Contact: Julia Davey, ext 6732 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report considers an application for a partially retrospective extension to an existing concrete compound, construction of a fire access and working area (including reservoir), relocation of screen planting and construction of an opaque netting extension to proposed fencing at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield (Application No. 07/00714/HCS-WO5767/12).

1.2 The application is a departure from the development plan because it proposes a 2,465 square metre extension to an existing concrete vehicle storage yard into the countryside. The planting proposed would provide additional mitigation to help screen the cars currently stored on the site on vehicle racks up to six metres (four cars) high. A site visit for Members took place on 8 May 2007 and was attended by some local residents. Since the site meeting the revised plans presented at the site visit have been formally submitted. These propose a reduction in the width of the fire access track, further woodland planting to the east of the site and a reduction in vehicles stacked to the rear of the site from four to three high, until such time as the proposed planting is considered to have sufficiently matured. The applicant has also proposed the option of planting a temporary line of semi-mature leylandii to help screen the vehicles whilst the proposed native woodland is maturing.

2. Recommendation

That planning permission for part-retrospective extension of concrete compound (to mitigate against loss of approved compound area due to environmental buffer zone), construction of fire access and working area (including reservoir), relocation of screen planting and construction of opaque netting extension to fencing at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield be granted, subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1.

Reason for Approval

It is considered that although the proposal is not in accordance with the development plan (summary attached as Appendix 2), it would not, taking into account the proposed mitigation, 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. Background and Planning History

3.1 On 17 January 2005 Hampshire County Council granted planning permission for an Automotive Treatment Facility (ATF) and an extension to the vehicle storage area on the site (Application No. 04/02726/HCM-W05767/11). The permission included widening of the access, re-design of site layout and extension to the stacking area to the rear of the existing yard with associated woodland planting.

3.2 At the time the permission was granted, it was acknowledged that the vehicles to the rear would not be able to be screened fully until planting had matured. Alternative mitigation measures, such as the construction of artificial bunds and high screen fences were rejected in favour of increasing woodland to the rear and to the east of the site. It was considered that, once trees had started to mature, this approach would be of benefit to landscape and biodiversity and would appear more natural in the landscape.

3.3 The permission includes a condition requiring the heights of stacked vehicles to be submitted on a layout plan to the County Council for approval. The main purpose of this condition was to help control the visual impact of the stacked vehicles, but it was never intended that vehicles to the rear of the yard would be restricted to a height as low as two high. The applicant has submitted a height layout plan as required under Condition 6 of the current permission. In this submission the applicant has shown vehicles staked lower to the front of the yard with vehicles stacked four high to the rear. The plan is not yet approved as the acceptability of certain details are in dispute. In the light of the current application the matter is in abeyance.

3.4 Construction of the concrete yard to the rear of the site has commenced but complaints have been received from two local residents to the east of the site. These complaints relate to visual impact, particularly with regard to the stacked vehicles and concerns that the development is not being constructed in accordance with the permission:

(i) the yard area had extended beyond its permitted boundary;

(ii) an access track had been constructed;

(iii) planting has been undertaken in a location different from the permitted planting belt; and

(iv) the permitted planting had not yet been undertaken.

3.5 These complaints have been investigated, a survey undertaken of the development and legal advice sought. It was found that a small portion, approximately 165 square metres, of concrete pad in the north-east corner of the site had been constructed just over the permitted boundary. The legal advice was that it would not be appropriate to take any enforcement action in this instance because of the minor nature of the breach. Furthermore the track was deemed to be `permitted development', as it served an agricultural holding from a farm gate, and also temporary for the purposes of constructing the development. Whilst the semi-mature trees that had been planted were not in the position permitted by the planning permission, they are on land in the applicant's control and do not need planning permission. Finally, the permitted tree belt was still within the planting season time limit for implementation - November to April. The County Council was also advised by the applicant that he intended to submit a new application, which involved moving the tree belt. The new application was submitted in February 2007.

3.6 Prior to the previous application being determined, a trip was arranged as part of the ongoing Regulatory Committee Training Programme, for Members to see a similar facility on greenfield land in Daventry where vehicles are stacked four high, which enabled Members to appreciate the visual impact of such stacking, as well as the layout and the need for fire walls/gaps between the vehicles.

