Archived decisions

Decision Maker:

Regulatory Committee

Date of Decision:

12 February 2009

Decision Title:

Applicant: A J Blake Limited

Proposed variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 07/01762/HCS (removal of limit on vehicle movements) at proposed waste recycling facility, Four Dell Farm, Poles Lane, Otterbourne (Application No. 09/00029/HCS)
(County Council Ref: WR205)

Decision Reference:

570

Report From:

Head of Planning and Development, Environment Department

Contact name:

Peter Chadwick

Tel:

01962 846728

Email:

[email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Background:

1.1. Planning permission was granted for the development and operation of a facility for the production of recycled aggregates and other recycled materials at Four Dell Farm on 10 September 2007, following the decision of the Regulatory Committee on 5 September 2007. This permission is subject to an application for judicial review. The planning permission has not yet been implemented.

1.2. The planning permission includes as Condition 2 a restriction on vehicle movements to a maximum of 36 per day, which is in line with the information provided with the planning application. The applicant argues that in the light of other planning permissions for industrial/commercial development granted at Four Dell Farm by Winchester City Council, which have no restriction on vehicle movements, and the recent appeal decision following the refusal of planning permission for R & W Plant (Chantacre) Limited, where the Inspector was asked by the County Council to impose a restriction on vehicle movements during both the day and night times and decided only to impose a restriction for the night time, the condition is unnecessary and unreasonable. This is because the A J Blake Limited site is the only one which has such a restriction, which is inequitable and unreasonable as there is no justifiable highway safety, capacity or amenity impact grounds for limiting vehicle movements.

2) Issues:

2.1. The issue is whether this condition is necessary or reasonable in accordance with Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission (1995). In considering this issue it is very relevant to take into account the decisions taken by Winchester City Council and the Inspector in relation to the R & W Plant (Chantacre) Limited appeal, which do not include a restriction on vehicle movements, and the consultation responses by the Highway Authority and the Winchester City Council Environmental Health Officer which raise no objection to the removal of this condition.

2.2. The proposal for the recycling facility has been reviewed in order to consider whether it would be acceptable in planning policy without the imposition of this condition. It has been concluded that the proposed facility would still be in accordance with policy. However whilst it is now concluded that it would not be necessary and reasonable to impose a limit of vehicle movements on highways and amenity grounds, there remains concern that there should be a limit on the capacity of the site to prevent any significant intensification which could lead to future environmental or amenity harm. The applicant states that any limit is unnecessary because there is a limit of 75,000 tonnes per year imposed by the Environment Agency through the environment permit it has issued. However, this limit is not based on planning land-use criteria and could not be enforced by the Waste Planning Authority.

2.3. Therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted for the proposed waste recycling facility without a condition restricting lorry movements, but including a condition restricting the waste capacity of the site to 50,000 tonnes per year. In addition one of the grounds for the judicial review proceedings in relation to the existing planning permission is that there was no condition imposed to control dust, despite the Regulatory Committee having resolved that such a condition was required. That oversight has been satisfactorily remedied by the completion of a legal agreement with the applicant to secure a dust mitigation scheme and its monitoring and compliance. However, if planning permission were to be granted on the current application under section 73 of the Planning Act 1990, it is recommended that it should be granted subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the approval and implementation of such a dust mitigation scheme.

3) Recommendation:

3.1. That permission for a variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 07/01762/HCS to remove limit on vehicle movements at Four Dell Farm, Poles Lane, Otterbourne (Application No. 09/00029/HCS) be granted for the following reason, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

4) Reason for Decision:

4.1. It is considered that the condition restricting vehicle numbers does not meet the tests of Circular 11/95 in that it is not necessary and not reasonable. This is because there is no justification in terms of highway capacity, road safety or the amenity impact of the vehicles for such a restriction, and no other businesses at Four Dell Farm have such a restriction. The proposal for the waste recycling facility has been assessed to consider whether it remains acceptable and in accordance with policy if the condition restricting lorry numbers was deleted. The conclusion is that the proposed recycling facility is in accordance with policy DC13, as the hardstanding is within the curtilage of the Four Dell farm complex and agriculturally redundant, policy DC3 regarding visual impact, DC6 regarding highways and DC8 regarding local amenity. Therefore the proposal is in accordance with the development plan (summary attached as Appendix 2) and would not harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety.

