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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for variation of Condition (9) of APP/Q1770/A/03/1118751 (75507 NF075) to allow 44 heavy goods vehicle (HGV)⁽ movements per day (Monday to Friday) and 22 on Saturday at Ambervale Farm, Pitmore Lane, Sway.

1.2 The recommendation is to refuse permission on the grounds that the development is contrary to policies of the County Structure Plan and the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, in that the proposed increased traffic movements would be likely to cause an unacceptable traffic impact (including the environmental impact of traffic) on the local highway network.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, extends across 0.4 hectares of land east of Pitmore Lane, Sway. The site is an operational waste transfer and recycling facility utilising an existing farmyard and farm buildings granted on appeal on 23 February 2004.

2.2 At its meeting on 27 February 2003 the Regulatory Committee had refused planning permission for the facility because of the environmental impact of traffic and the undesirability in highway terms of a site in a rural area poorly situated with respect to the Strategic Road Network.

2.3 The applicant subsequently appealed and a local planning inquiry was held. The Inspector upheld the appeal and on 23 February 2004 granted planning permission for the development subject to 23 conditions and a Section 106 lorry routing agreement. The agreement requires lorries to be routed so that they turn south out of the site entrance onto Pitmore Lane and on reaching the Wheel Inn crossroads turn east or west but not south along Ramley Road.

2.4 Condition (9) of the planning permission limits HGV movements to 26 per day Monday-Friday and 14 on Saturday. At the time of the appeal the applicant was requesting 44 (22 loads) HGV movements Monday to Friday and 22 HGV movements (11 loads) on Saturday.

2.5 The full condition permits a total number of 54 movements into the site on weekdays and states:

"The total number of lorry movements entering and leaving the site shall not exceed a maximum of 54 movements on weekdays, of which not more than 26 shall be heavy commercial vehicle movements and on Saturdays a maximum of 28 movements of which not more than 14 shall be heavy commercial vehicle movements. A record of all lorry movements shall be kept at the site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority on request. Heavy commercial vehicles are those exceeding 7.5 tonnes gross weight. A lorry entering and leaving the site shall be regarded as having carried out two movements."

2.6 In his appeal decision the Inspector concluded that:

"There are potential adverse impacts from the development within the New Forest and on traffic safety but these are likely to be exceeded by the advantages. This will be the case provided that the scale of the use and associated traffic movements is contained, one intention being to retain the focus of the use on a rural catchment. Conversely I am not persuaded that granting permission on the basis of the project specifically applied for, that is with a waste throughput of 22,000 tonnes annually and 82 daily vehicle movements would be appropriate. Whereas in the former case the development would be consistent with policies MW1, MW2 and 3 of the HCSP and policies 8 and 46 of the HPSMWLP, at an enlarged scale that would not be so. I realise that control of the number of goods vehicle movements is not a perfect means to achieve the planning objectives, but these movements are the main impact of the use and it is therefore the best means available."

2.7 The applicant is applying to vary Condition (9) to increase the HGV movements to 44 per day Monday to Friday and 22 movements on Saturday mornings, as originally proposed.

2.8 The applicant states that the current condition is having a serious impact on his ability to recover value from the waste streams, as loads are having to be diverted to landfill once the daily limit has been reached. The applicant states this is detrimental to the principles of waste minimisation and recovery, reduction of landfill tonnages and the proximity principle of dealing with wastes as close as possible to their origins. The applicant states that this application would enable the site to maximise the recovery of waste collected locally, thereby enhancing local sustainability and fulfilling the proximity principle.

2.9 A traffic report was submitted with the application. The report concludes that the proposed change to the condition would result in an average of 18 additional HGV movements per full weekday. The applicant states this is equivalent to one additional movement every 30. The report states there is no reasonable basis to consider that the level of traffic proposed is not acceptable either in the context of existing vehicle levels using these routes or other data. The operation in the New Forest serves the needs of the area, helps reduce need to transport waste to other sites which fall a greater distance away over the same road network. The report also concludes that the site will also help alleviate having to turn away vehicles part way through the day when the current allowance has been fulfilled.

2.10 At the time of writing, further traffic information has been submitted by the applicant relating to traffic flows. The applicant states that the information shows there has been no appreciable increase in HGV movements on Pitmore Lane as a result of the applicant's activities and the variation is within the normal range expected. The applicant states that the results also show that on Sway Road the 44 HGV movements proposed in the application would be no greater than that previously identified, which amounted to 0.5% of the total movements using the Wheel Inn junction or 6-7% of HGV movements using the junction. The applicant adds that if a 50% split is assumed with vehicles using Sway Road east and west the percentage on each stretch of road would be between 0.4% and 0.5% of total traffic flows in each direction (or 8-10% of HGV flows).

