Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Hampshire Minerals Plan and

Hampshire Waste Management Plan

Issues and Options – Sites Discussion Paper (Addendum)

May 2007

Introduction

Issues

Appendices
Appendix 1: Specific sites for further consideration
Appendix 2: Potential industrial estates and employment land sites
Appendix 3: Existing sites for safeguarding and expansion
Appendix 4: Potential wharves and depots

Annexes
Annex 1: Specific sites ruled out of the process or withdrawn
Annex 2: Specific site appraisal criteria
Annex 3: Industrial estates and employment land ruled out of the process and reasons
Annex 4: Proposed content of Preferred Options document
Annex 5: Response forms

Introduction

1.1 This document has been jointly produced by Hampshire’s four minerals and waste planning authorities which are Hampshire County Council, Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils and the New Forest National Park Authority. It forms an Addendum Report to the Sites Discussion Paper which was produced in September 2006 and consulted upon as part of the ‘Issues and Options’ stage of the plan-making process for the Hampshire Minerals Plan and Hampshire Waste Management Plan. It presents further options (potential sites) for mineral and waste development in Hampshire and provides an opportunity for Statutory Consultees and other interested parties to express their views on sites identified.

Update

1.2 Hampshire’s ‘core’ Planning Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State in May 2006 and a Public Examination is underway. The ‘hearing’ commenced 23 January 2007 and has now finished. The outcome of the Examination will be the Inspectors Report, which will be binding on the planning authorities and may lead to some changes to the future requirements for new mineral and waste sites.

1.3 The Issues and Options stage of the plan-making process is currently ongoing. During September and November 2006, local workshops were held across Hampshire to discuss issues and options relating to the sites process. The workshops included local interest groups and stakeholders, who provided information on the issues relating to the proposed sites. The information provided has been summarised in eight Local Event papers.

1.4 Since September 2006, additional sites have been nominated and further work on potential mineral and waste sites has been undertaken. The issues that have arisen and the which the final proposals in the Hampshire Minerals Plan and the Hampshire Waste Management Plan will need to address, are set out in Section 2 of this Addendum for comment.

1.5 A number of sites have also been withdrawn by the nominees for reasons not always explained. These sites are listed in Annex 1.

1.6 The project timetable has been revised and the remainder of the process is scheduled as follows:

October 2007 – statutory public consultation on ‘preferred options’ i.e. those sites which we think are best suited to meet future minerals and waste needs;
October 2008 – submission of final proposals to Government, followed by further statutory consultation.

Work streams

New Sites

1.7 Since the Sites Discussion Paper was published in September 2006, 28 additional sites have been nominated for consideration as potential minerals and waste sites. Each of the sites nominated has been subject to a desk-top appraisal against 17 factors (see Annex 2). Those sites that were found to have over-riding constraints have been ruled out of the process and are listed in Annex 1. The remainder of the sites will be considered in more detail and are set out in Appendix 1 of this Addendum. The boundary of each sites is shown and a summary of the issues raised through the desk-top assessment is provided. More detail on the site selection process can be found in the Scoping Reports for the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Management Plan.

Industrial estates and employment land

1.8 White Young Green consultants were appointed to undertake a review of industrial estates and allocated employment land across Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton and assess their suitability for minerals and waste uses.

1.9 Industrial estates and employment land have been assessed using the following methodology, derived independently taking into account the requirements set out in the ‘core’ Planning Strategy and statutory requirements for Sustainability Appraisal, against the following criteria:

Size – potential sites were discounted if they were less than 0.5 hectares in size.
Compatibility of uses – a superficial assessment of on-site and neighbouring uses was undertaken initially to determine whether they were compatible with minerals and waste uses. This was supported by an assessment on the ‘market segment’ that the industrial estate / employment land fitted into (i.e. whether it was an office, business, warehouse, industrial site etc).
Impact – each remaining industrial estate / employment land site was considered for suitability for high/medium/low impact uses, taking account of the 17 sustainability factors identified in appendix 2 of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy.
Location – high impact uses have been excluded from all areas where the access is greater than 2km from the mineral ands waste lorry route network shown on the Key Diagram (appendix 5 of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy), and from the New Forest National Park and proposed South Downs National Park.

Question 1:

Is this a reasonable approach for identifying industrial estates and employment land which is ‘generically’ suitable for a number of minerals and waste uses?

Question 2:

Are there any other factors which should be considered?

1.10 Applying this methodology a number of sites which appear suitable for generic minerals and waste uses can be identified, these are set out in Appendix 2 of this Addendum Report. Those sites that have been deemed unsuitable are listed in Annex 3 along with the reason for their elimination. Further work – yet to be completed - will eliminate Industrial Estates / Employment Land sites which are unsuitable due to unacceptable flood risk.

1.11 More detail on the site review process can be found in the White Young Green Report: A Review of Employment Land and Industrial Estates in Hampshire for the Suitability of Waste Management Development, which is available on our website [insert link].

Existing Sites Review

1.12 The existing sites review consists of a number of elements of work, and applies to all existing minerals and waste sites including aggregate wharves and rail depots:

review of safeguarding status – to ensure that infrastructure which is essential to deliver the ‘core’ Planning Strategy is safeguarded from encroachment or redevelopment;
review of expansion opportunities - to consider the role of existing infrastructure in meeting future minerals and waste needs, including a review of the opportunities for extended operation (i.e. over a longer time scale), or expansion in footprint or throughput.

1.13 Existing waste sites have been classified as strategic (i.e. those with a capacity over 25,000 tonnes a year and Household Waste Recycling Centres) and non-strategic. Strategic sites are considered essential for the delivery of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy and as such the default position is that these will be safeguarded unless, following consultation and evaluation, there is evidence to justify removing the safeguarding status based upon criteria of operational effectiveness, overall future waste needs and the degree to which alternative use of the land would promote positive regeneration. We have consulted the operators of strategic sites regarding their preferences for safeguarding.

Question 3:

Is it reasonable to only safeguard strategic sites?

Question 4:

Is it reasonable to assume a default position of safeguarding unless evidence indicates to the contrary?

1.14 All existing waste site operators have been consulted as to whether they would consider expansion of their site either in spatial, throughput or temporal terms (i.e. those sites with time-limited permission). Those sites that were nominated by their operator for potential expansion have been subject to an initial desk-top appraisal using the 17 sustainability factors set out in Annex 2 and in Appendix 2 of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy.

1.15 Those sites which initially appear to be suitable for future safeguarding and/or expansion are set out in Appendix 3 of this Addendum Report. Further work – yet to be completed - will eliminate sites which are found to be unsuitable due to unacceptable flood risk or likely significant effect on a European Designated site.

