Agenda item

Representations/Submissions/Statements made on Applications at the Eastern Area Planning Committee meeting 3 June 2020

 

A schedule of the statements read direct to Committee is available as a pdf document, and is accessible here :-

 

 

6/2018/0606 - Spyway Orchard

 

Roy Kendell

The reasons to grant approval of some of the Reserved Matters need to take careful heed of recent events:

 

Climate Implications: There are now regular massive flooding problems which are occurring year on year. 2020 has again shown the climate is changing very quickly and current surface water drainage is inadequate in all areas of the country.

 

Impact on Residential Amenity: Until and unless a full-proof and sustainable surface water drainage scheme exists that will, without fail, deal with current and future rainfall, the statement that "Acceptable. No demonstrable harm on existing neighbouring properties." must be false. When our house is flooded (see below) the impact on us will be very considerable.

From Christmas 2019 until early February 2020 the southern part of The Hyde had a small brook running through it. The water was surface water run off from what is now the wooded grassed site of Spyway Orchard and from a spring, fed by the soaked ground of Spyway Orchard. When built over the problem will be multiplied many times over. 

 

Once reaching our house (Mistral) the surface water runs into a culvert then a deep gully bordering our house. This culvert and gully deals with a huge amount of surface water at all times of bad weather and it does not appear on any map, nor is it maintained by Wessex Water or other agency. I do not believe the situation is known or has been investigated by the applicant or its agents.

 

Recommendation: Item 3 relating to the surface water drainage is a vital and essential precondition. Until and unless the applicant has a robust and proper answer to this very important pre-condition why are they proceeding with other much less important matters. Are they, and Dorset Council, going to quietly slip this through at a stage when it is too late to stop the development with Dorset Council eager to get its hands on the CIL money?

 

Barrie Mayes

I write concerning application 6/2018/0606.  I confirm my continuing objection to this proposed development, and am aware that the planning process has reached the stage of considering certain reserved matters and their effects on the certainty that certain key Conditions can be met.  I am addressing two issues.

Effect on Surface Water Management: The meeting will discuss and agree certain Reserved Matters without any knowledge of whether the Developer's proposed Surface Water Management Plan will be found to work prior to building commencing.  There is major concern in the community, highlighted by Dorset's Lead Flood Authority, that this plan will not work in the specific geological environment of Spyway Orchard.  This would require a major redesign of the system at the building stage which will radically effect certain key Reserved Matters, apparently already agreed (eg Layout, Landscape and Access).  This is a feedback loop which makes a nonsense of the planning process.  The Planning Committee must consider this real danger.

AONB: Every aspect of the Reserved Matters discussion will impact on whether the Inspector's requirement that damage to the AONB be minimised is met.  The issue is complex and requires expert knowledge of AONB practice.  The committee will not have available to it on June 3rd any expert advice on the intricacies of planning within the AONB since access to any AONB expertise at the meeting is not considered necessary by the Planning Officer and has specifically been denied.  I have great concern that the difference in significance between different parts of the AONB will regrettably not therefore receive the attention it requires, despite the diligence of the Committee.  The immediate environs of Spyway Orchard are not just any old AONB - they are the Gateway to a unique part of this Country and of national importance.

Key Government guidelines on different sensitivities apply which I have seen nowhere discussed in any of the Planning Documentation for this Development going back over time.  Indeed, the Inspector himself regrettably failed to note these guidelines, which in my view should have given grounds for complaint.  Spyway Orchard should be the national test case for the principle which these guidelines encapsulate.

Mike and Janet Robinson

I write concerning application 6/2018/0606.  I confirm my continuing objection to this proposed development, and am aware that the planning process has reached the stage of considering certain reserved matters and their effects on the certainty that certain key Conditions can be met.  I am addressing two issues.

Effect on Surface Water Management: The meeting will discuss and agree certain Reserved Matters without any knowledge of whether the Developer's proposed Surface Water Management Plan will be found to work prior to building commencing.  There is major concern in the community, highlighted by Dorset's Lead Flood Authority, that this plan will not work in the specific geological environment of Spyway Orchard.  This would require a major redesign of the system at the building stage which will radically effect certain key Reserved Matters, apparently already agreed (eg Layout, Landscape and Access).  This is a feedback loop which makes a nonsense of the planning process.  The Planning Committee must consider this real danger.

AONB: Every aspect of the Reserved Matters discussion will impact on whether the Inspector's requirement that damage to the AONB be minimised is met.  The issue is complex and requires expert knowledge of AONB practice.  The committee will not have available to it on June 3rd any expert advice on the intricacies of planning within the AONB since access to any AONB expertise at the meeting is not considered necessary by the Planning Officer and has specifically been denied.  I have great concern that the difference in significance between different parts of the AONB will regrettably not therefore receive the attention it requires, despite the diligence of the Committee.  The immediate environs of Spyway Orchard are not just any old AONB - they are the Gateway to a unique part of this Country and of national importance. 

Key Government guidelines on different sensitivities apply which I have seen nowhere discussed in any of the Planning Documentation for this Development going back over time.  Indeed, the Inspector himself regrettably failed to note these guidelines, which in my view should have given grounds for complaint.  Spyway Orchard should be the national test case for the principle which these guidelines encapsulate. 

Mrs Sparks, Clerk to Langton Matravers Parish Council

On 12^th December 2019 Langton Matravers Parish Council resolved that it objects to the Reserved Matters application on the following grounds:

1. Access. There will be problems with the impact of increased traffic on

i) the narrow lane to Spyway Car Park and ditch/drainage there;

ii) possible blocking of Emergency vehicles;

iii) Vehicle movement within Durnford Drove and at its junction with the High Street (B3069).

2. Landscaping.  The proposed number and maturity of trees to be planted is totally insufficient to replace the unjustifiably large number of trees to be felled, some with TPOs. Dorset Council’s Biodiversity protocol must be followed.

3. Layout. The mix of housing type is not appropriate for local need, which is mainly for the smaller dwellings.

4. Scale. The Scale of the development is not appropriate within the AONB: the development is too large in this context.

Existing and New Conditions.

a) Drainage. The Council is concerned about drainage/sewerage and surface water management; they are not happy that existing plans will meet the conditions imposed. Ineffective drainage/sewerage systems may result in flooding and damage in other parts of the village, and this is unacceptable.

 

b) Construction and Vehicle Impact Management Statement.