4. Site and Proposal

4.1 The existing site, as shown on the attached plan, extends across a total of 3.37 hectares of land north of the A334 Botley Road, Shedfield from which it gains access. The northern part of the site, with a new concrete base and fencing which currently holds vehicles on stacks - four cars high, extends across 1.2 hectares of land. The applicant's land ownership also extends to the east and north-east across an existing agricultural holding, managed by a local tenant farmer. To the west of the site, approximately three metres below the application site, lies a narrow stream valley of wet woodland. This land, up to the middle of the stream line from the western site boundary, is also owned by the applicant. To the north of the site,

beyond the arable fields, is Lyons Copse Meadows Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Beyond the wet woodland to the west is the private Lake Road. To the south, the site is bordered by the A334, beyond which are open fields with two houses at Raglington Farm to the south-east and a public footpath to the south-west.

4.2 The application site comprises a triangular area of land on the north-eastern boundary of the site (shown in black on the attached plan) which extends across approximately 2,465 square metres. It also comprises an existing track to the east of the site that is being used to service construction lorries completing the development, including the extended yard area.

4.3 There are a number of properties in the vicinity of the site. Three properties, owned (and tenanted) by the applicant, border the access and car park on either side of the site frontage. These are No.1 Row Ash Cottages to the east and Nos.1 and 2 Row Ash Bungalows to the west. No.2 Row Ash Cottages, which is not directly adjacent to the site, is privately owned.

4.4 Beyond Row Ash Cottages to the east of the site are six private properties accessed from Botley Road, the back gardens and rear elevations of which back onto the agricultural land in the applicant's ownership, and which look across at the fields behind, but also can view the stacked cars to the west.

4.5 To the west, on Lake Road, the nearest property is approximately 80 metres from the existing site boundary. To the south-east of the site, on the other side of Botley Road, are two houses at Raglington Farm and a public footpath to the south-west.

4.6 Some distance to the east is the Wickham vineyard that was subject to some landfill in the past to help improve the land for vine growing. Beyond this lie some public footpaths as shown on the attached location plan.

4.7 The site falls within the area once designated as the Royal Forest of Bere although the Forest of Bere Landscape Character Area does not cover the application site. The site lies within the Shedfield Heathland area of Winchester District Landscape Character Assessment, which describes the landscape as "Areas of assorted semi-natural ancient woodland" and "scattered small areas of woodland".

5. The Proposal

5.1 Planning permission is sought for:

(i) an extension - in part retrospective - to a concrete compound to mitigate against loss of the applicant's originally proposed compound;

(ii) construction of fire access and working area (including reservoir);

(iii) relocation of screen planting; and

(iv) construction of opaque netting extension to fencing at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield.

5.2 The applicant contends that as a result of the landscape stand-off required underneath the tree canopies on the western boundary he has been denied an area as was originally proposed of approximately 2,625 square metres for vehicle storage. The applicant proposes to replace this area on the eastern side of the site.

5.3 The applicant is also proposing an emergency fire access, in addition to the existing fire access gained through his main premises, because he states that new legislation requires him to address additional fire safety access. The applicant states that fire vehicles would require an 11 metre wide working area which allows vehicles to pass each other, as well as allowing for a fire vehicle to be stationed at right angles to the storage yard. The applicant is therefore proposing an 11 metre wide surface that is capable of taking 20 tonnes weight. This would necessitate its construction in reinforced concrete. The applicant adds that a line of bollards would be constructed separating the storage yard from the emergency fire area. The applicant states that the Fire Officer supports the proposals and a letter to this effect is attached to the application. The Fire Officer also supports an on-site water storage facility and the applicant has proposed a reservoir within the permitted woodland (yet to be planted) to the north of the site.

5.4 With regard to visual screening the applicant states he understands that the extended yard area, where vehicles are stacked to the rear, is causing concern to local residents, particularly to those living to the east of the site. He adds that the properties to the east are on higher ground and look down on the land sloping towards the site.

5.5 The applicant states that more vehicles are presently stored on the concrete area than would normally be the case to off-set yard area temporarily lost during current building operations. As a consequence of this the visual impact is greater than will actually be the case when the new building has been constructed and becomes operational, when the vehicles will be distributed more evenly about the available yard areas.

