Contact: Peter Chadwick, ext 6727 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for winning and working of sand with restoration at low level to nature conservation, uses to include a southern extension to the existing extraction area, the retention of the processing plant and the importation of small quantities of mineral at Land at Frithend Quarry, Bordon. The application was subject of a committee site visit on 3 July 2006.

1.2 There is a demonstrable need for further sand extraction in this part of Hampshire. The Environmental Statement accompanying the application meets the requirements of the Regulations and properly addresses the environmental impacts of the proposals. The proposed extension to the quarry, both laterally and below water table, are acceptable and would not adversely affect water resources. It is considered the proposed amended restoration is superior to the previous scheme in that it is more realistic in timescale and will help improve and support biodiversity. The retention of the processing plant is acceptable, subject to condition requiring its removal on completion of working at the quarry. The regularisation of the small scale importation of aggregates is considered acceptable as a very minor ancillary activity.

1.3 It is considered that the proposals are acceptable and the recommendation is to grant planning permission. However, whilst the deepening of the existing quarry is in accordance with policy, the proposal has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan because the extension of the site is not a Preferred Area in the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and is more than a small scale extension. As the application was advertised as a departure, if planning permission is granted the appropriate procedures will need to be followed.

2. Site and Proposal

The Site

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises an area of 17.4 hectares. It comprises the existing Frithend Quarry (14.6 hectares) together with additional land to the south (2.8 hectares). The Wealdon Heaths Phase II Special Protection Area (SPA) and Broxhead and Kingsley Commons Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are to the south. Public footpath 26 crosses the site. The nearest house is Grooms Farm House (about 80 metres to the north-west) with further houses at Frithend (the nearest about 170 metres to the north). To the south Trottsford Farm House is about 350 metres away. Great Holt is about 450 metres to the north-east. The village of Kingsley is about 2 kilometres to the south-west and the village of Dockenfield about 1.5 kilometres to the north-east. Headley Pumping station is about 450 metre to the south-east. Access to the site is via a haul road directly onto the A325.

2.2 Planning permission for mineral working and infilling with waste at Frithend Quarry was granted in September 1990. Since then further permissions have been granted for deepening the workings, alteration to phasing and permission for satellite sites to the south of Frithend Quarry at Rabbitfield Hill and Baigents Hill.

2.3 The current permission requires the completion of working and restoration by 2014. The restoration involves the infilling of the site with inert waste up to levels similar to the original.

3. Proposal

3.1 The proposals, as illustrated on the attached plans, are:

· Further winning and working of mineral, both by deepening the existing quarry and extending the area to the south.

· Changing the proposed restoration to low level for nature conservation and agriculture.

· Retention of the existing processing plant and ancillary washing facilities for the duration of working.

· To regularise importation of small quantities of mineral for sale from the site.

Further Winning and Working of Mineral

3.2 The proposal involves both the deepening of the western end of the permitted extraction area to enable sand to be extracted below water table to a depth of 55 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) together with a 2.8 hectare southern extension, also to be worked below water table. It is estimated the proposal would yield about 1 million tonnes of sand. Extraction would continue at the current rate of about 100,000 tonnes per year. The proposal would therefore provide for a further 10 years of mineral extraction.

3.3 The method of working would continue as at present. The mineral would be worked by hydraulic `backacting' excavator, which would then be transferred to the processing plant by dump truck. There would be no requirement to dewater, other than that currently permitted for sand washing.

3.4 Following extraction, the areas below 64 metres AOD would be backfilling with clay excavated from the northern part of the site, together with quarry derived waste and overburden arising on site. Above 64 metres AOD inert waste (in the form of naturally occurring earth spoils) would be imported to the site to achieve final levels.

3.5 The working would be in accordance with the submitted phasing scheme, which provides for 10 years of sand extraction followed by a further two years for completion of infilling and restoration.

Revised Restoration

3.6 The proposal is to completely revise the restoration of the site. It would result in the majority of the existing site, and the proposed extension, being restored at a low level to a mix of uses which include areas for nature conservation, a lake and areas of grazing land. The area to the north of the public footpath would be restored to original ground levels and returned to agricultural use.

3.7 The lake would cover an area of about 1 hectare with potential for fishing. The details of the lake have been amended to take into account aviation `birdstrike' concerns - primarily to discourage geese from being attracted to the lake and bankside.