2.11 The applicant considers the difference proposed in the additional 18 HGV movements is negligible and within the natural range of movements expected.

2.12 The applicant states that he would reluctantly be prepared to accept a temporary permission for a period of 12 months during which time the situation could be monitored and if no material problems arise, this period could be extended by agreement.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (Adopted March 2000) Policy MW1 (hierarchy of waste disposal options), Policy MW2 (need for waste development balanced against environmental impact), Policy MW3 (presumption against waste development in the New Forest), and Policies MW8 and T5.

3.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) Policies 6, 7 (general policies), 8 (criteria for waste development the New Forest), and 46 (criteria for waste transfer and recycling development).

4. Consultations

4.1 The local Member, Councillor Thornber, states that he would not be happy with any proposal that exceeds the traffic movements recommended by the inspector.

4.2 Sway Parish Council Is extremely concerned at the proposed increase in HGV movements in Pitmore Lane. It considers Pitmore Lane presents traffic problems for heavy vehicles particularly where it narrows and bends at the northern end near its junction with Shirley Holmes. The Parish Council states it is also conscious of the danger to pedestrians and particularly children bearing in mind the lack of footpaths. The Parish Council feels strongly that what is needed is an up-to-date survey by Hampshire Highways so that the matter can be given deeper consideration.

4.3 New Forest District Council has been informed.

4.4 Environment Agency raises no objections in principle to the proposal. It adds that the site currently has a waste management licence and it must ensure that any increase in vehicle movements and therefore associated increase in acceptance of waste loads does not breach the annual waste acceptance limit of 22,000 tonnes per year.

4.5 New Forest National Park Authority has no comment to make on the application.

4.6 Gordleton Action Group strongly objects to the application and in addition to the points outlined in Section 5 below, makes the following observations:

(i) the applicant is applying to vary the permission after only a year of operation;

(ii) the reason for the variation is given by the applicant as being because the current vehicle restriction makes the business financially unviable;

(iii) new evidence has been presented which might mean that any previous harm identified has now been remedied;

(iv) the traffic consultant failed to mention the accident last year on Pitmore Lane;

(v) there are campaigns to ban lorries from `B' roads in the New Forest;

(vi) locals are using cars to travel short distances instead of walking or cycling which is country to national park principles because of the heavy traffic;

(vii) the entrance to the site is an eyesore and has not been built in accordance with the plans; and

(viii) the applicant has failed to explain why they are not using their mini-skip vehicle allocation to contribute to the business.

4.7 The Highways Adviser objects to the application on the following grounds:

"the additional traffic proposed by the development is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding highway network therefore interfering with road safety and the free flow of traffic."

4.8 With regards to accident records it is confirmed that whilst there is a cluster of personal injury accidents at the Wheel Inn junction, HGVs were not contributory to these occurrences. A personal injury accident did occur within Pitmore lane, to the north of Ambervale Farm, which did involve a HGV but this vehicle did not contribute towards the cause of the accident. There was also a fatality involving a motorcycle and an HGV outside the access to Pitmore Farm which is to the south of Ambervale Farm and on the western side of Pitmore Lane.

4.9 The Highways Adviser states that it is not possible for two HGVs to pass at an appropriate speed for the full length of Sway Road particularly in the vicinity of Buckland Rings. There is additional concern that any increase in a capacity could generate trips from areas located to the west or north of the site, which would encourage HGVs to access the site via local routes other than those specified in the routing agreement.

4.10 The Highways Adviser has looked at the additional traffic count information submitted by the applicant but considers this does not have any material impact upon his objection to the application.

4.11 With regards to the comments made by the Gordleton Action Group about lorry bans, the Highways Advisor confirms that lorry bans do not prevent HGV movements that are required to serve sites within the area of the ban. The Highways Adviser also clarifies that Everton Road is actually a classified road as opposed to unclassified as stated in the Residents' Petition.