5.6 To try and help mitigate this impact the applicant proposes moving the location of the approved woodland belt to the eastern side of the proposed fire track, and planting some semi-mature trees to try and help accelerate screening of the yard. The applicant is also proposing that green opaque netting would be fixed to the top of the fencing along the landscape area to provide a fixed screen so residents cannot see the cars whilst the planting is maturing.

5.7 In addition the applicant proposes an optional temporary line of semi-mature leylandii along the eastern edge of the proposed native woodland tree belt, to provide a more instant screening effect for up to 5-10 years whilst the native planting would be maturing. The applicant adds this option could be controlled by way of a planning condition on any permission granted, to ensure its removal at a later date. The applicant states he is aware that the use of leylandii is not encouraged, but adds that as the site is industrial it would seem a practical consideration to ensure that any perceived impact from the yard area is mitigated quickly. It is proposed that if residents in Lake Road so require, he would construct the green netting to six metres high on the western boundary fencing, even though Lake Road is separated from the site by mature woodland.

5.8 The applicant highlights that the original planning application showed that vehicles would be stacked four high, whilst acknowledging that Condition 6 of the existing permission requires that a layout plan showing the varying heights of the stacked cars be submitted for approval. The applicant considers that with the additional proposed screening there should be no reason why four car high stacking on the extended yard area to the rear should not be allowed. Although if this continues to be a matter of contention then it may be possible to agree a compromise. However if the requirements were too restrictive, for example only two high, a further expansion of the storage area would be required.

5.9 The proposal is not an EIA Development under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999 and an environmental statement has not been submitted.

6. Development Plan

6.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996-2011 (Adopted March 2000) Policies MW1 and MW2 (hierarchy of waste and need for facility) apply.

6.2 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan (Adopted December 1998) - Policies 6 and 7 (general policies), Policy 46 (waste recycling) and Policies 48 and 50 (scrap yards) apply.

7. Consultations

7.1 The local Member, Councillor Felicity Hindson, states that she is very concerned about the visual impact which this development has already had on the landscape, made worse by the failure of the applicant to implement the conditions attached to his original consent. The approved planting has not been carried out in the designated area during the planting season, and so a whole season's growth of the trees, which are so vital to screen the area, has been lost and the visual impact of the site has not been mitigated at all.

7.2 Councillor Hindson states that she wants to see the implementation of conditions regarding the planting of the screen and its maintenance within a fixed time limit and would like to see stacking of only three cars high to lessen the impact on neighbours and the surrounding countryside, particularly until the screen is effective. She also favours the planting of more woodland in the adjoining field, thereby recreating some of the old Forest of Bere, of which this was once a part.

7.3 Councillor Hindson states that while accepting that some of the cars are awaiting the resolution of insurance claims, she would like to know whether the throughput from the existing site could be increased by use of a second crusher. She is also interested to know what, in fact, are the requirements of the Fire Officer; whether the emergency road has to be located at the side of the site, and if so whether it has to go along the whole length of the site. Councillor Hindson would also like a condition attached that it should only be used for emergencies and certainly not for normal access or parking.

7.4 Winchester City Council raises no objection to the proposal provided the comments of the County Council's landscape officer are taken into account and conditions imposed requiring appropriate landscaping to be undertaken and thereafter retained and managed. These comments are:

(i) information required on surface treatment of land lost to tree protection zone to west (Area Z);

(ii) query need for line of conifers as may impact on growth of adjoining woodland buffer;

(iii) need for a management plan;

(iv) new planting to be carried out in next planting season; and

(v) tree officer may need to comment on protected trees on western boundary and in western woodland by stream.

7.5 The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the application subject to a control of hours of working condition.

7.6 The Environment Agency raises no objection in principle to the development.

7.7 Shedfield Parish Council requests that a site visit be undertaken and raises concerns about emissions of waste products leaching into the existing stream. It also questions whether it is constructed in accordance with the planning permission and raises concerns about visual impact.

