Agenda and draft minutes

Regulatory Committee
Thursday, 6th December, 2018 10.30 am

Venue: Committee Room 1 - County Hall

Contact: David Northover  Email: d.r.northover@dorsetcc.gov.uk - 01305 224175

Items
No. Item

61.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Keith Day and Margaret Phipps. Councillor Kevin Brookes attended as a Reserve Member.

 

In the absence of the Vice-Chairman, Margaret Phipps, it was

 

Resolved

That Councillor Ray Bryan be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the meeting.

62.

Code of Conduct

Councillors are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 regarding disclosable pecuniary interests.

 

§                     Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary interest.

§                     Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done on the form available from the clerk within 28 days).

§                     Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of a dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item.

 

The Register of Interests is available on Dorsetforyou.com and the list of disclosable

pecuniary interests is set out on the reverse of the form.

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

 

With reference to minute 68, a general interest was declared by Councillor Katharine Garcia as her partner was a member of Bournemouth Borough Council’s Planning Committee. Councillor Garcia confirmed that they had not discussed this proposal and so she remained in the meeting and took part in the debate.

 

With reference to minute 68, a general interest was declared by Councillor Ray Bryan in that he served as a member of the A338 Steering Group in his capacity as an East Dorset District Councillor. Councillor Bryan confirmed that he retained an open mind on the proposal and so remained in the meeting and took part in the debate.

 

With reference to minute 71, a general interest was declared by Councillor Shane Bartlett in that he served as a member of the East Dorset District Council Planning Committee as a Wimborne Minster Town Councillor but had played no part in any discussion on this matter. As Councillor Bartlett had an open mind he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate.

 

 

 

 

 

63.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 214 KB

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2018.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2018 were confirmed and signed.

 

64.

Public Participation

(a)               Public Speaking

 

(b)               Petitions

Minutes:

Public Speaking

There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1) other than those two raised by Tim Kavanagh in respect of minute 70 and referred to in the Statements from Third Parties.

 

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2) other than two submitted by Councillor Cheryl Reynolds and Ms Lizzie Wiscombe respectively in relation to minute 66 and as set out in the Statements from Third Parties to these minutes.

 

Petitions

There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

 

Traffic Matters

65.

Proposed parking restrictions on the C8, West Road, West Lulworth pdf icon PDF 700 KB

To consider a report by the Service Director - Environment, Infrastructure & Economy.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Environment, Infrastructure and Economy on proposals to introduce no waiting at any time restrictions on the C8, West Road, West Lulworth; in extending those which already existed northwards to the junction with Daggers Gate and southwards to the junction with Church Road. This proposal was designed so as to facilitate access to the village more readily, ease congestion which was being experienced; improve the means by which traffic could more readily flow; and on safety grounds, particularly for those vulnerable road users accessing the road and to allow unfettered access for emergency service vehicles, as necessary.  The proposals had been initiated by West Lulworth Parish Council who considered them to be necessary for the reasons given. Following the advertisement of the proposals, objections had been received and, as a consequence, the Committee was now being asked to consider whether the proposals should be implemented as advertised.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and having regard to the provisions of the Update Sheet and statements from third parties provided to members prior to the meeting, officers explained the reasoning behind the need to impose the waiting restrictions, what these entailed and the basis of the objections received. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed where the proposals would be situated, the characteristics of the road and its setting within the village. It also showed the relationship between the road and commercial and residential properties; where off street car parks operated by the Lulworth Estate were situated; what other opportunity there was for on street parking within the village and the effect congestion was having on access arrangements.

 

Objections received considered that the proposed arrangements would be detrimental to their parking needs and affect trade. However officers considered that the proposals were, on balance, the best achievable to meet competing needs and addressed the issues currently being experienced.

