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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for a waste transfer and recycling station, including a building, car parking, improvements to access road and demolition of existing agricultural buildings at land at Sole Hill Farm, Sherfield English. There are objections from local residents, Test Valley Borough Council and several Parish Councils. The proposal is considered to give rise to an unacceptable noise impact and therefore the recommendation is that planning permission be refused.

2. The Site

2.1 The application site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises approximately 0.7 hectares of land at Sole Hill Farm, Sherfield English, near Romsey. The site currently consists of two dilapidated barn structures, an area used to store silage bales and the existing farm access track. The adjacent field is currently pasture. The access track has hedgerows on both sides.

2.2 To the north of the site is the main farm complex, comprising additional barns, the farm house and some dilapidated chicken sheds. The farm house and adjacent barn are Grade II listed buildings. There is agricultural land to the south, east and west. Immediately to the west of the proposed access track and opposite the proposed transfer station is an area used for the storage of up to 40 skips which was granted planning permission by the County Council in July 2003 (Planning Permission TVS00121/4). The number of lorry movements associated with this site is restricted to six per day. Access to the application site is directly from the A27 via the existing farm track. There is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) approximately 250 metres to the west of the site.

2.3 The nearest houses are Sole Hill Farmhouse (approximately 50 metres to the north), Jessamine Cottage (approximately 150 metres to the north-west) and Warren Cottage (approximately 200 metres to the north-west). There are further properties some 250 metres to the south-west of the site.

3. The Proposal

3.1 The proposal is to construct a waste transfer and recycling station, including erection of a building. The proposal is to import approximately 90,000 tonnes of skip waste a year. The imported material would comprise construction and demolition waste, wood, metal, paper and plastics. No municipal or hazardous waste would be imported. Any non-compliant material would be removed to a suitable disposal site. All of the transfer and recycling activities would be contained within the proposed new building, which would provide some 1,604 square metres of floorspace.

3.2 The proposed building comprises two main sections: the dimensions of the northern area are approximately 43 metres x 23 metres x 9.5 metres to the ridge (maximum); the dimensions of the southern area are approximately 32 metres x 18 metres x 8.5 metres to the eaves (maximum). The building will be terraced into the hillside; at the most northerly point the building would be sunk approximately 3.5 metres into the hill. The main doors of the building face south and would be secured with shutters when the building is not in use.

3.3 The imported waste material will be emptied onto the floor of the transfer building and spread by a 360 degree wheeled excavator. The larger pieces of recyclable material would be removed by hand (eg wood, metal and plastics). Suitable residual material would be passed through a trommel and further manual sorting would take place. Any plastic or cardboard material would be baled prior to being exported in bulk to a suitable specialist recycling site. Soils and rubble would also be exported in bulk for recycling at an appropriate facility.

3.4 The proposal will generate a maximum of 280 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements per day. It is proposed that the majority of lorry movements would turn right into the site and left when leaving the site (in an easterly direction). It is proposed to resurface the access road, create a bell mouth and construct a right-hand turn lane.

3.5 The proposed hours of operation are between 0700 and 1800 Monday to Friday and between 0700 and 1300 on Saturday. There would be no working or vehicle movements on Sunday or public holidays. The proposed hours of HGV movements would be between 0600 and 1800 Monday to Friday and between 0700 and 1300 on Saturdays.

3.6 To the south of the building it is proposed to construct an area of concrete hardstanding for car parking, fuel storage and for a sunken weighbridge. It is proposed that the skip lorries would be parked and secured within the building overnight.

3.7 It is proposed to erect a bund along the eastern boundary of the site to screen the building from the A27. The bund would be planted with trees and shrubs.

4. Development Plan

4.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996 - 2011 (Adopted March 2000) MW1 refers to the waste hierarchy and MW2 refers to environmental impacts.

4.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) Policies 6 and 7 refer to environmental impacts and Policy 46 concerns waste transfer stations.