7.8 The Highways Adviser raises no objection subject to a condition restricting the use of the fire access track for emergency fire use only. In relation to objections received about increased traffic accessing the site, the Highways Adviser states the current planning application in highway terms is only for an emergency access and therefore this is what should be commented on with regards to the current application. With reference to the previous application for the ATF, the developer proposed to improve the site access in terms of visibility, junction radii and on-site turning space. As such it was considered that the Highway Authority would be unable to defend a reason for refusal based on the junction arrangements. Further to this the County Council has just implemented a road safety improvement scheme in the vicinity of the site access. The scheme sought to improve the road surface by laying anti-skid surfacing and improving awareness of the road alignment through enhanced signing and lining.

8. Representations

8.1 As of 9 May 2007 there have been 19 letters of objection to the proposal. Five objectors live on Botley Road, three live on Kitnocks Hill, one lives on Lake Road to the west of the site and seven others live in the locality of Shedfield and Curdridge. One lives in Hedge End, and a letter has been received from the South Hampshire Pony and Horse Protection Group and the Mid-Hampshire Group of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The main reasons for objection are highway safety, departure from the Development Plan, visual impact, the impact on local amenities, particularly by way of noise from the site and traffic, site security, lack of monitoring/enforcement and the need to revoke/revise permission because residents consider that the applicant is breaching existing permission. The issue of site security relates to some residents worrying that people are entering the site during normal hours and throwing parts over the fence to be collected later in the adjoining woodlands, although no factual evidence has been provided of this.

8.2 One letter has been received from a resident living very close to the site's eastern boundary on Botley Road, who does not object to the application provided that an adequate evergreen tree screen is provided, such as the applicant's proposal for planting a four metre high screen of leylandii for a temporary period. This neighbour states that if this is not possible then the stacking height should be reduced to two cars. This resident also states that the netting proposed would be more acceptable than looking at the cars but is concerned it would not withstand strong winds.

9. Report of Site Visit

9.1 Committee Members Councillors Carol Boulton, Cartwright, Cooper, James and Price, with Councillor Hockley in the chair, undertook a site visit on 8 May 2007. Councillor Felicity Hindson, as Local Member, was able to attend and expressed concerns about implications for Wickham Vineyard and the nature conservation area. Members also met the applicant, agent, representatives of Curdridge Parish Council, The Shedfield Society, Lake Road Residents' Association and local residents.

9.2 Councillors Huxstep and Ruffell from Winchester City Council represented Shedfield and Curdridge. Winchester City Council had raised no objection to the proposals provided that appropriate landscaping was planted and maintained.

9.3 The Chief Planning Adviser introduced and outlined the key features of the application for a part-retrospective extension of the concrete compound, construction of a fire access and working area, relocation of screen planting and construction of opaque netting extension to fencing at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield. Members viewed the site and walked through the tenant farmer's field to view the site from the top of the hill, adjacent to a resident's house.

9.4 Letters of objections had been received from local residents raising issues of visual impact and landscaping. Although local residents felt that the existing landscaping had helped to screen the stacks of cars, concerns were expressed about the height of the vehicles, especially at four high, and planning permission conditions not being adhered to and asked for reassurance that the conditions would be applied.

9.5 Detailed plans were displayed and Members noted the extent of the new proposals. Members were advised that Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service had suggested amendments so that the pond or reservoir could be located at the entrance to the site out of the line of the south westerly winds which would carry smoke to the north in the case of a fire. However the applicant had stated that a pond at the front would have to be filled artificially rather than one at the rear which could be filled naturally and so was not such a suitable location. The Service had otherwise given agreement to the County Council of the amended plans including the reduction in the width of the haul road and the passing bays.

9.6 The applicant indicated to Members, by pegs and flags, the eastern edge of the proposed track for emergency fire vehicles, and the eastern edge of the concrete hardstanding together with the woodland planting approximately 30 metres beyond the track. He had also erected a temporary green opaque netting screen at the front of several stacks of cars, to illustrate how the cars could be screened to six metres high whilst the planting matured.

9.7 Members asked for a landscape officer to be present at the Regulatory Committee meeting to answer any questions regarding types of planting.

9.8 Members raised questions about the levels of the site - details to be reported to the Regulatory Committee on 23 May. They also felt that the hedgerow planting should be strengthened with significant planting.

