Meeting documents

In the absence of the Vice-Chairman, Pauline Batstone, it was

Resolved

That Daryl Tuner be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the meeting.

The Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, took the opportunity to thank Steve Butler for his contribution to the work of the Committee during his time serving on it. The Committee Clerk was asked to write to Councillor Butler accordingly.

The Chairman took the opportunity to welcome Steven Lugg, in his absence, to the Committee and following his successful completion of the mandatory training, looked forward to him joining members at their next meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Pauline Batstone, Barrie Cooper, Mervyn Jeffery, Mike Lovell, Peter Richardson, Mark Tewkesbury and David Walsh.

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 27 October 2016 (attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2016 were confirmed and signed.

Mike Garrity took the opportunity to update members on developments relating to the deferred planning application for Woodsford Quarry. Further information was awaited from the applicants before consideration of the applications could progress further. Consideration was given as to whether members required a site visit in connection with the application, officers being of the view that there would be little to be gained from this in terms of members’ better understanding of the issues at hand. It was felt that photographs, plans and, if necessary, video footage would be sufficient.  The Chairman, in conjunction with the Vice-Chairman, undertook to make an assessment outside the meeting of whether a site visit was necessary after having canvassed members on this. 

To consider any public questions, statements and request for public speaking.

Public Speaking

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

Public Statements

There was one public statement received at the meeting, from Nigel Hill, in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

In addressing the Committee, the content of Mr Hill’s statement related to the 2015 Redbridge Quarry approval. He had observed that little extraction had taken place; the entrance to the site was unclean; noise levels were unacceptable; restoration had stopped; inert material recycling was unbunded close to the entrance; the number of fires and how long they burned was far in excess of what had been agreed; and there were non-quarry vehicles parked on site, drawing him to the conclusion that the operators adherence to their Approved Restoration Plan and Periodic Review was weak.

The Chairman thanked Mr Hill for his statement and asked officers to respond. Mr Garrity informed the Committee that the statement from Mr Hill was received only the day before  the meeting and so officers had not had an opportunity to investigate the issues raised. Mr Garrity stated that Mr Hill had not raised these matters with the Monitoring and Enforcement Team who would be in a position to investigate compliance matters associated with planning conditions. He provided the Committee with an assurance that he would refer Mr Hill’s concerns to the Monitoring and Enforcement Team and offered to report back to the Committee. The Chairman confirmed that he would welcome this and that he wished to be kept informed of officers’ findings , with a subsequent update on the situation at Redbridge Quarry being submitted to a future meeting for consideration.  

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

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Highways which explained that, following the advertising of proposed changes to parking restrictions in various roads in Worth Matravers, objections had been received to the proposals for the D53204 unnamed road on the north side of the Village Pond. Consequently, the Committee was now being asked to give consideration to those objections and decide whether the proposals should be implemented as advertised.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and having regard to the Update Sheet  provided for members information prior to the meeting and appended to these minutes, officers explained the reasoning behind the need to impose the waiting restrictions and the basis on which the objections received had been made. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. These showed where the proposals would be situated, the character of the roads and their setting within the village. The proposals were designed to improve the unimpeded flow of traffic through the village as it was considered that parking in the centre of the village was causing restricted access for some larger vehicles. It was considered that for these to be enforced effectively, the existing restrictions would require amendment to provide sufficient opportunity for this to take place. Such was the reasoning for the changes, that a year round implementation was also warranted. 

The County Councillor for Purbeck Hills, Purbeck District Council, Dorset Police and Worth Matravers Parish Council all supported the proposals, with the views of the Parish Council being set out in the Update Sheet. Officers emphasised that it had taken much negotiation over a number of years to reach the point whereby proposals could be advertised.