 

Primary consultation had been carried out on the proposals and was supported by the local County Councillor for South Purbeck, Purbeck District Council, West Lulworth Parish Council and the Dorset Police. There was an alternative view that any additional restrictions should be on a seasonal basis only, as much of the congestion being experienced only happened during the summer season. However, with ever increasing parking needs given the popularity of the village - owing primarily to its access to Lulworth Cove as a destination – maintaining accessibility was seen to be fundamental to the prosperity of the village and it was essential for emergency services to be able to gain access on every occasion needed.

 

However, objections received had cited the loss of much needed on road parking spaces as the reason why the proposals were not beneficial to either the business interests of the village nor on an individual basis in meeting residents own parking needs.

 

Officers acknowledged the contribution made by the Lulworth Estate towards the management of parking in the village; being critical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

66.

Proposed puffin crossing - Broad Street, Lyme Regis pdf icon PDF 726 KB

To consider a report by the Service Director - Environment, Infrastructure & Economy.

 

Minutes:

 

 

 

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director Environment, Infrastructure and Economy on the advertisement of a proposal for the implementation of a Puffin pedestrian crossing on Broad Street, Lyme Regis in facilitating the crossing of the road by a controlled means. Following the advertisement of the proposals, 57 representations had been received, primarily objections, on the basis that the crossing would erode already limited on street limited parking provision; spaces which were much in demand for accessing the businesses in the town centre and also would cause tailbacks and congestion.

 

The proposed crossing had been requested by Lyme Regis Town Council following a local campaign for a safer crossing point to be installed, particularly for less able pedestrians and vulnerable road users. As primary consultees, West Dorset District Council,  Dorset Police and the County Councillor for Marshwood Vale all agreed the proposals should be advertised. However, as a consequence of the objections received, the Committee was now being asked to consider whether the proposals should be recommended to Cabinet for implementation, as advertised.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and having regard to the provisions of the Update Sheet and Statements from Third Parties provided to members prior to the meeting and appended to these minutes, officers showed where the crossing was advertised to be sited, the characteristics and configuration of Broad Street; what access arrangements were affected on the surrounding road network; what parking could be retained, including disabled parking provision; the part the bus stop arrangements played in how parking provision was able to be managed in the road; the setting of the crossing within the townscape and what amenities and facilities would be served by the crossing. Officers also explained what other options had been considered for alternative locations and what reasons there were for these being deemed to be either unachievable or impractical. Effectively the only point at which a crossing could be situated to meet the needs of users and in meeting the engineering practicalities of doing so to ensure the necessary regulations were complied with was adjacent to No.20 Broad Street.

 

Having received such a significant number of objections to the proposal, and having made an assessment of the benefits and otherwise of pursuing the proposals, officers were now recommending that in light of the objections, whilst a crossing could well be beneficial to pedestrians, those benefits were considered to be outweighed by the loss of much needed on street parking, which could lead to an adverse effect on the viability of businesses and could result in increased air pollution from stationary traffic. Given that the availably of parking provision was limited, the loss of 4/5 spaces to provide for the installation of a crossing, was considered to be detrimental and not necessarily justifiable. Furthermore as traffic speeds were low, whilst a crossing could well assist in some cases, it was not considered to be essential on road safety grounds. On that basis, officers were now recommending that the Cabinet should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Adjournment / Intermission

The Committee took the opportunity to adjourn the meeting for a short intermission.

At this point, Councillors Dunseith, Garcia and Orrell left the meeting.

Planning Matters

67.

6/2018/0138 - Western Extension to develop land for the winning and working of Ball Clay, and ancillary operations at Trigon Pit, Carey Road, Wareham pdf icon PDF 507 KB

To consider a report by the Service Director – Environment, Infrastructure and

Economy.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director Environment, Infrastructure and Economy on planning application 6/2018/0138 for a western extension in developing land for the winning and working of ball clay and ancillary operations at Trigon Pit, Carey Road, Wareham, this being necessary to form a new extraction area of 1.2 million tonnes of ball clay over a 15 year period, with the phased restoration of the site to wet heath, woodland and arable fields.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and in taking into consideration the provisions of the Update Sheet and the Statements from Third Parties appended to these minutes, officers described the proposals and planning issues in detail, what these entailed and what they were designed to achieve. A brief history of the site and it usage was also drawn to members’ attention. Plans and photographs were used to show the characteristics of the site, its location and to describe how the quarrying operations would be progressed. The site’s land form and its context within the surrounding landscape were shown, with views from within and around the site. The activities and operations proposed to be undertaken were described in detail by officers. Arrangements for the way in which the quarrying was to be phased and managed, its progression and the relationship between each phase were also described.