9.9 Local residents at the site visit said they were not against the ATF and that the applicant did an important job, but were concerned about the visual impact. They pointed out to Members some conifers that the applicant had planted five years ago and remarked how effective they were. They expressed the view they would prefer leylandii to the camouflage netting.

10. Amendments to Application

10.1 Since the site visit the applicant has formally submitted amended plans reflecting the changes presented at the site visit, notably:

(i) increasing the depth of native woodland planting to the east of the site so the depth averages between 15 and 30 metres;

(ii) reducing the fire access track to 5.5 metres with three passing bays in case there is a need for emergency vehicles to pass each other in case of fire;

(iii) the provision of woodland screening to the southern field boundary due east of the agricultural gated access and north of the A334, Botley Road; and

(iv) the reduction of vehicles to the north of the existing and proposed yard extension to three cars high until such time as the trees mature sufficiently to allow adequate screening. The applicant suggests this could be controlled by way of a planning condition attached to any permission that may be granted.

11. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

11.1 The application is a departure from the development plan because it proposes an extension to the existing concrete vehicle storage area into land identified as countryside in the Winchester District Local Plan. Nevertheless, every planning application should be considered on its merits and the issue is whether the merits of the application warrant overriding the policy presumption against development in the countryside.

11.2 The main issues raised by the proposal are:

(i) need for the development;

(ii) visual impact;

(iii) amenity impact; and

(iv) traffic impact.

Need

11.3 The End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Regulations require all end of life vehicles, including abandoned vehicles, to be processed and de-polluted at an Automotive Treatment Facility (ATF). It is essential that there is an adequate network of ATFs within Hampshire to ensure that local residents and district authorities do not have to travel unreasonably long distances to dispose of vehicles. The application site is in a central position in the south of the county and there are no ATFs in the immediate vicinity. The nearest registered ELV centres are based in Portsmouth, Southampton and

Winchester. There is a local and regional need to provide ELV facilities to ensure that the Regulations are met and permission was granted for the new ATF and extension to the storage area as a part departure at this site in January 2005.

11.4 The applicant states he needs the additional 2,456 square metres to compensate for the area required as a landscape buffer on the north-western site boundary. This on the face of it appears reasonable; the issue is whether the need warrants a departure from policy and outweighs any adverse environmental impact.

Visual Impact

11.5 The current permission secured a 15 metre belt of native woodland planting to the east of the development, woodland planting to the north and a management plan for woodland to the west. None of the planting approved by way of the current permission has yet been undertaken; the development is still under construction and the cars stacked four high to the rear are viewed in a raw state with no screening from the east at all.

11.6 The applicant is proposing three methods of screening, notably additional mass native deciduous planting to the east, opaque camouflage netting to six metres high (as viewed at the site visit), and also the option of planting leylandii as a fast growing conifer screen in a line due east of the proposed fire track. The applicant has also, since the site visit, suggested planting clumps of leylandii within the proposed woodland belt to the east if the County Council considers this to be more acceptable than a line of leylandii. He has also proposed that the car stack heights be reduced for a temporary period to three high (approximately 4.5 metres high).

11.7 The use of leylandii as permanent landscape screen is not normally supported as they are a non-native species and often are an intrusive element in the landscape. However, they could have a legitimate short-term screening function if they were planted in accordance with the following specification:

(i) Any leylandii planted should be no higher than six feet to be sure that they would establish well.

(ii) Leylandii should be planted at approximately 1.5 metre intervals at 1.5 metres away from the track edge to allow for growth and 3 metres from the adjacent deciduous woodland planting. They should be trimmed regularly once they reach 6 metres high to ensure they grow no higher than 6 metres until such time as the deciduous planting has formed a thick enough screen to enable the leylandii to be felled.

11.8 In addition the woodland screen should be planted with: ash, alder, birch, field maple, hornbeam, oak (all 150-180 centimetres high at 6 metre spacing) and Scots Pine (60-90 centimetres high at 6 metre spacing) with an under planting of dogwood, holly, hazel, hawthorn, goat and crack willow (90-120 centimetres high with 1.5 metre spacing). It is considered that whilst the willows will grow very quickly the native woodland screen itself would be most effective in around 7-10 years. It would be crucial to secure a detailed planting, maintenance and aftercare schedule to ensure that the trees have every chance of survival with a healthy growth rate.

