Archived decisions

Decision Maker:

Regulatory Committee

Date of Decision:

12 February 2009

Decision Title:

Applicant: Silverlake Garage (Motor Salvage) Limited

Minor amendments to planning permission 07/00714/HCS to change alignment of the fire access to enable improved fire emergency working area and associated realignment of planting, security fencing and additional obscure netting to north-east and north-west boundaries; variation of Condition 5 of permission 07/00714/HCS to allow storage of vehicles to a maximum of four high, excluding 15 metres on eastern boundary at three high at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield
(Application No. 08/01512/HCS)
(County Council Ref: WR200)

Decision Reference:

404

Report From:

Head of Planning and Development, Environment Department

Contact name:

Julia Davey

Tel:

01962 846732

Email:

[email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Explanation of Application:

1.1. Planning permission is sought for minor amendments to planning permission No. 07/00714/HCS that in itself concerned amendments to the original permission for an Automotive Treatment Facility (ATF) at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield. The proposed amendments, which are partly retrospective are for a change in alignment of the fire access to enable improved fire emergency working area and associated realignment of planting, security fencing and additional obscure netting to north, south-east and north-west boundaries and a variation of condition No. 5 of permission No. 07/00714/HCS to allow storage of vehicles to a maximum of four high, excluding a 20 metres wide strip on eastern boundary where vehicles could be stored to three high.

1.2. The main development proposals put forward by the applicant were discussed in principle by the local Silverlake Liaison Panel.

2) Issues Covered in Report

2.1. The principle of expanding the ATF at Silverlake Garage was accepted by the Council in the granting of permission No. 04/02726/HCM in 2005. The main issue that arises from this application is whether the proposed changes, including those that have already been implemented, are acceptable in terms of their impact on local amenity and the character of the area.

2.2. It is regrettable that some of the changes have been implemented and moreover the height of the screen fencing is higher than originally permitted. However, further revised plans and sections, which are appended to this report and can be used to rigorously control the development, demonstrate that the changes are acceptable.

3) Recommendation

3.1. That permission be granted for part retrospective minor amendments to planning permission 07/00714/HCS to change alignment of the fire access to enable improved fire emergency working area and associated realignment of planting, security fencing and additional obscure netting to north, south-east and north-west boundaries; variation of condition No. 5 of permission 07/00714/HCS to allow storage of vehicles to a maximum of four high, excluding 20 metres on eastern boundary where the maximum will be three high at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield, subject to the conditions in Appendix 1.

4) Reason for Approval:

4.1. It is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan (summary attached as Appendix 2) because the development will not materially harm the character of the area or the amenity of local residents.

1) Site and Summary of Planning History:

1.1. The application site, as illustrated on the attached plan, focuses on the fire access track on the eastern boundary and associated planting to the east of the access track, as well as the netting to screen the site to the east, north and north-west, and south-east and the height of stacked cars across the site.

1.2. The existing site extends across a total of approximately 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 - three and four vehicles high - extends across approximately 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.

1.3. 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 Rowash Cottages to the east and Nos 1 and 2 Rowash Bungalows to the west. No 2 Rowash Cottages, which is not directly adjacent to the site, is independently owned.

1.4. Beyond Rowash 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. These properties look across at the fields behind, but also can view some stacked cars to the west.

1.5. 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.

1.6. 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. A permissive footpath was secured through a past planning permission and runs east of the vineyard towards the north-eastern corner of the site.

1.7. 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. A Members' site visit was undertaken prior to determination of the application.

1.8. At the time the 2005 permission was granted it was acknowledged that the vehicles to the rear would not be able to be screened fully until proposed planting to the east and north had matured. Alternative mitigation measures, such as the construction of artificial bunds, conifer planting (against best practice) and high screen fences, were rejected in favour of increasing deciduous 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.

1.9. The 2005 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. Vehicles are currently stacked at a maximum of four high in some parts to the rear of the site.