The Council asks that before any development goes ahead, the developers provide a full and robust Construction Management Statement indicating how noise, pollution, vehicle movements and other matters will be managed and mitigated during the construction phase and addresses how vehicle movements will be co-ordinated with contemporaneous developments. This should include a timetable of proposed activities and agreement to minimise effect on neighbours and traffic in the village.

 

c) Climate Emergency,

The Council asks that, in line with Dorset Council’s Climate Emergency statement, the plans are altered to include solar panels, ground/air source heat pumps or other types of carbon neutral design throughout. [end]

The Council would like to draw the Committee’s attention to correspondence from Mr Graham Cox, DC Tree Officer, to Mr Bird on 11^th February 2020: this followed a site meeting between Mr Cox and members of the Council:

‘My one significant reservation about the arboricultural report is the inclusion of a substantial amount of management work – including a great deal of felling – that’s not directly related to the development. I note you’re looking at a condition that would specifically exclude this work to trees in the TPZ.’

The Council agrees with Mr Cox’s view and asks that his comments be especially noted.

 

I understand that ‘every planning application MUST be assessed and determined on its own merits with an open mind, weighing up all the  relevant and genuine material issues. 

Spyway Orchard  is outside the formally agreed rural settlement boundary for Langton Matravers.  Reason:   To avoid further encroachment into the countryside/ AONB and into the setting of the World Heritage UNESCO site.  

Purbeck District Council: Have objected to every development on this site

The inspectors report states that though outline planning, to build housing on this site is possible,  ALL  other  matters are reserved.  This is key to the application going forward or not.  

Serious concerns  raised by residents and consultees.    

·       RES site:  The Parish Council have not supported this site as an RES.  Community not consulted.

·       Major Development:  Major development for Langton.  

·       Settlement Boundary:  The development   is outside the rural settlement boundary, adjacent to a narrow lane within the UNESCO setting, in the AONB to the area of Dancing Ledge.   

·       Affordable Housing:   Is of the 80% type.  The Purbeck Plan, the Emerging Dorset Plan, Shelter and housing provision bodies agree this type to be unaffordable in high market value areas such as Purbeck and other areas of Dorset.   This is also recognised by government.

·       Market Housing:   The 6 properties do not have a policy to protect them from becoming second homes or holiday lets.   The district valuer originally  advised that the development be based on 2 market houses.   There are now 6.

·       Access: Serious issues.   Challenged, impinges on adjacent land owners land.  A ditch to the west.  

·       Density:  The AONB , World Heritage gateway,  should not be impacted by a major dense development. 

·       AONB:  Serious concerns .  The Protection of the spectacular AONB at this point, the peace and tranquillity of the visitor experience within the setting of the World Heritage Site sustains this area are paramount.   This should be protected.     

·       Footpaths and Rights of Way:  Residents and consultee have raised serious concern

·       Flooding/Surface Water Engineer:  Residents and PDC and DC engineers have raised serious concerns.  

·       Habitats Report:  Residents and consultee raise serious concerns regarding loss of habit, foraging land, loss of wildlife corridor for protected species  ie Bats, badgers, owls, great crested newts , wide range of birds, deer, and other wildlife.  

·       Trees:   Residents and tree officers have raised concerns about loss of trees.

·       Wessex Water:    Residents and Wessex Water have both raised serious concerns.

This application on balance, does not genuinely meet the aims and objectives of sustainable development.  There are too many valid and serious material concerns raised,  by both  residents and consultees  that outweigh any development on this site. 

 

Consultee responses may amount to an objection.  Councillors, Please question.

Thank you 

Colette Drayson

 

We wish to reiterate our objection to this large development. We support the need for truly affordable housing in Langton Matravers but it needs to be commensurate with the local need and interspersed throughout the village.

Whilst there are no objections from the statutory bodies and consultees there are serious concerns raised by most of them which have not yet been addressed relating to this application, so it is difficult to comment fully. The recommendation from the Planning Officer would imply that the application can be approved piecemeal without full recourse to local residents.

Our objection comments are as follows:

Access
The lane to the site is extremely narrow with an open ditch on the west side and is already used by a large amount of traffic (both motorised and pedestrian) to access Langton House, Spyway carpark and Spyway Farm. Footpaths emerge at the junction with Durnford Drove where this new access road is proposed, presenting an additional hazard which has not been addressed properly. There are no passing places and limited visibility. The proposal to resurface part of the road with red tarmacadam to highlight the access to the site does not fit with the AONB requirements for limited visual impact.

 

Layout
Commenting on the layout at this stage seems arbitrary because Wessex Water will require a change to the layout in order to accommodate the requirements for avoiding or relaying the large water main which traverses the site. However, the proposed layout does not take into consideration the requirement for adequate surface water management or sewage management with suitable connection to the existing system.

 

Scale
This is a large development which will have a significant impact on the south side of the village. Some of the proposed houses appear tiny with little or no room for the normal requirements for everyday living. Limited storage space and no garages.

 

Landscaping
Spyway Orchard is currently an open field surrounded by trees, the proposed landscaping includes retaining walls, six foot fences and the removal of a significant number of mature trees. We note the planning officers recommendation is to limit this to 37 trees but who will monitor this and what happens when the developer “damages” trees during building works. We also note that there is a concurrent amendment to the AMS and BMP – will there be an opportunity for further comment on these amendments?

 

Appearance
Again from the Planning Officers recommendations details appear likely to change. We note that there is a recommendation for no street lighting and no external lights on the properties – how will this be enforced?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.

 

 

I am writing to highlight the worries that I have with regard to the planning application for Spyway Orchard.

 

We have been living in Langton Matravers since 1974.

The orchard was thus named because it was full of trees large and small, fruit and other.

 

Many larger trees enjoyed a TPO but were felled nevertheless, due to Mr Turner's longterm view for development of the site.

 

Every tree is precious at this time of climate change and every tree still standing on this site should be preserved into the future.

No newly planted one can perform the vital CO2 absorption in the way that a mature tree can.

 

Protection of these magnificent trees MUST surely be a priority in planning decisions for this site.

 

The orchard is not massive and the prospect of 28 dwellings there is certainly going to look and feel crammed and cramped !

 

This will be an infill out of all proportion to the village as a whole and will cause endless problems with access on to the lane leading up to Langton House and Spyway Farm, and, of course, the ever increasing carpark facilities belonging to the National Trust, situated at the top of the lane.

