Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence received.

Apologies were received from Councillor Price and Councillor Quantrill.

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.

The procedure was explained to deputations and it was confirmed that each deputation would have 10 minutes to speak. There were three deputations in attendance at the meeting.

To receive any announcements the Chairman may wish to make.

The Chairman confirmed that there would be an update after the meeting regarding a recent Supreme Court decision related to going against officer recommendations.

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding an application for variation of conditions 4, 7, 9 to allow retention of soil screener for external separation of soil and rubble; and to allow continuation of existing concrete panel fence); and retention of existing welfare units at Ringwood.

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (Item 6 in the Minute Book) regarding variations to conditions and retention of existing welfare units at Ringwood & Fordingbridge Skip Hire in Sandleheath.

The officer introduced the item, confirming that a Site Visit had taken place by Committee towards the end of 2017. Proposals were for an increase in HGV movements from 50 vehicle movements per week to 234 per week, resulting in an increase in throughput of material from 3,225 to 16,000 tonnes per annum. Committee was shown a location plan, which highlighted the the local road network and the relationship of the site to nearby settlements, dwellings and environmental designations..

The Committee received three deputations on the item. Councillor Philip Stockton spoke as Chairman of Sandleheath Parish Council in support of the officer recommendation to refuse the application. The Parish had concerns regarding safety with the number of proposed vehicle movements as well as the risk of contamination to the nearby SINC and ancient woodland. There was also a lot of noise on site. Jerry Davies and Ben Wyatt spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr Davies spoke of how the initial permission allowed for as little as four skip lorries to enter and leave the site per day, but this was not a realistic and not feasible for the business. The increase in traffic movements was not raised as an issue by the Council until 2016 despite regular monitoring. The proposal was to now use larger vehicles which would help minimise the number of vehicle movements required. Site improvements have been looked at and the northern site access is now used as the primary access. Mr Wyatt told committee how the original conditions regarding vehicle movements had been breached between 2010 and 2016 without realising and he had always supported the local community, with 20 people being employed on the site.

            Hampshire County Councillor Edward Heron addressed Committee as the local member. Whilst Councillor Heron acknowledged that traffic in the area was an issue, he had never received a complaint about the company itself. The site was an important recycling facility and Councillor Heron proposed granting a temporary consent whilst the business looked to move to a more suitable location.

During questions of the deputations, the following was clarified:

• The applicant accepted that the breach regarding vehicle movements was not picked up on and queried.
• The original planning consent given was not appealed.
• ‘Throughput’ had been confused with vehicle movements, which had been a genuine misunderstanding.
• The site was currently operating at 300 vehicle movements per week, which was proposed to reduce to 234 using larger vehicles that could carry more.
• Many alternative sites had been looked at by the applicant but most so far were not suitable

During questions of the officer, the following points were clarified:

• Planning policy requires a special need to be demonstrated for a company to operate from a countryside site such as this. However, the operator has permission to operate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

To consider a report of the Director of Economy, Transport and Environment regarding the revisions to the County Council’s Planning Application Validation Guidance following a recent public consultation.

The Committee considered a report from the Head of Strategic Planning (Item 7 in the Minute Book) regarding revisions to the Planning Application Validation Guidance, following a consultation. The last updates were done in 2012.

It was agreed that on the second page of the guidance under ‘How to use this Guidance’, the word ‘MUST’ would also be added before ‘applicable local validation requirements’ to emphasise the importance of compliance with the requirements. Members voted on the recommendation with this minor amendment to the document.

RESOLVED:

1. The committee noted the outcomes of the public consultation.

2. The updated guidance was approved for  implementation with immediate effect

Voting:
Favour: 12 (unanimous)