Archived decisions

Decision Maker:

Regulatory Committee

Date of Decision:

27 May 2009

Decision Title:

Applicant: Bryan Hirst Limited

Change of use garden to waste management site and change of use waste management site to garden at Broadview Scrapyard, Woods Lane, Cliddesden, Basingstoke (Application No. BDB/70400) (County Council Ref: BA127)

Decision Reference:

735

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 is sought for change of use from garden to waste management site and change of use from waste management site to garden at Broadview Scrapyard, Cliddesden. The application follows enforcement action by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council which the applicant seeks to regularise through submitting a planning application.

2) Issues:

2.1. The proposal would increase the area of the scrapyard, and this extension would be into countryside. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy. The issues are whether this extension in area would increase adverse amenity impacts for local residents and whether the removal of the area near the houses from waste management use would have sufficient benefit to mitigate the impact of retaining the increased area to the south.

2.2. It is considered that to retain this expansion of the scrapyard is likely to lead to further intensification and increased adverse impacts for local residents. The benefit in cessation of waste management use at the smaller area close to the houses would not be sufficient to overcome the policy objections.

3) Recommendation:

3.1. That permission for change of use from garden to waste management site and change of use from waste management site to garden at Broadview Scrapyard, Woods Lane, Cliddesden (Application No. BDB/70400) be refused for the following reason.

4) Reason for Decision:

4.1. The proposal is contrary to Policy DC13 of the Hampshire Portsmouth Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Policy A5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local plan 1996-2001 in that the extension of the site is in countryside and not on employment land nor does it reuse/redevelop previously developed land.

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

1) Site and Proposal:

1.1. The site, as shown on the attached plan, is located on the edge of Cliddesden village to the south-east of the M3 motorway. The site is in use as a scrapyard and lies behind the frontage houses with access onto Woods Lane. The access to the main highway network is via Hatch Warren in Basingstoke. There is a tarmac access drive and most of the area of the scrapyard had been surfaced in concrete. There are portacabin offices and a weighbridge on site, together with crushing and lifting equipment and piles of scrap metal. The nearest houses are those on Woods Lane. The site is bounded on three sides by open countryside.

1.2. The scrapyard benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (CLUD) granted by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in January 1993, and has a waste management licence granted by the Environment Agency. More recently there has been a change in ownership and an intensification of activity at the site.

2) Planning History:

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

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

2.3. BDB 63636 - Erection of six dwellings, creation of vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, garaging and landscaping. Withdrawn July 2006.

2.4. BDB 67416 - Erection of detached dwelling following demolition of existing. Granted January 2008.

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

2.6. BDB69048 - Construction of retaining wall and noise attenuation bund, construction of offices, processing and storage building, demolition of four existing buildings, erection of ground mounted mobile weighbridge, change of use from garden to waste management use, change of use from waste management to garden. Refused September 2008.

2.7 Enforcement Notice served July 2008 by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council concerning:

(i) unauthorised extension to scrapyard;

(ii) retention of shipping containers;

(iii) hard surfacing of an area adjacent to the access;

(iv) the erection of a fence with a height of more than 2 metres;

(v) use of an area for residential use;

(vi) retention of metal containers.

2.8. The applicant has complied with some of the requirements of the Enforcement Notice, and this application has been submitted to address the breach of the unauthorised extension to the scrapyard.

3) Proposal

3.1. The application is concerned with an area of concrete hardstanding which is now acknowledged as being outside the area of the CLUD. The applicant states the area was originally identified by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Councils enforcement officers who visited the site and gave a ruling on the boundary. The applicant then concreted up to this boundary and used it as part of the scrapyard. It is now acknowledged that this advice was wrong, and the applicant withdrawn his activities to an area he considers is within the CLUD. There is a further area within the CLUD near to the houses which the applicant is prepared to exchange for the concreted area to the rear.

3.2. The applicant states that the exchange of land and change of use would not increase activities within the site nor generate additional lorry movements, and would have a benefit in moving potential source of noise further away from the houses.

4) Development Plan:

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

4.2. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Local Plan 1996 - 2011 Policy E1 and E6 are relevant.

5) Consultations:

5.1. The Local Member, Councillor McNair Scott, comments "As the committee may remember, I objected to a planning application submitted by the operator of this site at the meeting of 3 September 2008, and as the reasons for my objection remain the same, I have asked for my written note to be re-presented to Members.

