Archived decisions

AT A MEETING of the REGULATORY COMMITTEE of the HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester on 14 January 2009.

PRESENT:

Chairman:

p Councillor R.C. McIntosh

Vice-Chairman

p Councillor I.F.E. Beagley

Councillors:

Councillor Mrs. K. Heron attended for the item referred to in Minute 300.

Councillors A. Carew and M. Kemp-Gee attended for the item referred to in Minute 301.

Councillor Mrs. A. Buckley attended for the item referred to in Minute 304.

295 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J.V. Bryant, Mrs P. Dickens, S.C. James, E.J. Neal and J.K. West.

296 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believed they had a personal or prejudicial interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should normally at the time of the debate declare their interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Code. The declaration should be made at the time of the relevant debate

297 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 November 2008 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to it being noted that Councillor Kelly had abstained from the voting on Minute 291 (Weston Common, Lasham).

298 CHAIRMAN'S COMMUNICATIONS

The Chairman had no communications to make on this occasion.

299 DEPUTATIONS

Members were reminded that they had approved a scheme which involved the suspension of Standing Order 21 to allow Members to ask questions of deputees for clarification of facts on an agenda item. Questions from Committee Members would be asked through the Chairman, who might seek the advice of the Committee's legal and other advisers as appropriate. The Chairman's decision on a question would be final. Local Members who requested to speak at the Committee might also be asked questions. The deputations at the meeting had been notified of these arrangements.

300 PROPOSED EXTRACTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL AT PLUMLEY WOOD AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AT BURNT HILL QUARRY AND BLASHFORD QUARRY, NEAR RINGWOOD - APPLICANT: TARMAC LIMITED
(APPLICATION NO: 08/91952) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: NF255)
(DECISION REFERENCE 483)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 6 in the Minute Book) on an application for sand and gravel extraction and associated works at these sites north west of Ringwood. They also had before them an information update setting out proposed modifications to the conditions; further responses from consultees; and links to other relevant policies, together with noise tables and an explanation of their significance; and a further explanatory map (Item 6(x) in the Minute Book). Written representations from Mr. Robert Eyles and Mr. Michael Miller were also circulated to Members.

The Head of Planning and Development gave a detailed presentation on the development proposals and their implications for the surrounding area. He explained the inter-relationship between the different areas of the application site and drew particular attention to the following:

· The reservation of 6 hectares of land to be managed for nature conservation purposes at Plumley Wood, and the sequence of events for mineral extraction and restoration to agriculture with lower site levels at the remainder of the Plumley site.


· The use of conveyors rather than lorries for transportation of the minerals within the application site.


· The extensive areas of restored heathland which would be provided at an early stage on parts of the Burnt Hill site.


· The way in which the proposed mineral washing plant at Burnt Hill would be located within an acoustically purpose-designed building set at a low level within the Burnt Hill site, with the result that it would not be prominent and would be unlikely to cause any noise nuisance.


· The extensive areas of woodland screening which surrounded the sites and minimised any visual impact.


· The potential alternative sites for a minerals washing plant examined by the applicants, the reasons for their rejection of those options and the conclusion that Burnt Hill was the only viable site for this operation.


· The fact that the Development Plan took precedence over the Ringwood Forest Development Brief as supplementary planning guidance where there was any inconsistency between the two as regards the use of Burnt Hill for a mineral washing plant.


· The extensive mitigation and landscaping works envisaged at Blashford to counteract the noise and visual impact of the site's extension and re-arrangement.


· There had been no objections from statutory or principal consultees and of the 19 representations received, 7 had made comments and 12 had raised objections.


· The New Forest District Council's Environmental Health Officer had advised that the hours of working at Blashford should not start earlier than 7 am on weekdays and 8 am on Saturdays

Mr. Robert Eyles made a deputation relating mainly to the impact of the Burnt Hill washing plant on adjoining properties.


Mr. Peter Edmunds made a deputation mainly on the likely impact of the Burnt Hill washing plant on adjoining properties and road safety at Harbridge Drove.


Mr. Michael Miller made a deputation mainly on the impact of the Burnt Hill washing plant on nearby properties and on what rights existed over the access track past Harbridge Court.


Mr. C. Millar made a deputation mainly on the impact of the Burnt Hill washing plant on adjoining properties.


Mr. Phillip Pollard, representing the tenants of Plumley Farm, made a deputation on problems likely to arise from restoration to agricultural use at lower levels and on the longer term quality of the land for agricultural purposes once restored.


Mr. Roly Errington made a deputation on the wider context of mineral operations in the Avon Valley over the years and on the improvements negotiated with the applicants in an attempt to minimise the impact on people who lived close to the application sites.


