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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the former Marchwood Incinerator and adjacent Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) involving the demolition of the former incinerator building, construction of a new waste transfer station and ancillary infrastructure, and the redevelopment and enlargement of the HWRC. It is also proposed to provide a temporary waste transfer facility as an interim measure and to continue the existing waste transfer operations until the temporary facility is available. The main issues are the need for additional waste infrastructure in this part of Hampshire, the potential amenity impacts for local residents in terms of noise, smell and traffic, and the visual impact of the building taking into account the site is within the Strategic Gap.

1.2 It is considered there is a significant need for this facility to meet the County, City and District Councils' waste management needs and requirements, as well as the commercial requirement of the applicant. The operation of the site is not likely to give rise to noise or smell problems for local residents. Bury Road/Jacobs Gutter Lane are suitable for taking the lorry traffic and there is no need for lorries to travel through Marchwood. Whilst located in the Strategic Gap, the proposals are well-designed within an existing area of development, ie a `brownfield site' and, together with the existing and proposed landscaping, would not undermine the purpose of the Gap. Consequently it is considered the proposals are in accordance with policy and it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

2. Recommendation

That planning permission in respect of the redevelopment of existing site to provide a replacement waste transfer station and household waste recycling centre, demolition of former incinerator building and two redundant buildings and temporary extension of time for retention of existing waste transfer station (until redevelopment commences) at Bury Road/Normandy Way, Marchwood (07/89251) be granted for the following reason, and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

Reason for Approval

It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan (summary attached in Appendix 2) and 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.

3. Site

3.1 The site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises an area of 2.4 hectares and is located next to the junction of Bury Road and Normandy Way on the outskirts of Marchwood. Two high voltage power lines cross the site. The site contains the former Marchwood Incinerator building and adjoins an established household waste recycling centre (HWRC). To the west of the site is Slowhill Copse Waste Water Treatment Works. To the north are Eling and Bury Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSSI), Solent and Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA)/RAMSAR. The site is within the Totton/Eling and Marchwood Strategic Gap. The nearest houses, other than those on the site to be demolished, are approximately 200 metres away.

4. History

4.1 The Marchwood Incinerator opened in 1975 and continued operating through to 1996, when it ceased operation due to the introduction of more stringent pollution control requirements. Planning permission for a new Energy Recovery Incinerator at the nearby Marchwood Industrial Park was granted in 2001. This has now been constructed and is fully operational.

4.2 In 1996 planning permission was granted to use the former incinerator building as a waste transfer station. The purpose was to maintain the waste management service until the new Energy Recovery Incinerator came into operation. Consequently this was a temporary consent which, as subsequently amended, expired 31 December 2006. As part of this permission the chimney stack and large items of pollution control equipment were removed. The permission includes a requirement to demolish the incinerator building on cessation of use.

4.3 In 1991 planning permission was granted for the HWRC on land next to the incinerator. The HWRC has a separate public access from Normandy Way. Servicing access is through the Incinerator site.

5. Proposal

5.1 The proposal is to demolish the former Incinerator building and redevelop the site to construct a new waste transfer station and an expanded HWRC. The waste transfer station would handle dry recyclables, civic amenity waste, bulky waste, litter, street sweepings and commercial waste. It would also have the capability of handling household waste in an emergency as a back up for the Energy Recovery Incinerator at times of shut down. The redevelopment would be carried out in five phases taking about 18 months in total to complete. It is proposed to continue waste transfer activity throughout the redevelopment, initially by continuing as existing and then via a temporary facility at the rear of the site.

5.2 Phase 1 would be to construct the temporary waste transfer facility at the rear of the existing HWRC. This would comprise an enclosure with timber sleeper push walls covered by netting. The old Incinerator building would continue to be used for waste transfer until the temporary facility was operational.

5.3 Phase 2 would be the demolition of the old Incinerator building, retaining the concrete-lined bunker, and the demolition of the two houses within the site. These houses were built for the site manager and supervisor and are no longer required, having been unoccupied for several years and in a poor state of repair.