3.8 In addition the scheme provides for planting 1.76 hectares of new native mixed woodland, 304 metres of native species hedgerow and engineering an area of north facing cliff to the south of the proposed lake suitable for sand martins.

Retention of Processing Plant

3.9 All sand extracted from the quarry and the satellite workings (currently at Baigents Hill, formerly from Rabbitfield Hill) is processed through the existing plant at Frithend Quarry. The plant are located within the working area. The proposal is to retain the processing plant for the duration of the proposed extension to the quarry.

Importation of Material for Sale from Site

3.10 The proposal is to regularise the importation of between eight and nine thousand tonnes per year of mineral. Most of the minerals imported are products from other Grundon quarries and sold in small one/two tonne loads to local builders, landscape gardeners, etc, or blended with Frithend material to provide a wider range of products.

3.11 There are no proposed changes to the hours of operation. It is not proposed to alter the pattern of vehicle movements associated with the site and the existing haul road and access onto the A325 would continue to be used.

3.12 Following a meeting arranged by the County Council with the parish councils, district councils and the applicant, chaired by the local Member, Councillor Kemp-Gee, the applicant produced a Response to Consultations and amendments have been made to the proposed scheme.

4. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

4.1 The proposal is an EIA Development under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 and an environmental statement has been submitted.

4.2 The Environmental Statement includes a description of the development, hydrology, hydrogeology, archaeology, ecology, landscape and visual, noise, soils, highways and planning policy.

4.3 Having considered the likely environmental effects the EIA concluded that the mineral can be extracted and processed and the site restored in an environmentally acceptable manner.

5. Development Plan

5.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (Adopted March 2000) - Policies MW1, MW2, MW5 concern sand extraction proposals.

5.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) - Policy 7 concerns proposals for mineral extraction; Policy 20 concerns proposals for mineral extraction outside preferred areas.

5.3 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Strategy (Consultation May 2006) Policy DC15 concerns Sand and Gravel.

6. Consultations

6.1 East Hampshire District Council raises objection on grounds of concerns about noise for local residents.

6.2 Environmental Health Officer (East Hampshire District Council) requires additional noise information.

6.3 Environment Agency supports the applicant's intention not to dewater the excavated area and has no objection in principle to the proposal. The Agency also comments that in contrast to its response to a previous application at this site in 1994, it does not insist that the void is filled with site derived clays only, and does not believe that such a stipulation is necessary to protect groundwater. This is because of the low risk posed by materials being disposed of, and because of tighter regulations now being in force. The disposal of waste, other than site derived mineral waste, will require a Pollution Prevention and Control Permit from the Environment Agency in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

6.4 South East Water has no objection to the proposal provided that both the methods of working (wet excavation restored with inert waste or material imported from other areas of the site) and the mitigation measures (good site practice, accidental spillage plan) envisaged by the developer are implemented and strictly adhered to.

6.5 English Nature has no objection. It comments that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the interest features of the Wealdon Heaths Phase II SPA and therefore does not require assessment in accordance with the Habitats Regulations. In addition the wider interests of the Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSIs are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposal. In relation to protected species it is satisfied that the submitted ecological impact assessment has been carried out to an acceptable standard. In relation to the presence of great crested newts, whilst there is the requirement for DEFRA licences for each phase of the workings, English Nature wishes to see the mitigation and overall management strategy secured as part of any aftercare scheme.

6.6 Highways Adviser comments that as, at the height of the activity on the site, there will only be 0.2% increase in lorry movements on the A325, and there have been no accidents as a result of site activity, no highways objection are raised.

6.7 Odiham Airfield originally raised concern at the proposed restoration including a lake on grounds of potential aviation birdstrike. The restoration plan has been amended to take into account the birdstrike safeguading concerns. Consequently no objection is raised to the restoration concept subject to conditions requiring the installation of goose proof fencing and planting scheme. Also comments that there should be a long term bird management plan lasting for at least 20 years following restoration of the site.

6.8 Binsted Parish Council raises concerns about:

(i) potential impact on the local water environment and there should be a guarantee that the integrity of the adjacent boreholes would not be compromised; and

(ii) vehicle movements and potential use of C98 as a route to the A31.

