Risk assessment
​A nearby quarry on the Somerley Estate Ringwood Forest
Multiple risks for environment, wildlife, community
This page talks about risk as determined primarily by expert bodies. Many have objected to the Purple Haze development. Some have made their non-objection subject to agreement by the developer to mitigate issues seen as risky. Objectors tended to be concerned about multiple facets of the development. Most comment that insufficient information had been provided by the developer. They and we are concerned that so many key questions remain unanswered. All quotes on this page are abstracted from submissions made in 2023 during the planning application consultation which is now concluded. It should be noted that views from those who have made submissions may change as a result of any new developments. We aim to keep you up to date with any new or revised submissions. Of necessity, this page duplicates some information provided in other pages of this site.
Why not select another excavation site where there are less down sides?
Excavating 8 million tonnes of sand and gravel from a forested, mixed-habitat, 47 hectare (117) acre site clearly puts at risk the mammals, birds, reptiles and plants that currently inhabit it – especially if they are a rare or endangered species. The humans that currently access the site or walk, run or ride close to the proposed quarry would also be impacted. There's a community issue too. Hampshire needs sand but unfortunately Dorset suffers the consequences of quarrying at the Purple Haze site. Whilst the economic and housing needs for building aggregates is clear, isn't there at least one other of several potential sites in Hampshire without so many down-sides?​ Perhaps of even greater concern is that, Purple Haze is allocated in HCC’s Minerals & Waste Plan 2013 as a quarry & landfill site for non-hazardous & inert waste. The planning application subsequently submitted by the developer implies no material will be brought into the site. In its proposed Minerals & Waste Plan 2023, Purple Haze is allocated only as a quarry; however, for Restoration, HCC’s Proposed Plan 2023, Page 179 says: 'If the site is not used for non-hazardous landfill, inert fill will be used to agreed levels…….' * –this phrase MUST be removed before HCC adopt their Proposed M&W Plan 2023. Expert opinion is that restoration will fail if inert waste is used as it is also unsuitable to meet the standards expected to cause no harm and enable the landscape to be restored to an adequate, or to the desired 'better than before', standard.
Our biggest concern?
Perhaps our biggest concern – because of its multiple ramifications – is that Purple Haze is allocated in HCC’s Minerals & Waste Plan 2013 as a quarry & landfill site for non-hazardous & inert waste. The planning application subsequently submitted by the developer implies no material will be brought into the site. In its proposed Minerals & Waste Plan 2023, Purple Haze is allocated only as a quarry; however, for Restoration, HCC’s Proposed Plan 2023, Page 179 says: 'If the site is not used for non-hazardous landfill, inert fill will be used to agreed levels…….' * –this phrase MUST be removed before HCC adopt their Proposed M&W Plan 2023. Expert opinion is that restoration will fail if inert waste is used as it is also unsuitable to meet the standards expected to cause no harm and enable the landscape to be restored to an adequate, or to the desired 'better than before', standard.
What is non-hazardous waste? Non-hazardous waste includes any rubbish or recycling materials that cause no harm to human or environmental health. This waste can be from business or household producers. This can include general household waste like paper, food, sanitary, bathroom rubbish and mixed recyclables (including glass), disposable vapes, bulky waste (skip loads), garden and grounds waste and business wastes including any that come from industrial or agricultural sources. It also includes healthcare wastes (including PPEs) that are soiled but pose no threat to human or environmental health. Non-hazardous waste can be offensive and typically attracts rodents and scavenging birds like seagulls. Non hazardous waste can be inflammable, sometimes where a fire is triggered by biological heating within the waste pile. The nearby Blue Haze landfill site operated by Veolia for HCC has suffered all the issues of offensive waste.
What is inert waste? Inert waste is defined by the Landfill Directive as material that does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations. Inert material will not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other matter with which it comes into contact in a way likely to give rise to environmental pollution or harm human health.
Community
Ringwood Forest & Moors Valley Country Park are at the centre of a conurbation of over 50,000 people
The urban areas around Ringwood Forest are home to well over 50,000 people. Almost all this population, plus their pets, have easy access to Moors Valley Country Park. Most can get to the park without a car, for instance via Castleman Trailway or Potterne Park. Some on horseback. Moors Valley merges with the Purple Haze site such that the two are thought of as one. The park is the favourite local amenity for recreation, exercise, fun and meeting people. A green paradise at the centre of suburbia! The multiple impacts of developing a quarry at Purple Haze risks diminishing the community's access to and use of this vital Green resource.
Risk: reduced community access
Ebblake end of sandy track that forms the border between Moors Valley Country Park and the Purple Haze site.
