Agenda item

Proposed extraction of sand and gravel with associated access, internal haul roads, processing plant, silt and freshwater lagoons, stockpiles, conveyors, offices, weighbridge, and other ancillary infrastructure, creation of a new permissive path, and restoration with inert materials to agriculture, amenity and nature conservation.

The Case Officer presented a visual presentation with plans and aerial photographs to outline the site, proposal, and relevant planning policies. The site was cross-border, with less than 1% within Dorset, therefore, Hampshire County Council had agreed to consider the application. The county boundary and site location were shown, with the majority of the site in Hampshire, and Alderholt being the closest village. The applicant, CEMEX, operated a preexisting quarry and planned to extract 3.6 million tonnes of sand over approximately 13 years, followed by 5 years of restoration. All materials would have been transported by HGV, and the phasing plan, which included three phases was discussed. The access to the site was in Dorset, and the surrounding landscape provided noise attenuation. The distance from the site to Alderholt village was noted.

All minerals would be taken off-site via HGV, with 99% of vehicles turning onto Alderholt Road. Importation of inert waste would also occur via HGV from the south along Alderholt Road. Vehicle movements, both weekday and projected, were discussed, and a video was shown to demonstrate existing HGV routes. Environmental concerns regarding the footpaths were raised, as three footpaths will be diverted with new access, including a new permissive path along the western side of the route. The permissive path would be retained for the duration of operations. Environmental health concerns were highlighted but could have been addressed through conditions and liaison, with relevant policies such as SS1, DM1, DM2, DM8, and DM10 mentioned.

Dorset Council officers raised concerns regarding the transport assessment’s limitations, especially in relation to impacts on the Bakers Hanging junction, road width, and cumulative effects, as well as technical details such as a potential conveyor belt. They also suggested that, if permitted, the new permissive route should be retained post-operation. While environmental health issues were noted, conditions could resolve them. If the development proceeded, a S106 agreement could be needed to mitigate any residual harm.

It was recommended that Dorset Council writes to Hampshire County Council to object to the development, citing concerns while expressing a willingness to work with HCC, the applicant, and other stakeholders to achieve an appropriate and sustainable solution.

Public Participation

Ms Rowland referenced the noise survey, highlighting the potential adverse impacts on the quality of life for residents in the area. She noted the site's proximity to the River Avon, which held national importance, and expressed concern that insufficient attention had been given to the surrounding land and woodland areas. She pointed out that there would not have been any respite for residents, especially given the narrowness of the road, which she believed would be problematic for construction vehicles. The width of the road was identified as a significant factor, with no effective mitigation proposed. She raised concerns about the road being closed due to accidents or maintenance issues and criticized the lack of community engagement by the applicant. Ms Rowland emphasized the strong objection from the council.

Cllr Gina Logan spoke on behalf of Alderholt Parish Council. Cllr Logan objected to the proposal, noting that a full response had been submitted to Hampshire County Council. The Parish Council supported Dorset Council's concerns regarding transport issues, particularly the narrow road where HGVs struggled to pass. She emphasized that increased HGV movements would negatively impact the route. Cllr Logan also pointed out that the proposed response letter overlooked the need to investigate and share the pros and cons of using a conveyor to link the site, as mentioned in paragraph 7.22. Additionally, she called for stronger emphasis on hydrology concerns, including the potential impact of both mineral extraction and inert waste infill on local water systems. She questioned the adequacy of the hydrological impact assessment, particularly its coverage of the Alderholt area.

Cllr David Tooke spoke as the Local Ward Member and thanked the officer for the comprehensive report and noted that the applicant had not attended. Cllr Tooke highlighted that the projected demand for sand and gravel and raised concerns about increased road traffic, emphasizing that the road was narrow and did not meet the minimum requirements for road width. He noted that there was no point on the road where vehicles could legally pass according to the Highway Code and concluded that the proposal fell short on multiple fronts.

Members questions and comments

•                Members expressed environmental concerns, particularly regarding hydrology and planting

•                Funding for the maintenance of the roads associated with the proposal

•                It was noted that there was a typo in the report and queried whether the existing quarry currently used the road in question or an alternative route

•                Queried whether details of the conveyor would have been included within the letter to Hampshire Council.

•                Significant increase in traffic movements

•                Raised concerns about the narrowness of the road, referencing government guidelines regarding the sufficient distance required between vehicles and cyclists.

•                sought clarification that the proposal aligned with the Mineral and Waste Plan and would remain consistent.

•                Concerns regard to changes in priority on the road

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to GRANT the officer’s recommendation that Dorset Council writes to Hampshire County Council to object to the development, as recommended, with the incorporation of original concerns included in the letter, was proposed by Cllr Spencer Flower, and seconded by David Taylor.

Decision: That Dorset Council writes to Hampshire County Council to object to the development with the incorporation of original concerns included in the letter, citing concerns while expressing a willingness to work with HCC, the applicant, and other stakeholders to achieve an appropriate and sustainable solution.