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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the 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).

1.2 The application was considered by the Committee at its meeting on 19 July 2006. The previous report is attached as Appendix 1. The resolution was to defer consideration of the application pending a report on four matters of concern expressed by members at the meeting. This report provides information on these issues, and addresses additional comments received since the last meeting.

1.3 The proposal is a `departure' from the development plan in that the site is not a `preferred area' for mineral working in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the proposed use of clay for infilling is contrary to policy 28 of the Plan. However, the departure is considered reasonable because of the recognised need for further sand reserves, and the clay proposed to be extracted has already the benefit of such a planning permission granted in 1990. Therefore the recommendation is to grant permission, subject to the completion of the `departure' procedures.

2. Introduction

2.1 The planning application for additional sand extraction and change to the restoration at Frithend Quarry was considered by the Committee at its meeting on 19 July 2006. The previous report is attached as Appendix 1. The resolution was to defer consideration of the application pending a report on four matters of concern expressed by members at the meeting.

2.2 The concerns raised by the Committee were:

(i) the need for clarification of the views of the Environment Agency and Water Company over the infill below water table;

(ii) the highways impact of the proposal with particular reference to HGV movements; and

(iii) to seek further information on landscape, restoration and ecological impacts of the proposal, in particular the impacts on Red Data Book plants and animal species on the site.

2.3 The concern under (iii) includes investigations of a revised restoration proposed by local residents and parish councils in their deputations at the meeting.

3. Additional Information

3.1 The applicant has submitted a Hedgerow Survey report by their ecological consultant for the hedgerow which is proposed to be retained. The hedgerow is mainly a mixture of blackthorn and sallow over bramble. The conclusions of the report are that the hedgerow is important as it has supporting features as defined in the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, and is of district value. The history of the hedgerow is unclear, but appears to be associated with an old boundary and is more than 30 years old. It is also likely to have had a long-standing connection to the ancient woodland copse to the east. The removal of the associated ditch may adversely affect the ecology of the ancient woodland copse by altering drainage. Due to the presence of the Great Crested Newt and use of the hedgerow as terrestrial habitat, a Defra licence will be required for its removal.

4. Further Representations

4.1 The applicant has written commenting on the issues raised at the previous Committee meeting and has confirmed that it does not propose to amend its restoration proposals. Consequently there has not been any further discussion with local residents, parish councils or the local County Councillors about the alternative restoration scheme. The letter is attached as Appendix 2. In summary, its comments were:

(i) The submitted restoration scheme is the most appropriate because it retains the hedgerow which is a habitat for the Great Crested Newt and is an established landscape feature. Whilst the hedgerow can be transplanted successfully there will be inevitable damage to the structure, flora and fauna and so is second best to retaining the hedgerow as proposed. Moreover, the hedgerow cannot be transplanted on the same route so existing wildlife linkages would be lost.

(ii) The restoration scheme produces the best balance between agricultural and biodiversity interests. The scheme has been designed in consultation with the landowner, who requires the clay extraction area to be restored, as already permitted, to agriculture at pre-extraction levels, because this is the most level area and would be used in conjunction with adjoining land.

(iii) The scheme avoids having to divert the footpath.

(iv) The issue is not whether the alternative scheme offers benefits, but whether the restoration scheme submitted with the planning application results in sufficient harm to justify refusal.

(v) Numbers are provided for lorry movements indicating that the existing permission involves 66 daily lorry movements for sand extraction, and would generate an extra 80 daily movements for importing material from 2007. The proposals would involve 66 daily lorry movements for sand extraction and 34 daily movements for importing material although importation at this level would not commence until 2012. It is noted there is no objection from Highway Authority to continued use of the access nor a capacity issue for the A325. The site has direct access onto the A325, part of the strategic road network identified as being a mineral and waste lorry route, as identified on the Key Diagram in the approved Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework `core' Strategy. Therefore, there are no reasonable objections on highway grounds.

(vii) Reference is made to the letter dated 9 May 2006 from the applicant's consultant hydrologist providing explanation of the issues in respect to the risk to the aquifer and borehole.

(viii) In terms of the Red Data Book species, the species identified are lichens within the current working sand pit and are all early colonising species which, in time, and as the slopes become more vegetated, will decline through natural succession. In mitigation it is proposed that the sand slopes of the restored sand pit should be left to vegetate naturally to provide habitat suitable for the Red Data Book and other acid grassland species.

4.2 Councillor Kemp-Gee has forwarded letters he has received from Kingsley Parish Council commenting further on the application. These letters are attached as Appendix 3. To summarise these comments:

(i) Kingsley Parish Council considers the application to be unacceptable.

(ii) They comment on the planning history of the site and have concern at further variations in the future, in particular the possibility for non-inert tipping.

(iii) The use of clay for infilling is contrary to Policy 28 of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, but this was not included in the previous report. Proposals which were contrary to policy 28 have been refused and successfully upheld on appeal (i.e. The Triangle, Romsey).

(iv) As the Environment Agency now does not require site derived gault clay to infill below water table, there is no need for the clay extraction.

(v) They firmly oppose the proposed restoration scheme which is considered to be based on cost and not what is in the best interests of protecting the water supply or the environment, and to a landform which is not compatible with the local landscape.

(vi) If the restoration is amended as suggested to both increase the amount of site derived waste available for restoration and reduce the amount of material needed for restoration, there will be no need for the importation of inert waste.

(vii) They consider there will be a significant increase in lorry traffic as a result of the proposals, which is a sensitive local issue due to the operation of other local sites in the area.

(viii) Concern is still expressed about the Environment Agency response in changing its requirements when so close to a major aquifer.

(ix) The regularisation of mineral imports should be resisted as it condones unauthorised activity.

(x) The Parish Council accepts the need for additional sand reserves and does not object to working above the water table. However there are deep concerns about working below water table and the concerns of the local community should take precedence above all other considerations.

5. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

Infill Below Water Table

5.1 Concern is expressed about the proposed infilling of the site below water table with clay and site derived mineral wastes, followed by tipping of imported soils and the potential impact this would have for water supplies at the nearby Headley Pumping station. A further concern is the difference in the consultation response to this application by the Environment Agency to that of National Rivers Authority (NRA) their predecessors to a similar proposal in 1994 within the existing site. The difference being that the NRA specified that all infilling up to one metre above water table should be with site derived gault clay only. The current proposal is to use both gault clay and site derived mineral wastes, which the Environment Agency considers acceptable.

5.2 The Environment Agency has stated that environmental protection standards have improved since 1994, in particular under the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, so a much narrower range of wastes is regarded as being inert. Sometimes loose definitions of inert waste were in use in 1994. In addition the Landfill Regulations require a geological barrier to be installed to provide for attenuation prior to tipping inert waste, there was no such requirement prior to 2002. The infilling with gault clay and site derived mineral wastes does not require licensing from the Environment Agency. However the importation of waste soils does require a permit issued under the Pollution Prevention and Control and Landfill Regulations and requires a geological barrier. The Environment Agency's view is that there is no technical justification for requiring only gault clay to be used to backfill the quarry to above water table, and the current proposals do not represent any unacceptable risk to ground or surface water quality, bearing in mind the tighter regulation now possible through the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (as amended) and the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000. South East Water also raises no objection.

5.3 Notwithstanding the understandable concerns of the local community, in view of the consultation responses that there is a low risk to water resources from these proposals, there is no evidence to support a refusal of permission on these grounds.

Lorry (HGV) Movements

5.4 To clarify the lorry (HGV) information. The application states that an average of 33 daily HGV loads (66 movements) is generated by the sand extraction, together with two daily HGV loads (four movements) for importing mineral. These levels would continue. It is estimated that when the inert waste tipping commences in about 2012 the importation of material would increase by a further 17 daily HGV loads (34 movements). Consequently at the peak when both sand extraction and inert waste infilling are proceeding the total HGV movements would be about 100 per day.

5.5 To reiterate the views of the Highways Advisor, at the height of 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 objections are raised.

Landscape, Restoration and Ecological Impacts

5.6 The proposed restoration is to create a mixture of uses and habitats. These include agriculture, wetland and lakes, woodland and acid grassland. The proposed restoration creates a steep northern slope (a 1 in 4 slope, about 8 metres high) on top of which the footpath and existing hedgerow would remain. This area is shown as being restored to acid grassland through natural colonisation. The area beyond the footpath is being restored to original ground levels and incorporated into the agricultural use of the adjoining fields and brought back to agricultural use. This is in accordance with the wishes of the landowner.

5.7 Particular concern was expressed at the meeting about the impact on Red Data Book species present on the site. The Red Data Books are lists of species whose continued existence is threatened. The ecological section in the Environmental Statement identified four Red Data Book species which were all early colonising species on bare slopes which would be affected. However, there is the opportunity to allow these species to naturally colonise faces of the restored land, in particular the proposed acid grassland areas which would be allowed to vegetate naturally rather than seeded. The northern slope is one area proposed to be restored in this way.

5.8 A further report has been submitted concerning the hedgerow which is proposed to be retained. The survey has been carried out to an appropriate standard, and shows the hedgerow is classified as `important' under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. There is also an association between the hedgerow and the Great Crested Newts, a protected species, which supports the retention of the hedgerow. Whilst it would be feasible to transplant the hedgerow, there is a risk that this would not be wholly successful; it could not be transplanted on its current alignment, and would also potentially harm the habitat for Great Crested Newts. On balance the preference in terms of nature conservation is to retain the hedgerow.

5.9 In conclusion the proposed restoration has significant benefits over the existing approved restoration in terms of nature conservation and biodiversity, land-use and meeting the needs of the landowner. The landform, whilst leaving a steep face is not intrusive in the wider landscape, and therefore it is not considered that the proposed landform is unacceptable. Indeed the Council has approved restoration schemes of a similar character in the vicinity.

Revised Restoration Proposed by Kingsley Parish Council

5.10 Kingsley Parish Council (supported by other parish councils, local residents and the local County Councillors) has proposed an alternative restoration scheme which involves the removal of the northern hedgerow, and its relocation, the relocation of the footpath and grading back the slope. The advantages put forward for this scheme are:

(i) a more natural landform; return of more of the site to agriculture than proposed; and

(ii) the release of additional on-site material for restoration, which together with reduced landform significantly reduces, or eliminates, the need for imported material for fill and thereby reducing the number of HGV movements.

5.11 It was suggested that there should be discussion with the applicant for the proposals to be amended in this way. The applicant (Grundon) does not wish to discuss such an amendment. Therefore the Committee will need to take a decision on the merits of the proposed restoration scheme only.

5.12 Although such an alternative scheme may be feasible, it is the proposed scheme which has to be considered. There is no ground for refusing planning permission because an alternative may be feasible, if the proposed scheme is acceptable in its own right.

Policy

5.13 Under the Development Plan section of the previous Committee report, Policy 28 concerning clay working was omitted. The use of clay for infilling and restoration is contrary to Policy 28, which states that clay extraction outside Preferred Areas will not be permitted unless there is need for clay for capping or lining landfill sites. The case here is that the clay would be used for infilling below water table and provide a geological barrier to allow for inert waste tipping to achieve restoration. The extraction for clay to provide an infill material has been refused by the County Council elsewhere, and was considered by the Inspector on the Ridge Appeal as part of his reasoning for dismissing that appeal. However in the case of this application the source of clay for restoration already benefits from planning permission. Accordingly, irrespective of Policy 28 the clay on-site is available in planning terms for on-site restoration as part of the total development package. Refusing the current application on the basis of Policy 28 would serve no planning purpose.

6. Conclusion

6.1 It is considered that the conclusions of the previous report still apply. 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. However the proposal is a departure from policy in that the site is not a preferred area in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and the use of clay is not in accordance with policy. However it is considered to be an acceptable departure from these policies, and so the recommendation is grant permission, subject to the completion of the departure procedures.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of the 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 although the proposal is a departure from policy in that the site is not a Preferred Area, and the use of clay for infilling is contary to Policy 28 of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan, it is an acceptable departure because of the established need for further sand reserves, and the clay within the site already has planning permission for extraction and such use. 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 2016 and the site be restored in accordance with the schemes approved under condition (14) within a further period of 2 years 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 interests 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 interests of visual amenity.

Noise, Dust and Odour

(7) Noise from operations carried out on the site, measured or predicted as dB LAeq, 1 hour levels, shall not exceed the background noise level at the boundary of any residential property (measured as dB LA90) by more than 10 dBA during hours of operation with a maximum allowable noise level of 55 dB LAeq, 1 hour at the boundary of any residential property during the same hours. Temporary works necessary to the operation of the site for creating baffle mounds and construction of new permanent landforms may only exceed the noise control criteria set out above with the prior agreement in writing of the Mineral Planning Authority and implementation of agreed noise mitigation measures.

Reason: To minimise noise disturbance to the residents of nearby houses.

(8) Prior to operations commencing in Phase C4, a two metre high bund shall be constructed along its northern and western boundary.

Reason: To minimise noise disturbance to residents of nearest houses.

(9) Within one month of the date of this consent a scheme for noise monitoring shall be submitted to the Minerals Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall be implemented as approved for the duration of operations at the site.

Reason: To monitor noise levels to ensure noise disturbance for local residents is minimised.

(10) Within one month of the date of this consent details of dust suppression measures shall be submitted to the Mineral Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved measures shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the development.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities.

Rights of Way

(11) The crossing points with public rights of way and signs warning lorry drivers of the presence of public rights of way shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To safeguard public rights of way.

Archaeology

(12) No work shall take place until the application has secured a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation issued by an appropriate archaeological contractor. Previous assessment work on the site has identified significant archaeological potential dating from the early prehistoric through to the medieval period. This assessment work has also suggested there is unlikely to be archaeology on the site important enough to warrant preservation in-situ. Consequently, the most appropriate level of archaeological mitigation for this site is for a strip, map and record exercise to take place during site stripping to ensure that any archaeology uncovered is excavated to an appropriate level prior to extraction commencing.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology.

Nature Conservation

(13) 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

(14) The site shall be restored to agriculture/amenity/nature conservation 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

(15) 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/Waste Planning Authority not later than two years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the land is satisfactorily restored.

(16) 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 (14) above.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site.

1101/PDC

Annexe to Reasons for Conditions

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

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

__________________________________________________________________

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

Policy 28

The extraction of clay (excluding borrow pits) from outside the preferred areas specified in Policy 27 will not be permitted unless the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that there is a clearly established need for the clay for the lining or capping of landfill sites which cannot reasonably and satisfactorily be met from another source and that the need outweighs any adverse environmental, traffic or other impact that the development would be likely to cause.