Archived decisions

Decision Maker:

Regulatory Committee

Date of Decision:

22 April 2009

Decision Title:

Applicant: Mr B Foulds

Screening bunds on land off A303, Owls Lodge Shooting Grounds, Longparish (Application No. 09/000148/HCC3N) (County Council Ref: TV231)

Decision Reference:

684

Report From:

Head of Planning and Development, Environment Department

Contact name:

Julia Davey

Tel:

01962 846732

Email:

[email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Background:

1.1. Planning permission is sought to construct a four metre high bund along the northern and currently open boundary of the Owls Lodge Shooting Grounds, just off the A303 near Longparish. The application also involves extending and creating small internal bunds to separate sport shooting disciplines within the site. The bunds would be constructed from imported inert waste and also material recovered and supplied by the adjacent inert and farm waste recycling facility currently operated by Raymond Brown.

1.2. The applicant states that, should the application be permitted, lorry movements generated by the proposal would not exceed the lorry numbers already permitted for the existing waste recycling facility. The bund would take 12-18 months to complete.

1.3. Hours of working would be 7.30-1800 Monday to Friday and 7.30-1300 on Saturday. There would be no working on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

1.4. The applicant states the bund is needed to reduce any noise impacts to local residents and for security and health and safety requirements of the British Shooting Association.

1.5. The site has a complex planning history relating to applications determined by Test Valley Borough Council, which is currently objecting to the proposal. The planning history includes an appeal decision concerning the sport shooting disciplines on the site. The Olympic Committee has expressed support for the application stating it would wish to use the site as a training ground for the 2012 Olympics but it needs to conform to relevant health and safety standards. The parish councils and the local Borough Councillor support the application on noise mitigation grounds.

2) Issues:

2.1. The main issues raised by the proposal are:

(i) planning policy concerning landfill;

(ii) the need for a bund of the scale and form proposed for the purposes of mitigating noise impacts;

(iii) site security; and

(iv) heath and safety in connection with sport shooting.

Additionally there are concerns about adverse visual impacts and conflicts with permissions previously granted.

3) Recommendations:

3.1. That permission for screening bunds on land at Owls Lodge Shooting Grounds, Longparish (Application No. 09/000148/HCC3N) be refused on the grounds that that part of the development comprising the northern boundary bund is contrary to Policies DC3 and DC14 of the Core Strategy, in that it is considered the importation of such a significant quantity of inert waste is not justified for the purpose of providing site security and noise attenuation or to comply with health and safety shooting requirements, and the scale and form are unacceptable.

4) Reason for Decision:

4.1. The landfill of waste is not normally acceptable in the countryside, except as part of the restoration of mineral workings. Whilst the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (summary attached as an appendix) supports the use of inert waste for some infrastructure projects, it is considered the quantity of waste being imported and the scale and form of the proposal is excessive in relation to its purpose.

1) Site and Proposal:

1.1. Planning permission is sought to construct a four metre high bund along the northern and currently open boundary of the Owls Lodge Shooting Grounds, just north of the A303 near Longparish. The application also involves extending and creating small internal bunds to separate shooting disciplines within the site. The bunds would be constructed from imported inert waste comprising soils, sub-soils, chalk, clay, concrete and bricks, and also material recovered and supplied by the adjacent inert and farm waste recycling facility currently operated by Raymond Brown.

1.2. The site, as shown on the attached plan, extends across a total area of 4.68 hectares just north of the A303 near the Barton Stacey slip road and approximately 2,000 metres south of the village of Longparish. The village of Barton Stacey is located approximately 1,800 metres to the south on the other side of the A303. To the south of the site lies a waste recycling facility granted by the County Council, which is accessed by a private road owned by the applicant across which all other users in the immediate vicinity have a right of access. Beyond the private road, from which the shooting ground is also accessed, is land owned by the Ministry of Defence used as a training ground for plant, helicopter and firing manoeuvres. A gas `pigging' station is located to the south-east. Agricultural land borders the site to the north and open land and some woodland to the west. The site is currently screened by five metre bunds to the west, east and south.