Dr. Mary Morgan made a deputation mainly on the likely impact of the Burnt Hill washing plant on adjoining properties, and on the shortcomings of proposals for restoration at Burnt Hill up to now.


Mr. Andy Cadell, representing Tarmac Ltd - the applicants, made a deputation drawing attention to the company's attempts to engage with local residents and neighbours in order to mitigate the impact of their development proposals on neighbouring properties, on the additional areas of heathland which would be provided and managed for nature conservation purposes and on the way in which the company intended to minimise any adverse impact from noise or dust.

Standing Order 21 was suspended to allow questions of clarification to be asked of the deputees.

In response to questions from Members, the Head of Planning and Development confirmed:


· Retention of the extensive areas of woodland would be secured through a legal agreement with the Somerley Estate, the Forestry Commission and the applicants.


· The proposed conveyor would have no adverse impact on the River Avon wetland areas.


· Whilst there was disagreement between the local residents and the applicants over rights of access along the track way past Harbridge Court, this was a subject of legal dispute not a planning consideration for the County Council in determining the application.


· Conditions would be used to ensure and, if necessary, enforce the proper restoration of the sites to agriculture, woodland and heathland.


· Noise levels from the Burnt Hill washing plant would be imperceptible within general ambient noise levels.




Members of the Committee had visited the application sites on 7 July and had viewed all aspects of the proposed development and its potential impact on neighbours and the environment. The Committee accordingly considered all the issues raised by correspondents, the views expressed by the deputations and the evidence from the site visit. They therefore, for the reasons given in the amplified report of the Head of Planning and Development,

RESOLVED:

That subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing:

(i) an additional 6 hectares of land at Plumley for long-term nature conservation management;


(ii) a new public right of way running east-west across the Plumley site;


(iii) a financial contribution to highway works and maintenance;


(iv) new hydrological monitoring;


(v) retention of woodland to the south of Burnt Hill and north of Nea Cottages East and West and to the west of Burnt Hill (east of the public footpath) enclosing the site, is permanently retained and managed as woodland;


(vi) carrying forward existing Section 106 obligations relating to lorry routeing, traffic signal crossing, footpaths, hydrological monitoring and nature conservation management at Blashford and Ellingham.

Planning permission in respect of new development comprising the proposed extraction of sand and gravel and deep sand (incorporating the diversion of public footpaths) with restoration to agriculture, commercial forestry, deciduous woodland and heathland, and associated development including:

(i) The construction of a mineral washing plant at Burnt Hill, together with the storage of Plumley Wood mineral at Burnt Hill with restoration of the site to heathland.


(ii) Extension of the existing field conveyer system from Nea Farm Quarry to Plumley Wood (via Burnt Hill) including bridge sections over Harbridge Drove and public footpaths at Plumley Wood.


(iii) The phased redevelopment of Blashford Plant site including the extension of the plant site and recycling operations into Lodge Field.


(iv) Variation of conditions of planning permission no. 06/88238, including key variations to conditions 2 (extension of time).
6 (hours of working) 24 (stockpile heights) 27 (screen bunding at Blashford) and 48 (storage capacity of recycled aggregates/arisings) at land at Plumley Wood and farm, Burnt Hill, Nea Farm, Blue Haze and Blashford Quarries, near Ringwood (application no. 08/91952) (County Council ref. NF255)


be granted, subject to conditions which the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to finalise, on the basis of the schedule attached as Appendix 5 to the report and as amended by the information update circulated at the meeting (Item 6(x)) setting out specific amendments to conditions 15, 18, 43, 50 and 96 (hours of working to be 07.00 to 18.00 during weekdays and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays for all parts of the application site).

Voting : 7 in favour, 3 against, 1 abstaining.

301 SITING OF A CONCRETE CRUSHER AND ASSOCIATED STOCKPILES WITHIN AN EXISTING SOILS RECYCLING SITE AT BLACKMOOR RECYCLING SITE, BLACKMOOR ESTATE, BORDON - APPLICANT : WILLIAMS OF BORDON
(APPLICATION NO: F35283/006) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: EH139)
(DECISION REFERENCE 482)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 7 in the Minute Book) on the application for a concrete crusher and associated works at the Blackmoor Site. The Head of Planning and Development explained the development proposals and the reasons which prompted him to recommend refusal, namely the sensitive location of the site on the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and the potential change in character of the site's operations if concrete crushing were added to soil screening and recycling.

Mr. Jonathan Halewood of Alliance Planning, on behalf of the applicants, made a deputation in favour of the proposed development, which the applicant intended to keep low-key with the concrete crushing solely as an ancillary activity which was felt to have minimal environmental impact.

