Agenda item

Retrospective application for grass planted bunds in south western corner of the site

Public Participation

Peter Claydon (CPRE) spoke in objection of the application.

David Hogan spoke in objection to the application.

Geoff Lownds spoke in objection to the application.

Tony Allen (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Elaine Hartford spoke in objection, on behalf of Alderbury Parish Council

Cllr Gill Sowerby spoke in objection, on behalf of Grimstead Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Matthew Legge, introduced the report which recommended that the retrospective application for a grass planted bunds in the south-western corner of the site at Nightwood Farm, West Grimstead be approved subject to conditions.

It was noted that at the rear of the site was an ancient woodland. The reason for the creation of the bund given by the applicant had been due to the placement of waste materials arising from restoration work on the existing agricultural buildings on the site. These materials included asbestos from the roof panel and soil from the ground in-between the buildings.

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, it was clarified that whilst the Environmental Health Officer had provided a written response, it was not known whether they had actually attended the site. The soil report had indicated that the asbestos was a fibre kind from the roofing materials.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The red boundary shown on the report was questioned as incorrect and misleading.

The resident in the adjacent site ran a holiday let and had concerns surrounding the health and safety of the asbestos in the bund and the associated contamination of the watercourse and the impact of the development on the ancient woodland, with substantial harm already caused by the removal of some trees.

The Forestry Commission had previously written to the Officer to state there had been trees felled on the site.

It was felt that the asbestos had been illegally dumped on the site in a criminal manner and remained a health hazard to residents for years to come, and the approval of this application would encourage further hazardous waste disposal by others.

Soil and Air tests had been carried out, the associated report stated there was no risk, if the bund had a capping of fresh soil across the top.

The applicant had agreed to replant some trees to replace those that had been felled. 

Representatives from Alderbury and Grimstead Parish Councils, which were both affected by this development, spoke in objection to the application.

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Britton moved the motion of refusal, this was seconded by Cllr Devine.

Cllr Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting the resentment and anger of the residents and parishes.

To access the site with a HGV, you either had to violate the 7.5t limit in Alderbury or navigate winding roads.

For months, the Enforcement Officers sought a retrospective application for a turning circle, eventually it was felt that no application was required as it followed the original piggery. In addition, a retrospective application was sought to cover the building works, eventually they were persuaded by the agent that one was not required.

It appeared that in this case, the two statutory bodies were each doing their best to slope their shoulders and responsibility at Nightwood farm. The Environment Agency had said this was a matter for the Local Authority and the Local Authority were passing it back to the Environment Agency.

These bunds serve no purpose other than a repository for getting rid of asbestos. This amounted to fly tipping asbestos waste in ancient woodland.

The Environment Agency did talk about the leeching of possible fibres into the air if removal of the materials in the bund were to take place, however no one had looked at the possible leaking down in to the ancient watercourse.

The applicants reason for not removing the asbestos from the site was to minimise vehicle movements for residents.

He feared for the harm that would be caused, if fly tipping in ancient woodland was allowed.

A debate followed where they key issues raised included, that the cost of using a contractor to remove the asbestos from the site correctly would be quite high, despite this, landowners should be responsible for taking appropriate action when carrying out building works on their land.

The support of the statutory bodies in place to make judgements on cases such as these was questioned. The Committee felt that it had been let down in this instance and proposed that the dumping of asbestos in a manner outside of that which was prescribed may be illegal.

Land owners had the responsibility to manage their land properly, in this case the land owner had not done this. This was a retrospective application, because the land owner had already moved the asbestos from between the buildings to the bund site. If the application had been applied for prior to the creation of the bund, the Committee felt that it would not have granted permission to bury asbestos on site, as it would be expected that the appropriate channels were adhered to in the disposal of asbestos by an approved contractor.

The loss of trees in the ancient woodland was not acceptable, this was a loss of amenity if historic woodland was removed, as planting new trees was not a substitute.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal, against Officer’s recommendation.

Resolved

That application 17/10079/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

The application site is located outside of an established mixed used site (Agricultural & B8 storage) and is sited on the edge of a County Wildlife Site and ancient woodland known as Nightwood Copse. The proposal, involving the dumping and retention of contaminated soil and general rubble identified in the form of a bund is considered, by reason of the associated removal of the ancient woodland and its position, to constitute unnecessary development in the countryside which has had unjustified and a detrimental impact on the ecological value of the area.  The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 118 and 120; and Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP50 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity), CP51 (Landscape) and criteria  ii, iv and vi of CP57 (Design and Place Shaping).

Members further resolved that enforcement action be taken to remove the existing bund and restore the land to it’s previous use as ancient woodland.