Contact: Neil Chester, ext 6496 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for a facility for the production of recycled aggregates and other recycled materials at Four Dell Farm, Poles Lane, Otterbourne. There is a considerable need for construction and demolition waste recycling facilities in Hampshire and it has been demonstrated that the site could be operated without significant environmental impact. However, the proposal does not accord with policy and is likely to have an adverse impact on highway safety. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

2. Recommendation

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons.

Reasons for Refusal

(1) the proposal is contrary to Policy 46(iii) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (1998) and emerging Policy DC13 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - `core' Strategy as it is not located on previously developed land within the countryside or in a redundant farm building or its curtilage; and

(2) the proposal is contrary to Policies 6(ii) and 7(ii) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (1998) as it is likely to have an adverse impact on highway safety and convenience due to inadequate visibility splays at the junction between the access road and the highway.

3. Site and Proposal

3.1 The application site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises an area of 0.56 hectares of hardstanding at Four Dell Farm, Poles Lane, Otterbourne. The site is in a rural location within the countryside. To the north and east of the site are open fields. To the south is a belt of mature trees with fields beyond. Immediately to the west of the site is a farm complex, including several agricultural buildings and further hardstanding. The site is accessed from Poles Lane via an existing haul road.

3.2 The proposal is for a construction and demolition waste recycling facility, including screening of soils and crushing of concrete and rubble primarily arising from the applicant's skip hire business. Waste material will be imported, discharged onto a reception area and pre-sorted prior to processing. The proposal is to import up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum. Approximately 60% of the throughput will be recycled to produce a secondary aggregate. Any metal, wood or cardboard found in the skip waste would be stored in designated containers before being exported to a suitably licensed waste facility.

3.3 It is proposed to use a mobile crusher four times a year for a period of two weeks on each occasion (ie eight weeks in total per annum). The screening plant would be used approximately two days per week. The proposed hours of operation are between 0700 and 1700 Monday to Friday and from 0700 to 1300 on Saturday. There will be no operations on Sunday or public holidays. It is proposed to restrict crushing and screening operations to between 0800 and 1700 Monday to Friday.

3.4 The proposal will generate up to 36 lorry movements per day (18 in and 18 out). The majority of vehicles (70%) will travel through Otterbourne with the remaining vehicles (30%) travelling through Hursley.

4. Planning History

4.1 Winchester City Council granted planning permissions in 2005 (Application No. 04/02560/FUL) and 2007 (Application No. 06/02429/FUL) to change the of use of several agricultural buildings to general industrial use (B2 and B8). These permissions are not restricted in terms of lorry movements or hours of operation. However, the 2005 permission required an improvement to the visibility splays at the access onto Poles Lane. These improvements have been implemented. The industrial permissions also precluded outside storage.

4.2 The lawful use of the application site is unclear. There is no evidence that the hardstanding has an industrial permission and is therefore agricultural land.

5. Development Plan

5.1 The Hampshire County Structure Plan Policy MW6 concerns waste transfer and recycling.

5.2 The Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policies 6 and 7 concerns environmental impacts; Policy 46 concerns waste transfer and recycling.

5.3 The Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework - `core' Strategy (adopted for submission to the Secretary of State May 2006) Policy DC13 concerns waste management and recycling.

6. Consultations

6.1 Compton and Shawford Parish Council objects to the proposal as it is considered wholly unsuitable for this countryside location. It is contrary to the countryside policies of the Adopted Winchester District Local Plan; the proposal will have an adverse visual impact; conflicts with the existing industrial permissions at Four Dell Farm; and will have an adverse highways impact.

6.2 Otterbourne Parish Council (adjacent Parish) objects to the proposal because of the environmental, noise and traffic flow and safety impacts. The Parish Council considers that the village already accommodates significant traffic from the Veolia site and significant noise from the M3 motorway and the Southampton Airport flight path.

6.3 Winchester City Council objects to the proposal as contrary to the adopted Local Plan. because it considered it would have a detrimental impact on the countryside, would result in an unacceptable visual intrusion and would result in the loss of the good quality agricultural land.

6.4 The Environmental Health Officer (EHO)(Winchester City Council) raises no objections subject to conditions to attenuate the noise impact from the proposal.

6.5 The Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal. The proposal would require a Waste Management Licence.

6.6 The Highways Adviser objects to the proposal as the visibility splays at the junction between the site access and the public highway are inadequate for the proposed use and therefore would cause danger and inconvenience to other users of the highway.

