Meeting documents

The Chairman took the opportunity to welcome Councillor Jon Andrews to his first meeting of the Committee.

In the absence of the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Byron Quayle, the Chairman also took the opportunity to appoint a Vice-Chairman for the meeting. On being put to the vote, Councillor Beryl Ezzard was appointed Vice-Chairman for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Byron Quayle and Ray Bryan.

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 13 July 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2017 were confirmed and signed.

To receive any public questions and/or public statements or request for public speaking under Standing Order 21 (2).

Public Speaking

There was one set of public questions received from Tony Dobbs in accordance with Standing Order 21(1) and referred to in detail under minute 6 and in the Update Sheet.

There were three public statements received  - from Richard Tinsley and Kate Goucher in respect of minute 6 and from Tony Meader in respect of minute 9 - in accordance with Standing Order 21(2), which were all referred to in detail under those minutes and in the Update Sheet, as appropriate.

To consider a report by the Director for Environment and Economy.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Highways and Emergency Planning on an application for a Definitive Map and Statement

Modification Order to record a footpath from Footpath 125, Weymouth to Castle Cove Beach, between points C-E on Drawing 16/13 accompanying the Service Director’s report, together with a proposed Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order to correct the recorded route of part of Footpath 125, Weymouth. Associated with this application, a series of questions and statements had been submitted and these were provided for in the Update Sheet, along with officers’ responses to these, as appropriate.

Officer’s reported that in response to an application to add a footpath linking the, now closed, Footpath 125 to Castle Cove Beach, the Service Director’s report gave consideration to the evidence relating to the status of the route. In addition, as it had been identified that the western end of Footpath 125 might be shown offline on the Definitive Map, the Committee was also being asked to consider a proposal to correct the recorded route of Footpath 125 to that which the evidence indicted was the correct route and which was also the route that was currently used.

The Committee was being asked to determine whether a Modification Order to add a route to the Definitive Map and Statement should be made based on the available evidence so as to establish if a right of way subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to subsist. In this case, as the evidence was in dispute and indeterminable, it was for the Committee to determine whether its use was "as of right" or "by right".

  
With the aid of a visual presentation and with reference to the provisions of the Update Sheet provided to Members prior to the meeting, officers explained the background to the application and how it had arisen.The application to add a footpath - as shown between points C-E on Drawing 16/13 accompanying the report - was made by Mr Tony Dobbs on behalf of the Friends of Castle Cove on 29 October 2014.   Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. These showed the claimed route and the points between which it ran; its characteristics; the means by which it accessed Castle Cove beach; its relationship with other routes on the highways network and its setting within the context of the townscape. A comprehensive explanation of how the route had been used - and for what purpose - was provided. The Committee were informed of the ownership of the route, where known, and what arrangements had been made for its use - once again, where known. What signage had been erected and to what this referred was outlined. 

The Service Director’s report had taken into consideration both documentary evidence and user evidence relating to the status of two of the route and this was referred to in detail in the officers presentation. The weight to be afforded to the user and documentary evidence was explained. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider a report by the Director for Environment and the Economy.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning with reference to an objection to the Dorset County Council part of Footpath 10, Spetisbury Public Path Diversion Order 2017, the grounds on which this was based and what options were available to the Committee in their discussion and consideration of the matter, in recommending that the Order be supported by the County Council and sent to the Secretary of State forconfirmation.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained the background to the Order

and how the recommendation now being made had arisen. Photographs and plans

were shown to the Committee by way of illustration showing the proposed diversion,

 and the characteristics of the route. Officers further explained that there had been an earlier diversion to allow garden extensions, but the boundary change had not been reflected on the Ordinance Survey base map used in the Order plan. This diversion was proposed to correct this and record the route as originally intended.   

An objection to the Order meant that the County Council was unable to confirm the

Order itself so consequently, if supported, there would be a need for it to be sent to

the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for confirmation.

Details of the objection received and the grounds on which this was being made was

drawn to the attention of the Committee and summarised in the report, together with

the options the Committee had available to them to deal with the matter.

Officers explained that as the Committee had previously supported the application -

and it was considered that the outstanding objection did not undermine the Committee’s decision to make the Order - it was now being recommended that the County Council should take a supporting stance in any further proceedings.

The Committee heard from Eric Bubb who was objecting to the Order on the basis that there was an ongoing dispute over ownership of the land over which the route ran and, in particular, where the extent of the boundary of Little Oaks and the property at Camelot was situated. He had provided evidence of public path diversion documentation and explained how he considered this to have a bearing on the  land ownership. Further he said that what was recorded with the Land Registry demonstrated that he was the rightful owner of the land and that what was being proposed  would be to his detriment. He asked the Committee to take this into account in their considerations.

Simon Lauder, the applicant, then confirmed that he had evidence to support his ownership of the land and had the title of the land to that effect. He said that he had used the affected land since 1986 and was sure that he owned it. Acceptance by the committee of the diversion order would achieve a desired outcome for him and regularise the course of the route and where it ran. Accordingly he asked the committee to support his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider a report by the Service Director – Economy.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director–Economy on planning application WD/D/17/000991, for the modification of conditions of planning permission 1/D/13/000972 for improvements to the existing golf driving range and practice area, including an amended scheme for the reprofiling of the playing surface through the importation and placement of uncontaminated sand, naturally occurring soils and inert waste at Lyme Regis Golf Club, Timber Hill, Lyme Regis.

