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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for an agricultural improvement by infilling with inert wastes at Raglington Farm Estate, Botley Road, Shedfield (Application No. 07/01242/HCS).

1.2 There is local concern that the proposal will give rise to noise and dust impacts, result in the deposition of mud and debris on the highway and that there has already been considerable landfill development in the area. The Environmental Health Officer and Highways Authority raise no objections to the proposal.

1.3 The proposal is contrary to Policy MW7 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and Policy S6 of the Hampshire Core Strategy because the circumstances and criteria for the acceptable use of non-recyclable inert waste in landraising has not been adequately met. Furthermore, the agricultural justification for the proposal is questionable. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

2. Recommendation

That planning permission for agricultural improvement by infilling with inert wastes at Raglington Farm Estate, Botley Road, Shedfield (Application No. 07/01242/HCS) (County Council Ref: WR105) be refused for the following reasons.

Reasons for Refusal

(1) The proposal is contrary to Policy MW7 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) and Policy S6 of the Hampshire, Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DP D because the circumstances and criteria for the acceptable use of non-recyclable inert waste in landraising has not been adequately met.

(2) The proposal is contrary to Policy MW7 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Review) and Policy DC14 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy D P D as it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the ecology of the area.

3. Site and Proposal

3.1 The application site, as shown on the attached plan, comprises an area of approximately 4.1 hectares of agricultural land at the Raglington Farm Estate, near Shedfield. The land is relatively flat and is subject to waterlogging.

3.2 There are arable fields immediately to the south and west of the site. To the east lies a woodland Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). There is a thin belt of trees to the north. The nearest houses, Hall Court, are approximately 200 metres from the western boundary of the site.

3.3 The proposal is to import 59,000 cubic metres of inert waste to improve drainage at the site and thus achieve an agricultural improvement. It is proposed to strip and temporarily stockpile the topsoil at the southern boundary of the site. The stockpiled material will be replaced on completion of the works. The levels across the site will be raised by a maximum of five metres and it is anticipated that the resulting landform will drain towards two new perimeter ditches. It is anticipated that the land will be improved from Agricultural Land Classification 4 to 3b. The proposal is to complete operation within one year.

3.4 The proposed hours of operation are between 0800 to 1800 from Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 on Saturday. It is not proposed to operate the site on Sunday or bank holidays.

3.5 Access to the site is from Botley Road (A334) via an existing haul road. The proposal will create a maximum of 36 vehicle movements per day.

4. Planning History

4.1 In 1991 planning permission was granted at Raglington Farm (adjacent to the application site) for the re-contouring and restoration of agricultural land to achieve an agricultural improvement. In the early 1990s land at the Wickham Vineyard to the west of Raglington Farm was also re-contouring using inert waste.

5. Development Plan

5.1 Hampshire County Structure Plan Review 1996 - 2011 (adopted 2000) Policy MW7 concerns landraising.

5.2 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy: Policies S6 and Policy DC14 concern landraising.

6. Consultations

6.1 The local Member, Councillor Felicity Hindson, has been informed of the proposal.

6.2 Shedfield Parish Council - comments awaited.

6.3 Winchester City Council raises no objection to the proposal subject to a condition to improve the hedgerow on the western boundary of the site.

6.4 The Environmental Health Officer (Winchester City Council) raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to restrict hours of operation, floodlighting and the burning of materials on the site.

6.5 The Environment Agency (EA) raises no objections to the proposal.

6.6 The Highways Authority raises no objections to the proposal subject to localised trimming of vegetation within the visibility splays.

6.7 Southampton Airport raises no objection to the proposal subject to planting the drainage ditches with reeds to discourage birds.

7. Representations

7.1 There have been six letters of objection to the proposal. The main reasons for objection relate to noise, dust and mud on the road. There is also local concern that there has already been considerable landfill in this area.

7.2 The Hall Court Residents' Association (representing 12 properties) objects to the proposal because of increased noise and dust.

8. Chief Planning Adviser's Comments

8.1 Policy MW7 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan states that landraising is the most undesirable form of waste disposal and will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances - for example, where the need for landfill capacity cannot be met by the infilling of mineral workings and there is no other reasonably practicable means of disposal available. It is not considered that such circumstances exist in this case. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy MW7.