1.10. The County Council subsequently granted permission No. 07/00714/HCS W05767/12 in 2007 for part-retrospective extension of the concrete compound (to mitigate against loss of approved compound area due to environmental buffer zone), construction of fire access and working area (including pond/reservoir), relocation of screen planting and construction of opaque netting extension to fencing. The fire access is not a requirement of the Fire and Rescue Authority, but the applicant considered it was best practice to ensure all parts of the site could be accessed easily by fire vehicles. This permission was granted subject to the following height restriction condition:

"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, whichever is the lesser."

1.11. In February 2008 the applicant appealed a number of conditions relating to this permission, including heights of stacked vehicles. The appeal was to be heard by way of a Local Public Inquiry on 4 July 2008.

1.12. After the appeal was submitted, on 1 July 2008, a special meeting of the Liaison Panel took place because the applicant wanted the comments of the Liaison Panel on the effectiveness of the netting the company had erected in combination with the planting undertaken to the east of the site. The applicant considered the mitigation measures were very effective in screening the planting and wished to see if the Liaison Panel would agree, so that the matters intended to be raised at appeal could be addressed through this current planning application.

1.13. It is understood the Liaison Panel was supportive of the effectiveness of the screening measures viewed in July 2008, albeit that what was viewed does not exactly reflect what is proposed by way of this application because some vehicles stacked four cars high would be nearer to the eastern boundary.

1.14. At the Liaison Panel meeting the applicant showed that inside the site on the eastern boundary he had stacked vehicles three high for the first 15 metres depth and four high on the western side of the site. He wanted to demonstrate that because of the fall of the land, the vehicles stacked to three high could not be seen from the land to the east - ie the ground level of nearby properties, including those properties on higher ground to the east. He also wanted to demonstrate that the vehicles stacked four high on the western side of the yard could not be seen above the opaque netting from the east because of the fall of the land of over two metres from east to west. Vehicles could not be seen from Lake Road which is separated from the site by woodland.

1.15. Since submission of the application the applicant has constructed the hard standing being applied for. This is unauthorised development and it has been verified that this hard standing, instead of being the 10 metres in width currently applied for, is actually 10.9 metres wide. Bollards approved under past permissions on the site that would prevent encroachment of the stacked vehicles onto the fire working area are still to be implemented. Netting and scaffold fencing has also been erected on the eastern side of the fire access track in an unauthorised location and in a location not applied for by way of the current submission. The applicant was asked to remove this but at the time of the Regulatory Committee Members' Site Visit some of the unauthorised scaffold supports and netting were still in existence on site. The applicant has now informed the County Council that the unauthorised fencing and netting has been removed.

1.16. Also, since the Members' site visit, a survey undertaken by the applicant at the request of the County Council has revealed that the netting around the site is in fact 5.9-6.0 metres high above the base of the fire track and not the 5.0 metres maximum height currently approved.

1.17. Since the Members' site visit the applicant has been undertaking surveys and producing cross section views of the site at locations agreed with the County Council. The applicant has also altered the proposal to incorporate the netting height of 6.0 metres on the site, and the 10.9 metre fire working area as opposed to the 10 metres initially submitted.

2) Proposal

2.1. The application has been revised a number of times since originally submitted and since the Regulatory Committee site visit that took place in September 2008, resulting from survey information undertaken before and after Christmas 2008 that has necessitated changes to the height of the netting, and width of the fire track and the areas of the site covered by one, two, three and four high racked vehicles. The applicant is now proposing for Silverlake Garage:

(i) change of width of fire access track on the eastern boundary to 10.9 metres rather than the currently approved 7.5 metres (plus lay-bys) to enable improved fire emergency working area;

(ii) associated realignment of planting, security fencing where lay-bys would be removed;

(iii) additional obscure netting to north-east and north-west boundaries; and

(iv) variation of condition 5 of permission No. 07/00714/HCS to allow storage of vehicles to a maximum of four high (6.8 metres above concrete base level), excluding a 20 metres wide strip on the eastern boundary where the maximum will be three high (5.5 metres above concrete base level).

2.2. The plans and cross-sections requested by the County Council and Members at the site visit in 2008 were submitted in January 2009 and revised further on 2 February 2009.

2.3. The applicant wishes to highlight a number of issues in support of this application:

2.4. The applicant states that since first being granted permission for the new building in 2005 the company secured the Hampshire Waste contract for End of Life Vehicles (ELVs) on 1 April 2008. The Hampshire Waste contract requires that the company collects abandoned vehicles in 24 hours and emergency vehicles in 4 hours.