 

Similarly, the restoration process was described, so that a mixture of woodland, wetland and arable agricultural land would be created. Officers described the type of activities which were to take place on site; their relationship with the current quarrying operations; the site’s setting within the landscape; the local highway network and access arrangements, (including the route of a public bridleway); and the topography and geology of the area, including the topography created by the previous minerals workings within the site and those created by the now ceased landfill operations and how these would be managed and landscaped by these new workings. The proposal included the formation of three settlement lagoons that would be created at the southern end of the site.

 

How the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was applied and what the Planning Assessment took into consideration in the weighting to be given to the

Draft Minerals Strategy and the part this should play in the Committee’s decision making process, was detailed in the report.

 

The relationship between the site – which lay in the Green Belt - and neighbouring land; residential properties; commercial amenities; environmentally designate areas - as set out in paragraph 2.5 to the report - and how Trigon Hill barrow scheduled monument would be affected, were all drawn to the attention of members.

 

Officers explained the need for this much valued and rare mineral to be won and worked, its nationally recognised importance in the ceramics industry and the quantities in which this would be excavated. The development of the site would make a significant contribution towards ensuring that the Mineral Planning Authority made provision for a steady and adequate supply of all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

68.

PL\2363\18 - Delegation of powers to Bournemouth Borough Council for application to construct a grade separate junction and associated works on the A338 Wessex Way (Wessex Fields). pdf icon PDF 147 KB

To consider a report by the Service Director – Environment, Infrastructure and

Economy.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Head of Planning on the proposed delegation of powers to Bournemouth Borough Council to enable them to decide a planning application for the development of a new road junction and associated works on the A338 Wessex Way to provide a link to the Wessex Fields Business Park and the Royal Bournemouth Hospital (Application No 8/18/3149/DCC).

 

 

 Bournemouth Borough Council and Dorset County Council, as joint planning applicants, had resubmitted proposals to both Bournemouth Borough Council and Dorset County Council which sought permission for a new road junction on the A338. This was as a consequence of some amendments being made to the original proposal which warranted a fresh application being submitted. The previous application had now been withdrawn. Officers confirmed that this did not alter the purpose or substantive details of the original scheme but, in accordance with delegation procedures, the County Council would again need to formally delegate its powers to Bournemouth Borough Council to determine the resubmitted application.

 

 

Members were reminded that when this matter had previously been considered at their meeting on 4 January 2018, the decision to delegate the determination of the application to Bournemouth was made by the County Council. However, as the next opportunity for the County Council to meet was not until 28 March 2019 - which would delay the consideration of this strategically important infrastructure project - it was now proposed that the matter instead be referred to the Chief Executive who, under delegated authority, had power to authorise the delegation to Bournemouth Borough Council, in cases of urgency.

 

Accordingly, consistent with the approach that was taken previously, an endorsement of the principle from the Committee was now being sought before the Chief Executive was asked to consider the matter.

 

A visual presentation explained what the application was about - made jointly by the Borough Council and the County Council - showing the road scheme’s delineation; its reasoning; what it was designed to achieve; what benefits it would bring and how it would be implemented. The characteristics of the scheme were drawn to the Committee’s attention and what considerations would need to be assessed as part of the process. The substantive part of the application lay within Bournemouth Borough Council’s administrative area, with only a marginal proportion being located within the County’s area - this being within the Borough of Christchurch.