5.4 Phase 3 would be the construction of the new waste transfer building. It would be a steel portal framed structure built above the existing bunker. The walls would be comprised of sheet cladding with a shallow pitched roof. The main elevational cladding would be light green, the roof grey and the service doors dark green. The new building would be about 30 metres by 26 metres (a smaller footprint than the old incinerator building) and would be about 14 metres high - about half the height of the old Incinerator building (27 metres). The bunker would be partitioned to allow separate storage of bulky waste, street sweepings, litter and amenity waste; dry recyclables; and other wastes. Delivery vehicles would access from the south side, as they do at present, and tip into the appropriate bunker. Inside the building a long reach 360° excavator with grab would operate along a platform behind the bunker, transferring waste directly to articulated bulk haulage vehicles which enter the building from the east at a lower level. The existing administration building would be retained and the weighbridge would remain in its current position.

5.5 Phase 4 would be the construction of the green waste bay and area for clinical waste transfer. The clinical waste transfer would be into a wheeled container. The temporary waste transfer facility would then cease and the structures would be removed.

5.6 In Phase 5 the HWRC would be redeveloped and expanded into the area previously used for the temporary waste transfer facility. The expanded HWRC would provide improvements in handling the material and in general operation and provide 35 parking spaces (about 45% more than existing) as well as for queuing of up to 30 vehicles in the access road. This will address the issue of cars backing up onto Normandy Way, which is a problem currently at busy periods. The number of bins would remain at twelve as present but there would be better circulation and storage and the flexibility to provide additional bins if required in the future. Servicing would be directly to the adjoining waste transfer station.

5.7 Access would remain as existing, with public access to the HWRC from Normandy Way and access for lorry traffic from the Bury Road access. It is estimated that the waste transfer station would handle about 59,000 tonnes of waste per year, generating about 78 lorry loads (157 lorry movements) per day. The existing waste transfer facility in the old Incinerator building handles about 49,000 tonnes of waste a year, generating about 63 lorry loads (126 lorry movements) per day. In 2005/6 the HWRC handled 14,232 tonnes of waste of which 52% was recycled. The lorry traffic would continue to be routed via Bury Road and Jacobs Gutter Lane to and from the A35, and would not be routed through Marchwood village.

5.8 None of the existing landscaping or vegetation around the site would be removed. Additional planting would be carried out around the Bury Road entrance and to supplement the existing planting around the site. Additional planting would also be carried out along the outer boundary of the extended HWRC.

5.9 The applicant (Veolia) comments that with the increased growth of waste (an average of 3% per year for the last 10 years) and the increased drive for recycling there is not sufficient capacity to accommodate this waste transfer activity within the new Energy Recovery Incinerator building as originally envisaged; and that the use of the existing bunker has advantages both in terms of sustainable development and enabling the waste transfer building to have a smaller footprint. Veolia concludes that an additional facility is required for this part of Hampshire and consider the site is well located to serve this need, as well as being well located to handle household waste in an emergency as a back up to the Energy Recovery Incinerator, and meet its commercial requirements.

6. Development Plan

6.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Policy G2 concerns the Strategic Gap, Policy MW6 concerns waste transfer and recycling facilities.

6.2 Hampshire Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policy 46 concerns proposals for waste transfer and recycling.

6.3 New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration Policy DW-E1, DW-E32 and CO-E1 concerns development in Strategic Gap.

7. Consultations

7.1 New Forest District Council objects to the application because the proposed development would be visually intrusive and unjustified within this countryside location, thereby harming the openness of the designated Strategic Gap, and the rural character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies DW-E1, DW-E32 and CO-E1 of the New Forest District local Plan First Alteration.

7.2 However should the Hampshire County Council be minded to grant permission for the development, they request that suitable conditions are imposed in respect of materials, additional landscaping and restricting hours of operation to appropriate times.

7.3 Environment Agency raises no objection subject to conditions.

7.4 Natural England comment the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on the SAC/SPA/RAMSAR nor adversely affect the SSSI. No objection raised.

7.5 Highway Advisor raises no objection subject to conditions.

7.6 Marchwood Parish Council raises objection on the following grounds:

(i) site location within the strategic Gap;

(ii) previous notification of plans for demolition of old incinerator building and only temporary use as a transfer loading station;

(iii) unacceptable increase in traffic movements;

(iv) potential for unacceptable disruption if construction takes place at same time as power station;

(v) proximity to SSSI; and

(vi) potentially more appropriate site at Eling Wharf.

