, no other applications for mineral extraction are being promoted and therefore, there are no other real alternatives to consider.

9.18 The concern that the proposal represents the `thin end of the wedge' is noted. However, the application should be determined against current policy and on its merits.

9.19 The Parish Council consider that approving the proposal would be premature in light of the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). However, it is considered that the MWDF is not sufficiently advanced to justify a refusal on these grounds.

9.20 There is local concern that the proposal will adversely impact upon tourism in the Milford-on-Sea area and particularly the Shorefield Caravan Park. It is noted that the Caravan Park is a significant local employer and that tourism is important to the economic prosperity of the area. However, it is considered that the proposal will not have an impact on the Shorefield Caravan Park or the wider area which would result in a significant loss to the tourist industry. Moreover, there is a need for mineral extraction to support the construction industry, which is also important for the economic prosperity of the sub-region.

9.21 In summary, it is considered that the existing preferred areas are not sufficient to maintain the required landbank. Therefore the Downton Manor Farm proposal passes the first test in Policy 20(i) and thus it should be considered on its merits. Notwithstanding the concerns of local residents, it is considered that the proposal does not give rise to significant adverse impacts that cannot be satisfactorily controlled by condition. Therefore, the proposal accords with the second test in Policy 20(i)(b). It is recommended therefore, that permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of Extraction of Sand and Gravel, Constructing a Vehicle Access and Environmental Banks, Restoration to Lakes, Woodland and Agricultural Fields at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea (Application No. 82483) be granted for the following reason and subject to the following conditions.

Reason for Approval

It is considered that the proposal would not materially harm the ecology, hydrology or character of the area or the amenity of local residents. It is considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience. It is also considered that the proposal is necessary is maintain the required landbank of sand and gravel in Hampshire.

Conditions

Time Limits

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date on which this planning permission is granted.

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

(2) Extraction of sand and gravel shall not commence until the mineral extraction at Lower Farm, Pennington and Efford has permanently ceased.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience.

(3) The extraction of sand and gravel shall cease and the site shall be restored in accordance with the restoration scheme approved under Condition (17) within six years of the date of commencement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure the satisfactory restoration of the site.

(4) The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified in writing within seven days of commencement of gravel extraction.

Reason: To promote effective monitoring of the site.

Hours of Working

(5) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority, no heavy goods vehicles shall enter or leave the site and no plant or machinery shall be operated except between the following hours: 0700-1800 Monday to Friday. There shall be no working on Saturdays, Sundays or recognised public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Highways

(6) No excavation of minerals shall take place until the first 50 metres of the haul road, measured from the public highway, has been surfaced with concrete or tarmacadam and details of measures to be taken to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site being deposited on the public highway have been submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority and approved in writing. The measures shall be implemented as approved 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.

(7) Lorry movements to and from the site shall be restricted to 60 per day. A daily record of lorries entering and leaving the site shall be kept and made available to the Mineral Planning Authority within seven days of a written request.

Reason: To limit the volumes of traffic in the interests of the amenity of residents on and near the approaches to the site.

(8) Prior to development commencing details of the means of access, including the layout, construction and sight lines, shall be submitted to and approved by the Minerals Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The agreed details shall be fully implemented for the duration of the development.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access to the highway.

(9) Prior to development commencing visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 120 metres at the junction of the haul road with the public highway shall be provided. These splays shall be kept free of obstacles and maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Environment Control

(10) There shall be no lighting erected on the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Minerals Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Noise and Dust

(11) No extraction shall take place until the bunds shown on Plan Nos 689/SK18B and 689/SK4D have been erected to a height of three metres.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

(12) All vehicles, plant and machinery operated within the site shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' specification at all times, and shall be fitted with and use effective silencers.

Reason: To minimise noise disturbance from operations at the site.

(13) Prior to development commencing details of dust suppression measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing. The approved measures shall be implemented for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities.

(14) Prior to development commencing details of noise monitoring and attenuation measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing. The approved measures shall be implemented for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities.

Archaeology

(15) No extraction shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Minerals Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.

(16) A strip, map and record exercise shall be undertaken during the stripping of the site. This exercise shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified archaeological contractor in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation required under Condition (11).

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.

Landscape and Restoration

(17) No extraction shall commence until full details of landscaped areas have been submitted to and approved by the Minerals Planning Authority. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the first planting season after their approval.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and ecology of the area.

(18) The site shall be restored to agricultural use, woodland and lakes in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing. No excavation shall commence until the scheme has been submitted and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of:

(i) the timing/phasing of restoration and the final contours, including the thickness and quality of subsoil and topsoil to be used and the method of soil handling and spreading, including the machinery to be used;

(ii) the ripping of any compacted layers of final cover to ensure adequate drainage and aeration, such ripping to take place before the placing of topsoil;

(iii) measures to be taken to drain the restored land;

(iv) details of proposed seeding and planting; and

(v) detailed design, exact location and dimensions of the buffer strip around the extraction area.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory restoration of the area.