1) Site

1.1. The site, as illustrated on the attached location plan, comprises 0.55 hectares of agricultural hardstanding at the farmyard of Four Dell Farm, Poles Lane, near Otterbourne. The nearest dwelling, Four Dell Bungalow, is approximately 50 metres from the edge of the application site. The majority of houses are approximately 500 metres from the site boundary. The M3 is about 650 metres to the east of the site, beyond which is the village of Otterbourne. The land surrounding the Four Dell Farm building complex is in agricultural use. There are no European nature conservation sites or Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the vicinity.

1.2. The applicant states that the hardstanding on the site was constructed for agricultural purposes. The first area was constructed in 2000 and was used for storage of agricultural machinery and straw bales. The hardstanding was extended in early 2005 to accommodate additional cattle, the intention being to increase the number of cattle from 500 to 1,000. However in 2006, due to reduced demand, the farm ceased to rear cattle and therefore the hardstanding became redundant.

Planning History

1.3. A number of planning permissions have been granted at Four Dell Farm for industrial and commercial uses. These are:

(i) 04/02560/FUL - Changes of use from existing farm buildings into storage and general industrial use (B2/B8). Approved 1 August 2005 by Winchester City Council.

(ii) 06/02429/FUL - Change of use from agricultural to storage and general industrial use (B2/B8). Approved 3 January 2007 by Winchester City Council.

(iii) 07/01434/FUL - Change of use to B1 usage (office/light industrial with ancillary storage. Approved 31 October 2007 by Winchester City Council.

(iv) 07/01762/HCS - Development and operation of facility for the production of recycled aggregates and other recycled materials. Approved 10 September 2007 by Hampshire County Council.

(v) 07/01815/ HCS - Use of land for storage & transfer of waste materials associated with highway maintenance works & ancillary storage of highways material, Granted on appeal 30 October 2008 following refusal of planning permission by Hampshire County Council.

Proposed Recycling Facility

1.4. In 2007 a planning application was submitted for a proposal for a facility to recycle construction and demolition waste to produce recycled aggregates and soils (07/01762/HCS). This application was considered by the Regulatory Committee at its meeting on 5 September 2007, when it was resolved to grant planning permission. The planning permission was subsequently granted on 10 September 2007. The permission is the subject of judicial review proceedings.

1.5. The proposal involved the delivery of material to the site from the activities associated with the applicants skip hire business. The materials accepted would be skip waste, mainly comprising construction and demolition waste. The proposal was to accept up to 50,000 tonnes of waste per annum for recovery operations. Recyclable materials such as metal, timber, card, soils and hardcore would be separated. It was proposed to screen soils and crush concrete on site; any residual material would be taken to landfill. It was intended that the crusher would be brought to the site four times a year and operated for approximately two weeks on each occasion. The screener would be operational for approximately two days a week.

1.6. Access to the site is from Poles Lane. The existing access to the farm and industrial units will be stopped up and a new access, approximately 100 metres to the west, will be created. The new access road would be surfaced with tarmac to reduce dust created by vehicles and gates would be erected at the site entrance to prevent unauthorised tipping. The proposal would generate approximately 36 lorry movements a day. These lorries would comprise 40 cubic yard roll-on-off skips, 4-axle tipper lorries and occasional smaller builders' skips. Once the material had been discharged it would be either manually or mechanically sorted. Items such as metal, wood, cardboard, and large concrete blocks would be separated at this stage. The remaining soils and rubble would be stockpiled prior to screening. The screening would take place in the centre of the site, and the fine and coarse graded screened material would be stockpiled in the south of the site prior to be sold for re-use in the construction industry. Concrete would be stockpiled in a bay at the north of the site before crushing. There would also be a site office, weighbridge and welfare facilities.

