Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext 6728 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought to drain and raise an existing 1.03 hectares of permanently saturated ground to form a naturally undulating sward for informal grazing by horses and ponies at Rushcroft, Mount Pleasant Lane, Sway, Lymington. The site is within the New Forest National Park. Although there was a small-scale proposal approved on an adjoining site, it is considered the additional tipping would create an intrusive unnatural landform in this sensitive area. There is also insufficient information to demonstrate there would not be harm to nature conservation interests; lorry traffic would have an unacceptable highway impact; and the proposal would have an adverse impact for local residents. Therefore it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises an area of 1.03 hectares within the New Forest National Park. The land is currently waterlogged and boggy. The site was previously wet woodland/scrub which has been cleared.

2.2 Planning consent was granted for tipping on an area of 0.49 hectares of adjacent land for a similar purpose last year and this work is being finalised. This area comprised a small field adjacent to Mount Pleasant Lane together with the applicant's garden at Rushcroft.

2.3 A planning application was submitted for the same proposal earlier this year. It was on the agenda for the Regulatory Committee meeting on 8 June 2005, but was withdrawn by the applicant immediately before the meeting and so was not considered. The reason for withdrawing the application was to address concerns raised by providing further information to support the application. This further information includes photomontages of the site at present and following completion, and responses to the consultation responses. Subsequently the proposals have been further amended to reduce the area of infilling.

2.4 The proposal is to import about 12,150 (originally 13,500) cubic metres of inert waste in order to raise the land to enable it to be used for grazing. The infilling would be to a depth between 0.5 and 2 metres. The access would be from Mount Pleasant Lane. The proposal would generate about 1,350 (originally1,500) lorry movements, at a maximum rate of 35 movements per day subject to a limit of 100 movements per week, and would take about a year to complete. To allow some flexibility, a period of 1.5 years is requested. The hours of operation would be 0800 to 1700 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 hours on Saturday. These are the same as for the scheme previously approved

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (Adopted March 2000) Policies MW2 and MW3 apply.

3.2 Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) Policies 7, 8, 14 and 37 apply.

4. Consultations

4.1 New Forest District Council raises objection on the grounds that the proposed works would further exacerbate an incongruous development within the setting of the National Park and is therefore contrary to Policies DW-E1 and NF-E4 of the adopted New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration.

4.2 Environmental Health Officer (New Forest District Council) comments awaited.

4.3 Environment Agency raises objection on the grounds that the proposed development would result in the complete loss of the spring-line feature, its ecological interest, and its associated Priority BAP habitat status. The proposal has the potential to adversely affect wildlife interests such as Passford Water Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) which is located about 100 metres upstream.

4.4 New Forest National Park Authority raises objection because of the effect of the proposed development on the landscape character of this part of the New Forest. There is concern about the nature conservation value of the site, and that the lorry movements to and from the site may adversely affect recreational use of the National Park by cyclists and equestrians. The proposal is considered inappropriate within the National Park and should be refused.

4.5 Highways Adviser raises objection on the grounds that Mount Pleasant Lane is a narrow country lane, without footways or kerbs and the soft verges within the immediate locality of the vehicular access that would be utilised should the current proposal be permitted already show degradation and erosion caused by vehicle over-run, a situation that would be further exacerbated should this proposal proceed. Furthermore, the visibility available at the junction of the vehicular access with Mount Pleasant Lane is severely restricted and any intensification in the use of this feature would have a detrimental impact upon the existing conditions of safety and free-flow of traffic within the highway. Accordingly, the highway recommendation is for refusal.

4.6 Sway Parish Council - no comments received.

4.7 The local Member, Councillor Thornber has been informed.

5. Representations

5.1 Two letters have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal on the grounds that it would change the landscape and character of the lane and local area. Work has been carried out felling trees and digging at the site in anticipation of permission being granted. The site is a wildlife habitat of value and proposals would have an adverse impact on nearby Passford Water SINC. The area has a history of drainage problems and the proposal would cause further problems for adjoining land. It would have an unacceptable impact on the road because of the level of traffic and mud. The proposal would adversely change the nature and character of the landscape and habitat forever. There is no need and the proposal is contrary to local planning policy.

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 The issues raised with this application are the same as with the previous proposal on adjoining land, namely whether the need for the tipping outweighs any adverse impact in terms of landscape, nature conservation, drainage and impact for local residents. There is also the question of any differences between this application and that on the adjoining land, which was approved.

6.2 The land is low lying waterlogged and boggy. The clearance of scrub, draining and raising of this area of the valley to create of grazing land would create an alien landform in this countryside setting. The applicant considers that the proposals would improve the landscape, however the plans show an unsympathetic approach to the character with the proposal of a flat plateau with steep sided ground modelling. The proposals do not marry in with the surrounding character. The proposals are therefore inappropriate for a site within the New Forest National Park.

6.3 The previous application for the adjoining land was small-scale, including the applicant's garden, and was adjudged not to have the same impact as the application for the larger area now proposed. In addition, when the impact of the previous proposal was being considered it was against the backdrop of woodland/scrub. After planning permission had been granted this woodland/scrub was cleared, making the application site more intrusive. However this woodland/scrub clearance and other works at the application site did not require planning permission.