2.5. Since 1 April 2008 the Silverlake Autoparts has reduced the collection times of abandoned vehicles from 24 hours to an average of 8 hours across Hampshire. The emergency vehicle collection time has been reduced from 4 hours to 3 hours across Hampshire. Under the Hampshire and the Southampton contracts over 1,000 abandoned vehicles per year are collected and processed.

2.6. The applicant adds that the site provides a `One Stop Shop' for the county with relation to ELVs - a fully sustainable service, notably the collection, de-pollution, recycling and re-uses of spares for cars, caravans and lorries. Local employment has also increased since the granting of planning permission in 2005 from 30 staff to 60 staff and this figure is still growing. Overall the applicant considers the site at Silverlake and the company has made a significant investment and continues to make significant investment including in new technology and has still managed to provide a sustainable service in these difficult economic times.

2.7. The applicant states the current application is very important to the business and the increased storage capacity it would provide is a necessity, particularly at a time when other ELV and similar vehicle yards are closing down due to the recession. He highlights that the company is meeting the 85% recycling target for ELV vehicles.

2.8. To conclude, the applicant states he considers the business offers inspirational solutions to other issues as well as the collection and treatment of ELV vehicles, such as the fire reservoir and the fire access track enabling the fire authority, in the event of a fire, to re-fuel with water on-site. The applicant adds that since submission he has revised the depth of 3 car stacks from 15 metres from the eastern boundary to 20 metres (thus reducing the cars stacked at 4 high) to ensure there is no possibility of anyone seeing the cars from any of the viewpoints outlined on the submitted plans.

3) Development Plan:

3.1. Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (July 2007) DC22 (Additional Plant, Buildings and Minor Development); DC3 (Impact on Landscape and Townscape).

4) Consultations:

4.1. The local Member, Councillor Felicity Hindson, comments:

"The Liaison Panel which the Committee asked to be set up has worked hard, holding several meetings on site with the applicant, to establish how the visual impact of the automotive recycling facility and its stored vehicles could be lessened and made more acceptable to local residents. At the last meeting in July 2008 the owner did demonstrate where the proposed additional netting could be hung to further improve visual impact and explained the proposal to remove the lay-bys in the fire track and replace these with an overall width of 10 metres. The Liaison Panel therefore considered that the meetings were beginning to achieve their objectives of more positive and effective mitigation.

It is therefore a cause of great concern to find that the concrete realigning the access track to an overall width of 10 metres has been laid down before planning permission has been given. It gives further concern to learn that completely fresh information has been submitted giving the height of three cars stacked to be 5.01 metres, not the 4.9 metres originally stated and that four cars stacked reach a height of 6 metres. The height of the netting which had been hung was given as 5 metres, but if this is the case the netting cannot conceal cars stacked three high, let alone cars stacked four high though the fall in site level adds another complication. I would therefore like Members to have accurate measurements taken in front of them on the site visit.

If Members are going to give approval to this application very careful consideration indeed will have to be given to the conditions and how they will be enforced to ensure that Silverlake Garage can continue to operate without causing any significant visual impact to its attractive rural setting. The Liaison Panel has worked hard to find further solutions to this and I do believe Members need to give this close attention and to help reassure local residents."

Councillor Hindson has been informed of the January 2009 revisions.

4.2. Curbridge Parish Council - has been consulted and its comments are awaited.

4.3. Shedfield Parish Council - states it has no comment to make on the application other than the netting is an improvement. It has been consulted on the revisions and its comments are awaited.

4.4. Environmental Health Officer - no objection.

4.5. Winchester City Council - no objection.

4.6. Southern Water Services Limited - no objection.

4.7. Environment Agency - no objection.

4.8. Highway Authority - no objection.

4.9. The Shedfield Society - states the current height of the netting is inadequate and the stacked vehicles are still visible above it. It also states the current mix of trees planting for screening does not achieve its purpose. Additional suitably located coniferous trees should be included in the woodland screen. The current permission states that cars should be three high, but the car rack uprights are equivalent to four cars high even though the cars are stacked three high. The Shedfield Society has been consulted on the recent revisions and its comments are awaited.