With the aid of a visual presentation and with reference to the provisions of the Update Sheet circuited to members prior to the meeting, officers described the proposals and planning issues in detail, what these entailed and what they were designed to achieve. The reason for the application was to reprofile the land form to make it a more level surface to enable the driving range to optimise its practicality in that satisfactory visibility could be maintained when the driving range was being used. Officers confirmed that the maximum height of the reprofling would be 2 metres from where it currently sat. 

Plans and photographs were used to show the characteristics of the site; its location; access arrangements and to describe how the reprofiling was to be phased and progressed; by what means this would be achieved and the materials to be used in this process. The site’s land form and its context within the surrounding landscape, particularly the pastoral area of Harcombe Valley, were shown with views from within and around the site being made available to members. Particular emphasis was made of the relationship between the site, neighbouring land and residential properties; the recent approval by West Dorset District Council of a housing development, on Timber hill, close to the site and; the local road network. The report described in detail what issues had been taken into consideration as part of the Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Assessment process undertaken.

Officer’s explained that planning permission 1/D/13/000972 had provided for landfill with inert material to facilitate improvements to the golf driving range and practice area at Lyme Regis Golf Club. The application was now being made to modify this  permission to provide for :-

·         a reduction in the area of land onto which material would be

deposited, with no material to be placed on the uppermost section of

the driving range and practice area;

·         a reduction in the maximum increase in ground levels from 2.8 to 2

metres;

·         a reduction in total volume of material to be deposited on the site from

approximately 67km3 as indicated on the approved plans to

approximately 48km3;

·         an increase in the maximum number of loaded vehicles allowed to

enter the site from 20 to 30 per working day;

·         an increase in the maximum amount of material to be imported into

the site from 10,000 tonnes to 30,000 tonnes in any one year;

·         amendments to the proposed phasing and sequencing of work so that

work would progress north to south across the site in three separate

and consecutive phases, each phase being accessed from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider the need to hold a site visit in connection with the submission of a planning application for the modification of planning conditions and associated works at Woodsford Quarry, Woodsford, Dorchester.

The Committee were asked to consider the need to hold a site visit in connection with the anticipated upcoming submission of a planning application for the modification of planning conditions and associated works at Woodsford Quarry, Woodsford, Dorchester.

Tony Meader addressed the Committee in this regard and read from a prepared statement in support of the Committee holding a site visit and, in doing so, asked them to take four issues into account so as to familiarise themselves with the following:-

·         the alternative locations for silt lagoons,

·         the unrestored areas of the quarry - particularly the area north of the conveyor closest to the Castle,

·         photographs of winter views towards and away from the Castle, and

·         Heritage England's site inspector’s report of 9th August 2017.

The Committee agreed that a site visit would be beneficial to their understanding of what this application entailed and agreed for this to be arranged as soon a practicable.

Resolved

Than a site visit to Woodsford Quarry, Woodsford be arranged as soon as practicable.

Reason for Decision

To enable members to gain a better understanding of what the application entailed and to see at first hand what issues there were.

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Monday 14 August 2017.

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

Minute 6

Application for a definitive map and statement modification order to record a footpath from Footpath 125, Weymouth to Castle Cove Beach; and Proposed definitive map and statement modification order to correct the recorded route of part of Footpath 125, Weymouth

·         Update: Questions from Mr A Dobbs, the Applicant

First Question

Referring to paragraph 13.12 [not 13.2] of the report which states the following;

"Several documents refer to the steps at Castle Cove, the application route, being under licence or subject to longstanding agreements. The Borough Council is on record as acknowledging that it had a longstanding agreement with the landowners dating back to the 1960s, but it must be noted that no other licences or agreements prior to those of 2008/09 and 2012 have been discovered or submitted."

·         Mr Dobbs asks if the Officer please list those documents that apply in the 64 year period from 1938 to 2002 and the specific evidence that demonstrates they qualify as "longstanding"?

·         If the proposed missing agreements have a duration of 5 years as has been speculated in Para 11.6 there should be 8 such agreements between the 1960s and 2000. What evidence is there concerning the nature and scope of the agreements "dating back to the1960's"?

Officers Comments:

Evidence referring to the ‘longstanding’ arrangement is discussed at paragraphs 8.15 and 8.21 of the report.

The first relates to a letter of 28 October 2003 in which Mr Gallivan, Engineering and Harbour Services Manager, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, responded to an enquiry from Mr J Knight, who was at that time the MP for the area, confirming that the beach was privately owned but the steps were a result of a longstanding arrangement with the landowner to provide access to the beach.

The second refers to an email of 28 November 2008 sent by Mr Good, Operations Officer Weymouth and Portland Borough Council to Members of the Borough Council stating that the steps had been in place since the 1960s which had a licence fee of £1 per annum.  Mr Good refers to negotiations in respect of a licence to retain the steps.

As is stated within the report, although reference is made to the existence of earlier licences, prior to 2008, with the exception of the licence of 1936 no others have been submitted.  However, evidence as to the probable existence of previous licences can be found in Mr Good’s statement which demonstrates that the negotiations he was undertaking were in respect to the renewal of a licence for the retention of the steps.  This demonstrates that a previous licence(s) existed, something acknowledged by the Borough Council as being the case back to the 1960s.

It seems likely that the terms and conditions of previous licences would have been similar to those that have been submitted in evidence, although there is no conclusive evidence to that effect.  Nevertheless, as the Borough Council admit to having a longstanding arrangement in respect of access to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.