11.9 Local residents at the site visit expressed support for the principle of the much needed service that the ATF provides but are very concerned about the visual impact and would like the car stacks to the rear lowered and/or leylandii or similar fast growing conifers planted.

11.10 It is noted with relation to visual screening that the applicant has amended his proposal to lower the stacks of cars to the rear to three high until such time as the planting has sufficiently matured, after which time he would like the cars to be stacked four high. This amendment would mean that the netting fence extension need not be six metres high and could be constructed at five metres high. The lowering of the car stacks would also benefit long distance views of the site to the east from the A334 and the Wickham Vineyard nature conservation area, which supports some permissive footpaths. The other advantage of this approach would be that the site would be screened immediately.

11.11 To summarise on this issue of visual impact, the combination of the netting and the woodland screening to the east or the combination of leylandii and the woodland screening to the east would both effectively screen the cars stacked in the yard. However, the leylandii would reach six metres in approximately three to four years, but the netting would provide an instant screen. On balance the use of a temporary screen with the extensive native species planting without leylandii is the preferable option and conditions about implementation, maintenance and de-commissioning of the screen are recommended.

Amenity Impacts

11.12 Aside from the issue of visual amenity impacts dealt with above, objections have been received on grounds of noise caused by increased traffic to and from the site and an understanding that undesirable people are being attracted to the site and its surroundings with the sole purpose of stealing from the premises. It is noted that the Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal for this extension and that the County Council, until receiving these noise objections concurrent with the application, has no record of any complaint relating to noise from the site operations or associated traffic. Implementation of the existing permission is still ongoing and a new building is to be constructed so there will be construction vehicles continuing to access the site and the additional noise created by this for a temporary period.

11.13 The applicant has acknowledged that more vehicles are being imported to the site for parts and clearance once the necessary insurance procedures have been completed than were three to four years ago. However, the applicant states that traffic movements to the site have not increased because the same articulated vehicles and car transporters that used to bring in a few vehicles are now entering the site with a full load. Based on this information, it is recommended that a refusal on noise grounds could not justifiably be sustained.

11.14 The issue of site security is a civil matter to be addressed between the residents and the applicant or the local police if this is considered appropriate.

Traffic Impact

11.15 Objections have been received as mentioned above about the impact of increased vehicles accessing the site along the local road network. The Highways Adviser has been made aware of these objections but states that he has no objections to the current proposal and that the applicant has implemented the new access as part of his existing permission. He adds that highway improvements have also taken place on the A334. It is noted that the applicant states that fewer lorry movements are generated each day than 12 months ago and that lorries are going out fully laden with eight vehicles rather than just one or two. In view of the Highway Adviser's comments it is considered that there is no valid planning reason to object to the proposal on highway grounds.

12. Conclusion

12.1 Taking all matters into account, it is considered that there are merits to the proposal in terms both of landscape mitigation and health and safety protection to local residents and the environment, through the provision of an additional fire access to the side of the existing facility.

12.2 In reaching this conclusion decisions need to be made on the best landscape option from those put forward for screening purposes. There are advantages and disadvantages to all options. However, whilst local residents have expressed the preference for woodland planting, lower stacked cars and the leylandii as a temporary screen, a judgement has been made that the combination of woodland planting, camouflage netting and lower car stacks (as proposed by the applicant of three high for a temporary period) be adopted. This judgement has also been facilitated by the desire not to set a precedent for the use of leylandii as a means of screening.

1359/JD

APPENDIX 1

Conditions

Timing

(1) Within four months of the date of this certificate or by 30 September 2007, whichever is the later, the development shall have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority in accordance with the revised Plan No. S/2114:50b: May 2007 and the details approved under conditions below.

Reason: To ensure that any adverse temporary visual impact of the automotive treatment facility and its external car storage yard is reduced as quickly and as sensitively as possible taking into account the landscape character of the area and the amenities of local residents.

(2) By 31 December 2007 all planting and deer and rabbit proof fencing approved by way of this permission and any planting required by way of Permission No. 04/02726/HCM W05767/11 shall have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority in accordance with details approved under conditions below.

Reason: To ensure that any adverse temporary visual impact of the automotive treatment facility and its external car storage yard is reduced as quickly and as sensitively as possible taking into account the landscape character of the area and the amenities of local residents.

Pre-construction

(3) Within four weeks of the date of this certificate, details of the surfacing and maintenance of the fire track shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval and thereafter implemented in accordance with that approval. The surfacing should be capable of supporting a gross weight of 26 tonnes.

Reason: To ensure the track is fit for emergency vehicles without jeopardising the interests of the rural character of the area.

(4) Within four weeks of the date of this certificate, details of the precise location to the east of the fire track and specification for the security fence with camouflage netting to be constructed to a height of five metres above existing ground level, together with precise location and detail of accompanying security gate shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing and thereafter implemented in accordance with that approval. The details shall include a cross-section as well as a plan of the fencing to show the precise location in relation to the fire track.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities and the rural character of the area.

(5) No laying of concrete relating to the construction of the concrete yard extension with bollards along its eastern boundary shall take place until the alignment of the eastern edge of the concrete extension area has been marked out on site and approved by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the concrete yard area as approved under Permission No. 04/02726/HCM W05767/11 and this permission is implemented in accordance with these approvals.

(6) No construction of the fire access track, passing bays and turning area shall take place until it has been marked out on site to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority and all pre-construction conditions detailed by way of the permission have been discharged by the Waste Planning Authority. The fire access track itself shall narrow between the car stacking area subject of this permission and where it abuts the public footpath at its junction with the A334 to the south. The detail of the width of the track, its passing points along its length and its alignment between the road and the car stacking area (to ensure the cars cannot be viewed from the public highway) shall be agreed by way of a plan to be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing within four weeks of the date of this permission and shall be thereafter implemented as approved. The plan should propose additional planting to screen the cars when viewed from the public highway and adjacent footpath.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area to ensure that the track is no wider than absolutely necessary, particularly where it abuts the A334 where it should appear as an agricultural track with a standard wooden agricultural field gate when viewed from the adjacent public footpath.

Height of Stacked Vehicles

(7) Vehicles stacked on the rear yard extension area approved by way of Permission No. 04/02726/HCM W05767/11 and this permission shall not exceed three cars high or 4.5 metres above ground level until the fifth annual aftercare meeting of the woodland planting, which shall be attended by the Waste Planning Authority and the applicant/landowner unless otherwise agreed by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate time has lapsed for the screen planting to take effect.

(8) The five metre high netting shall be maintained and kept in good repair until the period of aftercare as detailed in Condition (7) above is completed, then reduced to the height of the approved three metre security fence.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities.

Planting

(9) By 31 December 2007 the woodland screen illustrated on Plan No. S/2114:50b shall be planted with the following species and shall be appropriately staked and protected from rabbits and deer in accordance with details approved by way of this permission:

Ash - 150-180 centimetres high @ 6 metres spacing

Alder - 150-180 centimetres high @ 6 metres spacing

Birch - 150-180 centimetres high @ 6 metres spacing

Field Maple - 150-180 centimetres high @ 6 metres spacing

Hornbeam - 150-180 centimetres high @ 6 metres spacing

Oak - 150-180 centimetres high @ 6 metres spacing

Scots Pine - 60-90 centimetres high @ 6 metres spacing

Under storey - dogwood, holly, hazel, goat and crack willow all 90-120 centimetres high with 1.5 metres spacing.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities and the landscape character of the area.

(10) The trees and shrub beds for the woodland screen shall be prepared and managed for a period of five years of aftercare after full planting has taken place in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Waste Planning Authority by 31 July 2007. The scheme shall provide for an

annual aftercare meeting with the Waste Planning Authority and shall be implemented as approved. The land shall be prepared and planting shall be undertaken and managed in accordance with this scheme. The scheme shall specify that an appropriately qualified horticultural company shall be engaged for the purpose of bed preparation, planting and future maintenance.

Reason: To ensure that the trees and shrubs stand the best possible chance of survival and healthy growth in the interests of local amenities.

(11) No planting shall take place until deer and rabbit proof fencing has been implemented in accordance with approved details to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To give the trees and plants the best possible chance of survival with a healthy growth rate in the interests of local amenities.

(12) 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 local amenities and the landscape character of the area.

Construction

(13) No work relating to the construction of the development approved, including works of preparation prior to operations, the delivery of construction materials, skips or machinery, nor the removal of waste materials, shall take place before 0800 or after 1800 Monday to Friday inclusive, before 0800 or after 1400 on Saturday and not at all on Sunday or recognised public holidays, unless otherwise agreed beforehand in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties.

(14) All traffic related to the construction of the development shall ensure its wheels are thoroughly cleaned of mud before accessing onto the public footpath and A334 public highway. Appropriate signs shall be erected at the site entrance warning drivers and pedestrians of the related construction traffic.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Use of Fire Access Track

(15) Once implemented the fire access track and the access onto the A334 approved by way of this permission shall be used for the purposes of fire or other emergency access in the event of a fire or related emergency only. At no time shall it be used for any other purpose, including the stacking or parking of scrap cars or visitors or staff cars or for the storage of any other material. It shall remain clear at all times unless it is being used for the purposes of dealing with an emergency by the police, fire or ambulance services.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and local amenities.

Agricultural Land

(16) Within four weeks of the date of this permission the applicant shall specify if the proposed emergency fire access is to be used by the tenant farmer to access the field to the east of the site. If this is to be the case the plan to be submitted under Condition (6) should show where the farmer is to access this field off the emergency track and this detail can be submitted for approval by the Waste Planning Authority and thereafter implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of the need to manage the farmland and local amenities should any widening or shrub clearance be necessary.

(17) Any agricultural land disturbed during the implementation of the development and associated planting shall be restored back to its original condition. impacts should be minimised to the adjacent field and traffic prevented from unnecessarily running across it.

Reason: To protect the arable land to the east of the site.

Lighting

(18) There shall be no external lighting on the site subject of this permission and the existing premises and storage yard permitted under Permission 04/02726/HCM W05767/11 unless otherwise approved in writing through the submission of a scheme to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to any implementation, or unless otherwise approved through Permission 04/02726/HCM W05767/11.

Reason: In the interests of visual highway safety.

Hours of Working

(19) That part of the site (Areas A, B and C shown on Plan No. S/2114:50 Rev B March 2007) to be used for an additional car stacking area on concrete hardstanding shall be used for the purposes of stacking vehicles on racks only and for no other purpose. No vehicle lifting machinery shall be operated on this car stacking area except between the hours of 0730 and 1800 Monday to Friday, 0730 and 1700 hours on Saturday and 0930 and 1300 hours on Sunday. There shall be no activity of any sort taking place on public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenities.

APPENDIX 2

Annexe to Reasons for Conditions

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

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

__________________________________________________________________

Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) 2000

Policy MW1

Planning authorities will, through policies and proposals in local plans and day-to day development control:

(i) seek to ensure an adequate supply of minerals and provision of waste management facilities to meet needs having regard to the need to: maintain the environmental quality and diversity of Hampshire, including the protection of living conditions; safeguard important socio-economic interests; prevent pollution; and protect features of particular environmental or historical importance including those listed in Policy MW3, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation and historic parks and gardens;

(ii) seek environmental enhancement and public benefits through minerals and waste development;

(iii) conserve and prevent unnecessary sterilisation of mineral resources and encourage efficient use of materials;

(iv) encourage the use of secondary and recycled aggregate materials; and

(v) seek the management of waste in accordance with the following hierarchy;

1. reduction of waste;

2. re-use of waste;

3. recovery of waste (recycling, composting, energy from waste);

and

4. waste disposal;

having regard to the proximity principle and the principle of best practical environmental option.

Policy MW2

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

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

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

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

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.

Policy 48

Any proposals to extend or increase the capacity of the existing special waste treatment and incineration plant at Charleston Road, Fawley will be considered against the national and regional need for special waste treatment and incineration facilities and the environmental and safety implications of the proposed development.

Policy 50

The Waste Planning Authorities will grant planning permission for the handling, transfer or dismantling of scrap vehicles or other scrap metal provided they are satisfied that the development will be carried out on land which is permitted or allocated for general industrial use and that the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact.