Report DCC planning meeting

Here is a report of Dorset County Council's planning meeting. Thursday 5th April

1005 Meeting opened.

Apologies:
Cllr Milsted, member Woodland Trust, a prejudicial interest and
Cllr Peake predetermination

Declarations of Interest:
The Chairman Cllr Burt declared in respect of Item 4 that he had voted on the subject in the Regional Assembly, but ‘only in an advisory capacity’. This of course is irrelevant to the issue of pre-determination. (He failed to announce that he had taken part in a vote on 10th March 2006 to insert the word ‘improvement’ into Policy TR10, which vote rejected the proposition that he was supporting and voted for).

Cllr Ames declared pre-determination and left the room but not before the Chairman read out his letter which contained his support for the road in terms that were the same as if he had been allowed to speak.

Cllr Mrs Kenwood declared pre-determination in a manner that was also similar to a speech in favour of the road. She had not been present at the public meeting on March 2nd. She also then left the room.

Cllr Farrell declared that he had been absent from any meeting of W and P BC that had considered the planning application and so felt it not necessary to absent himself from Item 4.

Cllr Hall stated that he had not attended all of the public meeting but felt that he had heard sufficient to take part in this one.

Item 4.

Construction of the Weymouth Relief Road and Associated Works

The Chairman introduced the item by referring to the public consultation meeting that had been held one month previously. The public would not speak at this meeting.

1015

C. Stokes made a slide (PPT) presentation. He mentioned Objectors and displayed the CPRE-submitted, NGO-supported one on high as well as a ‘Ridgeway Railway’ submission from A. Gaunt. He did not mention the Natural England Objection. He also displayed a rebuttal document from the promoter. This has now been provided to CPRE but had not been seen prior to the meeting. Of course there was no opportunity for the public to comment on it at this meeting.

All possible plans affecting the proposal meant that the proposal was in general conformity with all the Plans composing the Development Plan, and also was supported by the Draft RSS.

The proposal was ‘coupled to’ the ‘Integrated Transport Strategy’ but he failed to point out that none of the rest of the Strategy would need to be implemented conjointly with the proposal.

The congestion on the road was then shown in a ground level photo, whereas later, when landscape impacts were shown, aerial photos were generally used.

The Highways Agency scheme at the A35 junction was presented but described as separate development, which would be needed in any event. No proof for this statement was offered.

There would be no ‘wider impact’ on the AONB – the impact was ‘local’. A slide of a silage clamp was shown in order to show that presently not all was beautiful. Impacts were demonstrated using aerial photos in which the topography was not evident – we could have been looking at gently sloping featureless terrain.
The Came road was to be closed off and the new over bridge represented a significant improvement to the SW Coast Path and was welcomed by the Ramblers Association.

A shot of the hairpin from the Bincombe Lane showed a large HGV in the middle of the photo. Members had been taken on a site visit (not minuted as a Committee meeting) at the hairpin. He commented that ‘we couldn’t hear ourselves speak’ and thus objections on grounds of tranquillity in the Bincombe Valley were misguided.

Site visits had also been made to the Icen Farm and Littlemoor area where considerable objection had been received on noise grounds. These objections had been successfully met (in his view) by the proposed erection of sound screens along the new road. The slide illustrating them showed only one or two cars on this stretch of road.

Further high aerial views were displayed of the scheme traversing the Southdown ridge, the Lorton SNCI and the Two Mile Coppice Ancient Woodland. The presentation was made throughout without a microphone and at this point the officer was barely audible as he discussed damage to these areas.

The Green way noise nuisance would be dealt with by an extra condition that would ensure that noise levels would be ‘monitored’.

An aerial view of the landfill site was shown that would be covered with the park and ride facility that represented ‘a significant improvement’.

The proposed area to be purchased to guarantee its nature conservation was shown, but no mention was made that it already was undeveloped ground.

This issue of Need was then presented. The Objections were again displayed (i.e. held in the air). Slides of Weymouth Station and buses were shown and the rhetorical question was posed ‘can rail take the freight?’ (No information on the very limited freight movements on the A354 was given and so the reason for reference to the issue is obscure).

The history of other alignments for a new road was then rehearsed. A slide summarising Objectors views did not report that West Dorset DC had qualified its statement of no objection by its reference to PPS7 and the question of need. Natural England had provided extra information that the Head of Planning would comment upon later. (In fact this never happened and the fact of NE’s Objection of 19th December remained unreported).

1050

Two Local Members were invited to speak. They spoke at length but introduced no new fact other than personal anecdote.

1110

The Chairman invited Committee Members to speak.

Cllr Nash spoke at length. He referred erroneously to the scheme being part of one total scheme for a new road to Portland. The recommendation of the West Dorset Local Plan Inspector to delete the policy reserving land for the road was ‘outrageous’ and was ‘luckily able to be ignored by WDDC’. He had wanted to see the Wessex Roundabout out-of town supermarket built and was annoyed that the Local Plan process had thwarted this. He was not impressed by pro-forma Objections (but apparently was impressed by pro-forma letters of support since he did not mention these). A member of CPRE had told him she had been ‘directed’ by the CPRE to object but ‘she would make up her own mind, thank you’. He didn’t know what Natural England ‘or whatever they are called’ was up to. He liked the ‘Ridgeway Railway’ light rail proposal submitted by Mr Gaunt and thought that this should be built in any event. He did not like the proposal to close the Came Road turn-off and hope this would be achieved ‘with a couple of bollards’ so that it could be re-opened in future. Nevertheless he proposed approval.

Cllr Farrell seconded the motion and spoke at great length. He reminisced about car journeys made in the past whereby he would travel from Portsmouth to Weymouth, only to be held up in a queue at the Ridgeway. He ’didn’t know much about CO2’. He refuted the evidence of average delays, put forward by CPRE (which produced similar evidence as the DCC’s own consultants), and gave anecdotal information of his own experience of delays. The nearby Puddletown bypass had been a ‘triumph of engineering’ and we needed more roads not fewer.

1123.
Cllr Hall spoke briefly that he too did not like the Came Road closure but would vote to approve.

1125.
Cllr Flower spoke to say that he did not share the view that pro-forma Objections had limited validity – each objection was important. Natural England appeared to be ‘sitting on the fence’. He supported the approval.

1126.
The Chairman put the matter to the vote after the officer reminded Members that he wanted to add a Condition that would ensure that noise levels at Greenway Road would be monitored. The application, together with the extra condition and S106 agreement was approved unanimously.

Meeting was adjourned at 1128