Home   News   Article

Yeatton Farm and Hamer Warren Quarry removed from Hampshire County Council’s minerals and waste plan, while Midgham Farm, Ashley Manor Farm, Purple Haze and Totton Sidings remain




CONTROVERSIAL plans to turn farmland into a quarry have been withdrawn, while other spots in the Forest remain in developers’ sights.

Yeatton Farm in Hordle has been removed from a list of potential quarry sites in the Forest, earmarked in Hampshire County Council’s draft minerals and waste plan.

As previously reported in the A&T, gravel extraction plans for the farm were opposed by New Forest District Council, among others.

Yeatton Farm (picture: Google)
Yeatton Farm (picture: Google)

Midgham Farm, near Fordingbridge, is still being eyed for potential development by building materials firm Cemex. As previously reported, the firm is expected to submit a formal application to develop the site by early spring.

Midgham Farm (Google)
Midgham Farm (Google)

The council’s draft mineral and waste plan also features proposals for quarrying works at Ashley Manor Farm and Purple Haze, south of Ringwood Forest, plus an aggregate rail depot at Totton Sidings. Plans to develop Hamer Warren Quarry, between Ringwood and Fordingbridge, were withdrawn.

Ashley Manor Farm (picture: Google)
Ashley Manor Farm (picture: Google)

Members of HCC’s cabinet discussed an update to the plan in preparation for a vote on putting proposals out for public consultation. They heard previous proposals to develop Midgham Farm as a quarry generated almost 1,000 complaints from locals.

Cemex's overview of the proposed quarry site at Midgham Farm
Cemex's overview of the proposed quarry site at Midgham Farm

John Dean, chair of Harbridge Protection Society, told councillors in a deputation that his group was formed more than 40 years ago “specifically to scrutinise” local mineral extraction operations.

He said: “Local residents have suffered the effects of living with mineral extraction for over 40 years. Documents published by the county council provide very little indication they have taken into account the 962 objections previously raised to the Midgham Farm site.”

Ashley Manor Farm (picture: Google)
Ashley Manor Farm (picture: Google)

Mr Dean said forecasted mineral extraction needs had been “overestimated” and that mineral recycling rates should be increased to 50%. He said current mineral recycling rates of less than 20% are “indefensible” and raised concerns about an increase in HGVs using rural roads with blind bends and speed limits up to 60mph.

He added: “If the Midgham Farm plan goes ahead, HGV movements will be over the top of levels that Hampshire’s highways department deems suitable. HGVs also have a huge impact on climate change. The county council should take responsibility for that as an agent of change effect – it’s clearly a red flag in the environment report.”

In her deputation, Midgham Farm Cottages resident Joanna Finnis urged councillors to exclude Midgham Farm from the plan.

She said previous council reports showed noise levels from a quarry would be over 14 decibels, adding: “The severe noise six days a week caused by gravel extraction will be unacceptable. It will have a severe impact on residents’ heath and wellbeing.”

Councillors were also warned mineral extraction at Midgham Farm would have a “severe” adverse impact on local residents’ health due to the inhalation of silicate particles.

Ms Finnis added: “The landscape there is beautiful and tranquil, and mining the land will destroy a natural wildlife corridor.”

Cllr Edward Heron, Conservative member for Lyndhurst & Fordingbridge, abstained from voting because of Midgham Farm’s inclusion.

He said: “Officers have done an excellent job [preparing the plan] but it’s important to remember we don’t do this in a vacuum. Unfortunately I cannot support this plan. We have brought forward the best plan we can but I cannot support it going out for consultation because of the proposed allocation of Midgham Farm.

“I’m going to do a rare thing here and abstain from a vote because I think there is a greater risk of not having a plan at all – a number of sites in my division would be at significant risk without a plan.”

Councillors were told that, if approved, the draft minerals and waste plan would go out for eight weeks of public consultation. After this, the proposal will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for adoption.

With an abstention from Cllr Heron, cabinet members voted to approve a partial update of the draft minerals and waste plan, including a proposed submission, to go out for public consultation. They also approved giving delegated authority to the director of the council’s Hampshire 2050 inquiry to agree minor amendments to the plan prior to consultation.



Comments | 0
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More