1.7. The proposed hours of operation are between 0700 and 1800 Monday to Friday, between 0700 and 1300 on Saturday and not at all on Sunday or bank holidays. Crushing and screening will only take place between 0800 and 1700 hours Monday to Friday.

1.8. The proposal was screened for the purposes of EIA and judged not to be EIA development and so no Environmental Statement was required to be submitted.

Proposal

1.9. The planning permission for the recycling facility included a condition restricting vehicle movements as follows:

"Vehicle movements associated with the transport of material into and out of the site shall not exceed a total of 36 per day (18 in and 18 out). A written record shall be maintained recording the time, date and registration number of all vehicles carrying material into and out of the site. The records shall be made available to the Waste Planning Authority on request.

Reason: To limit the volumes of traffic in the interests of the amenity of residents on and near the approaches to the site."

1.10. The application is to remove this condition. The applicant states that there are no grounds to impose a condition to cap vehicle movements for reasons of highway safety, capacity or impact on amenity. They also refer to the recent Inspectors decision regarding the R & W Plant proposals, when the County Council sought to restrict the numbers of both day-time and night-time vehicle movements but the Inspector did not consider there was a justification for restricting day-time movements, only restricting night-time movements. They also comment that none of the permissions granted by Winchester City Council have conditions restricting vehicle movements and that by removing the condition A J Blake would have the same level of flexibility in their day-time operations that are afforded every other business based at Four Dell Farm.

1.11. With regard to capacity, the applicant states that this is self-regulating due to:

(i) the restriction in areas on site for stockpiling and processing;

(ii) the environmental permit for the facility granted by the Environment Agency is limited to a maximum throughput of 75,000 tonnes per year;

(iii) the market will limit volumes of waste; and

(iv) the business will be focussed on a 10 to 15 mile radius of the site.

1.12. The applicant refers to Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission (1995) which sets out the six tests that planning conditions should meet. These are:

(i) Necessary;

(ii) Relevant to planning;

(iii) Relevant to the development to be permitted;

(iv) Enforceable;

(v) Precise; and

(vi) Reasonable in all other aspects.

1.13. For the above reasons the applicant argues that the condition does not meet tests (i) and(vi), in that is not necessary and not reasonable, and consequently should be removed.

2) Development Plan:

2.1. Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2007) policies DC3 (Landscape, etc), DC6 (Highways), DC8 (Pollution, health, quality of life and amenity) and DC13 (Waste management and recycling) are the most applicable policies.

3) Consultations:

3.1. Councillor Mrs Bailey states:

"I would like to remind the committee of the original application for this site. The applicant himself proposed 36 vehicle movements a day in his application because that was sufficient for his needs in transporting 50,000 tons of material. There was and is considerable concern within the surrounding community about the impact of HGVs through the villages and most particularly Otterbourne. The committee, in considering that application, were reassured that the 36 movements a day would only mean a 1% increase in HGVs, and I believe that was a major factor in its decision to approve change of use from countryside to industrial and the reason that the applicant's own figures were conditioned.

The applicant appears to be not only asking for the condition to be removed but, by mentioning 75,000 tons in the supporting document as if that is an already agreed figure, he appears to be asking for an increase of 50% of materials being brought onto the site. I would most certainly object to this increase of waste. If an application were to come before the committee with a proposal of 75,000 tons of material then I believe that an Environmental Impact Assessment ought to have been carried out. The original request for 50,000 tons did not require this. If the amount of 75,000 tons is correct then I do not believe this should be considered now unless a full environmental assessment is carried out and at the very least an opportunity for further consultation. The consultations so far have focused minds only on the particular condition of removal of HGV limits.