4.10. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority - states that the proposal to widen the access road would be considered as an improvement in the fire appliance access to the site. It has been consulted on the recent revisions.

5) Report of Site Visit

5.1. Members of the Committee, Councillors Mrs Bailey, Beagley, Cooper, Hockley, Neal and Simpson, with Councillor McIntosh in the chair, undertook a visit on 29 September 2008 to Silverlake Garage, Botley Road, Shedfield. The local Member, Councillor Felicity Hindson, was also present. Members met representatives of Winchester City Council, Shedfield Parish Council, two local residents and the applicants, Silverlake Autoparts.

5.2. The Head of Planning and Development introduced the application and outlined the key features of the application to realign the access track, extend the concrete fire access area, expand the areas of netting which aimed to screen the site from the adjoining properties and countryside, and to provide for cars to be stacked four high. She explained the planning history of the site which was in two main parts:

(i) the new building under construction with the existing building and its original car storage yard behind; and

(ii) the new rear yard vehicle storage area recently permitted by the County Council which included the emergency fire access area, the paved area and fencing, netting and planting on the eastern boundary.

5.3. Members toured the site and viewed the area where the access track would be realigned, the area proposed for further landscaping along the eastern boundary, the areas where the line of netting would be expanded to reduce further the extent of views into the site from the west, north and south-east; and they also viewed the current layout of vehicles stacked three or four high. In this connection they saw typical measurements which showed vehicles stacked four high totalled 6.7 metres to 6.8 metres in height and vehicles stacked three high were a total of 5.5 metres in height. They then viewed the site from the garden of Row Ash House and from the rear of four adjoining properties and saw the extent to which the netting and landscaping screened the site and from which angles vehicles were visible from outside. They also noted in the course of their inspection the way in which the land sloped downwards from east to west and that slope continued gradually westwards across the application site towards the woodland adjoining Lake Road which lay beyond it.

5.4. Within the site the current layout from east to west was:

(i) 10 metre wide fire access area, 25 metres of vehicles stacked three high, 7 metre wide access way and then vehicles stacked four high across the rest of the site.

5.5. The revised layout for the site, again from east to west, was:

(i) 10 metre wide fire access area, 15 metres of vehicles stacked three high, then the 7 metre wide access way, and then vehicles stacked four high across the remainder of the site.

5.6. Key issues which emerged from the inspection were:

(i) that fact that the application was retrospective in respect of the 10 metre wide concrete fire access area, since this had already been constructed;

(ii) the need for a full section across the site with precise measurements to be provided, in order to determine what was visible from where, taking into account the planting, netting and the gradual fall of the land from east to west;

(iii) the reference on the plan to a small area of cars proposed to be stacked three high on the original yard area behind the buildings, which the applicant confirmed was an error and would be deleted from the application;

(iv) the need to control the maximum height of vehicle stacks by condition;

(v) the need for a condition to ensure that large vans or vehicles were accommodated at lower levels and not placed on top of the stacks thereby increasing the height;

(vi) the visual impact of vehicles stacked four high as opposed to three high;

(vii) the extent to which screening and planting arrangements would be effective in winter when virtually all the trees would lose their leaves; and

(viii) any impact on views from the local footpath network and nature reserve would also need to be taken into account.

5.7. The report to be prepared for Regulatory Committee would therefore need to include precise details of the heights of stacks, the height of the netting and the slope of the land, with a full section across the site drawn to scale which would give a clear indication of intervisibility.

6) Representations:

6.1. Four representations have been received to the proposal, two raising objections and two from Members of the Liaison Panel making comments on the proposals. The two objections have been received from residents of a property on Botley Road near the site and a resident of Lake Road, Curdridge.

6.2. The principal grounds of objection that are material to the application:

(i) stacking of vehicles at three high should be enforced as they can see the screening at ground level when stacked four high;

(ii) the Fire Authority does not require the access road to be widened;

(iii) the applicant may have future storage use intentions on the widened access track;

(iv) that part of the access track inside the security fence should not be concreted, but surfaced with net pave as this will reduce drainage issues to western boundary land and also will prevent any future use for car storage; and

(v) planting needs to be undertaken as soon as possible.