8.2 Policy S6 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy provides criteria for the acceptable use of non-recyclable inert waste, including in restoring mineral excavations, in civil engineering or infrastructure projects, or beneficially at the site of production. However, paragraph 18.15 of the Strategy states that inert landfilling for agricultural improvement does not count as a civil engineering or infrastructure project, and is therefore unlikely to meet the requirements of Policy S6.

8.3 The proposal is supported by an agricultural assessment, which concludes that importation of 59,000 cubic metres of inert waste will achieve an agricultural improvement to approximately four hectares of land, raising its Agricultural Land Classification from grade 4 (poor) to grade 3b (moderate). The improvement is considered to be marginal in terms of agricultural returns.

8.4 It is also necessary to consider the need for any agricultural improvement in the context of the whole farm rather than just the application site. The entire agricultural unit comprises approximately 170 hectares (108 hectares arable and set-aside land, 54 hectares of woodland and 8 hectares of grassland). There is no evidence that the proposal is needed to improve the farm as a whole and as the application site comprises less than 2.5% of the total farm area the benefits of the proposal are marginal at best.

8.5 The proposal has the potential to adversely impact on the SINC both through disturbance during the infilling and as a result subsequent changes to drainage patterns. Insufficient detail has been provided to properly assess the impacts to the SINC and further surveys are required to demonstrate the proposals acceptability.

8.6 There is local concern that there has already been considerable landfill in this area and that residents have had their `fair share' of the impacts associated with this type of development. This concern is noted. However, the previous landfills are now restored and the application should be determined on its merits.

8.7 Local residents are concerned that the proposal will give rise to increase noise and dust which will adversely impact upon local amenity. Residents cite their experience of noise and dust from an infilling on an adjacent site and there is concern that the impacts associated with the current proposal will be greater as the site is closer to houses. However, the Environmental Health Officer had direct experience of the previous infilling operation and advises that these issues can be satisfactorily controlled through conditions.

8.8 Local residents are also concerned that mud and debris will be deposited on the highway. This issue can be addressed by condition.

8.9 In conclusion, the proposal is contrary to Policy MW7 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and Policy S6 of the Hampshire Core Strategy and the agricultural justification for the proposal is questionable. In addition, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the ecology of the area. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

1403/NC

APPENDIX

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 MW7

Waste disposal by landfilling will only be permitted within mineral working sites that are active or unrestored or have been unsatisfactorily restored or where there would be an environmental benefit from the raising of levels. Land-raising will normally be permitted only in exceptional circumstances where the need for landfill capacity cannot be met by the infilling of mineral workings and there is no other reasonably practicable means of disposal available and provided that the development would not have unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact.

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (adopted July 2007)

Policy DC14 - Landfill

Planning permission will be only be granted for landfill provided the site:

a. Is identified for landfill use, as part of the restoration of a mineral site, in the Hampshire Minerals Plan, or pending its adoption is an existing or proposed un-restored mineral void, and in the case of non-hazardous landfill is within the non-hazardous landfill potential area shown on the Key Diagram, and

b. Appropriate provision is made for the pre-treatment or sorting of waste, either on or off site, to substantially reduce its biodegradable and recyclable content, and

c. It does not pose an unacceptable environmental risk, including risk to groundwater, and

d. It is close to, and with good access to, the minerals and waste lorry route, as shown on the Key Diagram.

Policy S6 - Landfill

During the period to 2020, up to 5.3 million tonnes of non-hazardous landfill capacity will be provided within the Landfill Potential Area shown on the Key Diagram. By 2015, the landfilling of untreated municipal waste will cease. Where technically and environmentally appropriate, non-hazardous landfill void will be conserved by the reuse of inert daily cover materials, or the use of alternative daily cover materials.

During the period to 2020, 18.5 million tonnes of non-recyclable inert waste will be used:

a. in restoring mineral excavations and for landfill engineering, or

b. for civil engineering and other infrastructure projects, or

c. beneficially at the site of production.

Additionally, provision for London's landfill requirements post 2016 will be considered by a review of the Strategy.