Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the change of use from agricultural storage to use of land for storage and transfer of waste material associated with gas utility works and ancillary storage of plant and equipment and materials associated with general construction and civil engineering business at Marwell Yard, Thompson Lane, Owslebury, Winchester.

1.2. The main issues are:

(i) Highways Authority have objected on highways safety grounds, and a Transport Statement was requested, but has not yet been received. The proposal is contrary to Policy DC6 (Highways);

(ii) if mitigation measures were to be implemented to improve highways safety, entrance visibility, further surveys could be required to satisfy ecological concerns. Moreover, the landscape character of the rural area would be jeopardised. The proposal is contrary to Policy DC3 (Landscape and Townscape);

(iii) the site is within the countryside and the proposed South Downs National Park. The proposal is contrary to Policy DC2 (Sites with International and National Designations);

(iv) insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate that the agricultural building used in this planning proposal is redundant. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy DC 13 (b) (Waste Management and Recycling (including Aggregate Recycling Facilities).

1.3. Planning permission for the retrospective application to store and transfer waste material at Marwell Yard, Thompsons Lane, Owslebury is recommended for refusal on the grounds that the development is contrary to Policy DC2, DC3, DC6 and DC13 (b) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007) in that insufficient information has been submitted to address highway concerns, and demonstrate that the agricultural barn is redundant and could be an acceptable use in the countryside and the proposed South Downs National Park. Moroever, works that would have to be undertaken to satisfy highway issues would raise landscape and ecological concerns that would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of a rural area.

2. Site and proposal

2.1. The application site is 0.75 hectares and is situated to the south of the village of Owslebury, Winchester. The site comprises of a steel framed (agricultural) storage building in the south-east corner with a compound in the north east corner, which is enclosed by 1.8 metre high steel palisade fencing. Material is stockpiled to the west of the storage barn. The site is located in countryside, it falls outside of the East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), but within the proposed South Downs National Park.

2.2. Access to the site is via a short, tarmac surfaced access road, which becomes an uneven track off Thompsons Lane, which is accessed off Portsmouth Road B2177. Thompsons Lane services Marwell Zoological Park, a grain store, plant nursery and an insulation company.

2.3. To the north of the site is a 20 metre wide strip of woodland which screens the site from views from Thompsons Lane. On an adjacent site to the east, there is a telecommunications mast and a group of agricultural/storage buildings. To the south, there is open countryside. On land to the west, there is an open storage use.

Site History

2.4. Hampshire County Council has received one previous planning application for Marwell Yard. In 2002 planning permission was granted for composting and worm farm, tree nursery for fodder and landscaping for Marwell Zoo. The proposal was a departure from the development plan, but it was considered that the development would not materially harm the character of the area of the amenity of local residents and would be acceptable in terms of highway safety and convenience. In 2004 an extension of time for the implementation of development was then sought for this planning permission, this was also granted by Hampshire County Council and extended for a further two years. Neither of these permissions were implemented. Complaints were received over the years following these permissions that stockpiles of inert waste were on site. No enforcement action was taken as stockpiles were removed following a letter was sent by Hampshire County Council.

2.5. The site at Marwell Yard also has a planning history with Winchester City Council. In September 2005 the storage building located on the south east of the site was the subject of an Agricultural Prior Notification, to which Winchester City Council raised no objection.

2.6. In 2006 an application was submitted to Winchester City Council for the erection of two no. hay, machinery and plant equipment storage buildings on land off Thompson Lane. On 19 January 2007 planning permission was granted, but the development has not taken place to date.

2.7. In July 2008, the site started to be used for the storage of plant, equipment and materials associated with a general construction and civil engineering business (Essex Utilities Limited). This included the use of the existing agricultural storage building in the south east corner of the site. Winchester City Council entered into correspondence with the landowner and in February 2009 the landowner was informed that the use of any of the buildings on the land for the purpose other than agriculture constitutes a material change of use for which planning permission is required and that a planning application should be submitted as soon as possible.