6.7 The local Member, Councillor Mrs Bailey, objects to the proposal for the following reasons:

(i) noise and dust from the development itself and from the lorries travelling through the villages;

(ii) impact on the local highway network;

(iii) safety near Otterbourne school;

(iv) inappropriate development in the countryside; and

(v) cumulative impact and `creeping' industrialisation of the farm.

7. Representations

7.1 There have been 179 letters of objection to the proposal and two letters of support. The main reasons for objection are that the proposal will:

(i) give rise to an adverse traffic impact;

(ii) create an adverse noise impact;

(iii) create an adverse dust impact; and

(iv) further industrialisation in the countryside.

8. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

8.1 The site comprises an area of agricultural hardstanding. The application plans do not adequately demonstrate that the site is wholly within the area of hardstanding, although it has been confirmed that this is the intention. Aerial photographs show that there was no hardstanding in this area in 2002 and only approximately half of the current application site was laid to hardstanding in 2005. The current extent of the hardstanding was first observed during a site visit in March 2006.

8.2 Policy 46 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan states that permission will normally be granted for waste transfer and recycling facilities "within an area of land in the countryside that has already been disturbed by permanent development". Agricultural buildings and their curtilages are usually excluded from this definition as clarified by definitions of `brown land' in PPS3 `Housing'.

8.3 However, Policy DC13 of the emerging Minerals and Waste Development Framework - `core' Strategy states that waste management developments will normally be granted planning permission provided that the site "re-uses or redevelops ... redundant agricultural ... buildings (and their curtilages)." The adoption of the `core' Strategy is likely to occur within the next three months. It moreover reflects guidance and policy in PPS10 `Planning for Sustainable Waste Management' and the Regional Spatial Strategy - RPG9 `Waste and Minerals'. In these circumstances, it should be given significant weight. Therefore, the key policy issues are (i) whether the land is part of the curtilage of the agricultural buildings and (ii) whether the hardstanding is redundant in agricultural terms.

8.4 Although the hardstanding was constructed later than the agricultural buildings it is claimed that it had an agricultural use. It is reasonable to conclude therefore, that the land forms part of the farm yard and therefore falls within the general curtilage of the farm buildings.

8.5 Aerial photography shows that the hardstanding was constructed in late 2005 or early 2006. The applicant claims that the hardstanding is now redundant in agricultural terms. However, it is considered that there is insufficient evidence to make this conclusion. Therefore, the proposal does not accord with Policy DC13 of the emerging Strategy.

8.6 The Highways Adviser raises objection to the proposal because of the inadequate visibility splays at the junction between the access road and the highway. It is considered these inadequate splays will result in danger and inconvenience to other users of Poles Lane. It is noted that Winchester City Council granted planning permission subject to improved visibility standards and that these standards have been met. However, the Highways Adviser maintains that the correct standards are more stringent and should be applied in this case. Therefore, planning permission should be refused on these grounds.

8.7 There are local objections that the proposal will generate 36 lorry movements per day on an already busy road network in Otterbourne. This concern is noted. However, the Highways Adviser has stated that the local highway network has more than adequate capacity to accommodate the additional lorry movements. However, if permission is granted it is reasonable to restrict the number of lorry movements to and from the site to 36 per day to prevent any significant increase in movements over time.

8.8 There is considerable local concern that the proposal will give rise to an adverse noise impact. According to local residents the background noise levels in the area are dominated by the M3 motorway and the Southampton Airport flight path but the impact is very dependant on wind direction. In response to local concern the applicant arranged for a concrete crusher to be brought to the site and operated for the day, whilst noise monitoring was undertaken by both the applicant and the local community. The EHO was also present and witnessed the noise impact at various locations in the area.

8.9 The local community's noise assessment concluded that, given certain wind conditions, there is likely to be "a noticeable loss of amenity" at several local properties and that complaints are likely at the bungalow on Four Dell Farm. The applicant's noise assessment concluded that the proposal would be acceptable in noise terms and is unlikely to give rise to complaint. The independent view of the EHO has been sought. The EHO raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. This view was based on all of the available noise reports and a subjective assessment carried out when the crusher was on site.

8.10 There is also local concern that the proposal will have an unacceptable dust impact. It is proposed to surface the access road and the hardstanding, which will reduce any dust creation. Furthermore, the crusher and screener can be sprayed with a mist of water to prevent dust creation. It considered that the dust issue can be satisfactorily controlled by planning condition.