Mineral sites

1.16 All existing mineral site operators have been consulted as to whether would like their site to be safeguarded, particularly where deposits are likely to remain beyond the expiry of their planning permission, as well as whether would like to expand their site in temporal terms (i.e. beyond current time-limits ). Where sites have the potential for spatially expanding the mineral operations, the land has been included in the ‘new site’ selection process or will be covered by application of Policy DC15 of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy. Those sites that were nominated by their operator for potential expansion of time-limits have been subject to a desk-top appraisal in Annex 2 which are also set out in Appendix 2 of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy.

Question 5:

Should we assume a default position in favour of extending the life of existing quarries with un-worked permitted reserves, which are likely to be unexploited before the permission terminates, unless evidence indicates to the contrary?

1.17 Those sites which are initially considered suitable for future safeguarding and/or expansion are set out in Appendix 3 of this Addendum. Further work – yet to be completed - will eliminate sites which are found to be unsuitable due to unacceptable flood risk or likely significant effect on a European Designated site.

Wharves and Rail Depots

1.18 As part of the review of existing sites, a stand-alone review of aggregate wharves and rail depots has been carried out. The purpose of the review is to assess whether all existing, permitted or operational aggregate wharves and rail depots are appropriate for both safeguarding and/or expansion taking into account the requirements set out in the ‘core’ Planning Strategy namely: operational effectiveness, overall future mineral and waste needs and the degree to which alterative use of land would promote positive regeneration of the site.

1.19 A range of factors have been used to consider the future safeguarding status and suitability for expansion, including the following:

Operational effectiveness
- Tidal and berthing issues (hours of operation, length of the berth, water depth, intervening structures etc).
- Current operational status (size and layout, capacity, perception of market actors etc)
- Transport movements (road and rail connections, capacity etc).
- Environment (environmental designations, landscape etc).
Future mineral and waste needs
- Proximity to local markets (accessibility etc).
- Potential for waste use (proximity to waste sources or existing operations etc)
Regeneration
- Location near to priority/regeneration area (designated areas and future scope etc).
- Potential for regeneration (value and proximity to transport hubs etc)
- Congruity of location (development patterns, barriers or visual eyesore etc).
Sustainability
- Those sites that are considered suitable for future expansion or safeguarding (which are not currently safeguarded) will be subject to evaluation using the factors in Annex 2 and Appendix 2 of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy.

1.20 Those wharves and depots that have initially been identified for future expansion and/or safeguarding are set out in Appendix 4 of this Addendum. Further work – yet to be completed - will eliminate new proposals which are found to be unsuitable due to unacceptable flood risk or likely significant effect on a European Designated site.

Question 6:

Is this approach to assessing wharves and depots appropriate?

Question 7:

Are there other factors that should be taken into consideration?

Material Flow Planning

1.21 Hampshire County Council in partnership with Project Integra - Hampshire's Municipal Waste Management partnership - have commissioned AEA consultants to undertake an analysis of waste data and material flows in Hampshire to identify the optimum collectionand waste management systems needed in the future to deliver the 60% recycling and composting and landfill avoidance targets set out in the 'core' Planning Strategy. The final report is expected in Summer 2007 and will form part of the evidence base underpinning the Hampshire Waste Management Plan. This project willinclude stakeholder participation as well as 'peer review' by industrial and academic experts. Similarly, its conclusionswill be informed by the statutory process ofSustainability Appraisal, in a manner which is complementary to that used in the development of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework.

Next steps

1.22 The information gathered during the Issues and Options stage of the process for preparing the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Management Plans, will be used to inform decisions on those sites that are considered suitable for mineral and waste management. These ‘Preferred Options’ (sites) will be published in separate types of Plans. A proposed content for the Preferred Options Documents is set out in Annex 4. These documents along side the Integrated Sustainability Report, will be subject to a full public consultation in October 2007. The consultation period lasts for six weeks and is carried out in-line with the Statement of Community Involvement, which can be viewed on our website [insert link].

1.23 Following the Preferred Options consultation, drafting of the Hampshire Minerals Plan and Hampshire Waste Management Plan will commence. It is anticipated that draft Plans will be submitted to the Secretary of State in October 2008. At this point, a further six week full public consultation period will be undertaken, as well as an additional six week consultation on alternative ‘omission’ sites suggested by third parties. It is expected that the two Plans will be adopted in 2009, following a Public Examination in Spring 2009.

How to get involved

1.24 Comments on the Sites and the Issues can be sent to the Planning and Development Policy Team electronically, which is strongly encouraged, or in a paper format.

1.25 The electronic consultation system can be accessed through the Hampshire County Council Planning and Development website (http://www3.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/planning-policy/development-framework.htm).

1.26 Users can read this Addendum online and submit comments on each of the sites using the prompts.

1.27 Alternatively, comments can be sent by post, using the forms in Annex 5, to the following address:

Planning and Development

Environment Department

Hampshire County Council

The Castle

Winchester

SO23 8UD

2 Issues

Site specific

New Forest – potential sand and gravel extraction distribution

2.1 The ‘core’ Planning Strategy, as submitted to the Secretary of State in May 2006, states that 1.163 million tonnes per annum of sand and gravel will be apportioned to the ‘Forest’ area (excluding the National Park) for the period to 2016. Taking into account existing sites, possible future applications for existing preferred areas, and th contents of the Inspector’s ‘binding’ report into the ‘core’ Planning Strategy there may be a need to allocate ‘new’ sites. This is dependant on whether an existing ‘preferred area’ in the existing Minerals and Waste Local Plan (adopted 1998) gains planning permission.

2.2 Should new sites need to be allocated, there are a number of ‘broad’ sand and gravel producing areas that would be looked at for their suitability for further extraction. These broad areas are:

Ringwood Forest Area
Coastal New Forest Area
Avon Valley Area (north of Ringwood)

2.3 As part of the Integrated Sustainability Appraisal A combined process incorporating Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Hampshire Minerals Plan, an appraisal will be undertaken to identify the relative sustainability of each of these broad areas. This appraisal will be used as part of the evidence base to justify decisions on future locations for mineral extraction in the Forest area and will support the site specific assessment work that is already being undertaken.

Question 8:

Do you think such a study would be useful in informing the best location for future mineral sites in the Forest area?

Role of Redundant Farm and Forestry Buildings (and their Curtilages)

2.4 Planning Policy Guidance 10 Planning Policy Guidance 10: Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, ODPM, July 2005 (PPS10) states that, when identifying suitable sites and areas, priority should be given to the re-use of ‘redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages’. In October 2005, a number of agricultural agents and the National farmers Union, were contacted regarding the potential use of agricultural buildings in meeting future waste needs. Only a few agricultural buildings have been nominated as a consequence. Given the provisions set out in Policy DC13 of the ‘core’ Planning Strategy it is not considered necessary to make further provision for any forthcoming applications for the re-use of redundant farm buildings.