Local Members, Councillors A. Carew and M. Kemp-Gee attended and spoke in favour of refusing the application, on grounds of impact on nature conservation; noise and intrusion from lorries and concrete crushing machinery; and the development of inappropriate and more intensive industrial type activities in a rural area on the border of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.



In response to Members' questions, the Head of Planning and Development confirmed that the site had temporary planning permission until 2012 for the existing soil screening and recycling activities. An application for increased lorry movements had been refused by the County Council but allowed on appeal.

The Committee considered all the issues raised by correspondents, the views expressed by the deputation and the local County Councillors. They therefore, for the reasons given in the report of the Head of Planning and Development,

RESOLVED:

That planning permission in respect of the siting of a concrete crusher and associated stockpiles within an existing soils recycling site at Blackmoor Recycling Site, Blackmoor Estate, Bordon (application no. F35283/006) be refused for the following reasons:

(i) The proposal is contrary to policy DC2 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2007) and Policies GS3 and C1 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan Second Review (2006) in that it would in principle be an unacceptable intrusion into the countryside in the East Hampshire AONB and proposed South Downs National Park, and the reasons for the development do not outweigh this adverse impact.


(ii) The proposal is contrary to Policy DC13 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and New Forest National Park Minerals and Waste Core Strategy in that it does not re-use/redevelop previously developed land nor redundant agricultural buildings and their curtilages.


Voting : 11 in favour, 0 against.

302 VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION O7/02980/HCS-W16956/07 TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT FOR TIPPING OPERATIONS AT RAGLINGTON FARM, BOTLEY ROAD, SHEDFIELD (APPLICATION NO. 08/02519/HCS) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF: WR105)
(DECISION REFERENCE 461)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 8 in the Minute Book) on the application for extended tipping operations at this site. In response to questions, the Head of Planning and Development confirmed that the August 2009 deadline would be realistic for completion of the proposed tipping operation. The main outstanding issue was the need for a condition requiring the applicants to take measures to prevent the deposition of mud by vehicles emerging from the site onto the A334 road. The Committee, having considered all the issues raised and, for the reasons given in the report of the Head of Planning and Development,

RESOLVED:

That permission for variation of condition 2 of planning permission 07/02980/HCS-W16956/07 to extend the time limit for tipping operations at Raglington Farm, Botley Road, Shedfield (application no. 08/02519/HCS) (County Council ref: WR105) be granted for the reasons set out in paragraph 4, and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report, including a condition requiring measures to be taken to prevent the deposition of mud by vehicles emerging from the site onto the highway.

Voting: 10 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention

303 EXTENSION TO PROVIDE TWO CLASSROOMS AND OFFICES AT SOPLEY COUNTY PRIMARY SCHOOL, SOUTH RIPLEY, NEAR CHRISTCHURCH - APPLICANT : HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
(APPLICATION NO. 08/93166) (COUNTY COUNCIL REF. NFE005)
(DECISION REFERENCE 409)

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning and Development (Item 9 in the Minute Book) on the application for a proposed extension at this primary school. They also had a supplementary plan circulated at the meeting and giving further details of site layout (Item 9(x) in the Minute Book). The Head of Planning and Development gave details of the design of the extension, which aimed to improve the facilities at the school rather than to extend its capacity, The temporary classroom currently on site would be removed once the extension was completed. There had been objections from New Forest District Council regarding design, Sopley Parish Council regarding parking issues though supporting the school's need for additional space, and local residents.

Ms Nicola Passmore, adjoining resident, made a deputation expressing concerns at the impact that an extension on the scale envisaged would have on adjoining properties, in particular noise and overlooking, and queried the need for the school to be extended on such a scale.

Sarah Collins, from the County Council's Property and Business Department, made a deputation in support of the proposed development and on the need to supplement the sub-standard and under-sized accommodation currently available to the school with a modern, purpose-built extension which would improve facilities for children and staff.

Standing Order 21 was suspended to allow questions of clarification to be asked of the deputees.

