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

1. Summary

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of a retaining wall and noise attenuation bund, construction of offices, processing and storage building, demolition of four existing buildings, erection of ground mounted weighbridge, change of use from garden to waste management area, change of use from waste management area to garden at Broad View, Woods Lane, Cliddesden, Basingstoke.

1.2 The site benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Use (CLUD) and a Waste Management Licence granted by the Environment Agency.

1.3 The proposals are pasrtially retrospective in that the site has expanded beyond the boundaries of the CLUD, and the application seeks to regularise this expansion. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council have issued an enforcement notice concerning this expansion.

1.4 It is considered that the expansion of the scrapyard into the countryside is contrary to policy and expansion of the site is likely to lead to further intensification and increasing adverse amenity impacts for local residents. It is considered that the widening of the entrance and the proposed bund would have adverse visual impacts and increase the visual intrusion of the site in an area of attractive landscape on the edge of the village. The proposed bund would be likely to reduce noise impacts, and the works at the entrance would improve the accessability for vehicles, but these benefits do not outweigh the adverse visual impacts from these proposals. Consequently it is recommended to refuse planning permission. Although the application is partially retrospective there is no need to recommend enforcement action, because enforcement action covering these matters has already been taken by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

2. Recommendation

That planning consent for construction of retaining wall and noise attenuation bund, construction of offices, processing and storage building, demolition of four existing buildings, erection of ground mounted weighbridge, change of use from garden to waste management area, change of use from waste management area to garden at Broad View, Woods Lane, Cliddesden, Basingstoke (Application No.BDB/69048) be refused for the following reasons:

Reasons for Refusal

(1) The proposal is contrary to Policy DC13 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Policy A5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2001 in that the site is not on employment land nor reuses/redevelops previously developed land.

(2) The proposal is contrary to Policy DC3 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Policies D8, E1 (vii) and E6 (iii) and (iv) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 in that there would be an adverse impact on the landscape from the proposed bund and the proposed widening of the site entrance onto Woods Lane.

(3) The proposal is contrary to Policy DC8 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Policy E1 (vii) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011 in that the expansion of the site would lead to an adverse amenity impact for local residents in terms of noise and disturbance from the on site operations and the associated lorry traffic.

3. Site

3.1 The site as shown on the attached plan comprises an area of 0.98 hectares and is located on the edge of Cliddesden village to the south-east of the M3 motorway. Part of the site is a long established scrapyard, the entrance is on Woods Lane and the main access is via the residential areas of Hatch Warren. The scrapyard lies behind the frontage housing to Woods Lane. There is a tarmac access drive and extensive hard surfacing of consolidated stone and concrete. Portacabins contain offices, stores and mess facilities and there are a number of shipping containers and lorry trailers. There is crushing and lifting machinery and piles of scrap metal. The site is bounded on its other three sides by open countryside. The nearest houses are on either side of the entrance on Woods Lane.

3.2 The scrapyard benefits from a CLUD granted on 18 January 1993 by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and a Waste Management Licence granted by the Environment Agency. It has recently been purchased by the applicant and the licence has subsequently been transferred to him.

Planning History

3.3 BDB 34038 - Application to determine whether the existing use of part of the site for the handling and processing of scrap metal is lawful. Granted 19 January 1993.

3.4 BDB 57807 - Erection of 24 dwellings, vehicular access, landscaping and open space. Refused 26 October 2004.

3.5 BDB 63636 - Erection of 6 dwellings, creation of vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, garaging and landscaping. Withdrawn 26 July 2006.

3.6 BDB 67416 - Erection of a detached dwelling following demolition of existing. Granted 24 January 2008.

3.7 BDB 67375 - Construction of a noise attenuation bund to eastern boundary of site. Withdrawn 4 March 2008.

3.8 Following the change in ownership there were changes at the site, resulting in its expansion and intensification. This resulted in complaints to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council from local residents. Following investigation, an enforcement notice was served on 4 July 2008, citing several breaches of planning control at the site. These included:

(i) the use as an extension of the scrapyard of an area of land outside of the CLUD area;

(ii) the retention of shipping containers as permanent storage without the necessary planning permission;

(iii) the hard surfacing of land outside of the CLUD area;

(iv) the erection of a fence with a height of more than two metres (retaining wall); and

(v) the raising of ground levels on land without the necessary planning permission.

3.9 The notice required the immediate cessation of scrapyard activities outside of the CLUD area and the removal of all unauthorised items. The applicant has appealed against the enforcement notice.