1.3. The proposed bund on the northern boundary would be approximately 450 metres long and approximately 25 metres wide .The applicant states that Raymond Brown would be solely responsible for providing the necessary daily inert waste, which would be likely to include chalk extracted as part of new housing developments being constructed in the Andover area. The applicant states that, should the application be permitted, lorry movements generated by the proposal would not exceed the lorry numbers already permitted for the existing waste recycling facility, and governed by the 100,000 cubic metres per annum capacity contained in the Environment Agency permit for the recycling operation. The applicant adds that the bund would take 12-18 months to complete.

1.4. Raymond Brown would be providing 40% of the material sourced through the adjacent recycling facility. Approximately 60% of the material would be imported directly to the site by Raymond Brown. It is estimated that the 60% imported materials would generate approximately 26 movements (13 loads in and 13 out per day). As a comparison, if Raymond Brown was not providing approximately 40% recycled materials and if all materials were to be imported directly to the site, the applicant estimates that the maximum lorry movements generated by the proposal would be 100 movements (50 loads in and 50 loads out) per day.

1.5. .Hours of working would be 7.30-1800 hours Monday to Friday and 7.30-1300 hours on Saturday. There would be no working on Sundays or recognised public holidays.

1.6. A revision to the proposal involving a combination of naturally occurring earth spoils, acoustic fencing and woodland planting scheme was submitted to the County Council but latterly withdrawn.

1.7. The site has a complex planning history relating to applications submitted and determined by the Borough Council and the Planning Inspectorate. The main permissions are listed below:

(i) TVN.6331/1 - outline planning permission for use of agricultural land for clay pigeon shooting with associated clubhouse, store and car park - granted December 1991.

(ii) TVN.6331/5 - following a Judicial Review, full permission for clay pigeon shooting grounds and extension of time for the submission of reserved matters - granted December 2001.

(iii) TVN.06331/10 - extension of time granted by Test Valley Borough Council for submission of details required by TVN.06331/5 for the use of the clay pigeon shooting ground and associated clubhouse - granted March 2003.

(iv) TVN.06331/10 - Extension of time for submission and approval of details required by conditions 2, 3, and 4 of TVN.06331/5 for additional 12 months - Use for clay pigeon shooting ground with associated clubhouse, store and car park - granted March 2003.

(v) TVN.06331/13 - application refused for removal of Condition 1 of TVN.06331/10 to allow shooting other than Olympic Trap shooting beyond 7 December 2004 - granted December 2003.

(vi) TVN.06331/14 -Test Valley Borough Council application - retention of soil bunds - granted October 2004.

(vii) TVN.06331/14 - Retention of bunds permission - granted October 2004.

(viii) TVN.06331/15 - Test Valley Borough Council application -Variation of condition 1 of TVN.06331/10 to allow shooting (other than Olympic Trap for training purposes from the approved layout) for a further temporary period of 12 months - use for clay pigeon shooting ground with associated clubhouse, store and car park - refused February.2005.

(ix) 06/02968/VARN - Test Valley Borough Council application - removal of condition 1 of appeal decision (APP/C1760/A/05) which limited Olympic Trap shooting to cease on or before 31 December 2006 - granted December 2006.

(x) TVN.06/02870/CMAN - permission granted - by the County Council - for five years for a recycling facility to the south of and adjoining the shooting grounds - granted May 2007.

2) Development Plan:

2.1. Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2007 - policies:DC1 (sustainable development); DC3 (landscape); DC6 (highways); DC7 (biodiversity); DC8 (amenity); DC12 (aftercare); and S6 and DC14 (landfill).

2.2. Test Valley Borough Local Plan: Policies SET03 (overriding need for development in the countryside) and ESN24 (noisy sports).

3) Consultations:

3.1. The local Member, Councillor Woodhall, has been informed of the proposal.

3.2. Longparish Parish Council states that had the application been simply one to deposit waste it would have objected but with regards to the current proposal it raised no objection because it states that any additional noise protection would help to reduce noise from the shooting ground.

3.3. The Parish Council states that it disagrees with Test Valley Borough Council's objection to the application as it states that locally there is still concern about noise as the shooting does cause some disturbance to some Longparish residents. It adds that in view of the history of the site it stresses the importance of policing and monitoring to ensure that only suitable inert material is used.

3.4. For any access proposed from the A303 with regards to any waste importation by lorries, the Parish Council requests that a condition or legal agreement is entered into that prevents site vehicles from using the south side approach to and from Longparish village.

3.5. Barton Stacey Parish Council states it has no comments to make on the application.

3.6. Test Valley Borough Council raises objection to the proposal of the 64,000 cubic metre bund, on the grounds that the scale and form of the bund would create a significant level change and would be visible from public vantage points, such as the Newton Stacey Road, as an artificial feature exacerbated by the lack of suitable planting. It is considered the outer edge of the site has greater visual impact. Alterations to the inner bund are considered acceptable in this regard.

3.7. The Borough Council adds that in 2006 a Council appointed noise consultancy undertook noise testing at three different residential properties in Longparish direction from shooting at specific stand positions. It adds that whilst the testing did not take the form of full shoots it did provide sufficient information to assess the noise impact with a positive wind vector impact towards Longparish. The Borough Council has concluded the level of shooting which has planning permission is acceptable and therefore the proposed bund is not needed on noise grounds. The Borough Council has concerns over the lack of noise assessment to show what the difference in noise level is as a result of the proposed development.

3.8. The Borough Council adds that all previous applications have been determined on the basis that the site is safe for use and therefore is unclear why the bund is needed on safety grounds. It considers the bund would have an adverse impact on the landscape and, on the basis of the information provided at the time of writing these comments, the Borough Council objects to the initial application. The Borough Council's comments on the revised scheme comprising small bund, acoustic fencing and a belt of native deciduous planting are awaited.

3.9. Test Valley Borough Council Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposal.

3.10. The Highway Authority objects to the application - pending the receipt of further information - on the basis that inadequate information has been provided to demonstrate that safe and satisfactory access to the site can be provided that will not detrimentally impact upon the safety and convenience of the users of the highway.

3.11. The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the application but highlights that if any waste is to be used on site the applicant would be required to obtain the appropriate exemption or authorisation from the Agency.

3.12. Southern Water has no comments to make on the application.

3.13. Borough Councillor Jim Neal supports the proposals to reduce noise impacts from shooting in the village of Longparish .

4) Representations:

4.1. The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, The British International Clay Target Shooting Federation, and the Director of British Shooting give strong support to the application. It is stated that the site is only one of a very limited number where full Olympic disciplines are available in this country and, other than this site in Longparish, there are no other such sites in Hampshire or in adjoining counties and the application site currently provides an important training facility. The Committee states it will be indispensable for training the county's Olympic Athletes for 2012 and beyond, when training for more essential international competitions and future Olympics.

4.2. Raymond Brown Minerals and Recycling supports the application. It states it owns the Longparish recycling facility and the bunds would be able to re-use materials arising from the recycling and recovery operations. This would minimise unnecessary vehicle movements on the public highway and meet the County Council policies on re-use of recycled and recovered products as close to the source of production as possible.

4.3. A local resident raises issues about a covenant with HM Land Registry and the landowner which has existed for years prior to Test Valley granting permission in 1993. The resident adds villagers' concerns about noise from the shooting, questions whether there is time before 2012 Olympics to undertake all necessary preparation and training on the site and asks whether the importation of waste is merely a rubbish dumping exercise.

5) Commentary:

5.1. The principle of land filling with imported waste is not normally acceptable in the countryside, except as part of the restoration of mineral workings. Whilst the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (summary attached as an appendix) is supportive of the use of inert waste for some infrastructure projects, it is considered the quantity of waste proposed to be imported and the scale and form of this proposal excessive when considering the aims and objectives of the `bunds'/raised landform along the northern boundary for noise, security and health and safety reasons.

5.2. The main issues, other than the policy principle outlined above, raised by the proposal are whether there is a need for the construction of a bund or screen for the purposes of site security, landscape impacts, noise and health and safety and, if so, what form such a screen should take.

5.3. The comments of the various sports shooting organisations are noted, and it is considered that the principle of fully enclosing the shooting facility at Longparish is acceptable, as are the points of security and health and safety. However, it is unclear whether these are critical maters in the light of the Borough Council's comments and the fact the development may not be finished until 2010/11.