Each dwelling is likely to own two cars or more, adding to the chaos of visitor traffic associated with our very popular Jurassic coastline.

There are also delivery vans constantly serving Langton House, the most popular "Holiday Property Bond" in the country.

I do not think that the traffic problem has been adequately addressed, and I am not convinced that there is an answer if these 28 dwellings are to be built.

 

Yours sincerely

Sarah Bibra

 

 

 

“I write in the capacity of the chair of the Dorset Campaign to Protect Rural England, the countryside charity.

 

There is widespread and growing recognition of the importance of designations in Dorset. This application is associated with the designations of the AONB, a Rural Exception Site, and the UNESCO World Heritage Site. The proposals at Langton will harm each of these designations.

The site is in a particularly sensitive location. It is not just another piece of the AONB. The South Dorset AONB is recognised as an important area for a range of species and habitats.

 

In view of the particular context of this site, may I request that the planning committee defers making any decisions on the matter of 6/2018/0606 until after a site visit. A site visit will confirm the special nature of the area, and how the area will be damaged by this proposal. I realise that the difficulties of the current CV19 pandemic  do not lend themselves easily to a site visit, yet with a relaxation of the current lockdown a site visit should be possible.

 

The AONB and its protection is of paramount importance. This is widely recognised in Purbeck by the residents, local councils and tourists.

Public confidence in the exercise of the planning function by the Eastern Area Planning Committee can only be enhanced by a site visit.  Please accede to this request.”

 

 

Reserved Matters of Appearance, Landscaping and Layout

The proposed Spyway Orchard development is a Major development by definition within the Town & Country Planning Order (2010) and, as such, according to the NPPF, is ’unlikely to be appropriate’ within a Heritage Coast setting, and, in paragraph 172, ‘should be refused in a designated AONB’. Nothing could be clearer and yet is ignored time again in the Inspector’s and Case Officer’s reports.

 

The overriding objection of residents and relevant consultees is that it will distract from the beauty of its unique setting. The Case Officer appears to officially, and on record, agree with these objections when he states in Section 9.0, ‘The Inspector also acknowledges that the relatively high density of the proposal would, in visual terms, distract from that locally appreciated character’.  There is therefore no case for the Committee to argue, as even the Inspector agrees with our concerns!

 

Any officer who has visited the site will appreciate the sensitive location, adjacent to a major access to the UNESCO World Heritage Jurassic Coast. The report (section 9.0) admits ‘that the development is relatively dense compared to nearby village properties’. The suggestion that the dwellings would be softened and screened by trees assumes felling of mature, identified trees. The typical low quality growth that defines so much of rural England provides real screening. Much of this will be removed during construction.

The design is said to avoid ‘unacceptable overlooking or any other matters’ to existing neighbouring properties’. The site plan identifies a retaining wall between 0.5m and 1.6m in height along the northern edge. The new houses in Plots 1-6 will be even higher than the ground level of the site, directly overlooking the entire gardens of the lower six properties in Durnford Drove.

Wessex Water’s report (15/01/20) contains concerns and restrictions on the Water Main, Foul and Surface Water Sewerage. ‘Plots 9, 10 & 11-16 conflict with the water main. Changes in ground levels to rear gardens of plots 1 -16 including embankments and any retaining structures must not be constructed within the statutory easement width and must be moved)’. ‘Ground levels above the main must not be adjusted’. ‘No surface water must be discharged into the public sewer’. ‘No building can come with 5m either side of the water main, 6m for trees’. All these must be resolved before construction, leaving a simple question for all those officers present today.  How can officers take a vote on the Reserved Matters of Appearance, Landscaping and Layout when every site plan will have to be redrawn in order to comply?

The development is, as yet, undefined, and a vote for approval of Reserved Matters should not be taken today.

 

 

I write to you, to lodge my objection to the Spyway Orchard development on the following grounds:

1.     Access. Despite the number of years this has been going on and at least four different plans I have seen, the access to the site is still a cause for concern, in that there is still no clear and satisfactory solution. The numerous problems are well documented so not repeated here. It seems to me that the approach is to put in plans and words that look OK on the surface, but fall-down spectacularly when the detail is scrutinised. This must be done properly or not at all and it is certainly not going to be a case of just wearing people down.

2.     Scale. The scale of this Major development is not in keeping with the AONB, is in a rural exception area and contravenes government statutes.

3.     Appearance and Landscaping. Once again, the plans I have seen continue to change as attempts are made to push this through the planning process. The final appearance is highly likely to not be as pleasant as the drawings shown. Are the council able to ENSURE this development is in keeping with its surroundings? Who is accountable?

4.     Layout. My concerns are as per appearance and landscaping above.

 

Your review of this case, ongoing for at least 5 years now, will have revealed that I am only one of hundreds of local residents who continue to object to this farcical sequence of events.

 

 

I am writing to register our objection to the above planning proposal.  For a small(ish) orchard in a relatively inaccessible location, I cannot see how 28 dwellings and the increased traffic flow associated with these homes can be safely accommodated.  Access to the site is limited and difficult, and the density of the dwellings is considerably higher than found in surrounding sites.  It seems that there remain unresolved water drainage issues which mean that no final landscaping plans have been submitted either.  Hard, therefore, to comment on landscaping and appearance.

These plans should not be approved as they are.

Thank you and kind regards,

 

 

 I represent the applicant, Aster Homes.

 

I would like to begin by commending the report and thanking the officer for his consistent work assessing this application.

 

I regret I cannot present this in person, but I am grateful you will consider my statement.

 

Outline planning permission was allowed on appeal in March 2017 and the site was then sold. Fittingly for an affordable housing exceptions site, however, it was purchased by an affordable housing provider.

 

Aster is a charity whose mission is to provide affordable housing, and re-employs any profits back into meeting that goal.

 

Turning to this application:

Aster was aware the outline process had been controversial locally when submitting this reserved matters application but did not fully anticipate the level and range of concerns.

 

After the significant initial response, however, Aster chose to react positively. We carried out a full audit of the scheme, and significant improvements have been made to its layout, design quality, landscaping, and safety credentials.

 

Underpinning this was a contextual analysis of development in Langton Matravers, a thorough review of local objections, discussions with key consultees and an informal meeting with the Parish Council, all to ensure the revised scheme targeted local concerns so far as reasonably possible.