4.3 Notwithstanding the development plan policies, due weight has to be given to Planning Policy Statement 10: `Planning for Sustainable Waste Management' (2005) published this summer.

4.4 Paragraph 23 of PPS10 states that "in the interim period before the development plan is updated to reflect the policies in this PPS, planning authorities should ensure proposals are consistent with the policies in this PPS." .

4.5 Paragraph 3 under Key Planning Objectives states that planning authorities should:

(1) `help deliver sustainable development through driving waste management up the waste hierarchy, addressing waste as a resource and looking to disposal as the last option ...'

(2) `provide a framework in which communities take more responsibility for their own waste, and enable sufficient and timely provision of waste management facilities to meet the needs of communities'

(3) `help secure the recovery ....of waste without ... harming the environment'

(4) `reflect the concerns and interests of communities ... and business, and encourage competitiveness.'

4.6 Paragraph 21 refers to the suitability of redundant agricultural buildings and their curtilages sites for waste management facilities.

4.7 Paragraph 29 states `In considering planning applications ... planning authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity'

5. Consultations

5.1 Sherfield English Parish Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) there is no material change in the application that was refused planning permission in May 2004 and the reasons for refusal has not been overcome;

(ii) the building will channel noise and create a nuisance; and

(iii) the proposal will have an adverse highways impact, particularly as the village recreation ground is being used more now than in the past.

5.2 Melchett Park and Plaitford Parish Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal does not accord with the proximity principle;

(ii) the existing waste transfer facilities are not at capacity;

(iii) the proposal is likely to result in an adverse noise impact;

(iv) the proposal will have an adverse impact upon the highway, including on the country lanes running north-south from the A27 to the A36; and

(v) the proposal will adversely impact on the setting of the Listed farmhouse.

5.3 Wellow Parish Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal will create a noise nuisance;

(ii) the proposal will have an adverse impact on highway safety and amenity, particularly on country lanes which will inevitably be used by HGVs;

(iii) the proposal will have an adverse impact on the setting of Sole Hill Farmhouse, which is a Listed Building;

(iv) the focus on reducing waste being disposed of at landfill should be shifted to reducing production of waste; and

(v) the proposal is incompatible with the New Forest National Park designation.

5.4 Test Valley Borough Council raises objection to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposed scheme will have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and there is no overriding need for this type of development to be located in the countryside;

(ii) the proposed scheme will result in an increase and change in the nature of vehicle movements which will have an adverse impact upon local amenities; and

(iii) the proposed scheme is likely to result in a permanent change to the noise character of the area and will have a detrimental impact on local amenity.

5.5 The Environmental Health Officer (Test Valley Borough Council) raises a holding objection pending further noise information. This information has now been submitted and the comments of the EHO are awaited.

5.6 The Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal subject to a condition to control pollution of the water environment. The Agency notes that the proposal will require a Waste Management Licence.

5.7 The Highways Adviser raises no objection to the principle of the proposal. The Highways Adviser notes that, if permission were granted, the proportion of HGVs on the A27 would increase from 3.9% to 6.3%. There have been sixteen Personal Injury Accidents between the site access and the A3090 (Romsey) in the last three years. Three of these accidents have involved HGVs. The Highways Adviser raises no objections subject to the creation of a ghost island right turning lane with traffic islands, widening of the access road bell mouth to include a `stacking' area to enable HGVs to pass and a financial contribution towards the improvement/protection of the verge.

5.8 Whiteparish Parish Council objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the scale of the proposal is unacceptable in the countryside;

(ii) the proposal will have an acceptable impact on the local highway network; and

(iii) the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents by virtue of the noise, dust, exhaust pollution and physical damage to buildings caused by increased lorry movements.

5.9 Salisbury District Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact on highway safety and amenity.

5.10 New Forest District Council has no comment on the proposal.

5.11 Wiltshire County Council has not commented on the proposal.

5.12 The New Forest National Park Authority raises concern that the proposal will increase lorry movements in the National Park and compromise the safety of grazing animals resulting in hardship to Commoners.