4.12 Environmental Health (New Forest District Council) has been informed.

5. Representations

5.1 44 representations have been received to the proposal objecting to it on the following grounds:

(i) environmental impact of increased lorry traffic;

(ii) highway safety impact of increased lorry traffic with increased likelihood of accidents occurring - a motorcyclist was killed outside site entrance this summer;

(iii) increased wear and tear on local roads;

(iv) contrary to Development Plan Policy;

(v) conflicts with stated purpose of the New Forest National Park;

(vi) dirt, dust and noise coming from the site is still a problem;

(vii) lorries do not always observe the left hand turn out of the site;

(viii) traffic may increase on Everton road, Hordle. Hordle Church of England Primary School would not wish to see changes to a planning condition that was in any way detrimental to the children. The school is currently working on the school travel plan with the County Council and New Forest District Council to improve safety for children;

(ix) waste is being imported from Verwood, Fordingbridge, and Christchurch, which are not local;

(x) skips are piled on top of each other which is dangerous;

(xi) Pc Jason Steele of Lymington conducted a short speed test on Pitmore Lane on 20.8.05 and a motorist was recorded as doing 59mph;

(xii) vehicles should be limited to no more than 10 tonnes gross weight to suit the road network; and

(xiii) there is a light pollution issue from lorries.

5.2 One objector on Pitmore Lane acknowledges that "although the position of my property means that lorries from the site no longer pass my door" noise from machinery and plant can still be heard.

5.3 A petition signed by 67 residents occupying 59 properties in Hordle has been received. It raises objection to the proposal on the grounds of the frequency and speed of the Farwell lorries.

5.4 To substantiate the petition it requests the Council carry out a survey of the speed of traffic in Hordle and on Everton Road which is used by Farwell vehicles en-route to the tipping facility. There have been several serious accidents on Everton Road. None involved Farwell vehicles but there are indicators that the road is already too dangerous for a further increase in heavy traffic.

5.5 The petition states it is not opposed in principle to the increase of Farwell's business but measures should be put in place to protect the people and environment of the neighbouring area. For example weight restrictions on unclassified residential roads (Everton Road, Stopples Lane) and/or speed monitoring and restriction measures (which are needed in any case, drivers on Everton Road seem to ignore the speed limit).

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 The development proposed would conflict with the principle of the appeal decision in February 2004. The Planning Inspector examined the issues, including the impact of lorry traffic on the local highway network at a Local Public Inquiry, and concluded that the development was satisfactory only with reduced HCV movements.

6.2 The key question is whether there are any special circumstances that merit over-turning the Inspector's conclusions. The comments of objectors and the local Member are noted with regards to the highway safety impacts of the proposal and the need for the development to continue to comply with the appeal decision. These views have weight in the light of the short time that has elapsed since the commencement of waste operations.

6.3 The applicant's point that the lorry restriction limits recycling is understood. It is also noted that the applicant is not applying to increase the total number of vehicle movements by way of this variation, only those movements relating to HCVs.

6.4 It is noted that the applicant has stated that he would accept a temporary permission for a period of 12 months during which time the traffic situation could be monitored. The importance of the applicant's requirement to his business to increase the number of HCV movements from 26 to 44 per day is not underestimated. Nor is the importance to the applicant of securing even a temporary consent for 12 months to enable his local business to continue. It is understood that the applicant considers that within a 12-month period with ongoing regular monitoring he could provide further evidence that his HCVs only contribute a very minor proportion of the total number of HCVs that use Pitmore Lane. It is also noted that there are a number of other commercial operations and business ongoing in Pitmore Lane itself that involve regular HCV movements along Pitmore Lane.

6.5 On balance, the problems the applicant is experiencing are understood, but these are considered insufficient justification to change the Inspector's conclusion in light of the short period the site has been operating. No other changes have occurred to justify a re-evaluation of the decision and it is therefore recommended that planning permission to allow additional HCVs be refused on highway policy grounds.

Recommendation

That planning permission for variation of Condition (9) of APP/Q1770/A/03/1118751 (75507 NF075) to allow 44 HGV movements per day (Monday to Friday) and 23 on Saturdays at Ambervale Farm, Pitmore Lane, Sway be refused for the following reason:

Reason for Refusal

The development is contrary to Policies MW2 and MW3 of the County Structure Plan and Policies 8 and 46 of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, in that the proposed increased traffic movements would be likely to cause an unacceptable traffic impact (including the environmental impact of traffic) on the local highway network.

655/JD

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 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.

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.

Policy MW8

The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan will establish the need for waste management facilities in Hampshire. Sites for waste management development will be identified in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan including, in particular, sites for a network of integrated non-inert waste management facilities and for the landfilling of inert and non-inert wastes. As far as is practicable and environmentally acceptable, sites will be located to enable the provision of adequate facilities to serve the main waste producing centres in Hampshire.

Planning permission will only be granted for development in accordance with other policies in this plan where the local planning authority is satisfied that the transportation requirements of the development can be accommodated. Developers will be expected to contribute towards any transport improvements directly related to the development.

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 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 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.