Objections received considered that the new proposals would be of little benefit to the village and not noticeably improve the traffic situation. Moreover, it was considered that these would adversely affect the trade of local businesses, given the way in which the restrictions were designed. It was also considered that the consultation exercise undertaken, particularly by the Parish Council, was inadequate in being able to satisfactorily gauge the views of those most affected by the measures.  Officers considered that the consultation undertaken in advertising the proposals had proven to be satisfactory in providing a sufficient opportunity for any observations to be made.

Officers acknowledged that whilst the changes would not necessarily be universally welcomed, on balance, they were considered to be beneficial and, on that basis, were now being recommended for approval as advertised.

The Committee heard from Tim Arnold, resident of Post Office Cottage, who in the first instance, expressed concern that the consultation exercise undertaken by the Parish Council had been inadequate and had not taken into account the views of those most affected on the difference the proposals would make. From his own observations, the changes proposed would be of little benefit to the majority of those living and working in the village and were unnecessary. He felt that any removal of parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Highways which set out details of an application to divert parts of Footpaths 11 and 29, Mappowder at Lower Thurnwood Farm, as shown on Drawing 16/04 accompanying the report. As Lower Thurnwood Farm was part of the County Farms Estate there was an obligation for Public Path Order applications affecting Dorset County Council owned land to be considered by the Committee as a matter of practice.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and having regard to the Update Sheet appended to these minutes, the basis for the application and

what it entailed was explained. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration showing the footpaths proposed to be diverted, their character and setting within the landscape and the points between which they ran.

The reasoning for the application was to regulate the practicalities of accessing and traversing the land in and around the farm, given that farm buildings and facilities obstructed the routes, as they stood.  The proposed diversion was therefore beneficial to the landowner in how the farm was able to be managed and operated.

Clarification was provided by the Solicitor that rights of way and access considerations were the determining factors on which the Committee should base their decision, with economic considerations playing no part in any decision.

The support for the proposals from the County Councillor for Blackmore Vale, Pauline Batstone, was drawn to the attention of the committee.

Having taken into account the details contained in the Director’s Report, the points made by officers and the practical reasons for submission of the application, on being put to the vote, the Committee considered that the application should be accepted and an Order made accordingly.

Resolved

(a)    That the application to divert part of Footpath 11, Mappowder from A – B – C to A – E – F – G – H – C and part of Footpath 29, Mappowder from B – D to C – I – J – K – D as shown on Drawing 16/04 be accepted and an order made;

(b)    That the Order include provisions to modify the definitive map and statement to record the changes made as a consequence of the diversions; and

(c)    If the Order was unopposed, or if any objections were withdrawn, it be confirmed by the County Council without further reference to the Committee.

Reasons for Decisions

(a)       The proposed diversions met the legal criteria set out in the Highways Act 1980.

(b)       The inclusion of these provisions in a public path order meant that there was no need for a separate legal event order to modify the definitive map and statement as a result of the diversion.

(c)       Accordingly, the absence of objections might be taken as acceptance that the proposed new routes were expedient and therefore the County Council could itself confirm the order.       

Decisions on applications  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

Of The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Economy on planning application No. 2/2016/1127/DCC under Schedule 1 Paragraph 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the variation of a condition and the removal of a condition of planning permission 2/2014/0529/PLNG for a storage lagoon to handle digestate from the anaerobic digestion (AD) plant at Piddlehinton. The proposal sought to vary condition 2 - development in accordance with the approved plans - and remove condition 10 - provision of wheel washing facilities. Officers recommended approval of the development subject to conditions being imposed.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the background to the development and why it was needed. The context of the development within the character of the site, the surrounding landscape and other neighbouring agricultural development were all described.

The Committee were reminded that planning permission was originally granted subject to a number pre-commencement conditions being complied with. However it had transpired that works had commenced on site prior to a number of those conditions being discharged. Subsequently it had come to light that the lagoon had not been sited in accordance with the approved plan, having been constructed some 20 metres westwards of where permission had been granted, with its use having already begun. Following officers’ requests, use of the site had been suspended pending determination of the application.

Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee which provided a sense of what the proposals were designed to do, where these were situated on the ground, the access arrangements being implemented and the relationship of the development with other neighbouring facilities and dwellings in and around Milborne St. Andrew.

Officers also reported that the applicant did not now consider that it would be appropriate, or necessary, to provide wheel washing facilities on site, in accordance with condition 10 of the permission.  The applicant’s reasoning for this were numerous, but essentially cited that as the site entrance was shared with agricultural use, by what means any mud was carried onto the road could not be readily determined; the site had no access to power or water; any rumble track within the wheel wash could result in noise disturbance; stagnant water in the trough would give rise to odour; and exiting the wheel wash could result in residual water being deposited onto the A354 causing a hazard, particularly in freezing conditions. As an alternative to a wheel wash, the applicant proposed to provide a suitably surfaced track sufficient for mud to be discarded prior to vehicles joining the carriageway.

In taking into account the issues at hand, officers considered that the error in the siting of the lagoon relative to the permitted location did not cause any adverse visual impact or compromise the developments setting in the landscape. Accordingly the location of the lagoon was considered to be satisfactory.  With regard to the applicant’s case for not now requiring a wheel wash facility, officers confirmed that at the time of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Friday 30 December 2016.

No questions were received from Members under Standing Order 20 (2).

Traffic Matter

Minute 6

Proposed waiting Restrictions , Various Roads, Worth Matravers

Summary of letter dated 16 December 2016 from Mr Khanna, Parish Clerk of Worth Matravers

"A proposal was made by the Parish Council to amend the existing restrictions following meetings with Officers of the County Council and are similar to the restrictions that exist in East Purbeck.

The requirement for all year restrictions will allow the existing limited parking bay to be regulated all year round and would help with prevent the increasing problem of parking by camper vans around the Worth pond area in early spring and autumn when the existing restrictions do not apply.

 The all year "no waiting at any time" would help to deal with the problems of parking obstructions in relation to the large farm associated vehicles that require access all year round."

Rights of Way Matter

Minute 7

Application to divert parts of Footpaths 11 and 29, Mappowder at Lower Thurnwood Farm

Correction to paragraph 3.7 of the report:

Para. 3.7 currently reads:

3.7       The proposed diversion affects only the applicant’s land and therefore no compensation is payable under Section 28 of the Highways Act 1980.

This should read:

3.7       The proposed diversion affects the land of Mr and Mrs Nieboer of Thurnwood Dairy Farm, in addition to the applicant’s land. However, as Mr and Mrs Nieboer have agreed to the diversion, and the proposed route follows an existing used route, it is not anticipated that any compensation would be payable under Section 28 of the Highways Act 1980.

Planning Matter

Minute 8

Planning application 2/2016/1127/DCC

Variation of condition no.2 and the removal of condition no.10 of Planning Permission 2/2014/0529/PLNG associated with the development of a storage lagoon on land to the South of the A354, Milborne St Andrew, Dorset.

Correction:

Note that the date of the meeting on the report cover sheet should read 5 January 2017

Further Representation:

A further representation has been received from a local resident who states –

"I am pleased to see most of the conditions are maintained in the final recommendation however, it would have been nice see the final permanent signage arrangements but at least the requirement is in the report.

Having recently witnessed 2 HGV's overtake a tractor/tanker on the down slope of the A354 Basen Hill I am somewhat surprised that a some form of assessment of the likely effects of these slow moving vehicles will have on inappropriate overtaking manoeuvres has not been included in the report compiled by the applicant, but I am sure we may have to revisit this issue in the future, subject, of course, to the plan being approved."

Officer comment:

A condition is included within paragraph 9 of the report which requires the submission and approval of permanent advance warning signage prior to any further works being undertaken.

The highways impact of the proposed development was fully considered in paragraph 6.6 – 6.10 of the previous Regulatory Committee report (see Appendix 3).

Update: