Agenda item

To consider the confirming of a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (An “Article 4 Direction”) to remove ‘permitted development’ rights under Part 4, Class B (Temporary Use of Land) of Schedule 2 for the above Land as outlined in red on the location plans with the Direction at Appendix 1 to this report.

Public Participation

Hannah Mannion, on behalf of the landowners, spoke in objection to the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction.

Judy Boyt spoke in support of the confirmation of the Article 4 Direction.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager, presented a report which outlined points including the following:

That the Committee on 22 March 2018 resolved to make an immediate Article 4 Direction to remove Part 4, Class B ‘permitted development’ rights at Crookwood Farm. That decision triggered a formal consultation exercise; and now, following this, the requirement for the Committee to consider the representations arising, this prior to it confirming or otherwise the Article 4 Direction.

The report before the Committee provided a summary of the representations received, and in the light of these recommended that the Committee confirmed the Article 4 Direction. However, additional comments for the Committee to take into account were also detailed as below.

1.     The full original representation from Thrings Solicitors on behalf of the owners of Crookwood Farm together with the officer’s response to it was provided to the Committee as an agenda Supplement.  In addition to the summary of this representation in the report, the Committee was asked to take into account the following specific points:

(a)  On paragraphs 1.1-1.2 of the representation, there is no requirement in the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) for the sub-paragraphs referred to in Article 4(1) to be referred to in the Direction, and so this does not render the Direction defective;

(b)  On paragraph 1.3, the procedures for Article 4 Directions set out in the GPDO state that “…. notice of any direction made under article 4(1) of this Order must, as soon as practicable after the direction has been made, be given by the local planning authority ….”.  In this case the notice was given as soon as practicable after the direction was made back in March, this in accordance with the Order. The Thrings letter refers to Planning Practice Guidance saying that “in all cases the local planning authority must have already begun consultation processes towards the making [of] a non-immediate article 4 direction”. This is guidance and not the law as referenced from the Order itself; but in any event consultation had commenced by virtue of prior notification to interested parties of the intended consideration of the matter by the Committee in March.

(c)  On paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3, the harm that the Direction is intended to address is set out in the minutes of the original committee meeting and the officers original report.  The reasons for the immediate Direction are:

-          In view of the unsuccessful attempts to obtain a meaningful events management plan to ensure the safety of all users of the highways hereabouts, including emergency services, and to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents from noise and general disturbance; and

-          In view of the immediate impact of the events themselves on local amenity and the well-being of the area in terms of the traffic generation and the resulting implications for highway safety, and in view of the general disturbance caused by noise in an otherwise tranquil location.

The Committee came to these reasons for an immediate Direction having regard to the content of the officer’s report which set out responses from other Council services, and having regard to the public speaking and the debate during the Committee meeting itself. Taken together the Committee considered that these considerations amounted to a strong justification for an immediate Direction.  Indeed, the Committee placed great importance on these having regard to the circumstances of the use, it being a leisure use, this entirely in accordance with both Planning Practice Guidance and the NPPF.  It follows that the Committee did not act erroneously as it complied with these requirements, and what’s more will continue complying with these requirements in considering the confirming report today.

(d)  On paragraph 4 of the Thrings letter, this states that there is no evidence base that the motocross activities constitute an immediate threat to local amenity and so there has been misapplication of Article 4.  This is not agreed as the original officer’s report sets out the ‘threats’ as referred to by the highways and public protection officers, and the Committee was able to reasonably determine these as being immediate.  It follows that there was no misapplication of powers. 

2.     The second matter the Committee was reminded of following the late representations which have been circulated to them prior to the meeting, is that the Council had received a Judicial Review claim from Thrings on behalf of the landowners challenging the decision to make an immediate Article 4 Direction.  The grounds largely cover the matters detailed above and are not agreed by officers for the reasons listed. The fact that a Judicial Review has been lodged does not, and should not, prevent the Committee considering the report and confirming or otherwise the Article 4 Direction.  The therefore remained that the Committee confirms the Direction now.  Notwithstanding the Thrings second representation circulated to the Committee, it is not considered that the Committee would be acting prematurely or inappropriately in moving forward now under the circumstances..

3.     The third matter to which the Committee was made aware was the other late representations from Potterne Parish Council and Nick Irwin of MX Nationals Ltd, both of which were circulated.

Potterne’s representation supports in the strongest terms the Committee’s decision to make an immediate Article 4 Direction.

Mr Irwin’s representation stated that there are inaccuracies in the original report, although these are not clearly set out, and as far as officers were concerned there were no inaccuracies.  Certainly it could not be said that the highways officer and the public protection officers did not raise concerns, as these were clearly set out in the original committee report

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer.

Members of the public then presented their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

At the request of the Committee Andrew Guest provided further clarifications on the period of consultation for the Article 4 Direction and other matters, in response to comments from the public.

In discussion it was stated that it was not considered that there had been any changes to the situation that would lead the Committee to reconsider its position on the immediate Article 4 Declaration, and the legal advice on taking the decision was noted.

Councillor Mark Connolly moved the officer’s recommended, seconded by Councillor Stuart Dobson, and at the end of discussion it was,

Resolved:

That the Council CONFIRM the Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) to remove permitted development entitlement in Schedule 2, Part 4, Class B.

At the request of the Committee it was noted that the decision was unanimous.