Question 9:

Do you agree with the view that a specific policy is not required for the re-use of redundant farm buildings for waste uses?

Provision for future waste infrastructure

2.5 Policy S16 – Location of Waste Management in the ‘core’ Planning Strategy states that ‘all areas of major new development, including those on greenfield and brownfield land, and especially those containing new or redeveloping employment land, should accommodate an appropriate proportion of the waste management capacity for recycling, composting or recovery and treatment’.

2.6 The Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2011 (reviewed December 2000) includes a number of Major Development Areas (MDAs) which have been identified for future large-scale development (approximately 2,000-4,000 homes). The Structure Plan will be superseded by the South East Plan in due course.

2.7 The South East Plan sets out growth opportunities across Hampshire including a number of Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) (approximately 5,000-10,000 homes) which have been identified for the north of Fareham and the north/north-east of Hedge End. In addition to this there are likely to be other developments which can be classified as ‘major new development’ such as large scale urban extensions and the proposed redevelopment of the Chickenhall Lane Industrial Estate.

2.8 The Examination in Public for the South East has finished. The Panel’s Report was expected at the end of July 2007, but has been delayed and is now expected in the autumn. The Governments Modifications are scheduled for September 2007 however, these are also likely to be delayed until early 2008. The Modifications could result in changes to the distribution and numbers of proposed houses required in Hampshire and therefore, further MDAs and SDAs may need to be identified.

2.9 The ‘core’ Strategy requires that local planning authorities should, when preparing Local Development Documents, consider the extent that areas of major development can accommodate waste management facilities. In order to provide guidance to local planning authorities, a matrix could be produced to give an indication of the scale and extent of waste infrastructure that should seek to be accommodated in ‘new’ built development of different sizes. For example, for small scale developments of less than 500 dwellings it may be appropriate to accommodate appropriate bin storage, composting and communal recycling facilities such as bottle and paper banks. Whereas larger developments, such as those providing over 4,000 new dwellings, may be expected to provide a combined facility including a recycling centre, associated recyclable waste recovery and storage, waste recovery or biowaste processing linked to local heating schemes etc..

2.10 A number of district councils are developing Supplementary Planning Documents relating to waste management facilities and new built development. New Forest District Council, for example, have recently published such a document. However, these tend to deal with the smaller scale – bin storage and design principles – rather than the accommodation of infrastructure within new development. For this reason a matrix as suggested may prove helpful.

2.11 Such a matrix would be intended to be used as a guide. An assessment of the locational aspects of each new development area would have to be undertaken and the environmental constraints taken into consideration throughout the planning process. Where a suitable location for waste management activities is not available within the development area, nearby provision of a similar kind, will have to be made elsewhere.

2.12 Alternatively, or in addition to this approach, specific waste management infrastructure could be identified for those areas of known major built development, such as the SDAs at north of Fareham and Hedge End.

Question 10:

Would guidance on the specific types of facilities, including illustrative capacities, linked to the size of new built development be helpful?

Question 11:

Should the Hampshire Waste Management Plan allocate specific types of waste management to known potential locations for major built development (e.g. North Fareham SDA etc) subject to allocation?

Question 12:

Should such proposals be developed as guidance or embedded in policy?

2.13 The development of employment sites will also provide siting opportunities for waste management facilities, particularly those that manage commercial and industrial wastes as well as domestic household waste.

2.14 A matrix could also be produced to provide guidance to local planning authorities in terms of the scale of waste management infrastructure that should be incorporated in employment sites. This could link development area in Hectares to an area of the site to be reserved for waste management uses, for example a site of 1 to 2.5 Ha may be expected to provide 100-250 m² for segregated waste storage and recycling. An alternative option may be to require a fixed percentage – for example 1% - of an application’s area to be identified for on-site waste storage and recycling.

2.15 As previously stated, such a matrix would be intended to be used as a guide. An assessment of the locational aspects of each development area will have to be undertaken and the environmental constraints will need to be taken into consideration throughout the planning process for such developments. Where a suitable location for waste management activities is not available within the development area, nearby provision of a similar kind, will have to be made elsewhere.

2.16 Alternatively, or in addition to this approach, specific waste management infrastructure could be identified for those areas of known major built development, such as the redevelopment of the Chickenhall Lane Industrial Estates in Eastleigh.

Question 13:

Would guidance on the specific types of facilities, including illustrative capacities, linked to the size of new employment sites be helpful?

Question 14:

Should the Hampshire Waste Management Plan allocate specific types of waste management to known potential locations for major employment sites subject to allocation?

Question 15:

Should such proposals be developed as guidance or embedded in policy?

Distribution of indicative facilities

2.17 Whilst the Core Planning Strategy identifies ‘areas of search’ for strategic waste management facilities, such as large recycling, composting or recovery plants, in north east Hampshire and south Hampshire. It does not specify a split between these areas, or apportion amounts of waste to be managed in each area by strategic facilities. Consultation undertaken as part of the plan-making process, whilst developing the Strategy, indicated a preference for the approach taken because this would not be too restrictive.

2.18 However, when it comes to identifying strategic sites, some sort of balance ultimately has to be achieved – the question is should this be actively planned or should it be dictated by the suitability of potential sites. Unfortunately, the location of Hampshire’s existing strategic infrastructure does not always reflect Hampshire’s demographic profile, for example, whilst approximately 60% of Hampshire’s residents live in the south Hampshire area only about 35% of the capacity for sorting dry mixed recyclable waste is in this area. There may be an opportunity, through the Hampshire Waste Management Plan to redress such historic imbalances, in this case by identifying the majority of sites for similar activities in the south of Hampshire.

Question 16:

If possible, should sites be identified to overcome historical imbalances in capacity, so that wastes are managed nearer to where they are produced?

Energy Recovery Facilities

2.19 Policy S5 and paragraphs 17.9 to 17.11 of the Core Planning Strategy identify an indicative need for approximately half a million tonnes a year of waste recovery/treatment capacity. Such facilities include incineration, pyrolysis, gasification plants, all of which would feature energy generation as part of the process. Such sites are expected to be accommodated within the two ‘areas of search’ for strategic facilities in north east and south Hampshire. A number of issues arise.