 

Aster took considerable time and care to revamp the scheme and maximise its quality, while also ensuring it remains viable.

 

Some objections to this application concern the principle. We recognise, with sympathy, the site will continue to be unpopular with some as a location for housing, but it has outline permission, and my client has purchased it with the goal of delivering affordable homes.

 

The appeal Inspector clearly acknowledged there would be some adverse impact to the AONB, but gave “substantial weight” to delivering affordable housing. A handful of market homes were permitted. They are necessary to make 80% affordable housing viable.

 

Other reasons for objections concern matters beyond the scope of reserved matters that will be dealt in the later discharge of outline conditions.

 

 

Relevant criticisms have been taken seriously. Concerns about road safety led to the addition of a footpath, two separate accesses for pedestrians, and improvements to the interface with Durnford Drove.

 

Concerns about trees prompted a rethink of the woodland management goals set out by inherited outline stage reports. Aster took fresh advice, changed the strategy, and dramatically reduced proposed tree removals.

 

These proposals will not cause any significant adverse effects.

 

We therefore hope the committee endorse the recommendation and approves these reserved matters.

 

The site is sustainable, this scheme will deliver a significantly better development than was illustrated at the outline stage, and, most importantly affordable homes in Langton Matravers.

 

Thank you.

 

 Nigel Jarvis MRTPI, Planning Director, Luken Beck MDP ltd.

 

 

I wish to object to this application at Spyway Orchard (SO). The Inspector approved this on the condition that all reserved matters needed to be satisfactory before this development could proceed.

My particular objections are re. Landscaping and Access.

1.     LANDSCAPING   These designs are not clear and until confirmed as compatible with all water utilities, sewerage and drainage requirements are not acceptable. Also:

 

SO is widely visible (see images attached) from many directions from campsites and footpaths and even from the popular open-topped double decker Purbeck Breezer bus Route 40, all used by thousands of visitors each year. SO is the village’s southerly green frame and provides key shelter from winter storms and absorbs increasingly heavy annual rainfalls. Felling existing trees

 

·       will create a widely visible gap of a suburban incompatible with SO’s rural nature.

·       risks reducing the village’s appeal for the many visitors who contribute so much to the local economy.

 

2.     ACCESS    The proposed access is not the same as in the plans presented to the Inspector.

It is dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians as it exacerbates and adds to existing hazards in a road busy with year-round holiday traffic due to the Holiday Property Bond’s Langton House (LH) apartments and the National Trust’s Car Park (NTCP) beyond the SO site. (See images).

 

·       Cars, work vehicles, delivery, service and utility vehicles generated by SO will lead to congestion and conflict with other vehicles at the turning circle and in the single track section of Durnford Drove (DD) in what is regularly as busy road.

·       There have been incidents of visitors’ cars falling into the ditch of this section, blocking access to and from LH and the NTCP.

·       SO access’s road is dangerously close to the house Arbutus.

·       Drivers proceeding along DD (which has a blind summit midway) down the slope to the turning circle usually brake before accelerating to drive up the incline of the single track section. The SO access is a risk to vehicles and pedestrians and risk more bottle necks.

·       If the NTCP is full or visitors don’t want to pay to park, SO offers more free parking, creating further traffic loading. More pedestrians will use the single-track section. (They do not use the public footpath). Gating SO would create further safety issues.

·       SO’s traffic will interfere with access for emergency vehicles out to the cliffs, to LH and to Spyway Farm and indeed access to the site for the same vehicles is problematic.

·       It endangers pedestrians from many directions inc. those crossing the turning circle to walk to Tom’s Field Campsite or to the village allotments.

 

These plans are just dangerous. Please keep us safe.

Yours faithfully

Bridget Mayes (Mrs)

 

Thank you for your letter informing us of the Virtual Planning Committee to discuss the above referenced planning application. We are writing to express our opposition to this planning permission based on the following issues we have found with the proposed plans.

 

Access & Highway safety

Looking at the access plans, it seems that to achieve the access to the estate, the developer will need to build the road across a piece of land on the south east edge of our property, along the footpath. This land leading to the proposed entrance of the development is actually part of our property as indicated on our title deeds and we have neither been consulted nor given our consent for the developer to build on it. We have erected a bollard where we intend to move the wall right up to the edge of our property boundary as at the moment, due to design considerations, the wall was not marking the actual edge. We hope you will be able to carry out a site visit before making your decision.

 

This means the actual width of the entrance to the development will be much narrower than what is indicated on the planning documents.

As there will be very little passing space between this wall and large vehicles such as refuse trucks, construction equipment and fire engines, this wall is liable to damage from passing vehicles should the proposed road be allowed. The road into the proposed development is so narrow that delivery

and service vehicles are not going to be able to turn and will have to either reverse in or out, greatly increasing the risk of accidents. In the case of damage, which we are sure will occur periodically, can the council please provide clarity on who will be liable for this damage if drivers do not voluntarily

report the damage to us?

 

Drainage

We also take issue with the proposed drainage plans. As the council is aware, we suffer from flooding on Durnford Drove as do the residents of the Hyde. The previous application on this site set very stringent conditions due to the complexity of flooding issues. We are not sure if these are met by the design, but we hope the council will ensure they are. However, we have noted that the drainage design for the new scheme seems to introduce a new danger by diverting water from the south side of the site into the drain that runs underneath the turning circle. This water then runs in an open gully through properties on Durnford Drove and Gypshayes before joining the sewer. When we have high rainfall and the surface runoff increases, not only does it flood the properties through which the gully runs through, it also causes the flooding of sewage on The Hyde. Surely any scheme that increases the

water flowing into the gully is a danger and cannot be permitted.

 

Other issues of concern to us are the removal of mature trees from the site and the impact this will have on this gateway to the world heritage coast and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the scale of the development which is unprecedented in the village.

 

With this in mind, we are still opposed to the development and request that you reject this application forthwith.

 

Kate & Pearce Mutendera

 

 

The width of the Access point is insufficient .The land to the East and West of the site is owned by two separate third parties. Both have objected to the application and both have stated clearly that the applicant must not use their land for any development i.e the applicant cannot widen the site access.

