Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jean Dunseith, Keith Day and Mary Penfold.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the year 2017/18.

Resolved

That Councillor Margaret Phipps be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the year 2017/18, to be ratified by County Council, as necessary.

The Committee asked that the previous Vice-Chairman, Councillor Byron Quayle, be thanked for his contribution to the work of the Committee since June.

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

With reference to minutes 6,7 and 8, a general interest was declared by Cllr Beryl Ezzard in being the ward member for Purbeck District Council’s Wareham St. Martin ward in which the applications were located, but she had not formed a view.

With reference to minute 11, a general interest was declared by Cllr Margaret Phipps in being a member of Hurn Parish Council that had considered this application, but on which she had not expressed or come to a view.

With reference to minute 11, a general interest was declared by Cllr David Jones in being a member of Christchurch Borough Council’s Planning Committee that had considered this application, but on which he had not expressed or come to a view.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2017 were confirmed and signed.

To receive any public questions and/or public statements and requests for public speaking in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Public Speaking

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

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

Petitions

There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

To consider a report by the Service Director - Highways and Emergency Planning.

The Committee were asked to consider an application to extinguish Footpath 14 Wool, at East Burton, - known as "Darkies" - having been assessed by Network Rail as being a significant risk at the point at which it crossed the Weymouth to Waterloo railway track over the level crossing. This assessment was part of a national undertaking by Network Rail of the safety of level crossings in looking at whether they remained necessary, relevant and purposeful or whether an alternative means of crossing the track could be found which would significantly reduce that risk. How the assessment had been made was explained, with cameras surveys determining the level of use. The risk assessment carried out in October 2015 rated "Darkies" as C6, indicating a high individual risk. Public meetings on the issue had been previously well attended when held locally at Wool.

A visual presentation showed the basis for the application – this being on safety grounds to minimise the risk of crossing the rail track and so as to avoid any direct conflict with oncoming trains – and what the practicalities of doing this entailed. The Update Sheet, provided to members prior to the meeting, set out a series of four questions from Mr Robin Caudell about Footpath 14, together with responses by officers. Photographs and plans showed the characteristics of the footpath proposed to be extinguished, its relationship with the rail track, particularly at the point at which the two met, its setting within the landscape and the points between which it ran. Usage of the route was drawn to the attention of the Committee in terms of numbers and frequency and how this had been assessed. This showed a low use of the crossing which could not justify any alternative means of crossing at that point, either by the provision of a footbridge, tunnel or illuminated warning lights, these being impractical and cost prohibitive. The current route had impediments for those with limited mobility and did not comply with accessibility requirements. What maintenance arrangements would be put in place to ensure the proposal did the job it was designed to do was described, as well as Network Rail’s responsibility for ensuring this was done. 

What alternative routes there were available to gain access from one side of the railway line to the other – from A-D, via East Burton Road/Bailey’s Drove/Footpath 13/Frome Avenue - and how these could be achieved was explained. It was impractical to make the crossing safe as it was, with all other alternative options for doing this having been considered and seen to be impractical or unviable.

A judgement had been made that given the current, unsatisfactory visual inadequacies - including sun glare, the configuration of the track and short response times - the frequency and speed of trains and that the means of indicating trains were approaching was limited during the night time - the continued use of the level crossing as it was posed a significant risk and it was necessary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider a report by the Service Director - Highways and Emergency Planning.

The Committee were asked to consider an application to divert Footpath 15 at Wool having been assessed by Network Rail as being a significant risk at the point at which it crossed the Weymouth to Waterloo railway track over the level crossing known as ‘Wool Footpath’. This assessment was part of a national undertaking by Network Rail of the safety of level crossings in looking at  whether they remained necessary, relevant and purposeful or whether an alternative means of crossing the track could be found which would significantly reduce that risk. How the assessment had been made was explained with camera surveys determining the level of use. Network Rail had carried out a risk assessment in 2014 with a rating of C6 being given to this crossing, indicting a high individual risk.   

A visual presentation showed the basis for the application - this being on safety grounds to minimise the risk of crossing the rail track and to avoid any direct conflict with oncoming trains – and what the practicalities of doing this entailed. Photographs and plans showed the characteristics of the footpath proposed to be diverted, its relationship with the rail track, particularly at the point at which the two met, its setting within the landscape and the points between which it ran, including what impediments prevented it being currently used by those with mobility issues. Explanation of this allayed members concerns over the route being DDA compliant - either as it stood or by what was being proposed. Usage of the route was drawn to the attention of the Committee in terms of numbers and frequency and how this had been assessed. What maintenance arrangements would be put in place to ensure the proposal did the job it was designed to do was described, as well as Network Rail’s responsibility for ensuring this was done. 