Since then, enforcement notices have been issued by Basingstoke and Deane with mixed results - some but not all have been complied with. Residents have continued to complain about both noise levels and heavy traffic movements, some of them out of agreed working hours. There are as yet unresolved issues about the exact area included within the CLUD, and a noise assessment requested and carried out by the Environment Agency. One problem is that the background noise from the M3 is considerable so the average increase of noise is only one decibel. However, the nature of the work carried out on the site does not produce a constant noise: there are frequent very loud crashes of metal being dropped or dragged across concrete which exceed the average measurement by a great deal more. Also, depending on wind direction and atmospheric conditions, the noise from the motorway can vary so on a day when the background noise is less, the crashing from the scrapyard will sound even louder

The applicant's proposal to widen the access to the site does nothing to address the problems described in my previous note to the committee: lorries will still have to use the full width of the road when entering or leaving the site, and because of the bend, visibility is still limited.

There is no doubt that Broadview would not now be considered for an activity of this kind in a residential location, and I hope that it may be possible for the Committee to use its influence with the Environment Agency to impose conditions which are acceptable to the residents. I also hope that the Committee will turn down the application."

5.2. Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council raises objection on grounds the proposal would involve the encroachment of the site onto land not previously in use and which is required to return to its previous undeveloped state. The expansion would not only detract from the rural character of the area but would increase the potential of the site to cause additional disturbance to the quiet amenities of the countryside and of local residents. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to policies E1,E6 and A5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Local Plan as well as policies DC8 and DC13 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. The proposed release of another part of the site which can lawfully be used as part of the scrapyard for a residential use would not give rise to sufficient benefit to outweigh the harm caused by the expansion and relative intensification of the use which is proposed in this application.

5.3. Environmental Health Officer, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council raises no objection.

5.4. Environment Agency raises no objection.

5.5. Highway Authority raises no objection.

5.6. Cliddesden Parish Council raises objection on same grounds as the local residents.

5.7 Campaign for the Protection of Rural England raises objection on the grounds there would be an increase in the waste management area which would inevitably lead to more noise, traffic and disturbance to local residents. It would extend into the countryside which should not be permitted. It seeks to legitimise a planning breach and should be refused.

6) Representations:

6.1. Fourteen letters of objection received from local residents on the grounds that:

(i) the area close to the house where it is proposed to cease waste management use is not used for heavy noise producing activities, therefore little benefit to nearby residents in moving activity to the back of the site;

(ii) the area proposed for additional waste management use is larger than the area to be given up, therefore if granted would increase the area for waste management use with consequences for increased traffic, on site activities noise and general disturbance;

(iii) the increase would be encroachment into open countryside contrary to policy;

(iv) the application plans overstate the area permitted under the CLUD, therefore application factually incorrect and misleading in this regard; and

(v) the application seeks to legitimise one of many planning breaches, as such any approval would serve to encourage such an unacceptable approach.

7) Commentary:

7.1. The proposal would increase the area of the scrapyard, and this extension would be into countryside. Therefore the proposal is contrary to policy. The issues are whether this extension in area would increase adverse amenity impacts for local residents and whether the removal of the area near the houses from waste management use would have sufficient benefit to mitigate the impact of retaining the extended area to the south.

7.2. The applicant states that the proposals would not increase activities within the site nor generate any additional traffic. However, the proposals do increase the size of the site, and as such would enable further intensification of the activities. As such there is likely to be a further adverse impact for local residential amenity.

7.3. The proposed removal of waste management uses from the area close to the houses would be beneficial. However, this area is not currently in use for noisy activities and so there would be little noticeable impact from the cessation of use, although as the CLUD permits its use for waste processing its use and impacts could legally intensify in the future. This area is a lot smaller than the proposed additional area to be retained in the south east and thus the consequence of the proposals would be to increase the area of the scrapyard. On balance it is not considered that the benefits from removing waste management uses from the area close to the houses would counterbalance the impacts of the retaining the larger area to the south.

7.4. In conclusion the scrapyard has expanded beyond the boundaries of the CLUD and operations at the site have intensified, leading to increased adverse amenity impacts for local residents. It is considered that to retain this expansion of the scrapyard into the countryside is contrary to policy is likely to lead to further intensification and increased adverse impacts for local residents. The benefit in cessation of waste management use at the smaller area close to the houses would not be sufficient to overcome the policy objections. Consequently it is recommended to refuse planning permission.

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

Change of use garden to waste management site and change of use waste management site to garden at Broadview Scrapyard, Woods Lane, Cliddesden, Basingstoke (Application No. BDB/70400) (County Council Ref: BA127)

Environment Department
Castle Avenue
Room G, Lower Ground Floor

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.

BASINGSTOKE AND DEANE BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 1996-2011

Policy E1

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

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

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

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

(iv) provide a co-ordinated and comprehensive scheme that does not prejudice the development of adjoining land; and

(v) incorporate features to minimise the energy consumed in the construction and future use of the building, conserve water and minimise water use; and

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

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

Policy E6

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

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

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

(ii) visual amenity and scenic quality; and

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

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

(v) trees, hedgerows, water features and other landscape elements and features; and

(vi) historic landscapes, features and elements.