 

The Committee will know third party ownership is not a planning issue. In this case, it poses such a vital and significant factor for the applicant to overcome, that it is likely to cause the Committee serious concerns during their collective decision making process. The access point is so narrow it is passable by one single vehicle, thus HGV’s face a unique problem which can cause considerable safety issues. HGV’s presently reverse up the Drove to reach the Holiday Property Bond site, that or reverse back down it. All HGV’s, such as refuge trucks, presently conduct a three point turn at the Junction of Durnford Drove and Gypshayes and then reverse a distance of 350 meters. Meeting a vehicle or a wheel chair bound disabled individual, a cyclist, or a mother and child at any point is a significant safety issue but through such a narrow access point is considerable worse and not acceptable. There is no turning circle or passing place at any stage from the Turning Head to Spyway carpark, none are planned in the applicants submitted documents.

 

In the Inspectors decision document in para 22 it states: The illustrative site layout shows that there would be adequate space for sufficient on and off-street parking within the site and for an access road of suitable width to allow two way traffic flow.” It would only be possible to have two way traffic flow if the applicant added passing bays, or significantly increased the width of the access point. Which would be seriously difficult, due to 3rd Party issues (again).

 

The relevant submitted documents show no footpaths passing through the access. Dorset Footpath SE16/15 is affected by this plan. A recognised Right of Way which has considerable footfall all year round is reduced to zero as it passes through the pinch point. There are no planned footpaths passing through the proposed access pinch point. No street lamps or other external lighting fixtures may be installed in the development. The splay areas must be maintained and kept free from all obstructions for the lifetime of the development.

 

Not achievable: splay lines pass over 3rd party property and cannot be guaranteed. OBJECT

 

David Senior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3/19/1504/FUL - Erection of a pair of 3 bedroom, semi-detached, two storey houses, with associated parking and the demolition of existing garages at Garage Court, New Merrifield Colehill Wimborne

 

 

Mr S Croft – Willis and Co

 

Please take this our written statement in support of the above application to be presented to Committee Members.

 

The site is located on the edge of, but within the Wimborne and Colehill urban area. The principle of development is acceptable subject to compliance with local and national planning policies. The proposal will make a modest contribution to housing supply and the size of the properties accords with local need for 2 and 3 bedroom houses identified by the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).

 

Furthermore the proposed do not conflict with the minimum standards required.

 

The proposed 2 no. semi-detached 2 storey dwellings are in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and will have a limited impact upon the street scene. Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in its design and general visual impact and would be harmful to the residential amenities of nearby dwellings by reason of loss of privacy, overshadowing, dominance or noise; and an acceptable level of residential amenity is capable of being provided for occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

 

The traffic movements generated by the development can be accommodated without detriment to highway safety and adequate parking will be provided to serve the dwellings. A Transport Note was submitted in support of the application following officers and third party concerns regarding loss of parking. The assessment concludes that the parking court is currently under utilised and there is ample capacity for the nearby highways to accommodate parking for the displaced vehicles. Dorset Council Highways are satisfied that the findings of the Transport Note are acceptable and in the light of the evidence provided there is no contrary evidence to support refusal on the grounds of demonstrable harm arising as a result of parking displacement.

 

Adequate mitigation can be secured through planning conditions to offset any harm to the ecological and biodiversity value of the site. Other environmental impacts have been assessed and there are not any which are potentially significant and which cannot be controlled by conditions.

 

Other issues raised by consultees have been assessed by the Officer in their report and there are not any which would warrant refusal of the application.

It is concluded that the proposed is acceptable and that conditions can reasonably be imposed to mitigate any impact upon neighbouring amenity, highway impact and ecology and that we have to these pre-commencement conditions.

 

Cllr. D G L Packer - Colehill Parish Council

 

1.      Colehill Parish Council considered this application on 2^nd September 2019 and strongly and unanimously objected to the proposal by Aster Housing Association.  The Council is acutely aware of the need for affordable homes in Dorset and for Aster to maximise use of its resources.  But this proposal substantially diminishes the amenities and standard of living of more than 34 adults (taken from the Electoral Roll) and children.

 

2.     New Merriefield comprises two parts.  The Officer’s report describes the 12 terraced bungalows (typical old-folks accommodation) on a tarmacked cul-de-sac which does not have direct vehicular access to the garages.   In parallel there are 10 semi-detached social houses on the narrow unsurfaced track of New Merriefield.  None of these have garages and all can directly access the garage court, which many residents use for parking because of the difficulty of parking elsewhere.  It also serves as a play area for the children.

 

3.     This application implies the demolition of 8 garages in good repair but does not seek authority to do so.  It is claimed that they are not suitable for modern cars, which must be questionable c.f. Nissan Micro.  That apart, they have their uses and many are rented and used for storage i.e. as outhouses to the small dwellings.

 

4.     Dealing with the proposal for two new 3-bedroom houses in the court, their proximity to existing houses will lead to overlooking and a sense of overbearing.   They, no doubt, satisfy regulations for size but Bedroom 3 is an awkward shape; so too is the Bathroom.  They are far from ideal accommodation and it is difficult to imagine families leading a contented and fulfilling life in this situation.  Neither has New Merriefield been a good choice for social housing and supported living.  It is on the northern edge of the village with the nearest shops, Colehill Post Office and Furzehill Post Office, some distance away along a busy main road.  It is not on a bus route, meaning that a car is a necessity, especially for the elderly residents.  And yet it is proposed to reduce the amount of available car parking.

 

5.     In summary, the substantial harm that will be done to the residents in 22 existing homes far outweighs the doubtful benefit that may come from building two 3-bedroom house on the New Merriefield Garage Court.  The East Planning Committee is asked respectfully to note the strong objection of the Colehill Parish Council and to refuse this planning application.

 

Allan and Jo Wilding

Written Objection to 3/19/1504/FUL Garage Court, New Merrifield

The report contains a serious omission as it makes no reference to the new build cottage ‘Snowdrops’ which directly borders the site to the south.  This home would be most severely impacted by the application with significant overlooking and loss of privacy.  The development is shown just 35cm from the boundary and directly over-looking the principle living area.  Building foundations will substantially damage the large hedge that provides screening between the two sites and render Snowdrops even more exposed.  No screening hedge could grow high enough to prevent direct over-looking.  The Planning Officer has failed to show the minimum separation distances to Snowdrops, which will be considerably less than to any of the other properties.