3.10 It was at the stage when Basingstoke and Dean Borough Council was about to take enforcement action that it realised that as a waste site it was a County matter and therefore should be dealt with by the County Council. Therefore the subsequent planning application, the subject of this report, was submitted to the County Council. However as it had already instigated enforcement action the Borough Council proceeded with issuing the enforcement notice.

4. Proposal

4.1 Retrospective planning permission is being sought for the extension of a site used for the processing and storage of scrap metal onto adjoining undeveloped land, such enlargement taking the usable area agreed under BDB 34038 from 0.43 hectares to about 0.65 hectares.

4.2 The proposals also include a noise attenuation bund and four metre high retaining wall on the east and north boundaries of the southern section of the site, moving all waste activities to within this bunded area. Planting is proposed along the bund. The main operation on the site is the compactor and grab machine working with scrap metal, working at the southern end of the site. This area is approximately 150 metres from the nearest property.

4.3 A building, 15 metres by 18 metres by 4 metres, is proposed to house offices, toilets and a mess room together with space for waste activities. Four small existing buildings in poor state of repair will be demolished.

4.4 A weighbridge will be installed as part of the development.

4.5 There is an exchange of land between residential and waste use, as shown on plan HIR/3585/103. The access is widened as part of this scheme to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site at the same time.

4.6 The hours of use proposed are limited to Monday to Friday 0800 to 1800 with no working on weekends or bank holidays.

4.7 The proposals include the regularisation of the matters included in the enforcement notice issued by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

5. Development Plan

5.1 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2007) Policy DC3 (Landscape); Policy DC6 (Highways); Policy DC8 (Amenity); Policy DC10 (Water Resources); and Policy DC13 (Waste Management and Recycling) are relevant.

5.2 Basingstoke and Deane Borough adopted Local Plan 1996-2011 (Adopted July 2006) Policy E1, Policy E6 and Policy E8 are relevant.

6. Consultations

6.1 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council raises objection on the following grounds:

(i) This planning application seeks approval for the expansion of the land available for commercial activity unconnected with the rural economy but on a site which lies in open countryside and which is important to the setting of Cliddesden village. It would therefore allow a use which is already out of place to be a more intrusive one and thereby detract from the rural character of the area which planning policies are designed to protect. This is contrary in particular to Policies D8, E1 (vii) and E6 (iii) and (iv) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

(ii) Such expansion of the site would have the effect of giving the site the increased capacity to handle more product and consequently the level and frequency of noise and general disturbance arising both from the activity on the site and that from the movement of traffic to and from the site. Not only would this harm the rural amenity of the locality, it would reduce the amenities enjoyed by local residents to below the level that they are reasonably entitled to expect. This is contrary in particular to Policy E1 (vii) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

(iii) The proposed bund would, by reason of its scale, height and the artificiality of its form, appear as an alien feature in this sensitive rural landscape and would lead to the replacement of characteristic boundary vegetation with a form of enclosure which is unrepresentative of that found at the edge of the village. For this reason the proposal would be unsympathetic to the character and quality of the landscape of the area and would erode visual amenity to an unacceptable degree, contrary in particular to Policies E1 (ii) and E6 (ii), (iii) and (v) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

(iv) By reason of its utilitarian and untraditional design, and its shape and position on the site, the proposed building would reinforce the urban characteristics which make such a use inappropriate in its setting. Such development would cause long term harm to the rural character of the area contrary to Policies E1 (i) and E6 (iv) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

(v) The widening of the access has already introduced an intrusive and unsympathetic feature in the country road which enters the village at this point. As a result mainly of its scale and harsh appearance its retention would be contrary to Policy E1 (i) and (vi) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

(vi) The increased use of the site involves additional traffic using Woods Lane, some of it large vehicles, and this would unacceptably reduce the ability of cyclists and pedestrians to continue to enjoy using this route and the degree to which they can currently feel relatively safe, contrary in particular to Policies E1 (iii), (v) and (vi) of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2011.

(vii) Whereas it is appreciated that additional facilities need to be made available for the treatment and transfer of waste and that these should be best located in relatively accessible areas, decisions to develop new land for these purposes should not be made on an ad hoc basis and should, in any event, be confined to suitable sites. For the reasons expressed above, and because the land affected by the change of use here has not been previously developed, the proposals would be contrary to the provisions of the Core Strategy of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework, especially Policies S18 and DC8, to Policies 6 and 7 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (1998), and to Policy A5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996-2001.