2.20 Firstly, there may be a tension between the sustainably preferable desire to achieve a balance between the two ‘areas of search’ for strategic facilities, in terms of new sites, and the economies of scale achieved by bigger sites. For example, Hampshire’s current Energy Recovery Facilities (ERFs) vary in size from 95 – 160 thousand tonnes a year and yet a recent report produced on behalf of the Government indicates an optimal size for ERF of 500 thousand tonnes a year. Whilst this equates well with the Strategy’s indicative requirement, identification of one additional site of this scale in north east Hampshire, in addition to the existing site at Chineham, would mean an area with approximately 20% of Hampshire’s population would have 66% of its ERF capacity. If such a site were to be located in south Hampshire, in addition to the sites at Marchwood and Portsmouth, it would mean an area with approximately 60% of Hampshire’s population provides over 90% of its ERF capacity. Alternative approaches include identifying sites for smaller sub-optimal facilities in both north east and south Hampshire.

2.21 The Strategy also identifies in policy S16 that ‘areas of major built development… should accommodate an appropriate proportion of waste management capacity’. It is likely that the South East Plan will identify a need for significant house building in Hampshire, and that new Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) at Hedge End and Fareham should accommodate approximately 6,000 and 10,000 houses each. New strategic-scale waste recovery/treatment facilities could be co-located with such new built development and both could be designed in such a way to provide both heat and power.

2.22 Another issue relates to whether more recovery/treatment sites than are needed to meet the Strategy’s requirements should be identified. Planning Policy Statement 10 on sustainable waste management says that only sufficient disposal capacity to meet requirements should be identified in site allocation planning documents. However, the 60% recycling/composting target in the Core Strategy is acknowledged to be challenging and historically many allocated sites have not come forward to meet the previous local plan’s requirements. It may be prudent therefore to identify one or more ‘reserve’ waste recovery/treatment sites as a contingency, only to be released if needed.

Question 17:

Is the optimal size of waste recovery/treatment facilities more or less important than providing a fair balance between ‘areas of search’ for strategic waste facilities?

Question 18:

Should ‘reserve’ recovery/treatment sites be identified as a contingency in case recycling/composting targets cannot be met or allocated sites are not brought forward?

Landfill

2.23 Furthermore, few options for new landfill sites are being proposed and some of these may not be available within the plan period, or only towards the end of the plan period. Consequently, one issue that arises in the short to medium term is whether – in the event that such a shortfall is realised – additional or ‘reserve’ recovery/treatment sites are identified to compensate. In the longer-term the future roll of landfill in Hampshire needs to be considered.

Question 19:

Should additional or ‘reserve’ recovery/treatment sites be identified as a contingency if suitable landfill sites are not forthcoming?

Prior Extraction

2.24 In order to prevent the sterilisation of mineral resources, it is sometimes necessary to extract some or all of the mineral before the commencement of the development. This requirement is set out in national policy in Minerals Planning Statement 1: Planning and Minerals. As a consequence, Mineral Planning Authorities will usually object to planning applications that may lead to permanent sterilisation of mineral deposits (as shown as Mineral Safeguarding Areas on Proposals Maps) unless suitable prior extraction is proposed.

2.25 However, there is a tension in that it is usually district councils that are responsible for determining planning applications and often the requirements for safeguarding proven mineral resources and for prior extraction are haphazardly applied. This means that the mineral resources are not safeguarded as well as might be expected. It should also be noted that some of the areas being considered for future major development – such as the proposed Strategic Development Areas in Hedge End and Fareham, and the Whitehill/Bordon opportunity – appear to be partially underlain by sand and gravel deposits. Where such areas are known, there is confidence that they will be developed, and the potential for prior extraction can be quantified, they could be identified as sites in the Hampshire Minerals Plan and used to contribute towards Hampshire’s 2.63 million tonnes a year sand and gravel apportionment.

2.26 Hampshire’s ‘core’ Minerals and Waste Strategy in Policy S15 states that ‘permanent development in such areas will be resisted’. This reflects the Mineral Planning Authorities’ role as consultee on planning applications. It has been argued that a stronger policy is necessary to fulfil the requirements of national policy, the question is whether such a ‘stronger’ policy – moving from ‘resist’ to ‘will not grant planning permission’ or ‘will object’ could and should be included within either or both of the Hampshire Minerals Plan and District Council’s Local Development Frameworks.

2.27 It should be noted that this subject was a matter for much debate at the Public Examination into the ‘core’ Strategy and it may be that the Inspector’s report – expected in late May 2007 – may resolve the issue.

Question 20:

Should known prior extraction sites be included as sites within the Hampshire Minerals Plan and contribute towards meeting Hampshire’s sand and gravel apportionment?

Question 21:

Given the different timetables for producing planning policy documents in two-tier areas, should potential prior extraction sites be identified ahead of allocation in district council LDFs ?

Question 22:

The ‘core’ Planning Strategy currently states that development should be ‘resisted’ unless provision is made for extraction prior to the commencement of development. Should the policy be strengthened and what is the best way to do this?

Mineral Safeguarding Area

2.28 A Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) is an area of land below which there are significant quantities of proven mineral which are, or may become, of economic importance and therefore should be safeguarded from unnecessary sterilisation by permanent built development. An MSA provides no presumption of mineral extraction. National policy requires they be included within both the Hampshire Minerals Plan and district and unitary authorities’ Local Development Frameworks. In Hampshire, it is proposed that MSAs will be identified for brick-making clay, soft sand and sharp sand and gravel, and that the MSAs will be defined in the Hampshire Minerals Plan.

2.29 Whilst the MSA must reflect known geological data – we propose using data from the British Geological Survey (BGS) supplemented by discussions with the minerals industry. The BGS is producing a report on good practice in mineral safeguarding, which although not having any weight in planning terms, is likely to be commonly used as a reference. The draft report suggests that MSAs should cover urban areas and currently developed land. It also suggests that buffers are included around the mineral resources to enable working of economically viable down-slope deposits and to prevent sterilisation by permanent built development that may be considered immediately adjacent to the mineral deposit.

2.30 Given that there are few opportunities for large-scale redevelopment in urban areas it is not felt that defining MSAs in urban and previously developed areas is necessarily appropriate for Hampshire. However, some localised areas – such as land being made available by the MOD at Bordon - is known about and could be addressed via specific policies or allocations that would count towards Hampshire’s apportionment.

2.31 Given that only about 20,000 tonnes of chalk is extracted a year in Hampshire and that chalk is very abundant throughout central Hampshire, it is not considered necessary to define a MSA for chalk.

2.32 The question of whether and how to include buffers around proven mineral resources is a more difficult one. It should be possible to identify, based on geological data and discussions with mineral operators, those areas where down-slope deposits may become viable in the future. Such areas are likely to be limited and relatively small scale. However, in terms of buffer zones to prevent sterilisation from potential future new built development, the questions remain: is it necessary? What distance should they be?