7.7 In addition objection on the grounds of serious adverse visual impact, lending an industrial setting to an historic established village settlement and therefore out of keeping with the area. Consideration that, given the length of time that has been available for the assessment of increases of waste for disposal and for the identification of alternative and suitable sites, that the original advice and established policy that this site be returned to its previous status of undeveloped land within a strategic gap between settlements, be complied with. That the application also does not comply with further established policies contained within the District Plan.

7.8 SSE Power Distribution raise no objection.

7.9 Southern Water raise no objection subject to protection for the public sewer which runs alongside Bury Road.

7.10 Southampton Airport raise no safeguarding objection.

7.11 Local Member Councillor Harrison has been informed.

7.12 Waste Disposal Authority - HCC

7.13 The County Council is committed to eliminating landfill disposal of household waste and ensuring that waste disposal and collection operations in the County are as efficient and as effective as possible. The development of a modern transfer station at Bury Road is crucial to allowing service objectives to be met.

7.14 Increasingly, it is residual waste from the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) network that is the main source of the County Council's landfill activities. As recycling of the household waste becomes more successful, processing capability at three Energy Recovery Facilities (ERF's) will be freed up for HWRC residual waste but it will only be possible for the ERF's to take this material if it has been pre-treated i.e. shredded. This is common practice on the Continent.

7.15 The proposed new transfer station at Marchwood will be able to accommodate a shredder within the building. It will also provide a strategic site that is capable of handling and storing HWRC waste generated in and around the New Forest. Operational flexibility will be significantly improved. The new facility will reduce lorry movements through Marchwood village and it will also be of real operational benefit to New Forest District Council's collection operations. Indeed, the need is supported by the New Forest District Council Environment Portfolio Holder, who spoke in support of the application at the New Forest District Council Planning Development Control Committee on 14 February 2007 when it considered the consultation on the planning application.

8. Representations

8.1 11 letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following grounds:

(i) impact of lorry traffic;

(ii) impact on Eling marshes;

(iii) reneging on commitment to demolish ugly old incinerator and intent to build another industrial monstrosity;

(iv) Strategic Gap should be enforced;

(v) improvements to HWRC can be done independently of waste transfer station;

(vi) commitment given to demolish old incinerator and not use site for waste when applying for the new incinerator;

8.2 1 letter from a resident concerned that the HWRC should be kept open throughout redevelopment as it extremely valuable for residents.

8.3 A petition of 320 signatures has been received stating `SAY RUBBISH TO WASTE TRANSFER STATION. We the undersigned object to the plan to build a new waste transfer station on the site of the old incinerator and wish to see the old incinerator building demolished as soon as possible.'

9. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

9.1 Whilst the need for an additional facility was not considered necessary when the planning permission for the new Energy Recovery Incinerator was granted in 2001 circumstances have changed. The local authorities (the County Council, City Council and District Councils) have now to meet new and challenging targets for waste management and the commercial requirements of the applicant have, as a result, changed. The application needs to be considered in relation to these current demands and requirements. It is considered that there is a strong waste management need for a waste transfer station for recyclable waste and non-burnable waste in this part of Hampshire in addition to the facilities provided by the Energy Recovery Incinerator on Marchwood Industrial Park.

9.2 The old Incinerator has been used for waste transfer since 1996 without giving rise to noise or smell complaints from local residents. There has been concern in the past about lorry traffic to and from the site, but little of this traffic travels through the village itself. Bury Road/Jacobs Gutter Lane has been substantially improved in recent years, this has overcome the deficiencies in width and alignment which caused the problems.

9.3 The main local concern has been the visual impact of the old incinerator building which is clearly intrusive and an eyesore at the entrance to the village; the concern being the delay in its demolition. This is compounded by the location of the site within the Strategic Gap, although the Incinerator and the neighbouring waste water treatment works were both in operation before the Strategic Gap was designated. The redevelopment proposes the demolition of the old building and its replacement by a much smaller building. However, although the site is a brownfield site as it has clearly been developed and has waste uses, the removal of the old building is already a requirement of the existing planning permission. Therefore whilst the proposal is in accordance with policy, being a redevelopment on an existing site, the visual impact has to be considered in relation to the proposed building itself, and how this impacts on the Strategic Gap, not a comparison with the old building remaining.