6.2 Environment Agency raises no objection as the potential for contamination is low and the risk to controlled water is also low.

6.3 Highway Authority raises no objection, subject to conditions concerning lorry routeing (to ensure lorries do not travel through the village), the reduction in car parking to 6 spaces, maintenance of visibility splays and further widening to the entrance and Woods Lane in the vicinity of the entrance.

6.4 Environmental Health Officer Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council has no objections in principle to the development. Acoustic fencing as in the applicant's noise survey is recommended to ensure the noise attenuation is significant. As regards the noise from traffic entering/exiting the site, the officer points out that this is not covered under legislation within the remit of Environmental Health. A Noise Report BS4142:1997 Assessment was carried out on 8 August 2008 which concluded the proposed earth bund would result in a significant reduction in noise levels for residents along Woods Lane, there was a need for noise mitigation on the western boundary and a noise barrier within the site. With these mitigation measures in place noise levels would be reduced to an acceptable level at houses on Woods Lane.

6.5 Cliddesden Parish Council raises objection on six points:

(i) unacceptable impact from the proposal on the local highway network and access is a potential danger due to restricted sight lines;

(ii) the proposal extends the area of developed land, encroaching onto greenfield land; giving rise to concerns about future commercial/housing development;

(iii) visual impact - trees have been cut down and material stored in high stock piles. The bund and retaining wall would add to the visibility impact from the surrounding countryside. The proposed building increases the impact and is inappropriate intensification. Entrance is now an exposed piece of roadway;

(iv) unacceptable impact from noise and overall disturbance;

(v) potential pollution; and

(vi) working hours are being contravened.

6.6 The local Member, Councillor McNair Scott, comments that:

"Cliddesden residents have been extremely concerned and distressed for the past eighteen months by the operation at the scrapyard. Licensed by the Environment Agency since 1992, the licence holder's activities caused no disturbance until early last year when a change of operator brought about an enormous rise in activity accompanied by considerable unauthorised development of the site.

Despite some lack of clarity in the original licence, the operator would have been aware of the terms and constraints applying to the site and operation when it was purchased at the end of 2006. Nonetheless those conditions have been ignored, and the operation expanded with resulting unacceptably high levels of noise and HGV traffic totally inappropriate for a residential environment. In recognition of this, Enforcement Notices have been issued by BDBC to cover many of the planning breaches and the Environment Agency are similarly working on breaches of their Licence conditions.

As well as the noise, large articulated lorries arrive all day starting very early in the morning. The access is off the lane that leads from the village to Basingstoke and already carries a concerning amount of rush hour and rat-run traffic that jeopardises the safety of local children and residents walking and driving to and from school and the local bus stops and amenities. The lane is narrow and winding, on a hill, with no footway. Lorries take up its whole width turning into and out of the site, and, as the access is on a bend at the top of the hill, visibility from both directions is very limited. In my view residents' fears are well-founded.

I recently attended a crowded meeting in the village hall and it is clear that a business on this scale is totally unacceptable to the village. A petition objecting to the increase in activities on the site and related noise, traffic and safety issues collected 168 signatures from the village and was submitted to BDBC earlier this year. Residents have the full support of their Parish Council, their Borough Councillor, BDBC Development Control Committee, myself, and the CPRE.

An application for housing on the site in 2004 was turned down because of the site access and related safety problems, but the volume of HGV traffic and noise levels resulting from the current level of activity are far greater than would ever have arisen from what was proposed and for which permission was refused.

The operation has expanded well beyond the scale and area originally envisaged and permitted. Residents, and myself, fully understand the need for recycling and the rising demand for the disposal of scrap metal, but, in accordance with existing criteria, such activities need to take place in suitable locations.

It is clear to me that there are strong arguments against approving the submitted planning applications for an operation of this scale positioned as it is in a rural village and residential location, and for supporting the existing enforcement notices."

6.7 Council for the Protection of Rural England (North Hampshire District Group) raises objection on the following grounds:

(i) noise and disturbance;

(ii) intrusion into the countryside; and

(iii) highways safety - access/local highway network.

7. Representations

7.1 There have been 47 letters of objection as of 5 August 2008. The following issues were raised within these submissions:

(i) inappropriate location - the development is contrary to residential character, to the countryside character and to the adjacent Conservation Area;

(ii) unacceptable adverse impact from noise, disturbance, air pollution;

(iii) unacceptable adverse impact from HGVs and increased traffic on local highway network. Potential safety hazard of conflict between HGVs, cycles and pedestrians;

(iv) potential water pollution;

(v) breach of CLUD: hours of working, access, stockpile height, permitted area;

(vi) expansion of site unacceptable by way of proposed weighbridge, fencing, and bund; and

(vii) right of way through yard for Water Company is compromised.

8. Commentary

8.1 The scrap yard has a Certificate of Lawful Use, and this is the fallback position. It is against this fall back position that the current proposals should be assessed. The main issues in this assessment are the expansion of the scrap yard beyond the permitted area, the visual impact of the proposed bund and building, the impact on the amenity of local residents and the highway impact.

8.2 The site is located on the edge of the village, and conservation area, and is in an area of attractive countryside. There has clearly been a clearance of vegetation, both around the entrance on Woods Lane and around the operational area of the scrap yard. There has also been an expansion of scrap yard use into this cleared area, this area being used primarily for storage. The remainder of the cleared area being proposed for the bund. This expansion has been into the countryside and the clearance has opened up the site and makes it visually more intrusive. The proposed bund would be planted with trees and shrubs, but would be an unnatural feature in the landscape. It is considered that the expansion of the site has lead to an unacceptable visual impact, opening up the site, and that the proposed bund would be artificial and unacceptable visually. Whilst the proposed building is not of architectural merit, it is a functional design appropriate for its uses in a scrapyard.

8.3 Concerns have been raised by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and local residents about the noise from the site. However the Environmental Health Officer has carried out an evaluation which concluded that there would be increase in noise levels by 6.4 dBA and that the background noise levels were high being affected by the proximity of the M3. The report concluded that the proposed earth bund would reduce noise levels by around 6 to 10 dBA. Therefore the proposed bund would be effective in reducing the noise impact. However this benefit needs to be considered against the visual impact of the bund and its location enclosing a land for expansion of the scrap yard. It is not considered that the benefits in noise reduction outweigh the visual impact and the policy objection of expansion into the countryside.

8.4 There have been significant objection raised by local residents concerning the amenity impact of the intensification of operations at the site, these objections being mainly the impact of the lorry traffic, noise form operations at the site and increased visual intrusion from the removal of vegetation and expansion of the site. It is clear that the intensification of operations at the site have had an amenity impact, however this has to be considered in relation to the permitted uses at the site. The operations undertaken within the site are in accordance with the consent, the issue related to expanding the site. In response to the enforcement action taken the operator has restricted the sorting and processing of scrap to the permitted area. Therefore the impacts of these operations will not change. The expansion of the site would clearly give a larger operational area, and so there is concern that this would increase capacity and further intensify the operations and so increase the adverse impacts.

8.5 Concern has been raised about the highway impacts. Further highways information has been provided by the applicant. In the light of this information the highway authority are not raising objection, subject to conditions concerning lorry routeing (to ensure lorries do not travel through the village), the reduction in car parking to 6 spaces, maintenance of visibility splays and further widening to the entrance and Woods Lane in the vicinity of the entrance. However it is considered that the further widening at the site entrance would increase further the unacceptable visual impact, therefore whilst there is no highway objection, there is objection on amenity grounds to the further widening of the entrance.

8.6 In conclusion the scrap yard has a Certificate of Lawful Use, however the site has expanded and operations at the site have intensified, leading to increased adverse impacts. It is considered that the expansion of the scrap yard into the countryside is contrary to policy and expansion of the site is likely to lead to further intensification and increasing adverse amenity impacts for local residents. It is considered that the widening of the entrance and the proposed bund would have adverse visual impacts and increase the visual intrusion of the site in an area of attractive landscape on the edge of the village. The proposed bund would be likely to reduce noise impacts, and the works at the entrance would improve the accessibility for vehicles, but these benefits do not outweigh the adverse visual impacts from these proposals. Consequently it is recommended to refuse planning permission. Although the application is partially retrospective there is no need to recommend enforcement action, because enforcement action covering these matters has already been taken by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

1759/PDC

APPENDIX

Annexe to Reasons for Refusal

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

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

__________________________________________________________________

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy DPD 2007

Policy DC3 - Impact on Landscape and Townscape

Minerals and waste development will only be permitted if due regard is given to the likely visual impact of the proposed development and its impact on, and the need to maintain and enhance, the distinctive character of the landscape or townscape. If necessary, additional design, landscaping, planting and screening, including planting in advance of the commencement of the development, should be proposed.