If a mistake has been made and the figure is really 50,000 tons then the applicant's needs have not changed in terms of the amount of material which will be transported and there seems no justification to remove the HGV limit apart from citing other parts of the site as precedent.

This application should be looked at in terms of need. The applicant felt that he could carry out his business effectively with 36 HGV movements a day. There is no evidence that the need has changed since the original application.

If the application is approved it will remove a constraint which encouraged the applicant to make efforts to limit HGV movements in consideration of local feeling. It will add a further burden on the local communities in terms of HGV movements. The community has been told that each application at Four Dell Farm adds little to the already busy roads, although by giving unlimited vehicle movements there will be no way in which the Authority can record the impact of particular sites at Four Dell Farm. This piecemeal development and escalation of activity runs contrary to the idea that Minerals and Waste development should be planned and well thought out.

I would ask the committee to consider carefully the escalating impact which its decisions have on the local community and refuse this application."

3.2. Winchester City Council - comments awaited.

3.3. Winchester City Council Environmental Health Officer raises no objection.

3.4. Environment Agency states it has no comment.

3.5. Highway Authority comments that it is accepted that the lorry movements generated account for 1% of traffic on the local network and do not represent a significant impact. It is not suggested that staff levels or operations at the site will increase as a result of this application, it will simply give the applicant more flexibility to generate more lorry movements during busy periods, which will obviously be off-set by fewer movements on other occasions. There is no justifiable reason for the Highway Authority to oppose this application and therefore raises no objection to the proposal.

3.6. Otterbourne Parish Council - comments awaited.

3.7. Compton and Shawford Parish Council - comments awaited.

3.8. Hursley Parish Council comments that should permission be granted for the relaxation of the restriction on vehicle movements, a condition be imposed requiring all vehicles to use only the dedicated access road from the site to Poles Lane.

3.9. Otterbourne Compton and Shawford and Silkstead Association (OCASSA) strongly opposes this application, urges Hampshire County Council to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment in light of the escalating scale of the Four Dell Farm industrial development and to reject this application. If minded to approve the application then seeks conditions of use that reflect community concerns and are specific, limited and enforceable.

4) Representations:

4.1. Letters of objection have been received from five local residents on grounds of the adverse impact of lorry traffic on Poles Lane and through Otterbourne.

5) Commentary:

5.1. The main issues for this application are whether the condition to restrict lorry numbers at this site is necessary and reasonable, and to review the proposal for a waste recycling facility to assess whether it remains acceptable and in accordance with policy if the condition restricting lorry numbers was deleted.

5.2. It is clear from the consultation responses from the Highways Authority on the original application that there are no technical highways objections to the proposed recycling facility, and from its consultation response to this application that there is no justification in terms of highway capacity or road safety for restricting lorry numbers. The Inspector, following detailed evidence provided by the highway consultant engaged by R & W Plant, took the same view in coming to his decision regarding the appeal. Furthermore, Winchester City Council, in considering industrial and commercial development at Four Dell Farm, did not consider it necessary to restrict vehicle numbers.

5.3. However, there was significant objection from local residents to the proposal from A J Blake for a waste recycling facility and the proposal by R & W Plant for storage of waste and other highway materials on the grounds of the adverse impact on them of the associated lorry traffic. The County Council, in refusing permission for the R & W Plant application, took this into account, the refusal being on the basis of the adverse amenity impact of the lorries travelling through Otterbourne in particular; the principal issue being adverse noise impact. This was carefully considered by the Inspector, who concluded:

"During `normal' working conditions (10 movements per night) and during the daytime I am satisfied that the effect would be barely perceptible or slight".

5.4. The question whether the condition restricting vehicle numbers is justified should be considered as part of an assessment of whether without such a condition the proposed recycling facility is still acceptable and in accordance with policy. In this regard policies DC3, DC6 and DC13 of the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy are the most relevant. In relation to Policy 13 an Agricultural Report was submitted with the original application. This identified when and for what agricultural purpose the hardstanding was constructed and showed that the hardstanding was part of the curtilage of the Four Dell Farm building complex, and that along with the majority of those buildings was now agriculturally redundant. Therefore it was considered that the application site fell within the curtilage of the larger farm complex and was genuinely redundant, and therefore complied with policy DC13. This situation is unchanged with the proposed deletion of the condition.

5.5. It is relevant to note that the level of vehicle generation is very similar for both the AJ Blake and R & W proposals. The highway position has already been discussed above, and meets the requirement for good access to the minerals and waste lorry route. In fact the provision of the new access will improve highway safety in relation to traffic using Four Dell Farm.

5.6. In the light of these factors, it is now considered that the restriction on vehicle numbers cannot be justified on grounds of highway capacity, road safety nor amenity of local residents. In addition it is also considered it would be unreasonable to only restrict vehicle numbers for the A J Blake proposal but none of the other uses at Four Dell Farm. Therefore the condition does not meet the criteria in Circular11/95.

5.7. Turning to other issues relating to conditions, the site would not be visually intrusive provided stockpile heights were restricted, and the proposals provided for perimeter landscaping. There was concern from local residents about the amenity impacts of the proposed recycling facility in terms of noise and dust, in addition to the amenity impacts of its associated lorry traffic. In this respect it was demonstrated by the applicant that the noise impact would be within accepted standards and would not have an adverse impact for local residents. However there was an oversight with the planning permission which was issued in that the word `dust' was omitted from the requirements of the Environmental Management Scheme condition. This meant there was no condition in relation to dust control and mitigation. This forms the basis of one of the grounds for the judicial review proceedings. The oversight was remedied by the County Council entering into a legal agreement with A J Blake to secure a scheme to control, monitor and mitigate dust. However if planning permission was now granted for the recycling facility without the lorry number restriction, this could include dust within the Environmental Management Scheme as originally intended. Therefore it is recommended that the dust condition be included in the event that planning permission is granted on the current Section 73 application.

5.8. There was an issue raised by local residents concerning the potential for future intensification of activity at the site over time, leading to substantially increasing the amount of waste handled by the site, which could in turn lead to increased environmental and amenity impacts for local residents. The restriction of vehicle numbers would also prevent such intensification. The applicant has argued in support of their application to delete the condition that it is unnecessary as the capacity of the site would be self-regulating. In particular referring to the restriction on the environmental permit issued by the Environment Agency to a maximum throughput of 75,000 tonnes of material per year. However this limit by the Environment Agency is not based on planning/land-use grounds and cannot be enforced by the Waste Planning Authority. Whilst it is accepted that there is no justification for the restriction of vehicle numbers, there remains a genuine concern that without some restriction in capacity there is the possibility of significant intensification in the future which could result in environmental and amenity harm. To address this it is recommended that a condition be included to restrict annual capacity of the site to 50,000 tonnes, reflecting the terms on which the original planning application was submitted.

5.9. There has been objection raised to this application, and the previous applications by A J Blake and R & W Plant, that there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) undertaken of all the developments at Four Dell Farm in combination. The concerns being the piecemeal nature of the developments which have resulted in the Four Dell Farm building complex changing from a farm to an industrial estate. Screening for EIA was carried out for the A J Blake application. This current application has also been screened for EIA in accordance with the EIA Regulations. In each case, the conclusion is that neither proposal was an EIA development. The EIA screening opinion for this application is attached in Appendix 3. In addition, in response to the concerns about the piecemeal development of Four Dell Farm to an industrial estate, a screening exercise has been carried out on the basis of the developments at Four Dell Farm as a whole. This has concluded that even if the `industrial estate' is treated for this purpose as a single scheme of development, the proposed development does not require EIA.

