Archived decisions

Contact: Julia Davey, ext 6732

1. Summary

1.1 On 17 July 2002 the Committee agreed a scheme of revised conditions for the remaining mineral extraction at Ringwood and Ellingham Quarry, Ellingham Drove, Blashford. These revised conditions included the removal of a temporary bund along the western boundary of the site adjacent to the A338.

1.2 The impact of the removal of the bund was addressed in the County Planning Officer's report. However, since the meeting local residents have been vocal in their opposition to the proposal. They feel that their concerns have not been properly addressed and allege a failure in the neighbour notification process. A meeting has been held on site with Hanson Aggregates Limited (the operator), Councillor Mrs Heron (the local Member) and a representative of the local community. As a result of that meeting an amendment to include the retention of part of the bund has recently been submitted and comments from the public and consultees are awaited.

1.3 This report considers issues surrounding the submission of the amendment and recommends that, subject to comments from the public and consultees, a decision on the revisions be delegated to the County Planning Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Committee and the local Member.

2. The Proposal

2.1 The original proposal sculpted the margins of Ibsley Water with overburden and soil from surrounding bunds, to create promontories suited to a nature conservation after-use. The principle of these edge details has resulted from discussions with the County Planning Officer, English Nature and the Hampshire Wildlife Trust. The amendment, plans for which will be on display at the meeting, would be to retain part of the bund.

3. County Planning Officer's Comments

3.1 This item is unique. A proposal for the Committee to reconsider a decision recently made simply on the basis of community concern arising from the that decision is unprecedented. The opportunity to consider the amendment arises because the planning permission has not yet formally been issued, as the required legal agreements are still being negotiated, and the willingness of the operator to consider (and implement) revised proposals. This window of opportunity enables the Committee to respond to the concerns of the local community who allege that there was a failure in the neighbour notification scheme that resulted in a poor level of response to the application.

3.2 The strength of the local opposition to the proposal to remove the bund is surprising in the light of the limited number of comments received when the latest application was publicised earlier in the year. Obviously there was some sort of breakdown in communication which needs to be addressed to prevent similar problems happening elsewhere. Nevertheless, the conflicting views about the future of the bund were identified in the various comments that were received on the application and the report to the Committee was comprehensive in its coverage of the issues. Members were aware of the issues surrounding the bund but not perhaps what is now shown to be the true strength of local feeling. At the end of day the Committee's decision must be based on the merits of the issue not the number of comments voicing opposition.

3.3 The bund was always envisaged as a temporary measure while the gravel was being extracted and it was understood it would be removed once gravel extraction finished on the site. Nevertheless, removal will impact on those properties nearest to the A338 which have got used to the bund being there and the protection it offers from traffic noise on the A338. In cases such as this it is important to consider not only the long term benefits of removing the bund to the overall landscape character of the area, but also the impact that the removal of the bund will have on the quality of life of local residents, particularly the probable increased traffic noise from the A338. It is also necessary to consider the legitimate commercial operations of the company which needs the issue resolved as quickly as possible as restoration works need to progress.

3.4 The application dealt with by the Committee in July was the subject of extensive consultations. The merits and demerits of retaining the bund were expressed by a variety of consultees. The issue of the bund was properly addressed in the July report. No new evidence has emerged that would change that balance of judgment. It is considered, on balance, that the bund should be removed and the earth used to help sculpture the lake margins to help increase the nature conservation value of the site. Nevertheless, should the Committee decide that it wishes to respond to the public comments now being expressed, the amendment now being proposed offers a solution. They would need to be advertised for formal consultations. There is no certainty that these proposal will find favour with those who have previously sought the removal of the bund. So, a difficult choice may have to be made. In the meantime the operator will expect to be able to continue with mining the remaining resources and restoring the site. The company will also wish to continue negotiations on the necessary legal agreements to ensure that the planning permission can be issued.

3.5 To expedite the process, which essentially concerns a detailed local issue, it is proposed that subsequent to consultation on the amendment a decision be delegated to the County Planning Officer in consultation with the Chairman and local Member.

Recommendation

That the decision on the amended plans concerning Application No. 00065190M for the retention of the bund at Ringwood and Ellingham Quarry, Ellingham, near Ringwood be delegated to the County Planning Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the Regulatory Committee and local Member subsequent to consideration of comments from the public and consultees.

7346/RR/JD