 

The report barely mentions the properties to the south of the site which are all of a considerably different nature to those on New Merrifield.  David Gallagher, former EDDC Senior Planning Officer described the buildings along New Merrifield as ‘not characteristic of the immediate area and are an anomaly.  We removed the pd from the large chalet dwellings nearer the junction with Colehill Road to preserve the openness of this part of the settlement.’   The properties to the south are chalets or bungalows.  As the site sits between two differing development styles surely the needs and impact of all the adjoining properties should be taken into account.  All this to squeeze in two properties with a tiny third bedroom.  What is more important, developer profit or long-term quality of housing stock and local area amenity?  I urge the Committee to visit the site in order to properly ascertain for themselves the nature of the area and the potential impact a development of this size would have.  If permitted this two-storey development would boast the highest roof line in the area. 

 

The Parish Council and all consulted neighbours have unanimously objected on grounds of loss of amenity and scale of development.  Who would have thought replacing a few ugly, outdated garages would have provoked such a negative response?  Had the developer taken a more considered approach to engage and consult with neighbours and utilise the principles of good design they could have achieved a design that enhanced the use of space, served the needs of all parties and provided a positive legacy for future generations. 

If this report proceeds despite its factual errors, I ask the Committee to reject the application under section 12 NPPF(2019) on the grounds of poor design, over-development and no improvement in character and quality of the area and will be detrimental to the way it functions.

I ask you to use the trust place in you by your constituents to preserve and enhance our unique environment and reject this application.

 

And

I write with regards to the above Planning Application due to be considered at the Planning Meeting on 3rd June.  

There is a material inaccuracy in the report as it doesn't accurately reflect the neighbouring properties to the proposed development site.  Construction of 'Snowdrops', a cottage in the gardens of Treetops, commenced in September 2019 and is nearing completion.  The Planning Authority were notified of the start of construction.  Snowdrops is now the closest property to the proposed development.  

Failure of the officer to include the impact of the development on this property and failure of the Planning Committee to take the concerns of this property into account would render any decision made at the Committee Meeting as unsound. I have prepared a written statement which details the adverse impact on the amenity of the area and highlights the omissions and inaccuracies in the report if the Application does go committee, although I am concerned that it may not be read out if time does not allow.   I therefore ask that the Application is withdrawn from the meeting in order to save any embarrassment to the Planning Authority and until the full impact of the proposed development on all the neighbouring properties has been fully taken into account.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3/20/0269 - Erection of five cabins with associated 'open' enclosures, each to be occupied by a private collection of pet animals at Slough House, Slough Lane, Horton

 

Debra Senior

Reference the above planning application I would like the following points emphasised at the hearing dated 3^rd June 2020.

 

Right of Way repeatedly redirected away from the proposed site of the planning application

 

Rights of Way Officers have reinstated and written to the owners stating the right of Way cannot be moved

Yellow Way markers have been destroyed and the Right of Way has now been altered again to a different route from the established Right of Way

Rights of way have been blocked, tied with string and obstructed with plastic fencing

 

The location of the application is virtually in the centre of 5 properties almost without obstruction to buffer any noise

The intention of the application was originally stated to house a private collection of monkeys although this has now been left off subsequent applications I believe the intention to house a private collection of monkeys remains the same

 

Some of breeds of monkeys referred to in the original application are nocturnal which is a concern for both their habit and noise levels

 

John Andrews – on behalf of Dawn Groom

 

 

1.  This unique case arises from Mr and Mrs Groom  being forced to move from their
     home in the Green Belt as a result of impending works for a Government Project
     of Nationally Significant importance. They are simply seeking to relocate their
     horses and private collection of small pet primates from one home to
     another. After an extensive search, Slough House (also in the Green Belt) was
     identified as being a comparable property with sufficient grounds.

2.  The Applicants sought to work with the Council’s Officers by seeking pre-
     application advice hence the proposed siting of the pet housing facilities.

3.  At the forefront, the Applicants are seeking to achieve a development for the
     housing of their pets in a location well away from public view and close to
     Slough House (which is essential to providing regular contact). In common with
     the advice, they wish to avoid the absurdity of erecting the development in the
     ‘open’ rear garden as ‘permitted development’ rather than in the front garden
     which is screened by mature evergreen hedging 5.2 m high where the
     openness of the Green Belt will not be harmed.

4.  Counsel was instructed and positively advised as to the existence of “very
     special circumstances” and on the matter of permitted development.

5.  The Officer’s Report makes clear there  are no objections on Environmental
     Health grounds, from the Rights of Way Officer or local residents relevant to
     material planning considerations other than reference to the Green Belt.

6.  The Report also states that the proposal would not result in significant harm to
      the amenities of neighbouring properties

7.  The “very special circumstances” fully supportive of this application arise from:

   a)  the Applicants being forced to move from their “home” by a nationally important
        Government project;

   b)  finding a “readily available” new “home” (not just another house) i.e. not in a
         chain that could fall apart, because of the given time by when their existing 
         home has to be vacated otherwise homelessness would arise;

    c)  the  need for the new “home” to provide reasonably comparable facilities to
         those that are soon to be lost;

    d)  the urgency to relocate the pets from their ‘temporary’ site to a ‘permanent’
         new home under the  day-to-day control of the Applicants. (The need for the
         pets’ ‘temporary’ site arose from certain of the government project immediately
         affecting their safety.)

   

 

Martin J Hanham - objection

 

 

6/2019/0530 – Establishment of SANG at land off Flowers Drove, Lytchett Matravers

 

Robert & Gail Irwin

We would like to add to our previous objection which I hope you will allow under the circumstances, which is as follows:

In the light of Covid-19, the residents of Lytchett Matravers have proved that there is no need for a SANG and also car park as they have most successfully used the existing right of way and foot path to explore the wonderful Green Belt around Lytchett, in order to exercise in a car free environment.  We would add that there must be great doubt how a SANG and car park could be successfully managed in our ongoing Covid-19 emergency and economic climate.  

 

Tim Hoskinson, Planning Manager, Wyatt Homes

This application comes before you at a time when we have a heightened appreciation of the need for our communities to have good access to natural green space and the benefits that this brings for physical and mental wellbeing.

 

This application would allow 7.6 hectares (approximately 19 acres) of attractive countryside on the edge of Lytchett Matravers to be used for informal recreation.  It is supported by a management plan that sets out access and maintenance arrangements along with biodiversity and landscape enhancements.

 

The proposed SANG is an important part of the Council’s strategy for mitigating the effects of planned development on the Dorset Heathlands.  It is identified in the recently adopted Dorset Heathlands SPD as well as in the emerging Purbeck Local Plan.