6.3. One of the objectors, of Lake Road, supports that part of the proposal for additional netting on the northern and western boundaries and adds that it should be five metres high.

6.4. Comments received from two Members of the Liaison Panel are summarised below:

(i) Existing netting is a vast improvement and therefore support given to proposals to have additional netting on northern and western boundaries. Request that any permission makes netting permanent as the deciduous tree screen will not screen cars in winter.

(ii) No evidence for the enlarged fire access track from the Fire Authority.

(iii) Any condition needs to refer to maximum height of vehicles and stacks to be no more than 4.9 metres high as well as maximum number of vehicles stacked as three.

(iv) Relaxation of landscape condition preventing use of conifers.

7) Commentary:

7.1. The main issues raised by the application relate to whether the changes to the site at Silverlake Garage are acceptable. The key issue raised by the proposal is the need to control the heights of vehicles and their associated racks, so that they cannot be seen from the site's surroundings to the detriment of the rural character of the area and local visual amenity.

7.2. It is readily apparent from detailed site inspections that the existing netting is overall an effective screen to the extent that it enables the stacking of vehicles to be more effectively screened in combination with the approved planting. It is noted that there is not complete agreement by local residents about the merits of the application and some residual issues from the original permission have been raised. However, the application addresses some of the screening concerns by additional netting while other elements of the proposal do not have a significant impact. It is considered therefore that the proposed additional netting is a positive contribution to the existing scheme.

7.3. The key requirement of the application was the need for it to be supported by detailed drawings, in particular cross-sections showing the heights of the vehicles with relation to the significant fall of the land across the site, and how the site appears visually from key viewpoints. These were submitted in January 2009. However the County Council considered that these cross-sections demonstrated that the view lines from the south and east particularly show that people's eye view could just be able see the very top of the cars at 6.8 metres as the predicted view lines pass exactly across the stacked vehicles at 6.8 metres high. This did not allow any margin for error or if the viewpoints were taken from a different place where land levels may be slightly different or from a person taller than the eye line on the plan. Accordingly, the applicant has been informed of this and has subsequently amended the plans so increasing the area of proposed 3 car stacks to 20 metres from the eastern boundary as opposed to the 15m initially proposed. The associated plans and cross sections were amended on 2 February 2009.

7.4. Whilst there are currently 25 metres of three car stacks on-site, the applicant states he cannot, for the reasons outlined under Section 3 of this report, adhere to this layout. Because the recession is forcing other yards to close and because of the quantity of ELV vehicles needed to be collected, he can only reduce the area of existing 3 car stacks by 5 metres if he is to continue to run a viable business and meet the requirements of the Hampshire Waste Contract. Even the revision to 20 metre depth of 3 car racks he says is not ideal and will put pressure on his business, but he wants to work with the County Council and do what is best for the environment. To conclude on this point, by 2 February 2009 the applicant had submitted all the drawings Members asked for at the Site Visit.

7.5. In relation to more general matters, whilst it is considered very disappointing that not only has the concrete fire working area been implemented, but also wider than originally proposed, its impact is not so significant given the existence of the netting and planting and it is noted that the Fire Authority considers a wider working area beneficial. Similarly, whilst the on-site netting is 6 metres high and not 5 metres as currently approved, it is considered this increased height does have an added screening benefit and the applicant has included this height amendment to the netting in his current application. It has also been disappointing to find scaffold fencing erected in the wrong location but the applicant has now removed.

7.6. It is noted that a comment has been made from a local person about wanting the netting to be a permanent feature. This is regarded as impracticable as the material has a limited lifespan and the Waste Planning Authority cannot impose an indefinite maintenance regime as part of a permission. The most effective means of meeting visual amenity objectives would be to require the netting to be in place for ten years and maintained during that period. At the end of the period the planting should be sufficiently mature to be as an effective screen as the netting.