(19) Prior to extraction commencing, a plan providing the detailed design, exact location and dimensions for a buffer strip and storage lagoons to be located along the eastern side of the development area (Phase 1) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the hydrological integrity of wet flush habitats identified within the Environmental Statement and Hydrogeological Assessment and to protect flora and fauna associated with the Blackbush River Corridor.

(20) There shall be no extraction of sand and gravel until the water storage lagoons have been created in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition (18), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minerals Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the the hydrological integrityof the area.

(21) The site shall be worked in accordance with the agreed phasing plan (Drawing No. 689/SK4D). Extraction of the next phase shall not be commence until the previous phase has been restored in accordance with the restoration scheme approved under Condition (18).

Reason: To ensure satisfactory and progressive restoration of the site.

After-Care

(22) An aftercare scheme requiring that such steps as may be necessary to bring each phase of the land restored to the required standard for use for agriculture, woodland and lakes shall be submitted for the approval of the Mineral Planning Authority not later than two years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the land is satisfactorily restored.

675/NC

APPENDIX

The landbank

The current landbank is based upon the amount of permitted sand and gravel reserves in Hampshire. The current requirement of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan is to provide a seven year landbank of sand and gravel at a rate of 2.7 million tonnes per annum (mtpa). However, the likely apportionment arising from emerging regional policy guidance is 2.63 mtpa for a period of seven years. Significant weight should be given to the latter apportionment due to the advanced stage of the draft regional policy guidance. Table 1 below shows the permitted reserves at 1 October 2005.

Table 1.

Therefore, the current permitted landbank of sand and gravel in Hampshire at 1 October 2005 is 4.3 years at a rate of 2.63 mtpa. This is significantly below the seven year landbank required by both the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and emerging regional policy.

The existing apportionment of 2.7 mtpa can be further divided between soft sand (0.49 mtpa) and gravel (2.02 mtpa). The application at Downton Manor Farm is for extraction of gravel and thus, the apportionment of 2.02 mtpa is particularly relevant. The revised apportionment of 2.63 mtpa has not yet been subdivided. However, by applying the existing ratio of soft sand to gravel the future gravel apportionment is anticipated to be in the region of 1.97 mtpa.

Table 2 shows the permitted reserves of gravel at 1 October 2005.

Table 2.

Therefore, the current permitted landbank of gravel in Hampshire at 1 October 2005 is 5.0 years at a rate of 1.97 mtpa. This is significantly below the seven year landbank required by both the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and emerging regional policy.

However, Policy 20 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan requires that the extraction of sand and gravel from land outside the preferred areas is only permitted where there is a need for additional permitted reserves of sand and gravel which cannot reasonably be met from within the preferred areas. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the potential for existing preferred areas to supply the landbank.

Of the remaining preferred areas it is considered that only the sites at Roke Manor and Plumley Wood are likely to be promoted. There is little indication that the Roke Manor site will be promoted in the near future and it is anticipated to provide only a relatively small amount of gravel. It is therefore considered of marginal significance. Plumley Wood is more a substantial site (5.5 million tonnes of gravel) but the indication is that an application will not be forthcoming until mid-2006 at the earliest. Furthermore, an application at either of these sites would be judged on its merits and permission may not be granted.

*The rate of production is estimated from actual figures for production in 2003. The rate of production in 2003 was 1.8 mtpa.

** The rate of production of gravel is calculated as a ratio of actual sand and gravel figures in 2003 (see above).

Annexe to Reasons for Conditions

(as required by Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

__________________________________________________________________

Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 2000

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 aftercare of the site to a high standard and to a landform compatible with the local landscape and suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.

Policy MW5

The mineral planning authorities will seek, through policies and proposals in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and day-to-day development control, to provide for an appropriate contribution towards national, regional and local needs for minerals from sources within Hampshire, having regard to local environmental constraints. In considering applications for mineral working, regard will be had to the aim of maintaining a stock of planning permissions sufficient for the extraction of sand and gravel in accordance with national and regional policy guidance, unless exceptional circumstances prevail. Areas for the extraction of sand and gravel will be identified in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

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

The Mineral Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel provided they are satisfied that such permission is necessary in order to maintain landbanks of reserves of soft sand and sharp sand and gravel with planning permission for extraction in accordance with the most recent national and regional policy guidance, unless exceptional circumstances prevail.

Policy 20

The Mineral Planning Authorities will not grant planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel from land outside the preferred areas specified in Policy 19 unless they are satisfied that the proposal is in conformity with the other policies of the Plan and that:

either

(i) (a) there is a need for additional permitted reserves of sand and gravel (as assessed against Policies 16-18) which cannot reasonably be met from within the preferred areas; and

(b) it can be demonstrated that working of such land would be equally acceptable to working within a preferred area;

or

(ii) the proposed development involves a small-scale extension to or deepening of an existing active sand and gravel extraction site.