9.4 The landscape assessment with the application shows the roof of the waster transfer building will be visible as will be the vehicular accesses which are to be retained. However, the building has been well designed to minimise its impact and this impact will be further reduced by the additional landscaping. As such it is not considered that the proposal would diminish or undermine the purpose of the Strategic Gap.

9.5 As well as being well located to serve the waste need of the locality, the site offers significant advantages in sustainability by reducing the carbon footprint of the building through use of the existing bunker. There are also significant synergies with the co-location with the HWRC, which would improve its efficiency and operation. It is a well-used facility and the redevelopment and expansion would provide a significantly improved and efficient service to the local community.

Conclusion

It is considered there is a significant need for this facility to meet the County Council, City and District Councils' waste management needs and requirements as well as the commercial requirement of the applicant. The operation of the site is not likely to give rise to noise or smell problems for local residents and Bury Road/Jacobs Gutter Lane are suitable for taking the lorry traffic and there is not the need for lorries to travel through Marchwood. Whilst within the Strategic Gap the proposals are within the existing developed area, the proposed building is well designed and together with the existing and proposed landscaping would not undermine the purpose of the Strategic Gap. Consequently it is considered the proposals are in accordance with policy and it is recommended to grant planning permission.

1238/PC

APPENDIX 1

Conditions

Timescale

(1) The use of the existing incinerator building for waste transfer shall cease within 3 months of the date of this consent or when the new temporary transfer station has been constructed whichever is the sooner.

Reason: To ensure the orderly development of the site.

(2) The existing incinerator building shall be demolished down to bunker level within 6 months of the date of this consent.

Reason: To secure the demolition of the existing building in the interests of visual amenity.

(3) The new temporary waste transfer facility shall cease operation within 12 months of the date of this consent or the commissioning of the new waste transfer station whichever is the sooner unless otherwise ageed in writing by the Waste Plannnig Authority.

Reason: The temporary facility is not suitable for permanent retention.

Phasing

(4) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the phasing as shown on drawing MARCH/06/002 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure orderly development.

(5) Prior to the commencement of Phase 5 a detailed design for the Household Waste Recycling Centre shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The Household waste Recycling Centre shall be constructed in accordance with the approved detailed design.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development.

Materials

(6) Prior to construction commencing details and samples of materials to be used for the external surfaces of the waste transfer building shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

Lighting

(7) Prior to the plant being commissioned a lighting scheme shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority in writing. The scheme shall include details of all outside lighting, including floodlighting, safety lighting and illumination from within the plant, and measures to prevent light pollution.

Reason: In the interests of visual highway safety.

Protection of Water Environment

(8) 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.

(9) Prior to commencement of development a scheme to deal with the risks associated wih potential contamination of the site shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall include:

(i) a desk study identifying all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors, and potential risks arising from contamination;

(ii) a site investigation based on the desk study;

(iii) details of any remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken;

(iv) report confirming any remediation measures have been undertaken and measures for monitoring;

Reason: To ensure the site and the proposed use are assessed in order ensure that it does not present a risk of pollution to controlled waters.

(10) If contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site development shall cease until an addendum to the Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The requirements of the addendum to the Method Statement shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure there is not pollution to controlled waters.

(11) There shall be no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground unless agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure no pollution to controlled waters.

(12) There shall be no piling or foundation designs using penetrative methods unless previously agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure no pollution of controlled waters.

(13) Prior to development commencing measures to protect the public sewers shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The measures shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In order to protect the public sewer.

Highways

(14) Prior to development commencing measures to be taken to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction works from being deposited on the highway shall be submitted to the Waste Plannnig Authority for approval in writing. the measures shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

Hours of Working

(15) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste 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:

Waste transfer facility:

0700-1800 Monday to Sunday including public holidays except Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Years Day.