5.10. In conclusion it is now considered that the condition restricting vehicle numbers does not meet the tests of Circular 11/95 in that it is not necessary and not reasonable. This is because there is no justification in terms of highway capacity, road safety or the amenity impact of the vehicles for such a restriction, and no other businesses at Four Dell Farm have such a restriction. The proposal for the waste recycling facility has been assessed to consider whether it remains acceptable and in accordance with policy if the condition restricting lorry numbers was deleted. The conclusion is that the recycling facility is in accordance with policy DC13, as the hardstanding is within the curtilage of the Four Dell Farm complex and agriculturally redundant, policy DC3 regarding visual impact, DC6 regarding highways and DC8 regarding local amenity. However it is recommended additional conditions are included to provide for dust control and limit the annual capacity of the site to prevent unacceptable intensification.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

(NB: the list excludes published works and any documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.)

Document

Location

Proposed variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission 07/01762/HCS (removal of limit on vehicle movements) at Four Dell Farm, Poles Lane, Otterbourne
(Application No. 09/00029/HCS)
(County Council Ref: WR205)

Environment Department
Castle Avenue
Room G, Lower Ground Floor

CONDITIONS:

Commencement:

1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date on which this planning permission was granted.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Capacity:

2) No more than 50,000 tonnes of waste per year shall be imported to the site. A record of the quantity of waste brought to the site shall be made available to the Waste Planning Authority on request. Stockpiles of material shall be in the areas and storage bays shown on drawing ABL/E008967/LAY/01 only and shall not exceed 4 metres in height.

Reason: In order to ensure there is not an intensification of use at the site which would lead to harm to the environment or local amenity.

Highways:

3) Prior to development commencing details of the proposed new access road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. These details shall include proposed surfacing and construction details. No part of the development shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

4) The site shall not be operational until the existing access onto Poles Lane has been stopped up, the haul road removed and the land restored to agriculture in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority and approved in writing.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and visual amenity.

5) Means of vehicular access to the site shall be from the access road junction with Poles Lane only.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Hours of Working:

6) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority, no heavy goods vehicles shall enter or leave the site and no plant or machinery shall be operated except between the following hours: 0700-1800 Monday to Friday and 0700-1300 on Saturday. There shall be no working on Sunday or recognised public holidays.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

7) All mechanical crushing operations shall be restricted to a maximum of 40 days per calendar year and shall only occur between the hours of 0800 and 1700 Monday to Friday and not at all on Saturday, Sunday or recognised public holidays. A detailed record of all crushing operations shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of a written request.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

8) All mechanical screening operations shall be restricted to a maximum of two days per week and shall only occur between the hours of 0800 and 1700 Monday to Friday and not at all on Saturday, Sunday or recognised public holidays. A detailed record of all screening operations shall be kept on site and made available to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of a written request.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents.

Landscape:

9) Prior to development commencing a detailed scheme of landscaping for the perimeter of the site shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall specify the precise location, size and height of the perimeter bunds; types, size and species of all trees and shrubs to be planted; details of all trees to be retained; and details of fencing/enclosure of the site, phasing and timescales for carrying out the works, and provision for future maintenance. Any trees or shrubs which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape character.

10) The hedgerow shall only be removed within the months of September and October. The hedgerow shall be replanted within the next planting season in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of the local landscape and nature conservation.

Noise, Dust and Odour:

11) The level of noise emitted from the site shall at no times exceed an LAeq (1 hour) of 70 dB as measured on the boundary of the site (adjacent to the parking area shown on Plan No. ABL/E008967/LAY/01).

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

12) Prior to development commencing a plan showing the location of the screener shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval. The plan shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

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

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

Protection of Water Environment:

14) Prior to development commencing a surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority and approved in writing. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure protection of the water environment.

15) There shall be no piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure protection of controlled waters.

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 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.

Proposal

Variation of condition 2 of PP:07/01762/HCS (removal of limit on vehicle movements)

at:

Four Dell Farm, Poles Lane, Otterbourne

County Council Ref: WR205

Received 6 January 2009