 

 

The necessity for improvements to be made to traffic management across the network in that area, the means by which this should be done and the benefits this would bring had been acknowledged previously by Committee. The permission being sought was an important part of a package of proposals designed to promote economic growth along the Bournemouth International Airport Corridor to relieve congestion, improve traffic management and access arrangements to the hospital and the adjoining business park development.

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the officer’s presentation and about what they had heard and officer’s provided clarification in respect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

69.

Acknowledgements

Minutes:

Given that this would be the final meeting attended by the Economy, Planning and Transport Service Manager, Maxine Bodell, before her retirement from the County Council, the Chairman took the opportunity, on behalf of the Committee to wish her every happiness and success for the future and thanked her for the contribution she had made to the work of the Committee over the years.

 

The same recognition was afforded to the Principal Planning Officer, Christopher Stokes, who too was retiring and who had served the Committee dutifully in past years.   

Definitive Map Modification Orders

70.

Proposed Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order - Footpath 30 at Charmswell, Church Knowle pdf icon PDF 2 MB

To consider a report by the Service Director – Environment, Infrastructure and Economy.

Minutes:

 

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Environment Infrastructure and Economy on a proposed Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order for Footpath 30 at Charmswell, Church Knowle. Members were being asked to consider the evidence relating to the recorded route of Footpath 30 and giving consideration to modifying the Definitive Map and Statement.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and in taking into account the provisions of the Update Sheet and the Statements from Third Parties made available to members prior to the meeting and appended to these minutes, the basis for the proposal was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed the proposed route, its characteristics and setting within the landscape and the points between which it ran. The documentary evidence contained in the report was referred to in detail and how this was applied in the officer’s reasoning for coming to the recommendation they had. The weight to be given to the evidence was explained. The Committee’s attention was drawn to what they were being asked to take into consideration in coming to their decision. For the reasons set out in the report, officers considered that analysis of the evidence showed that - on the balance of probability - the proposed modification should be supported.

 

Officers explained that the route of Footpath 30 at Charmswell had been much disputed and, having thoroughly assessed the available evidence, it was clear that there had been a drafting error on the Definitive Map which had given rise to this anomaly and all its consequential implications.

 

Officers confirmed that a right of way not shown on the Definitive Map and Statement subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to subsist, in respect of the proposed route A-C-B, as that route was not currently recorded with public rights. The balance of evidence demonstrated that the currently recorded route was shown in error on the Definitive Map and that this should be modified to the route, as proposed. Therefore, officers were now recommending that the Definitive Map and Statement should be modified to delete part of Footpath 30, Church Knowle as shown A-B and instead to add it as shown A-C-B on Drawing 14/44 of the report.

As part of the public consultation in respect of the proposed Modification Order, two objections had been received - from Tim Kavanagh, owner of Charmswell Cottage and from Purbeck District Council.

 

The opportunity was given for public speaking. Tim Kavanagh opposed the Modification Order on the grounds that it would be unsafe and would be highly inconvenient to use and, in his view, it was clear that the route shown on the Definitive Map had migrated over the years which had led to the discrepancy now being seen. He was also critical of the process that had been followed in officers coming to their view and the means by which the evidence had been used in that regard. Mr Kavanagh had also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

Proposed Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order - Parts of Footpath 21 at Talbot Road, Lyme Regis pdf icon PDF 4 MB

To consider a report by the Service Director – Environment, Infrastructure and Economy.

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Environment, Infrastructure and Economy on a proposed Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order for parts of Footpath 21 at Talbot Road, Lyme Regis. The reasoning for this was set out in the report.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation the basis for the application was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed the current and proposed modified routes, their characteristics and setting within the landscape, their relationship with neighbouring properties and the points between which they ran. The documentary evidence contained in the report was referred to in detail and how this was applied in the officer’s reasoning for coming to the recommendation they had. The weight to be given to the documentary evidence was explained. The Committee’s attention was drawn to what they were being asked to take into consideration in coming to their decision.