Household Waste Recycling Centre:

0800-1900 Monday to Sunday (1 April to 31 Sepember)

0800-1600 Monday to Sunday (1 October to 31 March)

Site closed Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Years Day.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Noise, Dust and Odour

(16) Prior to development commencing an Environmental Management Scheme for the control of noise and odour at the site shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The Scheme shall be implemented as approved for the duration of the site's operation.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Landscaping

(17) Within 12 months of development commencing a detailed scheme of additional landscaping for the perimeter of the site shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall specify the types, size and species (the majority of which should be native) 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.

Restriction of Permitted Development Rights

(18) Notwithstanding the provisions of Parts 4, 8 and 25 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order):

(i) fixed plant or machinery, buildings, structures and erections or private ways shall not be erected, extended, installed or replaced at the site without the prior agreement of the Waste Planning Authority in writing;

(ii) no telecommunications antenna shall be installed or erected without the prior agreement of the Waste Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: to protect the amenities of the area.

APPENDIX 2

Annexe to Reasons for [Refusal/Conditions]

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

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

__________________________________________________________________

Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 2000

Policy G2

To maintain the principal breaks of open and undeveloped land between built-up areas, strategic gaps will be maintained between the following:

Southampton and Totton

Southampton - Hedge End/Bursledon/Netley

North Baddesley/Valley Park

Stubbington/Lee on the Solent and Fareham/Gosport

Waterlooville and Havant

Havant and Rowlands Castle

Emsworth and Havant

Totton/Eling and Marchwood

Marchwood and Hythe

Hythe and Fawley

The precise boundaries of the strategic gaps will be defined in local plans:

(i) after provision has been made for the development requirements

established in other policies in the Plan; and

(ii) including no more land than is required to effect the physical and/or visual

separation of the settlements adjoining the gap.

Within defined strategic gaps, permission would not normally be granted for development which would diminish the gap physically or visually.

Policy MW6

Planning authorities will seek a reduction in the quantity of waste requiring treatment or disposal, including a significant reduction in the quantity of non-inert waste disposed by landfilling.

The waste 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, the provision of sufficient facilities to meet the need for the management of all unavoidable waste (excluding special waste) arising in Hampshire.

Having regard to Policy MW1(v), permission will be granted for:

(i) facilities for the re-use and recycling of waste, including the production of secondary and recycled aggregate materials;

(ii) facilities for composting, anaerobic digestion, incineration with energy recovery and other methods of resource recovery waste processing sufficient only to cater for unavoidable non-inert waste which is not re-used or recycled;

(iii) landfill capacity sufficient only for the disposal of unavoidable waste which is no re-used, recycled or processed; and

(iv) waste transfer stations to serve areas of local waste processing and disposal facility shortages;

provided that the development would not have unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact.

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

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.

New Forest District Local Plan First Alteration (August 2005)

Policy DW-E1

General development criteria

Development shall be appropriate and sympathetic in scale, appearance, materials,

form, siting and layout, and shall not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual

intrusion, overlooking, shading or other adverse impact on local amenities.

Developers shall have regard to:

(a) the scale and siting of the proposal in relation to adjoining development,

spaces, the character of the area and the wider landscape. This will involve consideration of height, massing and density, relationship to adjoining buildings and land uses and landscape features on and off site, and other potential impacts of the proposal on local amenities e.g. noise, light or other forms of pollution, including those arising from traffic generated by the development (see also Policy DW-E43, Section C6); and

(b) materials and built form in relation to the character of adjoining development, local vernacular and any historic features (see also Policies DW-E18 to DW-E29, Section C2).

Policy DW-E32

Strategic Gaps

The area of the Test Valley between Totton and the District boundary, and the areas between Totton and Marchwood, Marchwood and Hythe, and Hythe and Fawley, as identified on the proposals map, are designated as Strategic Gaps. Development will not normally be permitted within these gaps other than in accordance with policies in Parts D and E of this plan, and should not diminish Strategic Gaps either physically or visually.

Policy CO-E1

The countryside outside the New Forest

All areas outside the New Forest which are not included within a defined built-up

area, as shown on the proposals maps, are defined as countryside, within which

development will be strictly controlled in order to safeguard the character and

appearance of the countryside.