Archived decisions

Presented to

Regulatory Committee

Date

22 April 2009

Title

Information on the Downton Manor Farm Appeal
(Appeal No. APP/Q1770/A/06/2014823)

Presented by

Head of Planning and Development, Environment Department

Distributed to

(i.e. All Members)

Method

(e.g. Email and copies in Members' Rooms)

Contact name

Kristina King

Tel

01962 846496

Email

[email protected]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary:

1.1. A decision has been taken by the Secretary of State to re-open the 2007 Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea Public Inquiry for the extraction of sand and gravel. The Public Inquiry is scheduled to re-commence on 9 June 2009. The County Council will present a case that will address the current reasons which continue to support the 2005 decision by the Regulatory Committee to refuse planning permission.

2) Recommendation:

2.1. That the Regulatory Committee agrees that the County Council will present evidence at the forthcoming Inquiry into the appeal by New Milton Sand and Ballast at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea in support of the Statement of Case under Rule 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 9 March 2009.

1) Downton Manor Farm Appeal:

1.1 On 13 August 2004 New Milton Sand and Ballast submitted a planning application for the extraction of sand and gravel, constructing a vehicle access and environmental banks, restoration to lakes, woodland and agricultural fields at Downton Manor Farm, Milford-on-Sea.

1.2 On 19 October 2005 the Regulatory Committee resolved to refuse planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel at Downton Manor Farm for the following reasons:

(i) it is not a `preferred' area as defined in Policy 19 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan; and

(ii) it does not comply with Policy 6 (ii) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and Policy MW2 (i) of the Hampshire County Structure Plan in that it would give rise to adverse impacts on the local economy.

1.3 The proposal was subsequently resubmitted with additional information to address the original reasons for refusal. The Regulatory Committee resolved to refuse the re-submitted application on 19 July 2006 for the following reasons:

(i) the proposal is contrary to Policy 20 of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan and emerging Policies S8 and DC15 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy because the site is not a preferred area and the shortfall in the landbank can be satisfactorily addressed by existing preferred area; and

(ii) the proposal is premature as it would prejudice a decision on `apportionment' of sand and gravel production within the emerging Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

1.4 New Milton Sand and Ballast appealed the decision notice issued on 21 October 2005. A letter dated 13 July 2006 from the Secretary of State indicated that she considered that she should determine the appeal for herself, calling in the appeal for the reason that the appeal relates to proposals for significant development in the green belt. An eight day inquiry from 17 April 2007 was held by Inspector Boyland.

1.5 The Inspector's Report to the Secretary of State dated 29 June 2007 recommended that the appeal be dismissed. The Secretary of State refused planning permission, in a decision letter dated 20 September 2007.

1.6 Both the Inspector and Secretary of State came to the same decision to dismiss the appeal. However, their conclusions differed on whether the test in a key policy, Policy 20 (i) (a) (attached in appendix) of the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan was satisfied.

1.7 The Inspector concluded there was a need for additional permitted reserves but this could reasonably be met from sites - `preferred areas' - identified in the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

1.8 On the other hand, the Secretary of State concluded that the appeal site was not within a `preferred area' and that the need for sand and gravel could reasonably be met from sites within the identified preferred areas. Accordingly, the Secretary of State considered that it would be premature to grant planning permission as it would prejudice the proper identification of new preferred areas in the forthcoming Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

1.9 New Milton Sand and Ballast sought an Order quashing the Secretary of State's decision on the grounds that the Inspector and the Secretary of State came to different conclusions on Policy 20(i)(a). The Secretary of State conceded that the decision was confused and inadequately reasoned and therefore agreed the decision should be quashed.

1.10 As a consequence, the Secretary of State has decided to re-determine the appeal. A letter dated 25 September 2008 from the Secretary of State invited parties at the Inquiry to make representations on various planning and procedural matters.

1.11 The Secretary of State has decided to re-open the Inquiry, which is scheduled to re-commence on 9 June 2009 at Lyndhurst Park Hotel, Lyndhurst. A pre-Inquiry meeting has also been arranged by the Inspector for 20 April at The Castle, Winchester.

1.12 The case the County Council will present to the Inquiry is set out in a Statement of Case under Rule 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 and covers the following points:

(i) The proposed development is not in accordance with Policy DC 15 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. There are sufficient aggregates in permitted reserves to provide for Hampshire's aggregate needs.

(ii) The reserves of aggregates have increased and there is more certainty in the availability of supply since evidence was produced at the last Inquiry.

(iii) The County Council's approach to estimating the adequacy of aggregate reserves is consistent with guidance set out in `Planning for Minerals: Practice Guide'.

(iv) The proposed development is within the South West Hampshire Green Belt and is inconsistent with policy as set out in Planning Policy Guidance 2 and Policy DC 5.

(v) The proposed development would be premature in that it would undermine the pattern of mineral development for the Forest area as proposed in the `draft' Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy.

(vi) The proposed development would set a precedent for other land to be released in the immediate area that would further undermine the approach taken by the Core Strategy.

(vii) The Environmental Statement accompanying the application for the proposed development is out of date and permission should not be granted until this has been amended in accordance with the Regulations.

2) Commentary

2.1. It is regrettable that the appeal decision has been quashed. Considerable expense has been incurred by the County Council and local residents on this matter. It appears now that further costs will occur to ensure that the Secretary of State has the evidence to make a sound decision. Accordingly, the Council has no option but to engage further in the reopened Inquiry.