 

This site is exceptionally well suited to serve as a SANG.  It is an attractive area of countryside in a tranquil setting with expansive views.  Mature trees give a parkland character.  The topography and landscape offer interest and variety that invites visitors to explore and enjoy the natural environment.

A management plan has been prepared to show how the SANG would be looked after.  Existing trees and hedgerows would be retained and enhanced by new planting.  Wildflower meadows would be planted and grassland managed to improve species diversity.  A network of mown grass paths would be provided along with seating area, information board and bin located at convenient locations.

 

A footpath already runs along the edge of the field, providing connections into the wider public rights of way network.  This allows people to choose from a range of different lengths of walk.  Walks through the meadow can be linked to longer routes of 2 to 5 kilometres using the network of footpaths, bridleways and country lanes that connect to the village and surrounding countryside.

The site is within easy walking distance of the housing allocation sites at Blaneys Corner and Flowers Drove.  The provision of a small car park will improve accessibility for residents from the south of the village, including the housing allocation at Wareham Road.  In combination with on-site green space this will provide the new developments with a variety of local areas for informal recreation, relieving pressure on the Dorset Heathlands.

 

The capacity of the proposed SANG is capable of providing mitigation for in excess of the 150 new homes allocated in the emerging Local Plan.  This has been confirmed by Natural England.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3/19/1435/COU - Change of use of buildings to commercial uses under B2 General Industrial and B8 Storage & Distribution - Retrospective application - at Clayford Farm, Uddens Drive, Colehill

 

Hazell Johnson

 

Safety of clayford lane if planning is accepted, road not suitable for h.g.v..where can the general public and other road uses pass safely..i.e carriage drivers, cyclists, ramblers..horse back riders, runners, if more traffic is introduced to the bridle way, how safe are these people, including the wild life..my daughter and I often sit in the field with our horse and listen to the night jar bird..and we see lizards and other reptiles basking in the sun on the road..the hedges are covered with dust and dirt from the vehicles which use it now..may I say too.. they drive to fast down the lane..The owner of the field had to jump out of the way of a speeding land rover which came from one of the units there already at 70mph..he had to jump out of the way..they just laughter..it's not funny...my daughter out riding her horse had 2 cars up my horses behind..revering there engines..it made her so scared..I have seen other people having near misses for people speeding they do not respect the 15mh speed limit...the people that live down the lane can not put there washing out in there own garden..for the dust that is left behind from cars, vans, lorrys, speeding down the lane...and what if there is a fire like the wareham fire. How would the search and rescue fire, police, get to it fast if there was vehicles that cannot give way as the road/bridle way is not wide enough...it would be a disaster to the people that live in that land and to the wildlife..if the planning goes ahead..is the gentleman  prepared to make the road safe for users to be able to be passed safetly..bearing in mind..horses and cyclists you have to leave a 2meter safety  cap when passing...also the road has dropped a tremendous amount over the last 5 years I have been there...I understand progress on units, so why don't they use the units built not to far way in west moors...thank you...

 

Mary Court (Access and Bridleways Officer) - British Horse Society.

I am the local British Horse Society Access and Bridleways Officer for the area that this planning application for change of use is located and wish to OBJECT strongly on behalf of the many horse riders/owners who have been in contact with us over their concern to this application. 

 

The bridleways that are being used to serve this industrial unit site are part of an extensive network of interlinking bridleways and footpaths that connect  Holt Heath, Uddens Plantation, Cannon Hill, Whitesheet Plantation and Castleman Trailway and are used heavily and enjoyed by not only horse riders/owners but walkers, cyclists, joggers, pedestrians and those who own property adjacent to the bridleway that is being used by vehicles of all types and sizes to access this industrial unit/s.

 

The safety of those using these bridleways is being compromised by the sometimes reckless and dangerous driving of vehicles down these bridleways on their way to and from these units. There are very few passing areas where horse riders can pull off to avoid these vehicles some of which are commercial vehicles of varying sizes and are driven at speed at times. 

There have been a number of incidents that have been reported to the Police this year alone where persons have had a close shave with vehicles speeding and they have not taken care and attention to other users on these bridleways. 

 

With the already change of use has come an increase of noise , banging and crashing which as one of the bridleways is alongside these units causes horses to jump and spook which is also a safety concern. 

 

There is an overspill of vehicles from the unit parking on the footpath that leads from Uddens Plantation to the corner where the industrial unit is which is narrowing the width that users have. 

 

 

Caroline Stagg 

 

Following my previous comments submitted with concerns over this planning application, I have a further statement to make. 

On 18th May 2020 I had to officially complain to Jayar Auto Parts as their delivery driver en route to Clayford Farm was driving at excessive speed on the track to Clayford. His speed spooked my horse causing her to spin round. As he was driving so fast he skidded as he braked and the skid caused my horse to rear. The driver laughed. 

I did complain direct to Jayar Auto Parts who handled the matter appropriately however this is further evidence of the dangers to the public using the track in it rightful state. If I had been a less competent rider or a child there would have been much more serious implications.  

Jon Coombes

 

As residents of 3 Clayford Cottages we OBJECT to application 3/19/1435/COU Clayford Farm, BH21 7BJ.

 

1. No lawful B2/B8 use has ever existed at this site. The site is in an established residential area. It is

contrary to Policy to allow a B2/B8 use in this location.

 

2. The LPA made significant allocation of B2/B8 land at Ferndown Industrial Estate which hasn’t been developed. The Industrial Estate is highly sustainable and capable of accommodating any demand for B2/B8 use in the area.

 

3. The site requires right of way to access the Highway and is made over bridleway in private ownership of Mr Philips. Change of use requires permission from Mr Philips, this approval is not granted. S25 of the application form Certification and s8 Access is incorrect.

 

4. Bridleway access to the site is unmade. Use created by the application site produces significant dust and air pollution which is harmful to the amenity of neighbouring residents

 

5. The narrow bridleway cannot safely be used by large commercial vehicles and pedestrians at the same time and the use is a major highway safety issue having an impact on amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

6. Industrial processes occur regularly on the premises being in use at all hours of the day/night having an impact on the amenity of residents, contrary to s19/20 of the application.

 

7. Current use of the premises is unlawful in planning and been the subject of criminal use and antisocial behaviour. Police should be a consultee to this application so details can be provided.

 

8. The application states (s14) that no provision is made for the storage and collection of waste which is harmful to the amenity of residents.