Question 23:

Is it appropriate that Hampshire’s Mineral Safeguarding Area does not include chalk, urban areas and currently developed land?

Question 24:

Is a buffer zone around the Mineral Safeguarding Area necessary?

Question 25:

In Hampshire, where most quarries have a relatively short life and low impact (as opposed to hard rock quarries for example), and given there is ‘no presumption of development:

(a) should buffer zones be applied to the MSA (and why?), and

(b) what distance should buffer zones be and should it differ depending on the type of mineral being safeguarded?

Mineral Consultation Area

2.33 Hampshire made a commitment at the Public Examination into the ‘core’ Planning Strategy to include maps for the safeguarding of mineral resources and current and future allocated sites in the Hampshire Minerals Plan, in order to complement Policies S14 – Safeguarding of Existing Development and S15 – Sterilisation of Mineral Reserves. It is proposed that these will be known as Mineral Consultation Areas (MCAs) and will meet the requirements of Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals. At present, the definition of MCAs is optional for Mineral Planning Authorities, and can only be used in two-tier authority areas i.e. Hampshire excluding Portsmouth, Southampton and the New Forest National Park.

2.34 It is proposed that for the area of Hampshire where Hampshire County Council is the Mineral Planning Authority, an MCA will be defined and will consist of:

the Mineral Safeguarding Areas for brick-making clay, soft sand and sharp sand and gravel;
for each safeguarded existing or newly allocated mineral site, including quarries, wharves, rail depots and aggregate recycling facilities, and including linked washing, batching and coating plant, a plan showing the site and its neighbourhood, and showing mineral consultation zones (at 50m or 250m as set out in Policy S14);
if considered necessary, consultation areas around suitably located high-quality potential long-term chalk deposits (following discussion with the chalk extraction industry);
policies requiring District Councils to consult the Mineral Planning Authorities, including details of the size and scale of development where consultation is required.

2.35 Unitary authorities – Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils and the New Forest National Park Authority - will show the MSA (as appropriate) in their Local Development Frameworks and will need to include policies on safeguarding of mineral and waste sites within their area

2.36 It is a requirement of Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals that MSA maps are shown in both Local Development Frameworks and the County level Hampshire Minerals Plan.

Question 26:

Do you agree with the approach to mineral consultation that is suggested?

Identification of Sites and Locations for Sand and Gravel Extraction.

2.37 The Core Planning Strategy sets out in Policy S8 and supporting text a sub-Hampshire apportionment to be applied to Hampshire’s four mineral producing areas – north east Hampshire, south Hampshire, Downland and Forest. This also included a table showing indicative requirements for each area for the period to 2016, and a Strategic Reserve requirement of 10.52 million tonnes for the whole of Hampshire covering the period 2016 to 2020.

2.38 Whilst the Core Planning Strategy sets out the methodology for identifying the most sustainable new sites, it does not provide much detail about how the Strategy’s apportionments in policy S8 will be fulfilled. It is likely that the Inspector’s report into the Strategy – expected in late May – will make a requirement to identify sites or areas of search to cover the Strategic Reserve period 2016 to 2020. Some of the sites which have been nominated are large scale and will not be completed within the plan period, it is likely therefore that some of the sites to be included in the Hampshire Minerals Plan will also extend into the Strategic Reserve period (2016-2020) or beyond.

2.39 Given this, where such sites are included in the Hampshire Mineral Plan, only the extraction which is likely to take place during the period to 2020 should count towards meeting the Strategy’s requirements. Furthermore, where extraction extends into the Strategic Reserve period of 2016 to 2020, it is argued this should be counted against the Strategic Reserve which should be adjusted accordingly.

2.40 The Core Planning Strategy also includes a Mineral Resource Area which illustrates, in broad terms, where future sand and gravel extraction may occur. If the Inspector’s report indicates a need to identify an ‘area of search’ for the Strategic Reserve, there is an issue about how this is done. In reality there are two options. The first option is to develop an area of search from the top down by refining the Mineral Resource Area. The second option would be to develop an area of search from the bottom up by combining unsuccessful nominated sites i.e. sites which were not good enough to warrant inclusion in the Hampshire Minerals Plan. Each option has its strengths and weaknesses, whilst the first option will provide greater choice and flexibility, the second option will provide greater certainty of delivery.

Question 27:

Do you agree with the approach suggested?

2.41 There is a risk of adverse negative impacts in places where a number of new sites may be identified, especially if there are already existing sites in the vicinity, or there are other developments which also cause impacts. This issue is particularly relevant to mineral producing areas, where the options for mineral extraction are limited due to geology.

2.42 It is proposed that areas of Hampshire where cumulative impact may be an issue will be identified as ‘hot spots’ through the statutory Sustainability Appraisal process, and policies and preferred site locations, and the scale and phasing of sites, will all take account of cumulative impacts.

Question 28:

Should the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Management Plans take cumulative impacts into account when identifying policies, site locations, the expansion of existing sites and the scale and phasing of new minerals and waste development?

Question 29:

What factors should be used to define areas at risk of cumulative impacts (hotspots)?

Thermal treatment

2.43 Hampshire has three existing thermal treatment facilities, which include energy recovery The burning of waste materials at high temperatures under controlled conditions with the utilisation of the heat produced to generate electricity. . The facilities are located in Chineham, Marchwood and Portsmouth. In addition, there are several merchant and clinical waste incinerators. At the moment none of these facilities beneficially use the waste heat produced.

2.44 The use of the waste heat significantly improves the sustainability of waste treatment facilities. Given that Hampshire effectively needs to double its waste treatment infrastructure in the period to 2020, there are a number of issues which the Hampshire Waste Management Plan may need to address:

the use of waste heat produced by existing waste treatment facilities;
the potential installation of a ‘third line’ – additional treatment capacity – at the Marchwood Energy from Waste plant;
whether, it is sustainable for all new waste treatment facilities to beneficially use waste heat;
the role major new built developments – such as large housing and employment schemes – will play in locating such facilities.

Question 30:

Should the Hampshire Waste Management Plan address some of or all of the issues outlined in paragraph 2.27?

Question 31:

Are there any other issues relating to the thermal treatment / incineration of wastes which should be considered?

Industrial Estates and Employment Land

2.45 The Use Classes Order, as set out in the Town and County Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, does not specifically allocate waste planning uses to a use class. As such, waste is considered under the category sui generis, which means ‘unique’. However, due to the nature of the operation, some waste uses are regularly categorised as use classes B1 (light industrial and high-tech) and B8 (warehouse and distribution) and have gained planning permission as such.