7.7. Further site inspections since the Members' site visit have also revealed that the planting has not been carried out fully in accordance with the existing planning permission, in that the species mix has not been planted fully as approved and holly has not been included, but also the planting screen width is actually in excess of that shown on the submitted plans. Whilst the planting mix needs to be corrected (as the need for holly was a requirement of local residents), the additional width of the current planting belt is now very much needed and is an environmental benefit. Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition is imposed requiring a scheme be submitted reflecting the on-site alignment of the rabbit- and deer-proof fencing and the additional planting, in order that it can be monitored and controlled. The applicant's intention to undertake all remaining planting on the site in accordance with approved plans is noted and welcomed.

7.8. The request for additional non-native coniferous planting is noted but, as decided by the Regulatory Committee on the previous applications, this cannot be supported as it would set an undesirable precedent of encouraging the planting of non-native conifers in the countryside to screen new development.

7.9. Overall, despite the unsatisfactory part-retrospective nature of the proposal, including the unauthorised fencing that has now been removed, it is considered the development is acceptable because the additional netting provides enhanced screening. It is further noted that the additional concrete provides a better fire working area.

7.10. The applicant's comments about how efficiently the company is implementing the Hampshire Waste Contract and the importance of the site to the county is noted. It is also noted also that the site appears clean tidy and well run. It is unfortunate the applicant has sometimes undertaken minor development prior to planning permission being granted but this is now being rectified by way of this application. Overall the proposal provides environmental benefit in terms of screening. To conclude, it is recommended that because the proposal provides environmental enhancement and screening benefit the application be approved subject to conditions. The attached conditions include those brought forward from the previous two permission in 2005 and 2007 in order that there is one current composite permission for monitoring purposes.

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

Minor amendments to planning permission 07/00714/HCS to change alignment of the fire access to enable improved fire emergency working area and associated realignment of planting, security fencing and additional obscure netting to north-east and north-west boundaries; variation of Condition 5 of permission 07/00714/HCS to allow storage of vehicles to a maximum of four high, excluding 15 metres on eastern boundary at three high at Silverlake Garage, Row Ash, Botley Road, Shedfield (08/01512/HCS)

Environment Department
Castle Avenue
Room G, Lower Ground Floor

CONDITIONS:

Timescale:

1) The development for the replacement building and extension to storage area as granted under planning permission No. W05767/11 04/02726/HCM shall be implemented in accordance with the working programme approved under the said permission. The approved scheme and programme shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To enable the Waste Planning Authority to adequately control the development and to minimise its impact on the amenities of the local area.

2) Within one month of the date of this permission or by 31 March 2009, whichever is the later, the development of the fire access area, re-alignment of security fencing and scaffold fencing and netting, and new layout of car stacks (including the planting and fencing approved this permission shall have been implemented in accordance with the plans and documents approved under planning permission No. 07/00714/HCS W05767/12 and as amended by way of this permission - as shown on plan No.593/01 Rev A (2 February 2009) cross-sections No. 593/02 Rev. A (2 February 2009) and layout plan `fence details' No. 593/03 (January 2009) 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.

3) Planting approved under permission No. 04/02726/HCM W05767/11, and permission No. 07/00714/HCS W05767/12 (as amended by this permission) shall have been implemented in accordance with details approved under Condition (3) by 31 March 2009.

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.

Construction:

4) Within two weeks of the date of this certificate the alignment of the fire access track from the Botley Road to the fire working area as approved under planning permission No. 07/00714/HCS on 28 June 2007 shall be pegged out on-site and approved by the Waste Planning Authority to enable the associated planting screening the site from the Botley Road to take place this planting season, by 31 March 2009, along with the netting and scaffold fence south of the fire working area gate approved by way of this permission. The access track from the Botley Road to the fire working area subject of this permission shall be constructed with Netlon Netpave sufficient to withstand a gross weight of 26 tonnes in accordance with manufacturer's specifications, and soiled and seeded as detailed in the approved specification dated 8 June 2007, within six months of the date of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area and to ensure the track is fit for emergency vehicles and to ensure there is no encroachment of stacked vehicles on to the fire track which would impact on fire safety and the rural character of the area.

Height of Stacked Vehicles:

5) Vehicles stacked on the site, and the racks which support the vehicles, shall be limited to the heights and locations shown as areas A, B, C and D on revised plan No. 593/03 Rev. A (2 February 2009) and cross-section No. 593/02 Rev A (2 February 2009).

