Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence received.

Apologies were received from Councillors Mark Cooper, Rod Cooper, Roland Dibbs, Jane Frankum, Marge Harvey and Keith House.

All Members who believe they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at the meeting must declare that interest and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3 Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore all Members with a Non-Pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at the meeting should consider whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 2 of the Code, consider whether it is appropriate to leave the meeting while the matter is discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.

Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter considered at the meeting they must declare that interest at the time of the relevant debate and, having regard to the circumstances described in Part 3, Paragraph 1.5 of the County Council's Members' Code of Conduct, leave the meeting while the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 1.6 of the Code. Furthermore Members were mindful that where they believed they had a Non-Pecuniary interest in a matter being considered at the meeting they considered whether such interest should be declared, and having regard to Part 5, Paragraph 2 of the Code, considered whether it was appropriate to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed, save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with the Code.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed and agreed.

To receive any deputations notified under Standing Order 12.

It was confirmed that there were two deputations present for the meeting, which would have a maximum of 10 minutes to address the Committee.

To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding a planning application for Variation of conditions 5, 11 & 18 of planning permission 51471/003 to allow for restricted night-time activities including importation of road planings at Unit 5-6 Waterbrook Estate, (formerly referred to as Unit 7), Waterbrook Road, Alton GU34 2UD (Application No. 51471/007 Site Ref: EH156).

It was confirmed that this item had been withdrawn at the applicant’s request and would come to a future meeting.

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding a planning application for an easterly extension of the existing sand extraction area, extend the end date for quarry operations and restoration and amend the approved restoration schemes at Kingsley Quarry, Bordon. Application No. 51188/003. Ref: EH025.

Eastern extension of the existing sand extraction area, extend the end date ot quarry operations and restoration and amend the approved restoration schemes at Kingsley Quarry, Bordon, Hampshire (EIA) (No. 51188/003) (Site Ref: EH025)

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning regarding an application for an extension to the sand extraction area, and extension to the end date for quarry operations and amendments to the restoration schemes.

The Officer introduced the item and the Committee was shown aerial photographs of the site and its location. Access routes were highlighted, as well as the pipeline used to move product between the two site areas.

The constraints for the application were shown, including the South Downs National Pak (SDNP) and various water courses. The dredger used to remove mineral from the lake was shown, along with photos showing the lake used when in operation. Photos of the proposed extension area were also shown. The former railway embankment within the extension area had many trees in poor condition that would require removal, and it was proposed that more tree planting would take place as part of the application.

There were no plans to change any of the operational conditions at the site and the export of sand would continue using the main access to the site. Proposed restoration plans were also shared with the Committee.

It was confirmed that there was a 10 year requirement to extract silica sand as opposed to 7 years due to silica being a specialist mineral. Kingsley and Frith End Quarry were the only two Hampshire sites able to extract and process it.

The Committee received two deputations on this item.

Steve Lamb spoke on behalf of the applicant, emphasising the importance of the sand processed at the site, a lot of which was used by Premiership football clubs and high end sporting venues/events. The dredger used was silent with no noise implications. Kingsley had almost depleted its reserves and so it was crucial that operations started again as soon as possible. The applicant had consulted with many different partners and was looking to implement liaison meetings again with the local community.

Councillor Mark Kemp-Gee addressed Committee on behalf of the Parish Council. It was felt important that the applicant liaise and get involved with the community in order to build and maintain a positive relationship. The Parish Council did not object to the application, but wanted implications for the local community to be mitigated – predominantly lorries travelling through, which was felt to be the biggest issue to residents. There were particular concerns for parents with young children and also older people with the size of lorries and frequency they went through the village. Councillor Kemp-Gee proposed that the output of sand be restricted to 100,000 tonnes per annum and concrete crushing limited to 5,000 tonnes per annum.

During questions of deputations, the following points were clarified:

-       Kingsley was situated on a main road network and vehicles relating to the Tarmac operation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

To consider a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services regarding a claim for a public bridleway at Irongate, Ossemsley, in the parish of New Milton, which seeks approval for a Definitive Map Modification Order for the application route, either under the provisions of section 31 of the Highways Act 1981, or through a dedication at common law.

The Committee considered a report from the Director of Culture, Communities and Business Services regarding an application to record a bridleway at Irongate in New Milton.

The officer showed the Committee a location plan depicting the wider area along with an aerial photograph of the area surrounded the claimed route.

The application had been first received in 2005 and photos of the path were shown from that time. The history and motivations for the application were detailed to Committee and the complexities were explained. Members were shown elevation photos from the path along with the signage that had remained since the application was first received.

An 1871 Ordnance Survey map show the route A-F being available and more recent user evidence showed evidence of use back to the 1950’s with witness accounts being summarised.

Legal tests had been applied and a lot of horse owners are in the local area, but this did not necessarily mean that the path had been used to any extent. The legal test for Section 31 was explained to Members, along with reasons it had not been met.

The Committee received one deputation from Matthew Dale-Harris who spoke on behalf of the land owner in objection to the application. Mr Dale-Harris supported that there had been interruption in the 20 year period as confirmed by the officer. Broader area formally in a single land holding and private permissions were granted later on. Some users owned freehold land with the private easements, but those users should be discounted due to being freeholders and therefore it being a private right of way. Tenants on the freehold land could not be seen as exercising private rights, but Section 62 of Law and Property Act felt to extend leases to easements to enable access.  A number of users felt they had private right of way and should not be included in the user evidence chart.

During questions of deputations, the following points were clarified:

-       Private rights of way more often the case as opposed to subsequent public rights of way, but this could only be determined if it was apparent what the use of the path was for.

During question of officers, the following points were clarified:

-       In paragraph 65, it should read – “whilst the horse riders use the route…..exercise of private right would not contribute”.

RESOLVED:

The application was REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report

Voting:

Favour: 9 (unanimous)

After the item had been completed, Sylvia Seeliger was thanked for her work and dedication over her 22 years of service in Countryside and the Chairman and Committee wished her the very best for her retirement.