 

Information was provided in respect of the one objection made to the application and the grounds on which this was made, together with what officer’s considered response to this was and the reasoning for this. The objection stated that the proposed route was not the correct one and the correct route was blocked so that the County Council was proposing to make the Order as it would be easier than removing the obstruction. Officers had already considered the evidence in detail and the objector had not provided any evidence to support their views which had not already been taken into account. In officer’s opinion the evidence indicated that the Modification Order should be made on the basis that the documentary evidence was sufficient to indicate that a right of way - a public footpath – subsisted, or was reasonably alleged to subsist, over the route I-J-G, A-E-B and C-K-D as shown on drawing 14/10/3 of the report and that there was no public right of way over the route shown F-G, A-B and C-D as a highway of any description, as shown on the same drawing.

 

The County Councillor for Marshwood Vale was content with the recommendation contained in the report.

 

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the officer’s presentation.

 

In assessing the evidence presented by officers, taking into account the detail of the

application in the report and having an understanding of the presentation made, the

Committee concluded that, on balance, the officer’s recommendation was acceptable and, on that basis, and on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed

 

Resolved

 

1)That an Order be made to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Rights of Way to:

(i) Delete parts of Footpath 21, Lyme Regis as shown F-G, A-B and C-D.

(ii) Add parts of Footpath 21, Lyme Regis as shown by pecked lines I-J-G, A-E- B and C-K-D as shown on drawing 14/10/3 (Appendix 2); and

2) If the Order is unopposed, or if all of any objections were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Common Land Application

72.

Application for the deregistration of common land at Leigh Common, Colehill pdf icon PDF 2 MB

To consider a report by the Service Director – Environment, Infrastructure and Economy.

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director - Environment , Infrastructure and Economy on two applications for the deregistration of common land at Leigh Common - consisting of land located either side of the B3073, Leigh Road, at Colehill and made by developers of land within and adjoining the registered common.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, and having regard to the provisions of the Update Sheet and the statements of third parties provided for members prior to the meeting, the basis for the application was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown illustrating this, showing the application areas from various directions and at various points; their characteristics and relationship with neighbouring properties and amenities; and their setting within the landscape in that part of Colehill.

 

Officers explained that the applications stated that the land should be deregistered as common land because it ought not to have been registered due to the fact that it was public highway at the time of registration, this being based on Section 22(1) of the Commons Registration Act 1965, which defined common land as “excluding highways”. The applications were “duly made” for the purposes of the Commons Act 2006.

The applications were accompanied by supporting documentary evidence. In assessing this evidence thoroughly, officers had concluded that this was the case - in what was being claimed was credible and acceptable - and this formed the basis of the reasoning of the officer’s recommendation.

 

Members were now being asked to consider whether the applications satisfied the statutory requirements to deregister land as Common Land, with the legal test being that the balance of probability and the burden of proof rested with the applicant to discharge. From officer’s analysis of the evidence provided in support of the applications, there was an indication that part of the application land was public highway at the time of registration. Therefore, the applications were considered to be valid and, when considered together with all the available evidence, it was being recommended that application CLD 2016/1 was accepted in part and application CLD 2017/1 was accepted fully.

 

A series of objections had been received to the applications based, predominantly, on the perceived loss of green space and green land. Officers clarified to what extent the applications applied and explained that there had been some general misconception that the majority of Leigh Common would itself be affected, rather than just the portions alongside the carriageway. Some other objections related to points of law - that Section 19 did not cover issues such as this - but officers confirmed their view that the application properly fell within Section 19.

 

The opportunity was provided for local members to address the Committee. The County Councillor for Colehill East and Stapehill expressed concern on behalf of Colehill Parish Council that any potential future development on the land that was being applied for deregistration would severely impact on the viability of the footway and diminish the means by which it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

73.

Questions from County Councillors

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on Monday 3 December 2018.

Minutes:

There were no questions raised by members under Standing Order 20(2).

74.

Update Sheet

Minutes:

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

75.

Statements and Representations of Third Parties pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Minutes:

To be considered in conjunction with and complementing these minutes, as an associated document.