An alternative route proposed to gain access from one side of the railway line to the other and how this would be achieved was explained. The high level of use of Footpath 15 justified the provision of a footbridge – already installed - as the alternative means of crossing the railway. It was impractical to make the crossing safe as it was, with all other alternative options for doing this having been considered and seen to be impractical or unviable. Moreover Wool level crossing (Wool MCB-CCTV) on the A352 lay a relatively short distance eastwards and served as an adequate crossing point for those who would be unable to access the footbridge.

A judgement had been made that given the current, unsatisfactory visual inadequacies – including sun glare and short response times – the frequency and speed of trains and crossing misuse - the continued use of the level crossing as it was posed a significant risk and it was necessary to address this. As the application met the tests of the Highways Act 1980 the Committee were asked to accept it and an Order made on that basis.

What consultation had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider a report by the Service Director - Highways and Emergency Planning.

The Committee were asked to consider an application to extinguish Footpath 18 Wool, at Hyford having been assessed by Network Rail as being a significant risk at the point at which it crossed the Weymouth to Waterloo railway track over the level crossing. This assessment was part of a national undertaking by Network Rail of the safety of level crossings in looking at whether they remained necessary, relevant and purposeful or whether an alternative means of crossing the track could be found which would significantly reduce that risk. How the assessment had been made was explained, with cameras surveys determining the level of use. The risk assessment carried out in March 2015 rated the level crossing at Hyford as C8, indicating a high individual risk.

A visual presentation showed the basis for the application  - this being on safety grounds to minimise the risk of crossing the rail track and so as to avoid any direct conflict with oncoming trains – and what the practicalities of doing this entailed. Photographs and plans showed the characteristics of the footpath proposed to be extinguished, its relationship with the rail track, particularly at the point at which the two met, its setting within the landscape and the points between which it ran, including what impediments preventing it being currently used by those with mobility issues or accessibility requirements. Usage of the route was drawn to the attention of the Committee in terms of numbers and frequency and how this had been assessed. This showed a low use of the crossing which could not justify any alternative means of crossing at that point, either by the provision of a footbridge, tunnel or illuminated warning lights, these being impractical and cost prohibitive. The current route had impediments for those with limited mobility and did not comply with accessibility requirements. What maintenance arrangements would be put in place to ensure the proposal did the job it was designed to do was described, as well as Network Rail’s responsibility for ensuring this was done. 

What alternative routes there were available to gain access from one side of the railway line to the other – by use of the nearby underpass at Soldier’s Bridge - and the means by which this could be achieved was explained. It was impractical to make the crossing safe as it was, with all other alternative options for doing this having been considered and seen to be impractical or unviable.

A judgement had been made that given the current, unsatisfactory visual inadequacies - including sun glare, the configuration of the track and short response times - the frequency and speed of trains and that the means of indicting trains were approaching was limited during the night time - the continued use of the level crossing as it was posed a significant risk and it was necessary to address this. As the application met the tests of the Highways Act 1980, the Committee were asked to accept it and an Order made on that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider a report by the Service Director - Highways and Emergency Planning.

The Committee considered an application for a Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order to add a footpath from Poole Road to Bridleway 6, Lytchett Minster and Upton along the route of the old railway line. Furthermore, during the course of the officer’s investigation into the application, documentary evidence was discovered which suggested that the route as shown as X-A1-A2-B and B-C-Y-Z on Drawing 14/25/3 should be considered for addition to the definitive map and statement.

With the aid of a visual presentation, the basis for the application was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were displayed to illustrate this showing the claimed route, its characteristics and setting within the townscape and estates in that part of Lytchett Minster, its relationship with neighbouring properties and the points between which it ran. Signage and gating were also shown. The documentary and user evidence contained in the report was referred to in detail and how this was applied in the officer’s reasoning for coming to the recommendation they had. The weight to be given to the user and documentary evidence was explained. The Committee’s attention was drawn to what they were being asked to take into consideration in coming to their decision.

