Agenda item

Variation of condition 3 (timescale for deposit of waste materials) on 17/09988/VAR

Public Participation:

·       Sarah Lovell – spoke in objection to the application

·       Caroline Hobbs – spoke in objection to the application

·       Wilfred Mole – spoke in objection to the application

·       Kate Phillips – Applicant – spoke in support of the application

·       Jonathan Seed – spoke in support of the application

·       Matt Williams – Agent – spoke in support of the application

·       Richard Burden – Cranborne Chase AoNB – spoke in objection to the application

·       Cllr James Kettler, Longbridge Deverill Parish Council – spoke in objection to the application

Steven Sims, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be approved, for reasons detailed in the report, for the variation of condition 3 (pursuant to the timescale for the deposit of waste materials) imposed on 17/09988/VAR.

The officer advised that the key issues for consideration included, the principle of development, the impact on the character and appearance of the ANOB and available views from public vantages/footpaths, the impact on living conditions of neighbouring residents, as well as highway and ecology issues.

The Committee noted that planning permission was originally granted for agricultural buildings and the re-profiling of land for these buildings dated back to 2010 lodged under application reference W/10/02377/FUL and the deposit of waste and all earthworks were conditioned to be completed within 3 years. However, this was not long enough.

Application 17/03155/VAR approved a 5-year extension to the time allowed to re-profile the site, and even with the extension, the applicants have not completed the land re-profiling.

The current layout of the site and building design was approved under revised application reference 17/09988/VAR, which established the principle of development for the erection of livestock buildings, dung store, access track and continued re-profiling of the land – which was originally established by the granting of application W/10/02377/FUL, and members were advised that this variation application does not propose to deviate away from the previously consented re-profiled land levels or erect different buildings, but additional time is required to complete the works as set out within the submission.

The case officer explained that the application solely seeks the Council’s consideration of varying a planning condition to allow the applicant’s a longer period to re-profile the land, to provide a level platform for buildings that have consent but have not been constructed along with delivering the landscape planting to provide a landscape buffer and filter views of the development site.

Members were advised that officers consider the variation application to be acceptable and would not materially harm the amenities of local residents or result in any additional harm to the character of the AoNB, although it was accepted that the delayed landscape planting was a concern.

The officer explained that planning conditions relating to the number of vehicles allowed to enter the site and the delivery times would be re-imposed. Members were advised that there were no highway safety issues with the access or egress and no objections were raised by the Council’s highway officer. The visual impacts of the development on the character of the AoNB, living conditions of neighbouring residents, highway, ecology and drainage issues were all dealt with under the previous approved applications, and it was concluded, subject to conditions, the application should be supported.

It was noted that of the 22 comments received for the previous application 17/03155/VAR, there was only one objection and no objection from the parish councils. Any concern highlighted or harm caused by the delivery of inert waste to the site and the land re-profiling works were not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal of application W/10/02377/FUL, and were not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal of application 17/03155/VAR or the most recent 17/09988VAR application.

Members were advised that there were no objections to this current variation submission from the Council’s highways team or public protection team and there have been no significant changes in local circumstances or planning policy. The scheme proposes no changes to the design of the buildings, access or on-site business practices. Therefore, officers concluded that the proposed extension of time would not cause harm to warrant a refusal.

The report summarised the responses to the statutory consultations and the public consultation. It was noted that 88 comments of objection were received from the public consultation, and that there was a similar number of supportive third-party submissions.

In response to technical questions asked by the Committee, the officer explained that the Environment Agency were the appropriate authority to review and respond to any pollution or contamination to chalk streams.  A consultation had taken place with the EA and no breach had been identified. Members were also advised that the EA had been consulted on three occasions about this application.

Members were also advised that the buildings yet to eb constructed could only be lawfully erected once the approved land re-profiling work has been completed.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Christopher Newbury spoke in relation to a number of concerns he had regarding the application. These included the scale of the development; its visual impact upon the surrounding area as an area of outstanding natural beauty; the relationship and effects on local residents, the design, bulk, height and general appearance of the proposed development and the consequential environmental and highway impacts.

Cllr Newbury reported that he called in the application at the request of Longbridge Deverill Parish Council to give their objections the benefit of a public debate, these included the impacts of the haulage traffic, the effect on the protected landscape (AoNB) and ecology matters.  It was also noted that the approved planting and screening had not been actioned, along with concerns raised about mud on road and possible contamination.

In response to issues raised during public participation and the Unitary Member statement, the planning officer explained that the Environment Agency were the appropriate authority that issued the environmental permit for the site; and that the visual impacts of the land re-profiling and new farm buildings had the benefit of extant permission.  Members were advised that the proposed application would not deviate from the previosuly approved finished re-profiled land levels; and that the highway impacts had been fully assessed and were not considered unacceptable. The Council had approved a landscape scheme and that was an extant requirement for the applicant to complete once the land re-profiling works were complete.

So that the Committee had something to debate Cllr Christopher Newbury proposed a motion to defer the application for a member site visit. This was seconded by Cllr Suzanne Wickham.

A debate followed where some Members confirmed that they had previously visited the site which helped with their understanding of the application and comments received. Other comments made included the potential for securing a planning condition for the phasing of the landscape planting and require the applicant to bring forward some landscape planting on or near the land that is already reprofiled and with some agricultural buildings already in place and in use.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was

Resolved:

To defer consideration of the application to allow for a site visit to be arranged on a date to be agreed.

(Note: The vote for this motion was 5 for a site visit, 5 against a site visit. Therefore, the Chairman used his casting vote in favour of a member site visit.)