Decision details

Update Sheet

Decision Maker: Regulatory Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

Traffic Matters

·        Proposed waiting restrictions on the C8 at West Lulworth

 

Update 1:

 

A late representation has been received objecting to the proposal.

 

Officer Comment:

The letter is noted. A copy is attached at Appendix 1.

 

·        Proposed puffin crossing – Broad Street, Lyme Regis

 

Update 1:

 

NOTE: the sentence in paragraph 4.2 is incomplete and should read:-

 

“Having considered the objections submitted as part of the consultation process officers feel that the benefits brought by the crossing are outweighed by the potential disbenefits. These disbenefits are the loss of on-street parking which would also increase pollution and the potential adverse impact on businesses.”

 

Update 2:

 

Written statements from third parties are attached at Appendix 1.

 

Planning Matters

 

·        Planning application 6/2018/0138 for the western extension to develop land for the winning and working of ball clay and ancillary operations – Trigon Pit, Bere Road, Wareham.

 

Update 1:

 

Further correspondence has been received from Historic England stating that if an area corresponding closely to Phase 1 (see Appendix 1 for plan) were omitted then Historic England would amend its position to take account of the safeguarding of this area of original historic landform setting. The correspondence notes that whilst the omission of phase 1 would reduce the amount of overburden available for restoration landscaping this would be acceptable in terms of the overall heritage balance.

 

A supplementary letter was received from Historic England on 4 December which is also attached at Appendix 1.

 

Officer comment: It is noted that the removal of Phase 1 from the development proposal would also result in the loss of approximately half of phase 2 when taking into account the angle of the quarry side slopes. This would result in the sterilization of approximately 225,000 tonnes of ball clay. The ball clay seams at this end of the site are relatively deep. This would result in a significant reduction in the amount of overburden material available for land level raising within the existing quarry if this area were omitted from the scheme. It is understood, based upon Historic England’s original representation, that if the development scheme were to be amended in this manner, there would still be harm to setting of the Trigon Hill barrow; albeit at a reduced level.

 

It is considered that such an amendment has already been considered and discounted by the applicants through the assessment of alternatives detailed within the submitted Environmental Statement. Officers are of the opinion that the loss of Ball Clay reserves from this area of the proposed quarry would be significant. It is considered that any reduced level of harm to the Heritage would not be to a level that would outweigh the public benefits of the mineral extraction. 

 

Update 2:

 

A letter of support has been received from IMERYS which is signed by 10 employees (see Appendix 1). The letter of support states that collectively IMERYS employees have over 1259 years of experience working in the ball Clay industry with the average length of service of 19 years. It is stated that the long-term viability of the industry, and hence their livelihoods, are dependent upon continued access to the various Ball Clay resources which are found in the Wareham Basin. The Clays at Trigon provide a vital component to the overall product portfolio.

 

Officer comment:

 

The further representations by IMERYS employees are noted.

 

Rights of Way Matters

 

Proposed Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order – Footpath 30, Church Knowle at Charmswell

 

Update:

The landowner, who has objected to the proposal, has requested that some graphics are brought to the attention of the Committee.

 

Officer comment:

The information is noted and the graphics are attached at Appendix 1.

 

 

Commons Registration Matters

 

Applications for the deregistration of common land at Leigh Common, Colehill

 

Update 1:

A further submission has been received from one of the objectors in relation to paragraph 7.2 of the report:

 

The objector states that the Explanatory Notes to the 2006 Act provide a series of examples of copying errors (‘errors of transcription or transposition’)  that might occur in the process of ‘making or amending an entry in the register’ and which can be corrected under section 19. However, the objector says that Section 7.2 (b) of the report describes a fundamental error of law made by the Registration Authority which could not be more different to the making of a copying error.  Thus, the objector says, the correction cannot be made under section 19.

 

If, as the report argues, the highway land ought not to have been shown in the register, then it falls into the category of ‘land wrongly registered as common land’. The provisions for land in this category are made at Schedule 2 of the 2006 Act (‘Non-registration or mistaken registration under the 1965 Act’). In effect, the report is proposing that the closely-defined power conferred by section 19(2)(a) should be extended so as to encompass the provisions of Schedule 2(7). The result would be to render redundant all of the detailed criteria and conditions specified at Schedule 2(7); and to confer on the registration authority a discretion and a power of correction that cannot be justified in the context of the 2006 Act.

 

In terms of the case presented in the report, it might well be argued that any claim whatsoever that there is ‘something wrong’ with the register is a claim that the registration authority ‘made a mistake’. Any such claim would therefore be covered by section 19(2)(a) and could be corrected under section 19(2)(a).

 

Officer comment:

It is the view of officers that the applications fall within the parameters of Section 19 of the Commons Act 2006. Section 19 is intended to enable the correction of administrative errors, whereas Schedule 2 is intended to deal with evidence as to the status of the land which may not have been revealed during the registration process under the 1965 Act. These applications sit somewhere between the two, but are more closely aligned with Section 19 as highway land cannot be common land by operation of law. Therefore, the applications are valid and should be considered by the Committee. 

 

Update 2:

An objection from the Open Spaces Society has been resubmitted as it was not covered in the report. Three main points are raised:

 

1)     Firstly, that no mistake was made by the commons registration authority in registering the application land. They acknowledge that highway land was excluded from the definition of common land, but state that nothing in the 1965 Act provides that common land which is comprised in a highway, and is not registered under the 1965 Act, has ceased to be common land. The provisional registration was correct as the application was duly made. The correct course of action was then for the highway authority to object, which is what happened in this instance, although the objection was later withdrawn. It was not up to the authority to refuse to register highway land and there would have been no appeal against a decision to exclude such land.   

 

2)     Secondly, that there is no evidence that all or part of the land is highway land. The list of streets is not conclusive, and the applicant has offered no corroborating evidence of the status of the land as highway land. The county surveyor’s objection stated that only six feet of the common was comprised in the highway on the south side of the carriageway.

 

3)     Thirdly, that even if a mistake was demonstrated to have been made, it should not be corrected in exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 19(5). Section 19(5) provides that a mistake may not be corrected under this section if the authority considers that, by reason of reliance reasonably placed on the register by any person or for any other reason, it would be unfair to do so. The public have been entitled to assume that the land is correctly registered, and it would be unfair to correct the register now for no obvious reason.

 

 

Officer comment:

1) Highway land is by statutory definition not common land and so it must have been a mistake to register it as common land.

 

2) Evidence supporting the status of the land as highway is discussed in the report.

 

3)This matter is discussed in the report and also in update 1 above

 

Publication date: 02/01/2019

Date of decision: 06/12/2018

Decided at meeting: 06/12/2018 - Regulatory Committee