 

9. The application states (s13) that sewerage will be discharged into a cesspit. This will create odour and pollution having an impact on the amenity of residents.

 

10. The site is adjacent to important and protected SSSI. The use of the site for B2/B8 operation will have an impact on the biodiversity contrary to s12 of the application.

 

11. The site is within 20m of a water course. The area has experienced flooding within the last 10years, our property being over 1foot underwater; contrary to s11 of the application.

 

12. The site doesn’t make adequate provision for parking as any open land on the site is used for storage. The lack of parking is contrary to planning policy and to s9 of the application. This application runs contrary to significant Adopted Planning Policies and there is no conceivable way that it should be approved.

 

The important point here is that this entire industrial development has been developed without planning consent.

 

The Planning Officer’s whole approach to the application appears largely to be based on trying to give some “rubber stamp” to something that should never have been allowed to develop in the first place.

 

Clayford lies within the Green Belt, set in attractive woodland and near internationally designated Heathland within 400m of SSSI. The only access to the site is a long, narrow and poorly surfaced track of almost 1.1 mile in length before it reaches any road. Access to the main highway is a 2.9 miles along narrow roads south via the hamlet of Broom Hill. By any professional planning assessment, this is not a location where commercial and industrial development would or should ever be permitted.

 

Over the last 20 years, there have been various applications to create commercial and industrial development at the site, all but one of which have been refused, with subsequent appeals dismissed. Refusal reasons included the unsustainable nature of the location, its impact on openness of Green Belt, inadequate access, and impact on local amenity. None of these reasons for refusal have changed.

 

Yet, despite this, the planning officer is now recommending (against the backdrop of many letters of objection and none in support) to approve the full extent of unauthorised uses on the site, now including B2 general industry and B8 storage and distribution.

 

It is clear that the whole assessment of the application is entirely lead by the applicant and based on what is there now. There is even reference to other buildings on the site (unauthorised) which the “applicant intends to apply for planning permission for”. The Council’s entire approach to this application has been to regularise and “rubber stamp” years of unauthorised development, all of which is unsuitable in this location.

 

The officer report attempts to “control” the future use of the site by reference to the existing uses in the various units on site. The applicant takes no notice of what the Council says. Uses have changed over time without planning consent this will continue to happen. Further development has taken place in the past two weeks. The Council has proved unwilling to enforce against these uses.

 

So, having only just considered the impact of this retrospective application, it is already clear that further intensification of the industrial use at Clayford is planned, once again through unauthorised development, this time of new buildings inappropriate in Green Belt. Applicants intention is quite clear, that industrial uses at Clayford will continue to the detriment of the Green Belt, the local environment, and residents. This application must be refused.

 

Tim Harris

 

We OBJECT to the planning application 3/19/1435/COU at Clayford Farm, BH21 7BJ. We are the Freehold owners of the bridleway between Redbridge to Brick Hill Corner.

 

Your planning assessment makes the assumption that the proposed commercial premises at Clayford Farm will be over our land to Uddens Drive via Redbridge and the A31. Established rights of access over our land are for agricultural use only and we will not permit the use of our land to form vehicular or pedestrian use for any B2 or B8 use in Clayford.

 

Accordingly as this application site cannot satisfactorily access the public highway, this application must be refused.

 

Tony and Vicky Philips

 

Impact on openness of Green Belt & SSSI

The desire to regularise this unauthorised development means that the planning officer’s assessment of the proposal is partial. The focus appears to be that recent changes to the NPPF which permit reuse of buildings in the

Green Belt effectively permit the development, supported by other statements which encourage growth of the rural economy. The conclusion is that, because this development involves the re-use of existing buildings, that it will have no impact on openness of Green Belt.

 

However, impact on openness should not simply be measured in terms of buildings, but also in terms of activity. This area of Green Belt is characterised by forest and heath. Over time, these units have been annexed from Clayford Farm and changed from an agricultural holding to an industrial park, and a rural track into an access road for the industrial uses. This intensification of use of itself impacts on the openness of the Green Belt, and any permission for Class B2 General Industry will inevitably cause further harm to the Green Belt in terms of heavy vehicle movements and activity on the site. As well as the planning protections given by the Habitats Regulations Act to the Heathland SSSI site, there is a very specific species ecosystem directly impacted by the increased traffic caused by the Development. This would raise the impact threshold on the Habitats Regulations Assessment even

further.

 

The Sallow Hedgeline immediately next to the main access track on the Whitesheets Boundary fenceline has been independently confirmed by a national wildlife charity to hold a BAP Listed Species, The Dingy Mocha Moth (Cyclophora Pendularia). The moth eats and breeds in the rare hedgeline environment, which is cut and managed in a very specific way to ensure the future of the moth.

 

Adequacy of site access

In respect of access, the report is also flawed. It is acknowledged that the access track is long, and poorly maintained, yet the lack of “accidents” appears to be used as a measure of its adequacy. With a poorly maintained, often muddy track, vehicle speeds are likely to be such that collisions are unlikely. This, however, is no proof of the adequacy of an access. Permission for B8 and B2 uses is likely to result in increased movements of larger vehicles. In particular, vehicle repair uses involve

frequent car and lorry movements to and from the site.

 

I have submitted a series of photographs of commercial vehicles on the track showing its poor condition and narrowness. In summary, this track was never designed for such industrial activity and the Council should restrict uses to a level appropriate to the location and limited access.

 

I respectfully request that this application be refused.

 

Deborah Ray

 

 

I have been connected with the area of Whitesheet , especially the main track. for over 30 years.  It has always been an area of natural wood and heath, with a "bridleway" running through from the main road on Whitesheet Hill to Clayford Farm.  This bridleway is used by walkers - with dogs and children, and epecially horse riders seeking a safer ride than the main roads.  The speed limit is 15mph - standard for bridelways.  Increasingly we have to put up with fast moving vehicles, large vehicles (including at one point Eddie Stobart lorries) that drive very fast not allowing for other track users. Last winter we had to endure frequent problems when cars and lorries were stuck where the track has collapsed.  it has been useable during the dry weather but is unlikely to be 100% when we have a lot of rain.  any increase in traffic will not be in keeping with the area - it is a rural area not an industrial area in any form.  We need to preserve  the natural habitat - many more people have discovered this wonderful area during the present crisis and hopefully they will be able to do so for many years