Officers had concluded that the user evidence was weak given that there had been two occasions where use of the route had been challenged, and was therefore insufficient to fulfil the requirement of 20 or more years uninterrupted use by the public to demonstrate a deemed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to infer dedication under common law given the urban location. There was no documentary evidence to support the application either.

Resolved

1. That the application be refused.

2. That the route as shown X – A1 – A2 – B – C – Y – Z on Drawing 14/25/3 be added to the definitive map and statement as a public footpath.

Reasons for Decisions

1. The available evidence does not, on balance, show that claimed right of way subsists nor can be reasonably alleged to subsist.

2. The route as shown between points X – A1 – A2 – B – C – Y – Z on Drawing 14/25/3 is part of the adopted highway, with a right for the public to use it on foot. All

public paths recorded on the List of Streets should be recorded on the definitive map and statement.

Decisions on applications for definitive map modification orders ensure that changes to the network of public rights of way comply with the legal requirements and supports the Corporate Plan 2017-18 Outcomes Framework that People in Dorset are Healthy and that Dorset’s economy is Prosperous.

-         To support productivity we want to plan communities well, reducing the need to travel while ‘keeping Dorset moving’, enabling people and goods to move about the County safely and efficiently.

To consider a report by the Service Director-Highways and Emergency Planning.

The Committee were being asked to approve the advertisement of a proposed puffin pedestrian crossing at Somerford Road, Christchurch in fulfilling a planning obligation to provide such a faciality as a condition of the granting of planning permission by Christchurch Borough Council to the Meteor Retail Park development.

With the aid of a visual presentation officers showed where the crossing was to be sited, the characteristics and configuration of Somerford Road and the surrounding road network, the setting with the townscape and what amenities and facilities would be served by the facility. Officers considered the crossing to be necessary on road safety grounds as the retail park would invariably attract a significant number of customers from the housing estates and residential areas situated on the northern side of the road.

The Chairman confirmed that as the local County Councillor for Burton Grange he supported the proposals and what they were designed to achieve, as did the local Borough Ward Councillors, Denise Jones and Janet Abbott.

Resolved

That public notice of the proposed puffin crossing be advertised as required by the Road Traffic Regulation Act (1984).

Reason for Decision

The construction of the prosed puffin crossing was an express condition of a full planning permission granted by Christchurch Borough Council for the delivery of a retail development. This was designed to improved road safety and promote independent living and healthy lifestyles.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning/Service Director – Economy on planning application 8/17/2282/DCC for a variation of Conditions 2 (Development to Be in Accordance with Approved Plans) and 3 (Operation in Accordance with Application Documents) of planning permission 8/16/2910/DCC (retrospective) at ECO Sustainable Solutions, Chapel Lane, Hurn, Christchurch.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained in detail what the variation of conditions 2 and 3 were designed to achieve and how these revisions would be applied. Photographs and plans were shown illustrating the characteristics of the site, its form and its context within the surrounding landscape. What activities were being undertaken and where these were taking place were explained. Officers considered this to be a relatively minor variations to regularise the relocation and extension of the waste wood storage and processing yard and that this modification meant that the site could be managed more effectively and efficiently going forward so as to accommodate an increase in throughput for the from 43,000 tonnes to 70,000 tonnes each year of this waste stream. Officer confirmed that this increase did not change the overall permitted throughput. 

Given the environmental sensitivities of the site, the operations being undertaken and the provisions of the permission accompanying  Environmental Statement and the Environmental Impact Assessment, there would be a requirement for the application to be referred for consultation with the Secretary of State in the first instance.

Alan Hannify, agent, explained that the application was designed to improve the efficient operations at the facility and benefit how the site could be best managed.

Mike Thompson, applicant, explained that these variations had been necessitated by  a change in circumstances to how their product was managed in terms of the export markets and the ports from where they were operating. This change would give them more flexibility in how their product was managed and be beneficial overall.

The County Councillor for Commons, Margaret Phipps, supported the proposals for the variation of conditions.

Resolved

That subject to:          

(i) the application being referred for consultation with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009; and

(ii) the conditions set out in paragraph 8.2 of the officer’s report

planning permission be granted.

Reason for Decision

The reasons for granting planning permission were summarised in paragraphs 6.16 – 6.17 and in the Informative of the Head of Planning’s report.

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Monday 4 December 2017.

No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20(2).