5.13 The Sherfield English Environmental Protect Society (SEEPS) objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal would give rise to unacceptable noise impacts;

(ii) there is no need for the proposal at this location and the proposal does not meet the proximity principal. There are numerous under-capacity transfer facilities in the area;

(iii) the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the highway safety and amenity. The analysis of the impact upon the highway does not sufficiently take account of local circumstances;

(iv) the proposal cannot be implemented within the application site and will inevitably result in activities outside of the building;

(v) the proposal is inappropriately located on a greenfield site within the countryside and will have an adverse landscape impact;

(vi) the proposal would adversely impact upon the ecology of the area, including the nearby SINC and several local badger setts; and

(vii) the proposal will alter the hydrogeology and drainage of the area and result in pollution of sensitive areas, such as the watercress beds.

5.14 The local Member, Councillor Perry, raises objection to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) inappropriate development in rural village;

(ii) proposal is contrary to the Development Plan;

(iii) 300 lorry movements will have an unacceptable noise impact on local residents;

(iv) landscaping would not be effective due to the location on rising ground;

(v) Sherfield English has had an "unfair" amount of waste development and national planning policy suggests relief to areas where this has occurred; and

(vi) there is no local support for the proposal.

6. Representations

6.1 There have been 503 letters of objection to the proposal and one letter of support. The main reasons for objection relate to:

(i) noise, dust, odour, fumes and pollution;

(ii) traffic impacts, including safety and amenity;

(iii) the need for a transfer facility in this location;

(iv) the impact on a rural village within the countryside;

(v) landscape impacts; and

(vi) the proposal does not meet the proximity principle.

6.2 In addition to the letters of objections, the Whiteparish Preservation Society objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) the proposed increase in HGV movements would impact upon the safety and amenity of local residents as the road through Whiteparish is narrow and already very busy;

(ii) the A27 is not designated a lorry route;

(iii) the proposal does not meet the proximity principle;

(iv) the proposal is located within the countryside and not a brownfield site;

(v) there is no need for the proposal; and

(vi) the proposal would have an adverse impact by virtue of increased noise, dust and fumes.

6.3 The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) (Test Valley District Group) raises objection to the proposal as it is considered that it would result in an adverse impact on the rural location by virtue of increased noise, dust and fumes, HGVs and a loss of tranquillity in the area.

7. Background and Planning History

7.1 In July 2003 planning permission (Application No. TVS00121/4) was granted for a change of use from agricultural land to open storage for skips on land opposite to the current proposal. The permission is for a permanent change of use for storage of up to 40 skips (five may contain waste). The number of lorry movements from the site is restricted to six per day.

7.2 On 12 May 2004 the Regulatory Committee resolved to refuse planning permission (Application No. TVS00121/5) for the construction of a waste transfer and recycling station, including the demolition of existing agricultural buildings, construction of ancillary offices, toilets and parking and improvements to access road. An appeal against the refusal of planning permission was lodged in August 2004 (appeal reference number APP/Q1770/A/04/1158830). The appeal is currently in abeyance pending the determination of the current application.

7.3 Town and Country Waste Services has been parking and maintaining skip lorries at Sole Hill Farm for approximately two years. Although an Operators Licence has been granted by the Traffic Commissioners to operate lorries from the site, there is no planning permission for this use.

8. Report of the Site Visit

8.1 Members of the Committee, with Councillor Beagley chairing, undertook a site visit on 14 November 2005 and met representatives of local parish councils, the Sherfield English Environmental Protection Society and the applicant.

8.2 The Chief Planning Adviser introduced the proposal and reminded those present that the previous application had been rejected. This revised proposal would consist of a large building comprising two main sections. The use would be relatively intense and would result in the importation of approximately 90,000 tonnes of skip waste per year. It was proposed to terrace the building into the hillside and at the most northerly point the building would be sunk approximately 3.5 metres into the hillside. SEEPS had questioned the dimensions as set out in the note for the site visit and the Chief Planning Adviser would clarify this point.

8.3 The Chief Planning Adviser drew attention to the main access up from the A27 and said that a right turn lane would be provided on the main road. He also draw attention to the nearest properties which lie to the north of the application site. Mention was made of the new village playing field which had been constructed in the vicinity of the A27 to the south of the site.

8.4 The applicant confirmed that the operations would mainly take place within the building and drew attention to the provision of a bund to protect the views of the facility from the east; it would be some two to three metres high with planting on top. The building and the weighbridge would be constructed on hardstanding.

8.5 Local residents drew attention to the fact that the site would be on rising ground and visible from the A27. They also drew attention to the hedgerows running adjacent to the access road and the applicant confirmed that there was no intention to remove the hedgerows; the Chief Planning Adviser confirmed that they would be protected by a planning condition.

8.6 Further points raised covered noise and lorries which might stray off the approved route. The Chief Planning Adviser reported that the applicant and SEEPS had submitted different noise reports and final evidence on them was awaited from the Test Valley Borough Council Environmental Health Officer. The applicant advised that he would take every effort to ensure that lorries visiting the site adhered to the lorry route which would be the subject of a legal agreement.

9. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

9.1 An application for an open waste transfer station at the site was refused planning permission in May 2004. The primary reasons for refusal related to the unacceptable location of the proposal within the countryside; the unacceptable noise and highway impact; and that the proposal was not the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for the waste in question. The current proposal seeks to address these reasons for refusal.

9.2 The proposal differs from the previous application (No. TVS00121/4) insofar as the site area has been reduced to accord with the curtilage of the farm buildings and it is proposed to contain all activities within a new building.

9.3 Policy 46 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan states that proposals for transfer and recycling of waste will normally be permitted within land in the countryside that has already been disturbed by permanent development.

9.4 Policy 46 must be interpreted in light of Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) which provides recent guidance on acceptable locations for waste management facilities. PPS10 states that redundant agricultural buildings and their curtilages may be acceptable locations for waste proposals. The policies in PPS10 need be considered carefully when assessing the acceptability of the proposal because the adopted Development Plan is out of date and has not yet been updated to reflect the guidance in PPS10.

9.5 It should be noted that the earth bund and associated planting extends beyond the curtilage of the redundant farm buildings. However, the bund will be planted and it is considered that this minor extension does not in itself undermine the policy presumption.

9.6 Therefore, in principle it is considered that the proposal is within an acceptable location in the countryside. The first reason for refusal has been addressed.

9.7 SEEPS has raised concerns that the proposal will not be able to operate within the building as proposed. Operational issues are primarily matters for the Waste Management Licence. However, this is a material planning consideration as far as it may impact upon land use. The primary concern is that the proposed building is not sufficient to accommodate all of the proposed operations and thus there will be activity, and consequently noise, outside of the building.

9.8 The size of a waste transfer station varies considerably according to how it is proposed to operate the business. Typically a waste transfer station building has an area for outside storage of skips and lorries and for manoeuvring vehicles. The proposal is to store the skips and park lorries inside the building to reduce the noise impact and it is considered that there is sufficient room inside of the building to manoeuvre vehicles provided that the internal space is not compromised by storing large amounts of waste. There will be some limited queuing of vehicles outside the building. However, on balance it is considered that the proposal can be operated as proposed. If permission is granted a planning condition could be attached to ensure unacceptable operations do not occur outside of the building.

9.9 There is strong local concern that the proposed site is not an appropriate location, that there is no need for a waste transfer station in this location and that the proposal does not accord either with the proximity principle or, as the proposal is a transfer rather than a recycling station, is not the BPEO for the waste in question.