In addition the Parish Council comments that there should be an alternative restoration scheme to reduce the quantity of earth spoils required to be imported for restoration and provide a more gentle landscaped slope, there should be a maximum level set for the sale of imported materials sold from the site and no further intrusion into the site for these sales, and the County Council needs to be satisfied that there are sufficient quantities of gault clay available before any is permission is granted

6.9 Headley Parish Council comments:

· Objects to winning and working of minerals below the water table in the western area of the existing quarry.

· No objection to revised, lower level restoration.

· No objection to the importation of small quantities of minerals not exceeding 9,000 tonnes per annum.

· Object to retention of existing processing plant. The plant, haul road, etc should be removed within current permitted timescale.

· No objection to extension of quarry to the south, provided that sand is not extracted below the water table and that it is restored with inert waste.

6.10 Kingsley Parish Council comments:

· No objection to retention of processing plant provided that when sand extraction within B1 and B2 has ceased, Condition 20 of the existing consent will apply and processing plant then removed.

· No objection to regularisation of sale of up to 9,000 tonnes per year of imported materials, provided strict conditions on the annual limit and these imports should not pass beyond site office area and so not into main quarry.

· No objection to southern extension of sand extraction area above 64 metres AOD.

· Objection raised to proposed winning of sand below 64 metres AOD, that is working below water table. This is because there is insufficient reserves of site derived gault clay to restore further working below water table. The applicant is now seeking consent to infill with an ad hoc mixture of site derived waste. Concerned that as the previous stipulation for using site derived gault clay only to restore below water table was to safeguard public water supplies to the south-east, can this previous requirement be safely set aside?

· No objection in principle to changing the restoration to low level, but raise objection to the scheme put forward by the applicant. The preferred scheme would be to remove the ridge, which supports the footpath, haul road and hedgerow, between the clay extraction area and the sand extraction area and grade the site down. This would require less material to be imported for restoration and provide a gentler slope. This scheme would provide more on-site material for restoration, reduce the number of lorry movements required, and provide a gentler slope more beneficial for the landscape and agriculture.

6.11 Dockenfield Parish Council objects and comments that the application should be refused for the following reasons:

· The applicant has not provided convincing data that sufficient clay is available on site.

· The applicant has repeatedly imported builders' waste without consent and then exporting clay.

· Concerned that there will be no clay available for backfill of areas closest to the Headley Pumping station.

· Does not object in principle to extraction of B1 but objects to extraction of B2 for nature conservation reasons. Objects to the loss of sand martin nesting sites, suggests sand martin face being part of restoration proposals.

· Biggest flaw of application is the proposal to use other on-site material in addition to clay for tipping below 64 AOD, contrary to Environment Agency requirements.

· Maintains that the whole area would be better and more sustainably restored as a single bowl, involving the lowering of the footpath and hedge, which would reduce the amount of material needed to be imported for restoration.

· The current illegal importation of material for mixing should not be regularised through this application, as it is a retail proposal not sand extraction.

· Objects to the loss of national and county Red Data Book plants within phase B2, and objects to the loss of the sand martin cliff with no mitigation.

6.12 Whitehill Town Council comments:

· Objects to extension of sand extraction from below water table.

· No objection to low level restoration provided only naturally occuring earth spoils used for restoration.

· Objects to importation of small quantities of mineral on grounds that unnecessary activities increase traffic levels on the A325.

· No objection to retention of processing plant provided condition requires its removal on completion of extraction.

· Should be proposals to protect rare plants and trees on western edge of site. The destruction of the current sand martin nesting face is regrettable, and any replacement should be equivalent size and height.

· Applicant should make contribution towards improvements to rural and urban sections of the A325.

· All existing conditions should be retained.

· Supports suggestion of an alternative restoration to that proposed by the applicant which would significantly reduce number of lorry movements.

6.13 Lindford Parish Council coments:

· Objects to proposal to deepen existing quarry.

· No objection to importation of small quantities of minerals while quarry being worked but should cease when extraction of sand ceases.

· Objects to removal of condition requiring removal of processing plant. The plant, haul road, etc should be removed within timescale of Condition 20.

· No objection to extension of quarry provided sand is not extracted below the water table.

6.14 Surrey County Council has no comments.

6.15 Waverley Borough Council raises objection on the following grounds:

· Seems to be insufficient clay to fill excavation to 64 AOD in all sections, therefore not possible to carry out restoration to the requirements of the Environment Agency.

· Proposal ambiguous in that not clear whether processing plant will be retained after the current proposal ceases, if approved.

· Proposals would have adverse impact on visual amenity for Waverley residents close to the county boundary.

· Proposals would have adverse noise impact for Waverley residents close to the county boundary.

· Possible adverse impact for operation of Headley Pumping Station, which supplies water to Waverley residents, is of fundamental concern.

· Restoration should restore the landscape to a more sympathetic standard.

· The ecology of the pit is part of the national biodiversity heritage, because there a Red Data Book species present. Provision for the sand martins and little ringed plover must meet requirements of English Nature.

6.16 Councillor Carew strongly objects and makes the following comments:

· Opposed to regularisation of sale of imported material from the site.

· Objects to plans to work below water table, as there is insufficient site derived gault clay for infilling.

· No objection to low level restoration of the site, however applicant's scheme requires importation of substantial earthspoils with consequent lorry traffic. Would support an alternative restoration which requires less imported earthspoils, provided the central hedgerow is not adversely affected.

· Processing plant should be removed as soon as site is exhausted and not retained for processing off-site materials.

· Concern that much of existing ecological interest in the site would be damaged by current proposals. Unacceptable to remove sand martin cliff and replace with one more accessible for predators.

· Central hedgerow important to be retained for nesting birds.

· Need to survey for water voles along River Slea, as they are an endangered species.

· Number of rare Red Data Book plants on site which should be retained and protected

· Great crested newts are present, and likely to use central hedgerow for foraging and linkage between water bodies.

· Hedgreow should be retained to provide ecological linkage between habitats as potential use of the area by bats.

· Badger setts present around the site and are protected under legislation

· Presence or otherwise of dormice needs to be known prior to decision being taken.

6.17 Councillor Kemp-Gee and Councillor James have been informed.

7. Representations

7.1 Twenty-seven letters of objection have been received from local residents raising the same issues as those raised by the Parish Councils. One letter of support has been received.

8. Report of the Site Visit

8.1 The Committee undertook a site visit on 3 July 2006 and met representatives of Binstead Parish Council, Kingsley Parish Council and Whitehill Parish Council, the landowners and the applicant.

8.2 The Chief Planning Adviser introduced the application and outlined the key features. He explained that the site had been operating since 1990. The proposal would provide for a further 10 years of mineral extraction at a current rate of approximately 100,000 tonnes per year followed by a further two years of completion of infilling and restoration.

8.3 The applicant displayed a plan to Members which indicated the existing and proposed restoration proposals. He stated that he had tried to create a balanced and appropriate scheme for the whole site. Members walked through the quarry and viewed the ground levels, workings, the imported minerals, the hedgerows and the north facing cliff with the nesting sand martins. They noted that the nearest house was Grooms Farm.

8.4 Parish Councils were concerned about the restoration of the site, the adverse effects on the water supply, increased lorry movements and protecting the species of wildlife.

8.5 Councillor Kemp-Gee, the local Member was unable to attend the site visit.

8.6 Councillor Carew, the neighbouring Member was present and advised that he was concerned about the ecology of the site and the protection of wildlife and opposed to the regularisation of sale of imported materials from the site.

9. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

9.1 The proposal has four key aspects additional sand extraction; revised restoration at a lower level; retention of the processing plant; and regularisation of small scale imports of aggregates.

9.2 The additional sand extraction comprises two elements. These are a 2.8 hectare lateral extension into Ranks Hill and working below water table within the remainder of the existing quarry and the extension. The main issues associated with these proposals are the need for the mineral extraction, the visual impact of extending the site, the implications for lorry traffic of further working, nature conservation issues and the impact for water resources of working below water table.

9.3 With regard to need, the estimated landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Hampshire at the beginning of 2005 was sufficient for 4.15 years at the rate of 2.7 mtpa allowed for in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. However there was only a 2.3 year reserve for soft sand (at 0.68 mtpa) which the Frithend Quarry supplies. Therefore the landbank in the county is well below the 7 year period set out in government advice. With regard to the emerging policy the recently published Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Strategy divides the county into four areas ( Forest, South Hampshire, Downland and North East Hampshire). Frithend Quarry falls within Downland which has an estimated requirement for new provision of sand and gravel between 2005 and 2016 of 4.483 - 5.183 million tonnes. The proposal would contribute about 1 million tonnes of sand towards this requirement. Therefore there is a need for additional sand reserves in this part of Hampshire both in terms of the landbank and emerging policy. Moreover, the Frithend Quarry has an existing permission for working gault clay, a valuable resource for engineering purposes rather than simply bulk infill. The proposal to use this clay for infilling below the water table is an integral element of the scheme because of the need to safeguard water resources. There is, therefore an identified need for the clay to be used for this purpose.

9.4 Minor modifications were made to the proposed extraction area to retain additional trees on Ranks Hill in response to concern that these were attractive and quite prominent features in the landscape. The existing quarry is well contained and screened from long distance views and it is considered that the lateral extension of the quarry would not be visually intrusive.

9.5 There is a particular concern about the lorry traffic on the A325. The proposed extension would extend the life of the site and so prolong the period of the lorry traffic. The proposals would not increase daily lorry movements as the production would remain at current levels, although clearly there would be an increase when material starts to be imported for restoration. However material would need to be imported to achieve the permitted restoration scheme and the proposed change to the lower level restoration would significantly reduce the amount of material that would need to be imported, and so reduce overall lorry movements for importation.

9.6 There are a number of nature conservation issues arising from these proposals, in particular there is the presence of great crested newts, which are a protected species. English Nature has confirmed that the applicant has properly addressed this issue, and that the proposed mitigation and proposals for protection of the great crested newts are satisfactory. The ecological report also identified some rare plant species which would be lost, however these are in transitory habitats arising from site operations. Similarly the site provides nesting sites for sand martins, and accordingly has been designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), due to the excavation of the sand faces. Provision is made in the restoration for a sand martin cliff, although this could not be expected to support the numbers of birds currently using the quarry as a nesting site. The hedgerow which crosses the site, alongside the public footpath, is also of nature conservation value and would be retained.

9.7 The main concern raised by local residents and parish councils relates to the proposed working below water table, and the potential adverse impact for the nearby Headley Pumping Station (which provides water for public supply) from the proposed infilling. A particular issue being a requirement of the previous planning permission for only site derived gault clay to be used for infilling below water table. The current proposals are for both site derived gault clay and site derived mineral waste for this infilling. Above water table the proposal is for earth spoils to be imported for infilling and restoration. The Environment Agency has confirmed that it is satisfied that the proposals are acceptable and would not adversely effect water resources, and that it does not require that gault clay only is used. South East Water, operators of the Headley Pumping Station are also satisfied that the proposals are acceptable.

9.8 The revised restoration scheme provides for restoration at a lower level and changing the proposed use from agriculture only, to a mixture of agriculture and nature conservation. There was concern that the approved restoration, back to agriculture near original pre-extraction levels, would be unrealistic to achieve in a reasonable timescale because of increasing restrictions on the type of waste which could be imported. The sand quarry is now only suitable for importing earth spoils which would not be available in sufficient quantities to achieve timely restoration. The proposed lower level restoration reduces the need for importation to a level which can be achieved within a reasonable timescale. Notwithstanding this issue it is considered that the proposed restoration is superior to the previously permitted scheme in providing significant nature conservation/biodiversity interest, both in the lakes and water bodies proposed and the additional tree and shrub planting, although the scheme will accordingly return less usable agricultural land to the landowner. The proposals are also satisfactory in terms of visual impact and the local landscape. A suggestion has been made that the landform could be improved and less importation required, by removing the central hedgerow (possibly transplanting at the lower level) and grading back to the edge of the site. However the hedgerow has nature conservation as well as landscape value which, would be lost in the medium term and take a long time to regain if transplanted. Therefore it is considered preferable to retain the hedgerow as proposed. In addition it is likely that such an amendment would further reduce the amount of usable agricultural land following restoration.

9.9 The proposal to retain the processing plant is necessary for the additional period of working. The plant is located in the base of the quarry and so is visually contained and has not given rise to environmental problems. . The concerns about its retention beyond the life of the mineral working can be addressed by the normal condition requiring is removal when no longer needed.

9.10 The small scale importation of aggregate material for sale has been carried out without causing harm and, provided it remains at current levels, is considered acceptable as a very minor ancillary activity at the quarry. Its regularisation gives no precedent for developing any `builders merchant' type use or other similar commercial use.

9.11 In conclusion it is considered that there is a need for further sand extraction in this part of Hampshire. The Environmental Statement meets the requirements of the Regulations and properly addresses the environmental impacts of the proposals, and the proposed extension to the quarry both laterally and below water table are acceptable and would not adversely affect water resources. It is considered the proposed amended restoration is satisfactory and superior to the previous scheme in being more realistic in timescale and in providing for biodiversity. The retention of the processing plant is acceptable, subject to condition requiring its removal on completion of working at the quarry. The regularisation of the small scale importation of aggregates is considered acceptable as a very minor ancillary activity.

Recommendation

That subject to completion of the departure procedures, planning permission in respect of winning and working of sand with restoration at low level to nature conservation uses to include a southern extension to the existing extraction area, the retention of the processing plant and the importation of small quantities of mineral at Land at Frithend Quarry, Bordon (F30633/012/CMA) be granted for the following reason, subject to the following conditions and the application being referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with the departure from the development plan procedures.

Reason for Approval

It is considered that the proposal although a "departure" from the development plan as not being identified as a "preferred area" in the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan is in accordance with Policy 20 of the Plan which, allows mineral working on sites not identified for such development. Moreover the development would not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience.

Conditions

Commencement

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

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

Timescale

2. The extraction of sand and gravel shall cease on or before 31 December 2014 and the site be restored in accordance with the schemes approved under condition 12 within a further period of 12 months unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure the satisfactory restoration of the site.

Hours of Working

3. 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 and 0700-1300 Saturday. There shall be no working on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

Reason: In the interest of local amenity.

Protection of Water Environment

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

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

5. An eight metre wide undisturbed buffer zone shall be retained alongside the River Slea.

Reason: To maintain the character of the water course and for the benefit of wildlife.

Landscape

6. Within 12 months of development commencing a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall specify the types, size and species of all trees and shrubs to be planted; details of all trees to be retained; and details of fencing/enclosure of the site, phasing and timescales for carrying out the works, and provision for future maintenance. Any trees or shrubs which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

Noise, Dust and Odour

7. Noise during construction shall not exceed _ dBLAeq when measured at the fa_ade of ___________*... Noise once site is operational shall not exceed the average background noise level of _.dBLAeq by more than _. dBLAeq when measured at ______, shall not exceed the average background noise level of _.dBLAeq by more than _.. dBLAeq when measured at ______. and shall not exceed average background noise level of _.. dBLAeq by more that _.dBLAeq when measured at ___..

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

* Noise levels as to be advised by Environmental Health Officer

8. Prior to commencing operations details of dust suppression measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority in writing. The approved measures shall be implemented for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interest of local amenities.

Rights of Way

9. Prior to development commencing, details of crossing points with public rights of way shall be submitted to the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing, and implemented. The details shall also include signs warning lorry drivers of the presence of public rights of way.

Reason: To safeguard public rights of way.

Archaeology

10. No development shall take place within the area indicated (this would be the area of archaeological interest) 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 planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.

Nature Conservation

11. No tree or shrub clearance should be carried out in the bird nesting season (March to August).

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

Restoration

12. The site shall be restored to agriculture/amenity in accordance with a scheme to be agreed by the Mineral Planning Authority in writing. The scheme shall be submitted within six months of the date of this permission and shall include details of:

(i) 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 placing of topsoil;

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

(iv) details of proposed seeding.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory restoration.

After-Care

13. 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 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.

14. After-care of the site shall take place for a period of five years in accordance with a detailed scheme to be agreed in writing by the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority, beginning when restoration is completed in accordance with condition 12 above.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site.

988/PDC

Annex 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 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 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 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 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.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - Strategy (May 2006)

Policy DC15 - Sand and gravel

Sand and gravel extraction will be permitted, provided the site:

a. Is identified for sand and gravel extraction in the Hampshire Minerals Plan or pending its adoption, is within the Mineral Resource Area shown on the Key Diagram, or

b. The proposed development involves a small-scale extension to or deepening of an active sand and gravel extraction site, or

c. There is less than seven years of permitted reserves of sand and gravel and a need for sand and gravel which cannot reasonably be met from identified sites and locations and it can be shown that working such land would be equally acceptable to working within an identified site or location, and

d. Is not within or likely to adversely impact upon the setting of the New Forest National Park, the Proposed South Downs National Park or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and

e. The proposals include restoration opportunities for increasing biodiversity or access to public open space, or help to meet other planning objectives, and

f. Where necessary, proposals for landscaping and planting (prior to operation)are included, and

g. Is close to, and with good access to, the minerals and waste lorry route illustrated on the Key Diagram.