6.4 Although the application site has been recently cleared of trees and scrub it still retains natural vegetation communities. The nature conservation interest is likely to increase if the woodland/scrub is allowed to regenerate. Concerns have been raised at the impact on the Passford Water SINC, although this is upstream of the site. There is insufficient ecological information to determine the quality of the habitats present and their potential to support protected species.

6.5 Local residents are concerned about drainage. In raising levels on the application site there is worry about the impact on adjoining land. There is an issue of flooding of the Lane, which is evident in the very large ditches which have been dug on the adjoining land, as part of the previous proposal.

6.6 The main adverse impact for local residents arises from the associated lorry traffic. This will be greater than the previous proposal as it involves more material being imported and for a longer period. Mount Pleasant Lane is a narrow country lane unsuitable for such lorry traffic and the visibility available at the site access is inadequate. Therefore the proposal would have a detrimental impact in terms of both highway safety and the amenity of local residents.

6.7 In conclusion it is considered that there are significant differences between this application and the previous one on adjoining land in terms of extent and the scale of the impacts, even taking into account the reduction in the extent of the tipping now proposed. The proposal would create an intrusive unnatural landform in this sensitive area; the associated lorry traffic would have an unacceptable highway impact; there is insufficient information to demonstrate there would not be harm to nature conservation interests; and the proposal would have an adverse impact for local residents. It is considered that the need to `improve' the land is insufficient to override these adverse impacts and therefore it is recommended to refuse planning permission.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of draining and raising an existing area of permanently saturated ground to form a naturally undulating sward for informal equine grazing at Rushcroft, Mount Pleasant Lane, Sway, Lymington (Application No. 84535) be refused for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

(1) The proposal is contrary to Policy MW3 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and Policy 8 of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that it would be detrimental to the landscape character of the New Forest, and there is no overriding need for the development to take place in the public interest.

(2) The proposal is contrary to Policy 7(viii) Policy 37(v) of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that there would be an adverse impact on landscape.

(3) The proposal is contrary to Policy 7(v), 7(vii) and Policy 37(v) of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact for nature conservation, including an adverse impact for Passford Water SINC.

(4) The proposal is contrary to Policy 7(i) and Policy 37(iv) of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that there would be an adverse impact for local residents in terms of noise and dust, drainage, and disturbance from the associated lorry traffic.

(5) The proposal is contrary to Policy 7(ii) and Policy 37(iii) of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan in that there are inadequate visibility splays at the access with the highway and increased use of the existing access would cause undue interference with the safety and convenience of the users of the highway. In addition Mount Pleasant Lane is inadequate to accommodate safely the additional traffic which the proposed development would generate.

694/PDC

Annexe to Reasons for Refusal

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

Policy MW3

Permission will not be granted for minerals and waste development which is likely to cause material harm to any of the following designated areas and sites:

The New Forest;

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

Special Areas of Conservation;

Special Protection Areas;

Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites);

Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

National Nature Reserves;

Nationally important archaeological sites and monuments, whether scheduled or not, and their settings;

Conservation Areas;

Listed Buildings; and

Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest on English Heritage's National Register;

except where the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority considers that there is an overriding need for the development to take place in the public interest which outweighs the harm that would be caused, having regard to the level of protection given to the designation concerned in legislation or government guidance.

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 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 8

Applications for planning permission for minerals or waste development in the following areas will not be granted save when the development would not prejudice the purpose of the designation and where there is an overriding need for the development to take place in the public interest:

(i) the New Forest Heritage Area;

(ii) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

(iii) National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites);

(iv) Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their settings;

(v) Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, and sites on the National Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest.

Policy 14

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals or waste development provided they are satisfied that:

(i) adequate provision has been made for the satisfactory restoration and after-care of the site to the highest practicable standard so as to be suitable for the agreed beneficial after-use when the operation or use of the site has ceased or the facility has reached the end of its life, which after-use should normally be agriculture, woodland, heathland or other nature conservation or amenity use; and

(ii) in the case of mineral working and waste disposal by landfilling or landraising, the land will be progressively restored within the shortest practicable timescale such that the rate of restoration is as far as practicable commensurate with the rate of extraction and/or disposal and the land will be subject to appropriate after-care to ensure that it is restored to a condition satisfactory for the agreed after-use of the site; and

(iii) the restoration and after-care provisions can be ensured by means of conditions attached to the planning permission or through a planning obligation or other appropriate legal agreement.

Examples of subjects of planning obligations and agreements are cited in Appendix 5.

Policy 37

The Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for waste disposal by landfilling provided they are satisfied that:

(i) the waste to be disposed of cannot practicably and reasonably be reduced, re-used, recycled or processed at a resource recovery plant and there is a proven need for the disposal of the waste by landfilling which cannot reasonably be met by other suitable existing or permitted waste disposal facilities within a reasonable distance of the source of the waste by the preferred areas in Policy 38; and

(ii) the proposed landfilling would normally take place within a mineral working site that:

(a) is an active extraction site; or

(b) has been unsatisfactorily restored and landfilling would enable satisfactory restoration to be achieved; or

(c) has been restored below original levels and there would be an environmental benefit from the raising of levels by infilling; and

(iii) the proposed site is located near 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

(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.