9.10 There is a clearly established need to reduce the amount of waste being landfilled. It is unrealistic to expect a network of strategic recycling sites to exist without a network of transfer facilities supplying segregated wastes. Therefore, transfer facilities with an element of recycling are important to achieve the wider goal of diverting waste from landfill. The issue therefore, is whether there is a need for the proposal in this location that outweighs amenity considerations.

9.11 There are a number of waste transfer facilities located around Romsey and on the Hampshire-Wiltshire border. According to limits imposed by the Environment Agency through the Waste Management Licence regime, these sites have spare capacity. However, these sites rarely operate to their theoretical throughput for a number of reasons, including the need to provide flexibility and potential for expansion. The Licence regime is considered to be an unreliable source of evidence. It is also questionable whether the issue of need can form a basis for refusal of permission in the light of the objective to `encourage competitiveness' within PPS10.

9.12 The advice to the Committee was that the previous application was not the BPEO for the waste in question and contrary to the proximity principle. Recent Government policy as set out in PPS10 does not support the use of the BPEO or the proximity principle as tests for the acceptability of waste developments, recommending instead the `test' of consistency with the objectives and principles set out in PPS10. Namely to facilitate the timely provision of waste management facilities whilst reflecting the concerns of communities and business and without harming the environment (see paragraph 4.5).

9.13 The proposal is located between Southampton, Romsey and Salisbury, which are likely to provide the majority of waste to the site. Whilst the site is not located in close proximity to these urban areas, it is strategically located between them and close to a disposal site and will provide a service for these communities.

9.14 The proposal will generate a maximum of 280 heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements per day, although the average number of movements is expected to be considerably less. The increase in lorry movements on the A27, which at peak flow would equate to one movement every 2.4 minutes, has caused concern in both the Sherfield English area and in Whiteparish, Wiltshire. It is noted that the A27 is the main road through the village of Sherfield English and that local facilities, such as the recreation ground, are isolated from the main village by the road. However, the traffic assessment submitted by the applicant concludes that the A27 is under capacity for a road of its class. This conclusion is supported by a recent traffic survey undertaken by the County Council. The Highways Adviser raises no objections to the proposal subject to provision of a right hand turn lane, improvements to the access, and a financial contribution towards future repairs and maintenance of the A27. These matters can be addressed through a legal agreement.

9.15 The majority of HGVs will arrive from and leave towards the direction of Romsey. This is primarily because the main sources of waste are from the Romsey and Southampton areas. The disposal of non-recyclable materials is likely to be at Squabb Wood landfill site. Therefore, it is unlikely that Whiteparish will be significantly effected by the proposal. The routing of lorries to and from the site can be controlled through a legal agreement.

9.16 There is local concern that the proposal will have an adverse landscape impact. The proposal is within the countryside and it is inevitable that glimpses of the proposed building will be seen from the A27. The building is large and the bund and associated planting will take some years to provide an effective screen. However, the size and design accords with many modern agricultural buildings and its impact is considerably reduced by terracing the building into the hillside. Its impact is further reduced by the rising land to the north of the site, which means that the building would not impact on the skyline. The visual impact of the building and the activity of the development could be further mitigated by additional hedgerow planting along the access road and traditional hedgerow management. These matters could be addressed by planning conditions.

9.17 The proposal would be visible in the context of the Grade II Listed barn and farmhouse, but these are not so close as to directly impact upon the listed structures. The listed buildings are located within the main farm complex and are adjacent to several other agricultural buildings of varying ages and design, which provide the current setting. The proposed building is of a modern agricultural design and would not impact on the setting of the listed building such as to justify a refusal on these grounds.

9.18 There are a number of other amenity issues raised by local residents, including odour, dust and fumes. The operations at the site would take place within the building and therefore, it is unlikely that these issues will impact on amenity.