2.8. On 14 April 2009 a routine visit by Hampshire County Council highlighted that unauthorised waste activities were being undertaken on site. Following this visit and the correspondence with Winchester City Council this retrospective planning application was submitted.

Proposal

2.9 The proposal is to continue to use the land and building for storage of plant equipment and materials associated with Essex Utilities Limited. Approximately 64 tons of construction and demolition waste is delivered to the site each working day (Monday to Friday). The material is transported to and from the site in heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) capable of carrying a 20 ton load. A maximum of eight HGV movements per day. Two 16 ton grab lorries and a suction excavator arrive and leave the site each day accounting for a further six vehicle movements. The maximum number of daily movements by HGVs is 14. The site operator has a goods vehicle licence for seven vehicles.

2.10.The waste that is delivered to the site is put through a screener, transferred to the barn/storage building for overnight protection. It is then returned to the site of its origin the following working day. The waste material is inert and non contaminated spoil. The Environment Agency has placed the activity on its public register of exempt activities under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

2.11.The site is open Monday to Friday between 6.00am and 6.00pm but is only operational between 8.00am and 5.00pm. A yardman operates a seven ton excavator, five ton dumper and portable screener, carrying out the site activities between 8.00am and 2.30pm.

2.12.The planning application does not seek permission for a specified temporary period, however the application states that a period of two years might be sufficient to enable Essex Utilities Limited to fulfil its existing contracts in the local area.

3. Development plan

3.1. The most relevant part of the development plan is the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007); policies DC2 (Sites with International and National Designations), DC3 (Impact on Landscape and Townscape), DC6 (Highways) and DC13 (Waste Management and Recycling).

4. Consultations

4.1. The Local Member, Councillor Mason, raises concerns such as: lorry movements, road conditions, close proximity to residential properties, noise and the visual impact in the countryside.

4.2. Winchester City Council object to the proposal. The proposal is contrary to countryside policy (CE.17) of the 2006 Winchester District Local Plan Review. The objection is made on the grounds that the use for storage, processing and distribution of construction and demolition waste is not acceptable in the countryside location and there are no overriding reasons to allow the proposal contrary to countryside policy. Winchester City Council also state that the site is in an unsustainable location where the scale and nature of the activity cannot be accommodated without detriment to the visual character of the locality and the extent of the site is not clearly defined to prevent the development expanding into the surrounding countryside.

4.3. The Environmental Health Officer has no objection subject to conditions restricting the hours of vehicle movements and the use of machinery. Environmental Health have had no complaints of noise, dust or any other nuisance since the site started operating in July 2008.

4.4. The Environment Agency have no objection to the proposal.

4.5. Natural England have no objection to the proposal.

4.6. The South Downs Joint Committee object to the planning proposal. It is considered that the use is detrimental to the National Park by virtue of the nature of the use: noise and traffic movements.

4.7. English Heritage have no comment to make.

4.8. The Highways Authority have raised concerns. Firstly inadequate visibility splays are provided at the junction for the access with the highway, this would cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway. Secondly, the roads leading to and from the site are of inadequate width to accommodate safely the additional traffic which the proposed development would generate. A Transport Statement has been requested and the results are yet to be submitted.

4.9. Southampton Airport have no objection to the proposal.

4.10 Owslebury Parish Council object to the planning proposal on eight grounds:-

(i) insufficient evidence to warrant a change of use;

(ii) the development is located within an area of countryside wherein new development of this type is only acceptable on the basis that it is essential for agricultural purpose;

(iii) the applicant is not seeking permanent change of use;

(iv) HGVs are unsuitable for this rural location;

(v) potential contamination of the site - insufficient information;

(vi) dormice are almost certainly on site - a protected species;

(vii) the conditions appertaining to the site have been continuously ignored over the past two years demonstrating a disregard of Winchester City Council planning decisions by the landowner;

(viii) incorrect information given to the applicant must not be a reason for granting permission.