Policy DC6 - Highways

Major mineral extractions, landfills and `strategic' recycling, aggregate processing and recovery and treatment facilities, will be permitted provided they have a suitable access to and/or route to the minerals and waste lorry route as illustrated on the Key Diagram.

In all cases, minerals and waste development will only be permitted if it pays due regard to the likely volume and nature of traffic that would be generated by the proposal and the suitability of the proposed access to the site and of the road network that would be affected. Consideration should be given to highway capacity, road and pedestrian safety, congestion and environmental impact, and whether any highway improvements are required and whether these could be carried out satisfactorily without causing unacceptable environmental impact.

Policy DC8 - Pollution, health, quality of life and amenity

Minerals and waste development will only be permitted if due regard is given to the pollution and amenity impacts on the residents and users of the locality and there is unlikely to be an unacceptable impact on health and/or the quality of life of occupants of nearby dwellings and other sensitive properties. Where necessary minerals and waste developments should include mitigation measures, such as buffer zones between the site and such properties.

Policy DC10 - Water Resources

Non-hazardous landfill developments in areas that overlie major aquifers, and Groundwater Source Protection Zones I and II, and mineral extraction or inert landfill in areas that overlie major aquifers and Groundwater Source Protection Zone I will not be permitted .

All minerals and waste developments will only be permitted if they are unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on coastal, surface or ground waters and due regard is given to water conservation and efficiency.

Policy DC13 - Waste Management and Recycling

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.

Basingstoke and Deane Borough adopted Local Plan 1996 - 2011

(Adopted July 2006)

Policy E1

Proposals for new development will be permitted provided that they are of a high standard of design, make efficient use of land, respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and do not result in inappropriate traffic generation or compromise highway safety. All development proposals should therefore:

i. Respond to the local context of buildings in terms of design, siting, density and spacing, reinforce attractive qualities of local distinctiveness and enhance areas of poor design; extensions should respect their host building

ii. Provide a comprehensive landscaping scheme, where appropriate, enabling the development to successfully integrate with the landscape and surrounds, and not result in the loss of or have a potentially adverse impact on protected trees; and

iii. Not generate traffic of a type or amount inappropriate for roads, properties or settlements in the locality, and provide safe and convenient access for all potential users, integrating into existing movement networks and open spaces; and

iv. Provide a co-ordinated and comprehensive scheme that does not prejudice the development of adjoining land; and

v. Incorporate features to minimise the energy consumed in the construction and future use of the building, conserve water and minimise water use; and

vi. Create attractive public spaces, which are safe, minimise opportunities for crime, facilitate public enjoyment, and foster the legibility of the built environment; and

vii. Minimise the potential for pollution of air and soil and not create noise or light which harms living and working conditions or the public's enjoyment of the built and natural environment.

Policy E6

Planning permission will only be granted where it is demonstrated that the proposals will be sympathetic to the landscape character and quality of the area concerned.

Development proposals should contribute to the regeneration, restoration, repair or conservation of any landscape likely to be affected. In particular they should respect, and improve the following:

i. the particular qualities of the relevant Landscape Character Area as defined in the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Assessment;

and

ii. visual amenity and scenic quality; and

iii. the setting of a settlement, including important views to, across and out of settlements; and

iv. the local character of buildings and settlements, including important open areas; and

v. trees, hedgerows, water features and other landscape elements and features; and

vi. historic landscapes, features and elements

Consideration will also be given to the impact that development would have on sense of place, sense of remoteness or tranquillity, and the quiet enjoyment of the landscape from public rights of way.

The designation of the North Wessex Downs AONB reflects the national importance of that landscape. In addition to the other requirements of this Policy, applications for development in the AONB will be determined in accordance with the policy in PPS7 also having regard to the setting of the AONB.

Policy E8

Development will not be permitted if it would increase the number of people or property at high risk of flooding, or be likely to increase the risk or severity of flooding elsewhere. Proposals will be assessed according to the sequential risk-based approach set out in Table 1 of PPG25. Those areas believed to be at high risk are defined on the Proposals Maps as floodplains; applications within such areas must be accompanied by a flood risk assessment.

Development will not be permitted if it would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, as a result of changing the surface water run-off, unless that risk can be overcome through measures to be implemented by the developer.

Developments likely to increase surface water run-off should incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). Developers will be required to ensure that arrangements are in place for the long term management and maintenance of the SUDS.

Development will not be permitted if it would affect the water environment and, as a consequence hydrology and thus adversely impact upon the biodiversity of an area either locally or at a distance. Development will not be permitted if it would adversely impact upon groundwater quality.