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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought to amend Condition 2 of Planning Permission F21878/008/CMA to allow existing finished levels to be remain as they exist. Despite the condition allowing for agreement to amend agreed levels it is considered that the restoration of the site has been unsatisfactory and the landform created is visually unacceptable. Therefore it is recommended that planning permission be refused, and as a consequence enforcement action authorised to require the works necessary to comply with the approved landform.

2. Site and Proposal

2.1 The site, as shown on the attached location plan, comprises an area of about one hectare within Chapel Farm alongside an access track into the farm.

2.2 Planning permission was granted in January 2003 (application reference F21878/008/CMA) for importation of inert materials for agricultural improvement. Condition 2 of the planning permission states:

"No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan no: 148CF02, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority."

2.3 Condition 1 of the planning consent required completion of the site and restoration within 18 months of consent (ie by July 2004). The waste tipping at the site ceased within the approved timescale; however the final landform was not in accordance with the approved plan.

2.4 In May 2004 planning permission was granted for a new access road to serve Selborne Clay Pit (Application No F20661/039/CMA). This access road crossed part of the tipped land before creating a new access onto Oakhanger Road. Although some parts of the access road have been partially constructed, neither the section through the tipped land nor the new access onto Oakhanger Road have been constructed.

2.5 The applicant states that the works as completed result in no demonstrable harm to the character of the area and that circumstances have changed since the original grant of planning permission because consent has subsequently been granted for a new access road affecting the northern part of the site. Moreover, there would be disturbance to local residents from further work at the site. The proposal is to leave the land improvement works as completed and that planting with native species be carried out on the embankment at the northern end of the site, in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority.

3. Development Plan

3.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) Policy MW2 concerns proposals for landfill.

3.2 Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policies 7 and 36 concern proposal for landfill.

4. Consultations

4.1 East Hampshire District Council - comments awaited.

4.2 Environmental Health Officer, East Hampshire District Council has no adverse comments.

4.3 Environment Agency - comments awaited.

4.4 South Downs Joint Committee - comments awaited.

4.5 Highways Adviser raises no objection.

4.6 Selborne Parish Council raises objection on the grounds that the condition was imposed for a good landscaping reason, and the importation of rubble was in contravention of the condition. No plans were ever submitted for allowing additional height. The applicant should therefore be compelled to honour the conditions of the consent.

4.7 The Oakhanger Preservation Society strongly objects on the grounds that the excess material, which is an eyesore, should have been removed as requested by the County Council, there is no justifiable reason for not removing the excess as there is the landfill on the adjacent brickworks, and the applicant has been associated with the brickworks. The Preservation Society comments on the effects on the community as thinly disguised blackmail, and the continued breach of planning requirements should be corrected immediately.

4.8 Ministry of Defence Safeguarding, Oakhanger raises no objection.

4.9 The local Member, Councillor Kemp-Gee, objects to the application on the grounds that the landform is very unsightly, the condition was accepted by the applicant at the time, disturbance from undertaking works would be justified for sake of overall local amenity, there is a landfill site at Selborne Brickworks which can be used for the surplus waste and can be accessed without going onto public roads. No acceptable environmental or ecological arguments why original condition should not be enforced have been put forward.

5. Representations

5.1 Letters of objection have been received from four local residents on the grounds of continued flouting and abuse of the planning process, site should be completed in accordance with the planning permission which was environmentally acceptable, site lacks topsoil; and of no agricultural value.

6. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

6.1 The landform created at this site is not in accordance with the approved plan, the levels are higher than approved over most of the site as more material has been tipped than required by the approved plan. It is agreed that planning permission was subsequently granted for a new access road to the Selborne Clay Pit, which affects the northern part of the site. However, this part of the access road has not been implemented and therefore should not prevent the restoration of the site in accordance with the planning permission.

6.2 When it was brought to the applicant's attention that the landform was not in accordance with the approved plan, the response was that this would be remedied with the construction of the new access road. However, there has been no progress with the construction of this part of the access road. In fact an application was submitted (and refused) to allow the extraction of clay to commence at the Selborne Clay Pit without constructing the access road. In view of the time that has elapsed since the tipping ceased and the unsatisfactory state of the site, enforcement action, in the form of a Breach of Condition Notice, was initiated in 2006. As a result this planning application was submitted to retain the levels as existing.

6.3 The current landform is unacceptable as it creates a plateau with an unsightly steep face alongside the farm track and creates an alien feature in the landscape. The site is also poorly restored. It is waterlogged with poor quality grass seeding and a large number of weeds There are also stockpiles of material which need to be removed. Therefore it is considered that there is demonstrable harm to the character of area from retaining the existing landform and leaving the site in its current state.

6.4 In view of the unsatisfactory landform and standard of restoration, and the lack of progress in implementing the new access road to the Selborne Clay Pit, it is considered that the site should be completed in accordance with the original consent. Therefore it is recommended to refuse planning permission to leave the site in its existing state. As a consequence of this recommended refusal it is also recommended that enforcement action be authorised to secure compliance with the original consent.

Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of alteration of Condition 2 of Planning Permission F21878/008/CMA to allow the existing finished levels to remain as they exist, despite the condition allowing for agreement to such levels by the County Council in writing, at Chapel Farm, Roman Road, Oakhanger (F21878/013/CMA) be refused for the following reason:

Reason for Refusal

The proposal is contrary to Policy MW2 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) and Policies 7 and 37 of the Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (summary attached) in that the restoration of the site is unsatisfactory and the retention of the landform will have an unacceptable visual impact.

1178/PDC

Annexe to Reasons for Refusal

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

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

__________________________________________________________________

Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 2000

Policy MW2

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the mineral/waste planning authority is satisfied that:

(i) any adverse environmental or other impacts that the development would be likely to cause are outweighed by a clearly established need for the development; and

(ii) the proposals, where applicable, include a satisfactory scheme of working and landscaping including details of lorry routeing and, in all cases, include satisfactory measures to ensure that the development would not have any unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact; and

(iii) the proposals, where applicable, provide for the satisfactory and prompt restoration and after-care of the site to a high standard and to a landform compatible with the local landscape and suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use.

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 36

Mineral exploration operations (other than for oil and gas) which require planning approval will be permitted provided the Mineral Planning Authority is satisfied that:

(i) the operations would not be likely to cause unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact; and

(ii) the proposals provide for the satisfactory restoration and aftercare of any land disturbed.

Any permission granted for mineral exploration will be without prejudice to the consideration by the Mineral Planning Authority of any further proposals for mineral working that may be submitted.