9.19 The local residents, SEEPS and the Parish Council have raised concerns that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the ecology of the area, including on the SINC, the ancient hedgerows and on badger setts. There has also been concerns raised that the proposal was not accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The active badger setts are not close to the site and are unlikely to be affected. The application does not propose to remove or damage the hedgerows. Indeed, there is the potential for enhancement. The proposal has been screened under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations and it is considered that it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment. However, the question of impact on local amenity, particular noise, remains.

9.20 The proposal is to construct a building to contain all of the operations at the site and reduce noise to an acceptable level. A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the proposal. The report concludes that the overall noise impact in the community, including the passage of vehicles on the haul road, will have no significant impact and therefore, there is no reason to refuse the application on noise grounds.

9.21 SEEPS also commissioned a noise report, which concludes that, notwithstanding that the proposed building can be constructed to provide a high standard of sound insulation, noise emitted from the doorways and the access road will have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of local residents.

9.22 In response to the concerns raised by SEEPS, the County Council appointed an independent noise consultant (ISVR) to carry out an assessment of the two conflicting reports. In summary, ISVR concluded that the methodology and reassessment within the SEEPS report is correct and that the applicant's noise report understates the noise impact that is likely to occur. It is considered therefore, that the noise generated by the proposal is likely to have a significant impact upon the amenity of local residents.

9.23 In summary, although the proposal is for a large building within the countryside, the design and location conform to the relevant policies in the Development Plan. Although there are other waste transfer facilities around Romsey and within Wiltshire their operation is not in itself a reason for refusing this application. The facility will address the needs of local communities, help drive waste up the hierarchy and meets PPS10 objectives and principles. However, the principles of location in the Development Plan and PPS10 include consideration of impact on the local community and on the neighbourhood. It is considered that the proposal is likely to give to rise to an unacceptable noise impact on local amenity. Therefore, on balance, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of proposed construction of a waste transfer and recycling station building including car parking, improvements to access road and demolition of existing agricultural buildings at land at Sole Hill Farm, Sherfield English (Application No. 05/00119/CMS) be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

Reason for refusal

(1) The proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents by reason of increased noise and would be contrary to Policies 7(i) and 46(iv) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the principles set out in Planning for Sustainable Waste Management (PPS10)

691/NC

Annexe to Reasons for [Refusal/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 MW1

Planning authorities will, through policies and proposals in local plans and day-to day development control:

(i) seek to ensure an adequate supply of minerals and provision of waste management facilities to meet needs having regard to the need to: maintain the environmental quality and diversity of Hampshire, including the protection of living conditions; safeguard important socio-economic interests; prevent pollution; and protect features of particular environmental or historical importance including those listed in Policy MW3, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and historic parks and gardens;

(ii) seek environmental enhancement and public benefits through minerals and waste development;

(iii) conserve and prevent unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources and encourage efficient use of materials;

(iv) encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregate materials; and

(v) seek the management of waste in accordance with the following hierarchy;

1. reduction of waste;

2. re-use of waste;

3. recovery of waste (recycling, composting, energy from waste); and

4. waste disposal;

having regard to the proximity principle and the principle of best practical environmental option.

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.

Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted) 1998

Policy 6

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority is satisfied that:

(i) there is a clearly established need for the development (as assessed in relation to the other relevant policies of the Plan) which outweighs any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to cause; and

(ii) the development would not be likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of adverse environmental, traffic or other impact, pollution risk or danger to public health, particularly in respect of any of the factors specified in Policy 7 and measures would be taken to ensure that any such impacts would, as far as is practicable, be minimised; and

(iii) the proposals provide for the satisfactory working or operation and landscaping of the site and for its satisfactory restoration and landscaping at the cessation of the operations or use or at the end of the life of the facility to a condition suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use which is compatible with adjoining land uses and the planning policies for the area.

Notwithstanding any need there may be for waste disposal, permission will not normally be granted for mineral extraction with restoration by infilling with waste materials unless there is a need for the mineral to be extracted.

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.