5.4. With regard to the noise issue, there is some dispute about the benefits of the proposal. The local people and the Borough Councillor, who live near to the site, state they do hear the shooting from the site. On the other hand the Borough Council states no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that an adverse noise impact is being generated by the shooting use.

5.5. On the other hand, the proposal is for the importation of 64,000 cubic metres of inert waste materials comprising soils, sub-soils, chalk, clay, concrete and bricks. This would create a significant landform in depth and length as well as height along the northern boundary which is considered unacceptable in landscape terms.

5.6. It is considered, on balance, that the current proposal is unacceptable in that it is not necessary to import 64,000 cubic metres of inert waste to achieve site security and heath and safety requirements regardless of the issue, which is in contention, as to whether or not there is currently a noise impact generated by shooting at the site to local residents. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be refused.

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

Screening bunds on land off A303, Owls Lodge Shooting Grounds, Longparish
(Application No. 09/000148/HCC3N)
(County Council Ref: TV231)

Environment Department
Castle Avenue
Room G, Lower Ground Floor

HAMPSHIRE MINERALS AND WASTE CORE STRATEGY 2007:

Policy DCI - Sustainable Minerals and Waste Development:

Minerals and waste developments will only be permitted if they meet the standards outlined in Policy S1 and, in appropriate circumstances, are designed and constructed to use water and energy efficiently.

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 DC7 - Biodiversity:

Minerals and waste developments will only be permitted if due regard is given to the likely effects of the proposed development on biodiversity and, where possible, proposals should conserve and enhance biodiversity.

Development likely to adversely impact upon `regionally or locally designated sites or protected species' - designated in adopted Local Plans or Local Development Frameworks - (including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), Species of Principle Importance for Biodiversity, Regionally Important Geological Sites and Local Nature Reserves) shall only be permitted if the merits of development outweigh the likely 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 DC12 - Restoration and Aftercare:

Mineral extraction, landfill and other appropriate developments will not be permitted unless there is satisfactory provision for the restoration of the site, within a reasonable timescale, for an after use consistent with the general planning objectives of the area.

The restoration and after care of sites should seek to meet two or more of the following planning objectives:

a. Improving public access to the countryside, including public access for disabled people and recreation;

b. Use for management of water resources and/or flooding management;

c. The improvement of biodiversity;

d. Use as back-up grazing for the New Forest;

e. Return to agriculture, forestry or other `open' use recreational facilities.

Proposals for mineral extraction and landfill must include provision for at least five years of aftercare following restoration of the site.

Restoration proposals for mineral workings in Aerodrome Safeguarding Zones should take account of the need for progressive working and restoration, to prevent open water bodies becoming bird roosts.

Policy DC14 - Landfill:

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

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

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

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

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

Policy S6 - Landfill

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

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

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

b. for civil engineering and other infrastructure projects, or

c. beneficially at the site of production.

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

TEST VALLEY BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 2006:

Policy SET03 (overriding need for development in the countryside):

Development in the countryside (i.e. outside the boundaries of settlements defined by Policy SET 01 and shown on the Inset Maps) will only be permitted if:

a. there is an overriding need for it to be located in the countryside; or

b. it is of a type appropriate in the countryside as set out in Policies SET 06 - 13, ESN 05-09, ESN 11, ESN 13 - 14, ESN 23 -25 and ESN 27 - 33.

For developments that require a building or buildings, it must be demonstrated that in the locality there are no existing buildings:

c. which are adequate for the proposed use;

d. which reasonably could be made available;

e. which have been severed from an existing farm unit; or

f. which have recently changed from the proposed use.

Policy ESN24 (noisy sports):

In the countryside proposals for noisy sports will be permitted provided that:

a. there would be no adverse impact on landscape character or conflict with the conservation of the country side;

b. there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents;

c. there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of users of public rights of way or other sites with public access;

d. noise emissions would not be unacceptable by virtue of location and/or attenuation measures;

e. the site is of sufficient size to accommodate any landscaping required to reduce the impact on the countryside;

f. conditions are imposed to restrict use of the land to outdoor recreational use and specifying a return to agriculture should the recreational use cease; and

g. any building provided is no larger than is essential to the function of the sport and is designed and located to minimise its impact on the countryside.