2.46 White Young Green consultants have been undertaking work looking at the suitability of industrial estates and allocated employment land for the location of certain types of waste management facilities. They have identified three classifications of facility as follows:

Minor Operations

These types of waste activities are low key, and would be suitable for undertaking at a wide range of locations alongside most other business activities. These operations are fully enclosed, do not generate dust or smells, have relatively small numbers of vehicle movements and operate normal working hours. Examples of these types of operation may include small-scale de-manufacturing of electrical goods, and small-scale specialist waste storage or recycling operations, such as buildings used for the temporary storage of bulky household waste such as furniture, or fluorescent light recycling.

Enclosed Operations

These types of waste activities are usually carried out on enclosed or partially enclosed sites, and include the minor waste operations above, but can be undertaken at a more restricted range of locations because they manage greater amounts of waste, or waste which is more difficult to process. Enclosed operations would include facilities which manage wastes which may have environmental impacts if carried out in the open but are contained within buildings or other enclosures, often in conjunction with other rigorous control systems, and do not usually operate overnight. Examples of these types of operation include facilities for the separation of mixed dry recyclable materials such as paper, cans and plastics (MRFs), enclosed transfer stations, enclosed biowaste treatment and other small fully enclosed recycling facilities.

General Operations

This category covers nearly all types of waste activities other than landfill. General operations may have a wider range of impacts that make them unsuitable to be carried out in more sensitive locations. These activities include operations with significant environmental impacts from dust or noise, prominent structures or plant, high numbers of lorry movements, or 24 hour operations. Examples may include concrete crushing and inert waste recycling on open sites, concrete batching plants with materials stored in the open, open-air household waste transfer stations, and major plants for the generation of energy from the incineration or thermal treatment of waste.

2.47 Whilst enclosed and general waste facilities would only be suitable in some – subject to evaluation - of the Industrial Estates and allocated employment land within 2km of Hampshire’s mineral and waste lorry routes, it has been suggested in the White Young Green report that minor waste management activities need not be confined to within 2km of these lorry routes.

Question 32:

Should Hampshire’s industrial estates and allocated employment land be considered for suitability for the future location of waste management facilities?

Question 33:

Will the waste management classifications suggested – minor, enclosed and general – be helpful in identifying the suitability for and extent of waste management development in Industrial Estates?

Question 34:

Should minor waste management facilities be located more than 2km from Hampshire’s mineral and waste lorry routes?

The Role of Existing Sites

2. 48 Potentially existing mineral and waste sites can play a major part in meeting the future requirements for aggregate supply, recycling, composting and treatment set out in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Planning Strategy. Indeed the Strategy sets out that a review of existing sites will be carried out to consider two elements:

Expansion

The suitability of the site for future expansion in terms of physical footprint, greater throughput or longer operational life.

Safeguarding

The need to protect existing sites which are considered to be essential for the future delivery of the Strategy.

2.49 With regard to safeguarding, with the exception of wharves and rail depots, it is proposed to have a default position whereby ‘essential’ minerals and waste infrastructure Essential minerals and waste infrastructure includes those sites that make a significant contribution at county or regional level to managing waste, for example: Marchwood, Chineham or Portsmouth Incinerator; Somerley Landfill; Alton Materials Recycling Facility and providing minerals, for example: active quarries, such as Nea Farm at Somerley, near Ringwood. is safeguarded, unless representations are made that a certain site should not be safeguarded and there are justified reasons supporting the removal of safeguarding. Such reasons could be that the site is no longer needed, or is to be redeveloped because the operations previously carried out there have been relocated.

2.50 There are a number of issues which the Hampshire Minerals Plan and Hampshire Waste Management Plan will need to address:

Crushed rock

2.51 Representations were made to the Public Examination into the Strategy stating that crushed rock importation into Hampshire is of ‘strategic’ importance to the region and that a site should be identified at Dibden Bay to allow continued crushed rock importation now that imports to Southampton Docks have ceased. There is no national or regional guidance on this matter.

Question 35:

What have been the impacts of the cessation of crushed rock imports into Southampton and do these justify the inclusion of a site in Hampshire?

Appendix 1: Specific sites for further consideration

To see each of the proposed site details in each district, borough or city please select the link below:

Link to proposed sites in each Borough/District/City

Appendix 2: Potential industrial estates and employment land sites

Site Code	Name	Town/Settlement	Area	Minor, Enclosed, General (M, E, G)
BASINGSTOKE & DEANE
51	North of Arglen Road	Whitchurch	4.9	M, E, possibly G
				Impact category depends on location on site, environmental impacts and method of transport. Road access through residential area therefore M/E impact only. Rail access may be possible - if so high impact may be possible.
56	Land at Gresley Road	Basingstoke	2.96	M
57	Central Industrial park land at Kingsclere Road	Basingstoke	2.75	M, E, possibly G
58	Land at Lutyen Close / Wade Road & Great Binfields Road	Basingstoke	2.83	M
59	Land at West Ham Industrial Estate, Grafton Way	Basingstoke	4.6	M, E, possibly G
60	Land at Bayham Ltd, Rutherford Road	Basingstoke	0.75	M
62	Land at Jays Close	Basingstoke	0.65	M
71	Site G, Kingland Business Park, Danegeld House	Basingstoke	1.05	M
BD21	Stephenson Road	Basingstoke	0.67	M, E, possibly G

EAST HAMPSHIRE
4	Area ‘A’, Phase 3, Omega Park	Alton	1.38	M, E
5	Waterbrook Estate, Mill Lane, Former Thames Water Site	Alton	4.42	M, E
21	Woolmer Trading Estate, South of Woolmer Way	Bordon	2.2	M, E
27	Depot Site and adjacent land London Road	Holybourne	1.25	M
31	Farringdon Mill	Lower Farringdon	1.51	M
40	Land at Station Approach	Medstead	0.76	M
43	Land at Bedford Road	Petersfield	0.7	M, E
125	Land south of Keydell Nursery, Havant Road	Horndean	0.83	M, E

EASTLEIGH
100	Rear of Rex Industrial estate, Winchester Road	Chandlers Ford	0.92	M
159	Alstom Railway Land	Eastleigh	19	M, E, G
160	Land at Fire Service HQ Leigh Road	Eastleigh	1.37	M, E
161	Manor Bakeries, Leigh Road	Eastleigh	2.6	M, E
164	Chickenhall Lane	Eastleigh	3.56	M, E, Possibly G
165	Chickenhall Lane	Eastleigh	2.3	M, E, Possibly G
170	Hamilton Business Park, Former British Gas Site, Botley Road	Hedge End	1.76	M, E
171	Land adjacent to Nelson Industrial Park	Hedge End	0.62	M
191	Land at Roddington Forge Allington Lane	West End	2.2	M, E, Possibly G

FAREHAM
106	Midpoint, Segensworth South	Fareham	0.88	M
127	Land at Little Park Farm, Little Park Farm Road	Park Gate	5.6	M
143	Kites Croft, Southampton Road	Titchfield	1.13	M
F (a)	Segensworth East Industrial Estate	Segensworth	0.8	M, E, Possibly G
F (b)	Fareham railway Station Yard	Fareham	N/A	M, E
F (c)	Segensworth North	Segensworth	1.2	M, E, Possibly G
F (d)	Clapgate, Wallington	Wallington	0.5	M, E, Possibly G

GOSPORT
107	Frater Gate A.32, Fareham Road	Gosport	1.36	M, E
108	Former Cyanamid Site, Fareham Road	Gosport	1.9	M, E
126	Former HMS Daedalus Site, Broom Way/B.3334	Lee-on-Solent	13.9	M, E
G (a)	Brockhurst Industrial Estate	Gosport	N/A	M, E

HART
80	Adjacent Redfield Industrial Estate, Redfields Lane	Church Crookham	3.74	M
81	Redfields Garden Centre, Redfields Lane	Church Crookham	5	M
83	Land at Pyestock North, Ively Road	Farnborough	47.5	M, E, possibly G
99	Clarks Farm, Darby Road	Yateley	4	M
HAR (a)	Land off Sandhurst Road	Yateley	2	M
HAR (b)	Blackbushe Business Park	Yateley	N/A	M
HAR (c)	Land adjacent to Bowenhurst Farm	Crondall	N/A	M
HT24	Paystock B – south of Ively Road	Farnborough	13.89	M, E, possibly G

HAVANT
104	Land between A.27 and Railway	Emsworth	5.8	M, E
110	Land adjacent Larchwood Avenue	Havant	0.6	M, E
111	Land at Purbrook Way	Havant	0.84	M, E
112	Land at Palk Road	Havant	1.24	M
113	Land north of Deep Sea Seals, Marples Way	Havant	1.08	M
115	1-5 School Road, Clarendon Road	Havant	0.62	M
116	Havant Borough Council Depot, Harts Farm Way	Havant	4.04	M, E
118	Proctor & Gamble Site, Dunsbury Way	Havant	1.65	M
120	Land at Downley Road, New Lane Industrial Estate	Havant	1.38	M, E
121	New Lane Industrial Estate	Havant	1.72	M, E
124	Land at Station Road East	Hayling Island	1.03	M

NEW FOREST
32	Gordleton Industrial Park, Sway Road	Lymington	0.66	M, E, G
33	L/A Setmasters, Gordleton Industrial Estate, Sway Road	Lymington	0.97	M, E
34	Plot D6 Ampress Park	Lymington	0.66	M, E
36	Plot G3/G2 Ampress Park	Lymington	0.66	M, E
37	Plot D2, D5, D7 Ampress Park, Southampton Road	Lymington	0.52	M, E
39	Plot J1, J2 Ampress Park, Southampton Road	Lymington	0.57	M, E
41	Land east of Caird Avenue	New Milton	4.2	M, E, G
				Comment:
				Although classified a market segment 6 site, it is considered that part of the site is potentially suitable for minerals and waste uses.
44	Embankment Way / Pullman Way	Ringwood	7.03	M
45	Christchurch Road	Ringwood	3	M, E
46	Land west of Crow Lane	Ringwood	1.91	M, E
47	Land north and west of Sandleheath Industrial Estate, Old Brickyard Road	Sandleheath	1.91	M, E
175	Cracknore Industrial Park, Cracknore, Hard Lane	Marchwood	7	M, E, possibly G
176	Marchwood Industrial Park, Normandy Way	Marchwood	1.51	M, E, G
177	Solent View, Marchwood Industrial Estate	Marchwood	0.65	M
NF (d)	Eling Wharf (whole site)	Totton	15	M, E, G
NF30	South Hampshire Industrial Park	Totton	8.6	M, E
				Comment:
				Built out, conversion/replacement only
NF38	Hounsdown Business Park	Totton	9.79	M, possibly E
				Comment:
				Built out, conversion/replacement only

PORTSMOUTH
131	Land at Binnacle Way and Clement Atlle Way	Portsmouth	0.85	M
132	Land north of Goldsmith Avenue	Portsmouth	2.4	M, E
133	Land adjacent to Military Road	Portsmouth	8.14	M, E
135	Land at St. Mary’s Hospital (w)	Portsmouth	2.28	M
137	Former Sealectro Site, Walton Road, Farlington	Portsmouth	1.2	M, E, G
138	Land at Interchange Park, Robinson Way, Airport Industrial Estate	Portsmouth	0.62	M, E, G
139	Phases 3-9 Blueprint, Hilsea Gasworks Site, Hilsea	Portsmouth	9.85	M, E, G
PM4	Farlington Industrial Estate, North of Fitzherbert Road	Portsmouth	1	M
				Comment:
				Already developed – conversion/replacement only
PM5	Farlington Industrial Estate, Unit 2	Portsmouth	0.85	M
				Comment:
				Already developed – conversion/replacement only
RUSHMOOR
52	Blackwater Park Holder Road	Aldershot	1.71	M, E
R (a)	Hawley Lane (bentalls)	Farnborough	N/A	M, E
R (b)	Hawley Lane Industrial Estate	Farnborough	N/A	M, E
R (c)	Eelmoor Road	Aldershot	N/A	M, E
R (d)	Redan Road	Aldershot	N/A	M
R (e)	Blackwater Way Trading Estate	Aldershot	N/A	M
R (f)	North Lane and Holder Road	Aldershot	N/A	M, E
R (g)	North Lane and Eastern Road	Aldershot	N/A	M
R (i)	Lynchford Lane	Aldershot	N/A	M, E, G
R (j)	Holybush Lane	Aldershot	N/A	M, E, G

SOUTHAMPTON
183	Land at Test Lane South	Southampton	6.5	M, E
184	Land north of Orion Industrial Centre, Wide Lane	Southampton	1.68	M, E, possibly G
186	Former Vosper Thorneycroft Site, Woolston	Southampton	12.5	M
S (a)	The British American Tobacco Site, Regents Park Road	Southampton	N/A	M
				Comment:
				Local Plan suggests only B1b/c
S (b)	Phillips Business Park, Millbrook	Southampton	N/A	M, E

				Comment:
				Local Plan suggests only B1b/c, B, B8
S (c)	Land adjacent to Dock Gate 10 and the Norman Offer Site	Southampton	N/A	M, E
S (d)	Drivers Wharf	Southampton	N/A	M, E, G
S (e)	Land at Redbridge Lane	Southampton	N/A	M, E, G
SH2	Willments Ship Yard	Southampton	1	M, E, G
SH11	Saxon Wharf	Southampton	3.3	M, E, G
SH12	Shamrock Quay	Southampton	2.88	M, E, G
SH13	Millbank Wharves	Southampton	3.4	M, E, G

