Open Session:

There were eight members of the public present, most of whom gave notice that they wished to speak on specific planning applications or agenda items to be considered by the Committee.

Apologies

Prior to the commencement of the meeting, the Deputy Town Clerk reported that apologies for absence had been received from Cllr Mrs J A Terry and Cllr D E Cracknell.

Declarations of Interest

Two Members gave notice that they would be declaring interests (see minute P4545 for details).

Present:

Cllr N R G Clarke (Chairman)
Cllr N J Chard
Cllr D R Cole
Cllr M A Steele
Cllr B H Terry
Cllr Mrs A Wiseman                           

In Attendence:

Jo Stannard, Deputy Town Clerk
Harriet King, Student Adviser (for part of the meeting)
Claire Perrens, Meetings Administrator

P/4543 Minutes of Previous Meeting

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7th March 2008, having been circulated, be approved and signed as a correct record.

Agenda Item 3 was taken next for the benefit of members of the public present.

P/4545 Planning Applications

Members considered planning applications in respect of periods ending 27th February and 5th, 12th & 19th March 2008.

Cllr Steele declared a personal interest in planning application number 08/91674.

Application 08/91895 – Development of 6 Holiday Units, Upper Kingston Farm

Mr & Mrs P Wiseman were present to support their planning application proposing to use 6 units for holiday accommodation at Upper Kingston Farm, Long Lane.

Cllr Mrs Wiseman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this planning application as she is related to the applicants.

Mr Paul Wiseman commented on the application, which refers to redundant farm buildings, which it is not economic to repair for original agricultural use. There would be no material change to rooflines. The traffic / transport survey was made available by the applicants.

Mr and Mrs Wiseman commented that they have had a structural survey and that the buildings should have an improved appearance, with only roof-lights as new and no new openings for windows. The roofs would remain as slate and the buildings would be wooden clad.

Cllr Mrs Wiseman left the room, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest.

Members considered the application and the representation received. Members agreed that the application should be recommended for permission, in light of the agricultural report. It was believed that the Planning Officer’s comments on design and material change were overstated for a compact and isolated development in which the principal elevations show no significant change. The overall impact should be of substantial benefit visually, economically and socially.

RESOLVED: That the observations as set out in the individual application above and summarised in Annex ‘A’ be submitted.

P/4544 Proposed Extraction of Sand & Gravel at Plumley Wood

Members considered the planning application from Tarmac Ltd regarding the proposed extraction of sand and gravel at Plumley Wood and associated development proposals at Burnt Hill Quarry and Blashford Quarry.

There were a number of members of the public wishing to make statements on this proposal. The Chairman advised that Ringwood Town Council had no authority in this matter, as the site is outwith the Town’s area of concern. Council members can however put forward an opinion especially in relation to the potential impact of increased traffic in the area.

A detailed statement was made by Mr Robert Eyles who lives to the south of Burnt Hill Quarry. He is concerned at the proposal for a mineral washing plant at Burnt Hill, which is a conservation area, and which will have a detrimental impact on him and other residents. He referred to Ringwood Forest Development Briefing (October 2000), Clause 6.2 which states “that the provision of a processing plant at the former gravel pit site at Burnt Hill would not be acceptable, since that area is being restored for nature conservation benefit in conjunction with the New Farm gravel pit.” Mr Arnolds argued that their proposed site is not the best area and it could be sited in a less sensitive location. There seems no good and overriding technical reason why the plant is to be located at Burnt Hill.

Mr Peter Edmonds, a Harbridge Court resident, made a statement on the issue of traffic resulting from this proposal. Although Tarmac have stated that extra traffic will be minimal, residents are concerned that the proposed access point is unsuitable and will make it likely that serious or fatal road accidents will occur. Access will be via an unsuitable gravel track which is also primarily a bridleway/right of way and via an already dangerous junction. The twenty year duration of extraction implies a long-term impact on traffic in the area.

The Ringwood Forest Development Briefing (3, 3.1 g) states that “Access should be via the B3081 Ringwood-Verwood road (via a haul road through Ringwood Forest) or from the Cl02 Harbridge Drove north of Nea Farm.” And (i) “The routeing of lorries should be southward to the B3081/A3I(T). Improvements may be required to Harbridge Drove and its junction with the B3081. The impact of traffic on the B3081/A3(T) junction should be assessed: improvements may be required.”

Mr & Mrs Phaon Reid stated their support for all the comments made by the previous speakers.

RESOLVED: Following consideration of the application and the representations received, it was resolved that the Council’s response to Hampshire County Council make reference to the following concerns:

• Inappropriate siting of the washing plant at Burnt Hill, it being a conservation area
• Non compliance with the Ringwood Forest Development Briefing
• Totally unsuitable access off Harbridge Drove
• Failure to comply with legal agreements.

P/4546 New Forest National Park Authority Planning Application Form Consultation

Members considered the New Forest National Park Authority – Consultation on Proposed Local Requirements for Additional Information to accompany the New Standard Planning Application Forms.

It was noted that a standard national application form, known as 1APP, would be mandatory for all applications submitted to the National Park Authority from 6th April 2008. National requirements for information to be submitted with applications had been defined by government. However, individual Local Planning Authorities were required to supplement these with local requirements.

Members noted that, as there were approximately 25 different matrices for differing types of applications, the new proposals appeared to be more complicated. It also appeared that applicants would still be required to complete two applications in some instances, for example for works to Listed buildings, and would still be required to pay fees for two applications.

RESOLVED: That the National Park Authority be requested to ensure the new requirements were user friendly, particularly for those applicants not using agents, and that the costs to individuals be kept to a minimum.