Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Steve Butler, Barrie Cooper, Mike Lovell and Mark Tewkesbury.

There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2016 (attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2016 were confirmed and signed.

Public Speaking

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions

The consideration of petitions was now the responsibility of the Petitions Panel, established for that purpose.

To consider a report by the Service Director – Economy (attached).

The Committee considered two reports by the Service Director – Economy which recommended the granting of planning permission in respect of:-

·         Application WD/D/15/001058 - which sought a variation of conditions 4, 11, 15 and 21 of planning permission 1/E/2005/0742 for revised phasing and restoration to facilitate the extension of the quarry, including changes to internal layout and amending the permitted noise monitoring scheme at Woodsford Farm, Woodsford, Dorchester, these being:-

-       Condition 4 – to regularise the location of the field conveyor, how the phasing of operations were managed, where stockpiling would be permitted and how screening/noise attenuation bunds would be provided;

-       Condition 11 – to amend the existing noise limit, at Watermead Cottage, from 40db to 48db;

-       Condition 15 – to provide for the importation of aggregates to supply the bagging plant; and

-       Condition 21 – to regularise the way in which the extraction phases were managed.

These variations were needed as the current operations did not accord with the development as approved under the original permission for the site, because operation requirement proved different from those anticipated at the time of the application. Officers were confident that these proposals would satisfactorily meet those needs.

·         Application WD/D/15/001057 – which sought an extension of the quarry to the north to provide additional silt lagoon capacity and for the erection of an aggregate bagging plant, at Woodsford Farm, Woodsford, Dorchester.

As these two applications were inextricably linked and each had a bearing on the other, the Committee agreed that they should be considered as one presentation, but that the Committee’s decisions and the granting of any permissions should remain separate and discrete. 

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers described the proposals and planning issues in detail, what these entailed and what they were designed to achieve. Plans and photographs were used to show the characteristics of the site, its location, access and to describe how the quarrying operations would be progressed. The site’s land form and its context within the surrounding landscape were shown, with views from within and around the site. The activities and operations proposed to be undertaken were described in detail by officers, as well as the machinery to be used. Arrangements for the way in which the quarrying was to be phased and managed, its progression and the relationship between each phase were also described. Similarly the restoration process was described and how this would be achieved, with the aim to eventually return the site to agricultural use. Officers explained the water management arrangements and bending proposals by the same means. Officers described the type of activities which were to take place on site; their relationship with the current quarrying operations; the site’s setting within the landscape; the local highway and rights of way network; and the topography and geology of the area. Confirmation was provided that the applications would not affect the outputs of material from the quarry nor the working hours for the proposed operations.

Particular emphasis was made of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To consider a report by the Service Director – Economy (attached).

To consider a report by the Service Director – Economy (attached).

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Economy on planning application 6/2016/0306  to modify Condition 2 of Planning Permission 6/2002/0139 (Sand Extraction) - Extension of Duration of Permission until 30 May 2021 at Hines Pit, Puddletown Road, East Stoke, Wareham.

Officers explained that the proposal is to extend the life of the planning consent so that extraction operations could continue for a further 5 years (until 30 May 2021) and restoration would be delayed until 30 September 2021. Approximately 400,000 tonnes of the original 650,000 still remained to be extracted.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers described the proposals and planning issues in detail, what these entailed and what they were designed to achieve. Plans and photographs were used to show the characteristics of the site, its location and to describe how the quarrying operations would be progressed. The site’s land form and its context within the surrounding landscape were shown, with views from within and around the site. The activities and operations proposed to be undertaken were described in detail by officers. Arrangements for the way in which the quarrying was to be phased and managed, its progression and the relationship between each phase were also described. Similarly the restoration process was described and how this would be achieved, with the aim to eventually return the site to agricultural use. Officers described the type of activities which were to take place on site; their relationship with the current quarrying operations; the site’s setting within the landscape; the local highway and rights of way network; and the topography and geology of the area.  Officers explained the need for the mineral and how it would benefit the construction industry.

The report described in detail what issues had been taken into consideration as part of the Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Assessment process . The consultation  process was drawn to the attention of the Committee with no objections being raised by either Purbeck District Council or East Stoke Parish Council, amongst others.

Officers drew the attention of the Committee to what was contained in the Update Sheet, as appended to these minutes, and confirmation of the applicant’s title.

The Committee took the opportunity to consider the merits of the application and it was

Resolved

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 8.2 of the Service Director’s report.

Reason for Decision

As summarised in paragraphs 6.17 and 6.18 of the Service Director’s report.

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Monday 24 October 2016.

No questions were received from members under Standing order 20(2).

Planning application WD/D/15/001058

Variation of conditions 4, 11, 15 and 21 of planning permission 1/E/2005/0742 for revised phasing and restoration to facilitate the extension of the quarry, including changes to internal layout and amending the permitted noise monitoring scheme at Woodsford Farm, Woodsford, Dorchester, Dorset for Hills Quarry Products Ltd.

and

Planning application WD/D/15/001057

Extension of the quarry to the north to provide additional silt lagoon capacity and for the erection of an aggregate bagging plant, at Woodsford Farm, Woodsford, Dorchester, Dorset for Hills Quarry Products Ltd.

Update:

Further representations have been received from Cllr Andy Canning (Local Member), Knightsford Parish Council, the occupants of ‘Watermead Cottage’ and ‘The Bushes’ and a planning consultant responding on behalf of the Parish Council. The representations raise the following additional planning considerations –

Impact on Heritage Asset

(a) The public benefits of the proposal have not been properly weighed against the harm to Woodsford Castle

(b) The views from Woodsford Castle itself have not been considered

(c) The cumulative impact of the proposal has not been considered

(d) That the proposed bunding would be an alien feature in the landscape

(e) That Woodsford Castle’s association with Thomas Hardy has not been considered

(f) That the required restoration schemes, both temporary and permanent, may ultimately differ from what is expected by officers and so may lead to greater harm to Woodsford Castle

(g) That delayed restoration North of the conveyor is not part of the application; have Heritage England and the Landmark Trust been consulted on this delay?

(h) Has DCC sought to remedy the deficiencies identified by Heritage England in the May 2016 Heritage Assessment

(i) That a temporary development of decades does not render harm to Woodsford Castle insignificant

(j) Why have officers concluded that land within the application site and between Woodsford Castle and the application site makes no historical contribution to the setting of Woodsford Castle

(k) That the applicant’s heritage consultant has not visited Woodsford Castle

Assessment of alternative locations

(l) Viability statements should be provided for public scrutiny/comment where the applicants have dismissed alternative locations on the grounds of viability.

Noise

(m) The recently submitted combined noise assessment shows that the noise limit at Watermead Cottage will now be 49 dBwhich is higher than the 48 being asked for.

(n) The current planning conditions for the site require that discrete noises (eg bangs, clanks, whines) are managed. This condition provides some level of protection for the village and Woodsford Castle. This condition has been removed from the new list of conditions. There has been no consultation on this change.

Temporary Restoration Timescales

(o) No timescale is proposed for the temporary restoration of the area to the north of the conveyor.

(p) Whilst the existing Condition 21 provides for full and detailed restoration scheme for the site, proposed Condition 6 only provides for a "programme" largely in respect of planting. It is considered that the proposed variation represents a significant dilution  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.