TEST VALLEY
6	Plot 82, Livingstone Road, Walworth Industrial Estate	Andover	0.81	M
8	Andover Down Farm	Andover	2.5	M, E, G
9	Andover Business Park	Andover	42.5	M
10	L/A Walworth Industrial Estate, Walworth Road, Picket Piece	Andover	11	M, E
14	Land at West Portway, Portway Industrial Estate	Andover	1.1	M, E, possibly G
15	Plot 37, Walworth, Central Way	Andover	0.96	M
17	Plot 50, South Way, Walworth Industrial Estate	Andover	0.78	M
18	Plot 89, Walworth Industrial estate	Andover	1.9	M
19	Plot 73, Colombus Way, Walworth Industrial Estate	Andover	0.69	M, E
30	Harewood Forest Works A.303	Longparish	1.66	M, E, possibly G
178	Test Valley Business Park 39, Botley Road	North Baddesley	7.05	M, E
180	Southern Cross Distribution Park, Phase 2B, Nursling Industrial Estate	Nursling	3.7	M, E, G
TV12	Casbrook Park	Romsey	0.99	M, E possibly G
TV19	Belbins Business Park	Andover	0.71	M, E
				Comment:
				Built out, conversion/replacement only
TV20	Plots 72a-74, Livingstone Road, Walworth Industrial Estate	Andover	3.45	M, E
				Comment:
				Built out, conversion/replacement only
TV27	Mauretania Road, Nursling	Nursling	2.27	M, E, G

WINCHESTER
25	Beckless Farm, Brook Lane	Hambledon	0.77	M
50	Northfields Poultry Farm, Northfields	Twyford	1.05	M
148	Land adjacent to Brambles Farm B.2150	Waterlooville	30	M, E, possibly G
151	Land at Little Park Farm	Whiteley	1.3	M
155	Land at Abbey Mills Station Road	Bishops Waltham	2.44	M, E
				Comment:
				Local Plan suggests B1/B2/B8 and residential development for this site.
156	Land at Bottings Industrial Estate, Hillsons Road	Botley	4.06	M, E, possibly G

Appendix 3: Existing sites for safeguarding and expansion

Site Code	Site Operator - Name/Address/Location	Recommendation		Expansion Potential in:
			Time [1]	Site size [2]	Throughput [3]
BASINGSTOKE & DEANE

Minerals and Landfill Sites
ex 1	Manor Farm Chalk Pit	Safeguard site		Y	Y
	Monk Sherborne, Basingstoke (45545, 15775)
		Consider suitability for future expansion
	Chalk extraction and inert fill
	Potential for expansion


Waste Management Sites
ex 2	Lamp Recycling Company	Safeguard as existing waste management site		Y(?)	Y
	Bessemer Park, Basingstoke (46270, 15055)
		Consider suitability for future expansion
	WEEE[4] recycling facility, possibility for future expansion

ex 3	Hampshire County Council – HWRC [5]	Safeguard as existing waste management site
	Wade Road, Basingstoke (46510, 15360)

ex 4	Chineham Incinerator Site	Safeguard existing site		Y
	Chineham, Old Basing (46720, 15520)
		Consider suitability for future expansion into existing allocated site to the south, or for alternative waste use on this land
	Existing incinerator, potential for provision of heating to buildings in the vicinity
		Consider potential supply of waste heat to nearby developments

ex 5	Little Bushywarren Copse	Assess for conversion of the planning permission to permanent status	Y	Y	Y
	Herriard (46575, 14675)
		Consider suitability for future expansion into adjacent land, or for alternative waste use on this land
	Composting permission is TEMPORARY

ex 6	Southley Farm	Consider suitability for permanent or longer-life operation	Y
	Overton (45216, 14720)

	Composting permission is TEMPORARY


EASTLEIGH

Minerals and Landfill Sites
ex 7	Grundons	Safeguard as current mineral site	Y	Y(?)
	East Horton Farm, Fair Oak (45050, 11825)

	Aspiration to expand sand extraction if additional land became available, however do not have an option on the land and are not promoting the site at this stage


Waste Management Sites
ex 8	Grundons	Consider suitability for alternative waste use and safeguard as appropriate	Y		Y
	East Horton Farm, Fair Oak (45050, 11825)
		Consider suitability for permanent or longer-life operation
	Site may be suitable for pre-treatment or transfer uses, assessment required
	Planning permission is TEMPORARY

ex 9	Hampshire County Council – HWRC	Safeguard as existing HWRC unless replacement site is identified
	Shamblehurst Lane, Hedge End, Eastleigh (44920, 11440)
		Consider suitability of Hedge End SDA, or other alternative sites, for replacement site

ex 10	Hampshire County Council – HWRC	Safeguard as existing HWRC		Y	Y
	Knowle Lane, Fair Oak (45035, 11855)
		Consider suitability for expansion
ex 11	Hampshire County Council – HWRC	Safeguard as existing HWRC as a minimum in line with planning permission, but for longer of considered suitable	Y
	Netley Farm, Netley, Hound (44615, 11000)
		Consider suitability for permanent or longer-life operation
	Planning permission is TEMPORARY.

ex 12	Hampshire County Council – HWRC	Safeguard as existing HWRC unless replacement site is identified
	Woodside Avenue, Eastleigh (44460, 11960)
		Consider identifying a replacement site through the redevelopment of Chickenhall Industrial Estate, Eastleigh
	Has highways issues and could be relocated if an alternative site becomes available


EAST HAMPSHIRE

Minerals and Landfill Sites
ex 13	Grundons	Safeguard as existing waste management and mineral extraction site	Y	Y	Y
	Frithend Sandpit, Sleaford, Kingsley (48130, 13900)
		Consider suitability for expansion of inert landfill permission. Consider suitability of nominated site for non-hazardous landfill.
	Has inert landfill permission, expansion of this may be possible. Furthermore, the site has also been nominated for potential non-hazardous landfill
	Other sand extraction sites promoted in the vicinity could be seen as extensions to this site

ex 14	Renown ChalkPit – Cleanecology	Consider removing safeguarding from this chalk pit
	Lower Froyle, Froyle (47610, 14490)

	Chalk extraction site
	Owners would like safeguarding removed
	Do not expect that an extension of the planning permission will be needed


Waste Management Sites
ex 15	Hampshire County Council – HWRC	Safeguard as existing HWRC
	Station Road, Bordon (47930, 13627)