8.11 The proposal is located in the countryside and local residents and Winchester City Council consider that it will have an impact on visual amenity and does not provide for adequate landscaping. The principle of additional landscaping, including erection of an earth bund and tree planting, has been agreed. Although the proposal will be partially visible from Shepherds Lane to the north, it is considered that satisfactory landscaping can be achieved and any impact will be marginal.

8.12 The proposal is not without merit. There is a considerable need for construction and demolition waste recycling facilities in Hampshire and it has been demonstrated that the site could be operated without significant environmental impact. However, the proposal does not accord with policy and is likely to have an adverse impact on highway safety. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

1355/NC

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 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 6

Permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided the Mineral/Waste Planning Authority is satisfied that:

(i) there is a clearly established need for the development (as assessed in relation to the other relevant policies of the Plan) which outweighs any adverse environmental or other impact that the development would be likely to cause; and

(ii) the development would not be likely to give rise to an unacceptable level of adverse environmental, traffic or other impact, pollution risk or danger to public health, particularly in respect of any of the factors specified in Policy 7 and measures would be taken to ensure that any such impacts would, as far as is practicable, be minimised; and

(iii) the proposals provide for the satisfactory working or operation and landscaping of the site and for its satisfactory restoration and landscaping at the cessation of the operations or use or at the end of the life of the facility to a condition suitable for an agreed beneficial after-use which is compatible with adjoining land uses and the planning policies for the area.

Notwithstanding any need there may be for waste disposal, permission will not normally be granted for mineral extraction with restoration by infilling with waste materials unless there is a need for the mineral to be extracted.

Policy 7

The Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for minerals and waste development provided they are satisfied that, where appropriate, the proposed development pays due regard to:

(i) the relationship of the proposal site to other properties and land uses (particularly residential and other environmentally sensitive properties) and the likely effects of the proposed development on the locality by reason of noise, dust, smoke, fumes, illumination or any other factor and the need for buffer zones between the development and residential and other properties;

(ii) the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected, in terms of highway capacity and safety and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements required could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact;

(iii) the likely visual impact of the proposed development and the need for additional planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development;

(iv) the need to safeguard the character and amenities of individual settlements and to safeguard open gaps between settlements from permanent development which would cause long-term harm to the function of the land;

(v) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to protect and safeguard sites of nature conservation, geological, archaeological, historic, architectural and landscape importance and their settings;

(vi) the extent and quality of agricultural land to be taken by the proposed development and the proposals for its subsequent restoration and the likely effects of the proposals on farm structure and management;

(vii) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to maintain the distinctive character of the landscape; the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard and protect individual species, habitats and landscape features, including woodland, trees and hedgerows; and the likely effects of the proposed development on forestry and woodland management;

(viii) the likely effects of the proposed development on sites used for recreation and public rights of way and the need to protect or secure the satisfactory diversion of public rights of way;

(ix) the likely effects of the proposed development on and the need to safeguard the flow and quality of watercourses, water supplies, floodplains, groundwater, the drainage of the site and adjoining land and the level of the water table in the locality and the likely effects of the proposed development on the immediate setting of any river;

(x) any potential danger to aircraft from birds being attracted to the site;

(xi) the possible amenity implications of any landfill gas that might be generated at the site and of any provisions that might need to be made to deal with it; and

(xii) the likely cumulative impact of the proposed development in combination with any other significant development taking place or permitted to take place in the locality and the need to minimise the impact of mineral extraction and waste disposal operations by securing, where appropriate, the phased release of sites and progression of working and restoration.

Policy 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.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Policy DC13

Waste management developments (excluding landfill) will be permitted provided that the site:

a. Is identified as a site, or within an area suitable for waste management uses, in the Hampshire Waste Management Plan, or

b. Re-uses/redevelops previously developed land and/or redundant agricultural and forestry buildings (including their curtilages), or

c. Is within a planned area of large-scale development, or

d. Is on employment land, preferably co-located with complementary activities, and

e. Has good access to, the minerals and waste lorry route as shown on the Key Diagram, and where possible, the site enables the use of waterborne and rail freight, and

f. In the case of recovery and treatment sites, incoming waste shall be subject to pre-treatment, either on or off site to maximise the potential for recycling, and where technically possible, energy will be generated and used and the by-products, including heat, will be reused or recycled, and

g. In the case of sites providing public access, the site shall be accessible for use by disabled people.