5. Representations

5.1. To date five letters of objection have been received. The objections raised are listed below:

(i) change of use from agricultural to industrial; until July 2008 the site was an agricultural field. Residents are worried that the area is turning industrial and that permission here will lead to further industrial development. There is not sufficient evidence submitted to justify the change of use at this site;

(ii) concerns regarding traffic; Thompsons Lane and Hurst Lane are small, narrow and in places single file traffic. At present congestion occurs when HGVs are waiting to enter the Marwell Yard site. Portable signs have been erected by the operator to warn other vehicles of lorries turning into the site. Local residents are concerned about the safety for horse riders, pedestrians and cyclists.

(iii) the proposal is currently highly visible which spoils the countryside views;

(iv) concerns regarding the noise impact; the plant when in operation generates significant noise, which is not acceptable in a residential area.

6. Commentary

6.1. The Highways Authority have objected to this planning proposal, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how the applicant proposes to mitigate against highways safety. To satisfy one of the Highways Authority's concerns adequately visibility splays would have to be created to meet national requirements set out in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. This could only be achieved with the significant loss/cutting back of vegetation, including mature trees.

6.2. Prior to this removal of vegetation taking place the applicant would have to have adequately demonstrated that there are no ecological concerns with the trees they need to remove, that an arboricultural statement and tree survey are completed and that they have addressed the potential for protected species including bats. This loss of vegetation is could be to the detriment of the area, Thompsons Lane is lined by a thick belt of woodland and the removal of vegetation/trees would increase the visibility of the site along the Lane, causing an adverse impact on the rural character and existing countryside.

6.3. A detailed site plan was requested as the information submitted in the planning information was inadequate. A number of site visits has highlighted that the site layout is subject to regular change. The Waste Planning Authority is not agreeable to permitting a development without having an accurate site plan as this leads to a difficulty in monitoring the site and its activities.

6.4. Insufficient information has been submitted to enable us to agree that the agricultural building encompassed within this planning application is redundant. The barn was erected in 2005 following agricultural prior notification. There is currently an extant planning permission for the development of two further agricultural barns on site. This expires in January 2010. The Waste Planning Authority consequently deems the planning proposal to be contrary to Policy DC13.

6.5. The Waste Planning Authority has not been provided with enough information to allow these works to continue on site at present. With the information before the Authority along with the issues raised above, there are no overriding considerations and consequently planning permission is recommended for refusal.

7. Recommendation

7.1. That planning permission for the retrospective application to store and transfer waster material at Marwell Yard, Thompsons Lane, Owslebury is recommended for refusal on the grounds that the development is contrary to Policy DC2, DC3, DC6 and DC13 (b) of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007) in that insufficient information has been submitted to address highway concerns, and demonstrate that the agricultural barn is redundant and could be an acceptable use in the countryside and the proposed South Downs National Park. Moroever, works that would have to be undertaken to satisfy highway issues would raise landscape and ecological concerns that would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of a rural area.

7.2.

Links to the Corporate Strategy

Annexe to Reasons for Refusal

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

(General Procedure) Order 1995 - as amended)

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007)

Policy DC2 - Sites with International and National Designations

Minerals and Waste development, which is likely to prejudice the purpose of the following designated sites and their settings, will not be permitted unless the reasons for development outweigh the likely adverse impact, taking into account the requirements of relevant legislation and guidance.

Internationally Designated Sites:

European Sites (Special Protection Areas, proposed Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, proposed Special Areas of Conservation) and Ramsar Sites (Wetlands of International Importance);

Nationally Designated Sites:

The New Forest National Park, the proposed South Downs National Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest; Scheduled Ancient Monuments; Listed Buildings; and sites of National Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest; Registered Battlefields.

In all cases, applications will be subject to the most rigorous examination.

DC3 - 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.

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.

DC13 - Waste Management and Recycling (including Aggregate Recycling Facilities)

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 Minerals Plans, 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 water-bourne and 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.