Public access to the Purple Haze site will be restricted by quarrying work. The impact will vary over time, given the zone-by-zone development plan (see Briefing page). Thus some tracks may remain open until excavation reaches them. Obviously excavation areas will need to be fenced off during quarrying works. We ask: what type of fencing will be used? How high will the fencing be? Where and when will there be fencing? Will fencing be erected on a zone-by-zone basis, around the entire site from the beginning of work? Will fencing be erected around the part of the Ebblake (West) end of the site that where excavation is not planned? That's a lot of questions about just fencing! We and expert groups have many more questions on multiple topics regarding the project overall. However, a particularly important question that members of the community ask: how will their access to the area be impacted over time? This topic is discuused below and on the 'Quarry site' page.
Natural England makes the following comment:
'The current use of the Ringwood Forest is large. A recent survey found that Moors Valley Country Park is the third most visited part of the New Forest. Development of Purple Haze, together with the creation of offset sites will reduce the capacity of the North section of the park to accommodate visitors, primarily local, some of whom will divert elsewhere.'Â NATURAL ENGLAND 'Natural England has significant experience in undertaking and analysing recreational surveys for impacts to European sites, and has raised significant concerns on the adequacy of the data'.
Risk: noise
Another view of the sandy track at one of its highest points.
The sandy track is a special place of peace and tranquility that is loved by the local community.
The sandy track's tranquility stems partly from acoustic screening from trees and partly from undulating terrain both of which separate the track from the Ringwood-Verwood road. With trees largely gone and the terrain lowered, it's not unreasonable to assume that traffic noise will increase sufficiently to destroy that tranquility. The acoustic report following a site survey, does not provide any comfort . . .
'The calculated noise levels at 100m and 200m from the site boundary are above the baseline ambient noise levels. This indicates an adverse impact but not a significant adverse impact at these locations.' W​BM ACOUSTIC CONSULTANTS
But . . . the sandy track is eight metres from the site boundary! That makes noise a significantly adverse impact.
Environmental risks: introduction
​One of the hills within the Purple Haze site.
The comprehensive environmental reports from the developer's consultants, particularly, Ecology by Design have been invaluable for assessing the scope of the planned development. HCC's Planning Department has consulted with a number of UK expert groups. The following sections on this page describe the possible impacts of the development and abstract key responses from consultancies and expert groups.
Environmental risk: hydrology
Ebblake Bog, the site of special scientific interest (SSSI) that is at risk from the Purple Haze quarry development.
Natural England objects on the basis of incomplete information having been supplied by the applicant.
'The proposed works at Purple Haze have the potential to significantly alter the natural hydrological regime of the designated sites via changes in water flow and quality.'  '[The Hafren Water report] provides no information that enables an assessment of the hydrological functioning of the Ebblake Bog SSSI'  ​ 'At present Natural England objects to the proposals as there remains insufficient information to provide the certainty required that the proposals will not have adverse impacts on designated sites.' ​ 'our view is that it remains a strong possibility that the development in its current form cannot be implemented without adverse effects on these designated wetland sites.'  ​ 'Infiltration tests and flood depth management calculations are required.'
In contrast to Natural England's views, HCC Lead Local Flood Authority no longer envisages a problem . . .
'The scheme has been revised and no longer proposes extraction below the water table or creation of ponds as part of the restoration plan. Furthermore, the documents above state specifically that there will be no active dewatering or discharges of water and restoration will be achieved using purely site-won material (ie no landfill). On this basis we remove our objection'
Environmental risk: biodiversity & habitats
An existing heathland section of the Purple Haze site.
Habitats
Natural England, Royal Society for Protection of Birds and the HCC Ecology Team stress the importance of maintaining the rich habitats that surround and include Purple Haze. Natural England has many objections on the basis of disturbed or destroyed habitat . . .
'The application site is a priority habitat that has been found to support great biodiversity including a good population of smooth snakes and sand lizards which are the UK’s rarest and most secretive reptile, as well as grass snake, adder and common lizard. The site includes nationally important wildlife populations, rare threatened or near-threatened birds and a significant population of a rare and endangered plant, Coral Necklace.' 'Disturbance to habitats, tree felling etc have potential to adversely affect both the Purple Haze site and a significant area of Ringwood Forest which support threatened bird species.' 'The quarry will result in a significant loss of nationally and internationally important habitat, including wet heath, mire, transitional and associated habitats, equating to approximately 61 hectares.' As submitted, we consider [the application] will have an adverse effect on the integrity of Dorset's Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and RAMSAR site [Ebblake Bog] and Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC). We consider the development will damage or destroy the interest features for which Ebblake Bog Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) has been notified. 'The application falls a long way from demonstrating [otherwise]. 'In our view the wet heath and wet heath/mire transitions within the application site should be viewed as irreplaceable habitat'.
Biodiversity
Natural England has expressed objections based on loss of biodiversity.
'The claim that the proposal would result in a net gain in biodiversity is not credible'. 'The proposal does not meet the relevant policy tests. Biodiversity interest might be affected outside the application site as hydrological effects may occur on wetland systems other than Ebblake Bog.'Â 'It has been assumed [by the developer's consultants] that restored heathland [after sand extraction] would be equivalent to the existing habitats within the application site and [would] support a similar range of species. This is not the case'
Environmental risk: small reptiles & birds
The Purple Haze site supports six breeding pairs of Nightjars with an additional ten pairs recorded on Ebblake bog. © RSPB
Sand Lizards. © Stephen Bolwell.
The Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Trust is a national wildlife charity committed to conserving amphibian and reptiles and saving the disappearing habitats on which they depend. The trust sustains its strong and comprehensive objection to the Purple Haze development on the basis that:
'The development will adversely impact these species and their habitats.' 'The mitigation proposed will fail to achieve its objectives.' ​ 'The net result of the actions if permitted via the application will reduce the range of reptiles, their population size and the quality of their habitat; therefore the application will adversely impact on the achievement of favourable conservation status for these species.' 'The likely adverse impact on and loss of key species would be contrary to the Biodiversity Duty (Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006) applying to all public bodies, in particular noting the amendment to this duty brought about by the Environment Act 2021.'
The HCC Ecology Team comment:
'European protected species mitigation licences would be required to manage the loss and compensation of their habitats and the translocation of the individuals.' ​'These [reptiles] are very rare animals and the populations within the area remain one of the only (but still shrinking)​ populations in the country, and therefore normal techniques to manage reptiles are not appropriate for the [Purple Haze] development.
RSPB comment:
'We can not see sufficient information to confirm that the phasing of the works will maintain sufficient suitable habitat for Nightjar during the development of the site, nor do we believe that the mitigation proposed, particularly that provided by compensatory habitats, is adequate or properly assessed'.
Natural England comment:
'The Nightjars recorded on the application [purple Haze] site are considered to form part of the wider SPA population . . .
the site can therefore be protected in this context'.
Risks: visual & archeological
A mixed heathland section at the West of the Purple Haze site.
Risk: visual / landscape
In the short-term (meaning decades), the visual impact of the development would be severe, as explained in the Quarry site page. In the absence of 3D renders provided by the developer, it is impossible to visualise a landscape from which eight million tonnes of material would be progressively removed. It will be a constantly changing landscape and an ugly one. The restoration plan illustrated on the Quarry Site page allows some idea of what is planned for the future. There is no reason why this should not become a pleasant landscape, albeit one that is massively different to what exists now. But, to achieve that pleasant landscape requires a huge amount of construction work and the planting of trees and their subsequent maturity. All this adds up to the risk of beautiful landscape remaining visibly scarred for perhaps 45 years.
Archeology.
Ringwood Forest benefits from a significant number of prehistoric tumuli, the most important one of which is situated a few hundred metres from the Purple Haze site and is a notable viewpoint overlooking many miles of Dorset countryside. There is a shallow tumulus, described below, at the highest point of the Purple Haze site. The presence of an Ordnance Survey 'Trig point' at the location means that the forest area would have been mapped using this location. Archeology specialist Andrew Joseph Associates evaluates the risk of destroying the tumulus . . .
'The probable barrow [at the highest point on the Purple Haze site] would be removed by mineral extraction and mitigation would be required. A detailed Project Design Written Scheme of Investigation would need to be submitted to HCC before development commenced and would be subject to a planning condition requiring its implementation. This would provide for full, manual excavation of the probable barrow and examination of a 0.5 hectare area surrounding it [in order] to place it in its landscape context. The excavation would be focused on scientific assessment to retrieve important evidence that is rarely obtained. A watching brief would be held over the remainder of the planned development area (PDA) This would be a significant contribution to archaeological knowledge, meet many archaeological research priorities and offset the harm caused.'
Site restoration
An aerial view of part of the Purple Haze site – with previous quarry and landfill workings to the right of the Ringwood-Verwood road.
In terms of risk, we consider restoration to be a critical issue – has been explained on 'Quarry site' page. Most mitigations proposed by the developer to counter destructive environmental and community impacts rely on habitat conversion and quarry restoration. In practical terms, it would appear likely that effective restoration (landscaping on a mass scale and replanting trees and vegetation) could only, on the most part, begin on completion of sand extraction – or at least only part way through the 20 to 25 years of quarrying. Given the considerable elapsed time before restoration and all too common financial pressures on companies involved in large-scale projects, it is reasonable to project that restoration may never happen. If that is the case, ever-increasing pressure on waste management authorities may make a Purple Haze quarry attractive as a landfill site at some future point and we must remain vigilant to stop that ever happening.
Who wins? Who loses?
The picture above perhaps sums-up what could be lost and how Purple Haze could look for decades. If you, the reader, represent a local community, are a lover of wild & tranquil places, a seeker of good health, one of 800,000 visitors to Moors Valley Country park or a protector of priceless environments, habitats, ecosystems and endangered species, please convey your objection to HCC planning department. Basically please click the 'I object button' below.
​
If you are the landowner with long-held mineral rights, a developer or the recipient of sand-revenue at nearly a quarter of a billion pounds, your position is understandable.
Who wins? Tens of thousands of people, billions of flora & fauna, a priceless forest. Or business?