A is the area limited to three cars high from ground level to top of the racks or highest car roof or no greater than 5.5 metres as measured from ground level, whichever is the lesser;

B is the area limited to four cars high from ground level to top of the racks or highest car roof or no greater than 6.8 metres as measured from ground level, whichever is the lesser;

C is the area limited to two cars high from ground level to top of the racks or highest car roof or, no greater than two metres as measured from ground level whichever is the lesser; and

D is one car high from ground level to top of the racks or highest car roof or no greater than 1.5 metres high, whichever is the lesser.

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

6) Those parts of the site shown as A, B and C on plan No. 593/03 January 2009 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 these car stacking areas 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.

Fencing:

7) No construction of the additional netting subject of this permission to the north, west and south eastern boundaries shall take place until the location/alignment of the netting and associated scaffold fencing has been pegged out and agreed on-site and approved by the Waste Planning Authority.

Reason: To reduce any adverse impact on the rural character and amenities of the area.

8) The netting, scaffold fence and security fencing shall be implemented as detailed on approved plan No. 593/03 (January 2009/February 2009). This 6.0 metre high netting and scaffold shall be maintained and kept in such repair to effectively screen the site until 31 December 2020.

Reason: The netting is only a short life solution for the maintenance of visual amenity until the screen planting has matured.

Planting/Landscaping:

9) Within one month of the date of this permission a revised planting scheme reflecting the changes to the alignment of the fencing and planting currently on site along the eastern boundary, together with the associated deer- and rabbit-proof fencing, shall be submitted to the Waste Planning Authority for approval in writing. By 31 March 2009 this planting, together with that previously approved to the north of the site and to the west of the realigned fire access track, illustrated on plan No. S/2114:50c approved under planning permission No. 07/00714/HCS W0576712/12, and other native planting detailed on this plan, 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. The planting beds shall be prepared in accordance with the approved landscape specification dated 8 June 2007.

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) No planting shall take place until deer- and rabbit-proof fencing has been implemented in accordance with details approved under permission No. 07/00714/HCS W0576712/12 and this permission, as shown on approved plan No. S/2114:50c and as revised by plan No. S/2114 50f and the specification dated 8 June 2007. All support and cross posts shall be constructed of tanalised timber.

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

11) Any trees or shrubs which, within a period of five years from the date of planting (which applies to any tree/shrub planted between year 1 and year 5) 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.

Hours of Working:

12) All work relating to the construction of the development hereby approved, including works of demolition, or preparation prior to operations, the delivery of construction materials, skips or machinery, and the removal of waste materials, shall only take place between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday inclusive, and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturday and at no time 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.

13) No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the site except between the hours of 0730 and 1800 Monday-Friday and 0730 and 1700 on Saturday and 0930 and 1300 hours on Sunday, (with the exception of the crusher which shall not operate on Sunday). There shall be no activity of any sort taking place on bank holidays with the exception of emergency abandoned vehicle deliveries whereby one delivery may enter the site at any time outside of these permitted hours, including Sunday and bank holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

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

14) All traffic related to the construction of the development shall ensure its wheels are thoroughly cleaned of mud before crossing over the public footpath and A334 public highway to access and egress the site. 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 and 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.

Lighting:

16) There shall be no external lighting on the site subject of this permission and the existing premises and storage yard permitted under permission No. 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 No. 04/02726/HCM W05767/11.

Reason: In the interests of visual highway safety.

Other

17) Bollards shall be erected along the eastern edge of the yard extension area approved by way of this permission and as shown on plan No. S/2144:50f within four weeks of the date of this certificate, separating the car stacking area from the concrete fire working area. Details of the bollards spacing shall be agreed in writing by the Waste Planning Authority on site and thereafter implemented in accordance with this approval.

Reason: To ensure there is no encroachment of car racks onto the fire working area.

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 DC22 - Additional Plant, Buildings and Minor Development:

Additional plant, buildings and minor developments at active minerals and waste sites, or the exploration of minerals (except oil and gas), will be permitted provided, where appropriate, they do not extend the timescale for completion of the development , they are ancillary to the operation of the site or they provide for the co-location of complementary minerals and waste activities.