The Committee considered all the issues raised by correspondents, the views expressed by the deputations and, for the reasons given in the report of the Head of Planning and Development,




RESOLVED:

That planning permission in respect of an extension to provide two classrooms and offices at Sopley County Primary School, South Ripley, Near Christchurch (application no. 08/93166) be granted for the reasons set out in paragraph 4 of the report, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

Voting: 9 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention

________________________

At this point the Committee adjourned for a lunch break at 1 pm and reconvened at 2 pm, by which time Councillors Price and Gillett had left the meeting. The attendance for the afternoon session was therefore Councillors R.C. McIntosh, I.F.E. Beagley, Mrs. C.A. Bailey, M.F. Cartwright, M.G. Cooper, B.T. Gurden, G.M. Hockley, Jo Kelly and D. Simpson.
________________________

304 APPLICATION FOR A DEFINITIVE MAP MODIFICATION ORDER TO RECORD A FOOTPATH FROM ERNEST ROAD TO PARK LANE, IN THE BOROUGH OF HAVANT, AS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage (Item 10 in the Minute Book) on the application to have this path recorded as a public right of way. The Director of Recreation and Heritage drew attention to the evidence showing the path had been used by the public since the housing estate west of Park Lane was developed in the 1950s, and there was extensive evidence from some 100 people that there had been uninterrupted public use on foot between 1984 and 2004. At that point the landowners, Portsmouth City Council, had blocked off the pathway in an attempt to curb anti-social behaviour. However, there was no evidence that they had previously made any attempt to inhibit public passage, and despite repeated invitations, there had been no evidence by them as to the status of the path. Whilst the reasons given for the closure were the prevention of crime and antisocial behaviour, these were not relevant factors for the County Council when they attempted to establish whether there was evidence for the existence of public rights of way on foot. There were other options open to Havant Borough Council and Portsmouth City Council, for example, gating orders, promoting an extinguishment of the footpath or better lighting and security. He added that, if it was decided to make an Order to record the footpath as claimed, it would be open to all interested parties to make representations and if there were objections, the matter would be referred to the Planning Inspectorate who would no doubt arrange a local public inquiry.



Mrs Boyd and Mrs Thorning, local residents, made a deputation on behalf of people who lived on the estate to the west of Park Lane. They claimed extensive use of the footpath by the public over the last 50 years as a route to local facilities, and drew attention to the inconvenience that closure had caused.

Mr. Hopper, Mr. Shannon and Mrs Dunkley, residents of Park Lane adjacent to the line of the claimed footpath, made a deputation opposing the claim and expressing concerns on grounds of security, vandalism, anti-social behaviour and crime prevention. Attention was also drawn to a licence which had been granted by Portsmouth City Council giving rights of vehicular access to the rear of properties in Park Lane.

Standing Order 21 was suspended to allow questions of clarification to be asked of the deputees.

Councillor Mrs. A. Buckley, one of the local County Councillors for the area, spoke of her extensive personal knowledge of the area and the pattern of use of the path made by local people over the years, and on the incidence of anti-social behaviour in the area.

The Committee considered all the views expressed and concluded that the right way forward would be to make an Order to add the path to the definitive map, which would lead to the opportunity for all concerned, including Portsmouth City Council as landowners, to make representations as to the status of the path. It was likely that, if there were objections, a public local inquiry would follow. They therefore, having considered all the issues raised by correspondents, the views expressed by deputations and the factors set out in the report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage,

RESOLVED:

That an Order be made to record the route A-B-C between Ernest Road and Park Lane, Havant (as shown on the attached map) on the definitive map of public rights of way, as a public footpath : A-B to have a width of 3.0 metres and B-C to have a width of 2.0 metres.

Voting: 9 in favour, 0 against.

305 APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC PATH EXTINGUISHMENT ORDER FOR PART OF FOOTPATH NO. 38 IN THE PARISH OF BINSTED

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage (Item 11 in the Minute Book) on the application to extinguish that part of the footpath no. 38 that runs between Station Road and its junction with footpath no. 44 near Bentley Station. The Committee viewed plans and photographs of the footpath in question and, in the light of the factors mentioned in the Director of Recreation and Heritage's report,


RESOLVED:

That an Order be made to extinguish part of footpath no. 38 in the Parish of Binsted between points B-C and D on the attached plan.

Voting : 9 in favour, 0 against.

306 APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC PATH DIVERSION ORDER FOR PART OF FOOTPATH NO. 12 IN THE PARISH OF LONG SUTTON

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage (Item 12 in the Minute Book) on the proposal to divert this footpath in the vicinity of Lord Wandsworth College, Long Sutton. Consideration of this item had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee to enable discussions to take place with the applicants on the possibility of the entire length of the diverted footpath being dedicated. It was reported that the Governors of the College had agreed to the suggestion made by the Committee, and it was therefore, in the light of all the factors mentioned in the Director of Recreation and Heritage's report:

RESOLVED:

That an Order be made for the diversion of footpath no. 12 in the Parish of Long Sutton from that section of the current definitive alignment running between points A, B, C, D and E to a new route running between points L, M, N, G, H, J, K and E on the attached plan.

Voting : 9 in favour, 0 against.

8rM2109