Meeting documents

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 the original application, the understanding was that the access would not be shared with other farm traffic. Now this had come to light, the case made by the applicant as to why a wheel wash was inappropriate and unnecessary was reasonable in the circumstances and their alternative proposal for a bound surface to ensure excess debris was discarded whilst still within the confines of the site was a satisfactory and practical solution and that a wheel wash could in fact introduce additional hazards.

No objection has been received from the Highway Liaison Engineer as to the practicalities of dealing with mud in this manner nor to the reasoning for not now proceeding with the wheel wash.

Consequently the officer’s recommended the revisions to the conditions as set out in the report as, in their opinion, there was no reason for their refusal.

The opportunity was given to hear from speakers. Colin Hampton, Parish Clerk, expressed severe misgivings over the way in which the development of the site had progressed and was being managed, considering that the applicant had flagrantly disregarded what the approved conditions were designed to achieve by their cavalier approach and the actions which had been demonstrated. The Parish Council’s main concern was over road safety  with the site accessed from a busy 60mph "A" road with sharp bends on the approach in both directions. Furthermore the Parish Council raised concern over the ability of the Waste Planning Authority to monitor and regulate this development to ensure that the applicant adhered to the planning conditions imposed. He suggested the Committee might wish to visit the site to see for themselves what the issue entailed.

Alan Hannify, the applicant’s agent, explained the reasoning for why the variation of the two conditions were needed. He mentioned that in order to compensate for the error in siting the lagoon where it had been when this came to light, its size had been reduced somewhat to reflect this. The provision of a wheel wash facility was considered to be impractical and unviable for the reasons expressed. The alternative solution proposed was designed to mitigate this, whilst achieving an acceptable outcome.

The County Councillor for Winterborne, Hilary Cox, expressed her concern that the approved conditions were not being adhered to and that the attitude displayed by the applicant to the manner in which the development was being managed was unbecoming. In particular she was aggrieved that works had begun without the necessary arrangements in place for the discharge of conditions or measures in place to properly manage the development. In siting the lagoon where it was had now compromised the opportunity for mud to be left on site. Her view was that the wheel wash condition was imposed for sound reasons and nothing had changed especially given what she felt was low level agricultural use of the access. Her view was that not complying with these conditions could undermine faith in the planning process.  

In attempting to determine whether the siting of the lagoon was acceptable, the Committee were advised that, in officers’ opinion, its positioning could not be regarded as having any adverse visual impact or compromise the landscape. In explaining why enforcement action had not been invoked by the Authority, it was noted by members that officers had sought to rectify the situation and the developer had proposed to address this by way of a planning application. When taking account of the visual impact of the lagoon as constructed, it was not considered to be expedient to pursue enforcement action in these particular circumstances.

The Solicitor clarified that whilst siting the lagoon in a different position was in itself a material consideration, the recommendation from the planning officer was that there was no fundamental visual change or impact from this. On this basis it was considered that the difference in location was of little consequence and not necessarily significant. Asked by members if, in principle, an appeal against refusal might succeed on this point, officers were of the view that this might well be the case, with the possibility of costs being awarded against the Authority.

Whilst the Committee were somewhat averse to the consideration of retrospective planning permissions in principle, they understood that there were circumstances whereby this was necessary. Furthermore they recognised the applicant’s right to apply for the variation and removal of conditions which were being sought under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

On that basis they asked questions of the officer’s presentation about the lagoon siting; development signage; shared access arrangements; compliance with conditions and, particularly, what the considered impact of withdrawing the necessity for the wheel wash facility would be. Officers considered that the provision of a bound concrete surface for the first 15 metres of the site entrance with an unbound, but specified, surfacing for the remainder of the access road would be satisfactory in the circumstances for addressing the issue of mud removal. Given the fact that farm vehicles would continue to use the field entrance, officers considered this to be a more effective measure than a wheel wash, in this particular case. 

The opportunity was provided for Steve Savage, the Highway Liaison Engineer,  to address the Committee with his professional assessment of the circumstances. He explained that the proposed surfacing would be sufficient to remove loose mud from vehicles within the site and would also be appropriate given the reasoning documented.  

On a point of process, the Committee’s attention was drawn to the reference of the wheel wash in Condition 11 of the revised conditions, which had inadvertently been retained. Officers acknowledged this and would ensure that this reference would be removed.

The Committee expressed concern that the way in which this particular planning process was progressing could be seen as bringing the process into disrepute.

The Committee was conscious that they did not condone the manner in which this development had proceeded  and expressed their concern over the circumstances in this regard. Nevertheless they were conscious there was a need to find a practical solution to address what had materialised on the ground and to identify the best means of doing this.

In making an assessment about whether the advantages of retaining the wheel wash outweighed the prospect of mud on the road, and by what means this was deposited given the dual use of the site, the Committee considered that they were unable to come to a decision on that basis, as it stood. They asked officers if there was scope to introduce a condition requiring a wheel wash at a future date, if this proved necessary. Officers considered it may be possible  to do this, but wished to be given the opportunity to give some thought as to the wording and enforceability of such a condition.

Given this, the Committee agreed that further consideration of this application should be deferred pending the working up of a suitable condition to address this issue, to be developed following discussion between the applicant and planning officers. The Chairman asked that he, the Vice Chairman of the Committee and the local County Council member be kept informed of developments in this regard. 

Resolved

That consideration of planning application no. 2/2016/1127/DCC be deferred pending consderation being given to adding a suitable condition requiring a wheel wash in the event that monitoring indicated the need for one, following discussion between officers and the applicant.

Reason for Decision

To ensure that a practical, reasonable and appropriate solution is found.