News - Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework - Consultation Timetable - Parley Court

NEW - Monday, 9th February 2015

NEW - Monday, 9th February 2015

Parley Court Flooding Concerns

Email Reply from Councillor Ron Whittaker
9th February 2015
RE: Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework - Consultation Timetable - Parley Court

Trevor.

Know you are fully aware of all my emails and photos taken over the past 7 YEARS since the so called original consultation in 2008, what I don't intent hear you will be please to read of opening up all those sound reasons for the REJECTION OF Sand / Gravel Extraction at Paley Court, beside all the recorded flooding and as reported the site lies in flood zones 2/3 which is considered function flood plain, and it GETS WORSE YEAR BY YEAR.

My concern is really with your bullet point 3 below, where you say "there is mineral at Parley Court and it won't go away," you further say "if the site is not developed now it may be some time in the future"

To me and others it seems Dorset County Council had made its mind up even after previous consultations and evidence support the rejection of the site, including the recommendations from Bournemouth Council.

Well this is likely to be my last import into these endless matters as not seeking re-election in May, it will be over hopefully to new Councillors to engage in this debate and stop this application at any examination in public.

Councillor Ron Whittaker

Email from Trevor Badley, Minerals and Waste Planning Policy - Dorset County Council to Councillor Ron Whittaker
3rd February 2015
Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework - Consultation Timetable - Parley Court

Dear Councillor Whittaker,

Thank you for your note, which was passed to me. For future reference, I am the best person to whom to direct any queries regarding the emerging Mineral Sites Plan.

I note again your on-going frustration over the timescale, but as I'm sure you are aware this is not a planning application but a site nominated for consideration through the preparation of a Plan. There are statutory set stages that we have to go through and if we tried to shortcut the process we might find ourselves having to start all over again, with even more cost/delay for all concerned.

My colleague Mike Garrity set out further information in his e-mail to you dated 17th October 2014, and I have included the text of that e-mail at the end of this note for reference.

There are three things that I would add to Mike's comments:

1. If we as Mineral Planning Authority were to decide not to progress this site nomination through the Plan preparation process, the site owners/promoters would still be completely in their rights to promote this site directly to the Inspector when the Plan Examination is held. Our decision, whatever it may be, will not remove the possibility that this site will continue to be promoted.

2. The owner/promoter can decide to submit a planning application regarding this site at any time, whether or not it is in the Plan.

3. There is mineral at the Parley Court site and it will not go away, nor will the demand for it. In fact, as other less constrained sites are developed throughout the county attention will ever more turn to sites such as Parley Court. It is entirely likely that even if the site is not developed now, it may be at some time in the future.

Mike Garrity's note:

Whilst I can confirm that the forthcoming elections have been a consideration for us, this is not uncommon when dealing with potentially sensitive matters. Care is needed to avoid creating local election issues over site consultations, not only in relation to formal purdah periods, but also to ensure that sites are considered as objectively as possible on their planning merits. This does not prejudice the rights of local people to have their say.

However, there are other reasons which justify holding off the consultation a little longer. There have been a number of additional sites nominated to us for consideration, while other matters over future waste management options are also under review aside from the Waste Plan which could have bearing upon the viability of options we consult on. It is sensible, therefore, to hold back consultation until greater clarity over such matters exists. (Please note that we are not adding any additional consultation stages.)

I recognise your frustrations at the length of time that mineral sites have been under consideration. Much of this has been out of our hands; the previous government had instructed us to hold back on producing the mineral sites document until the core strategy was much further advanced. This accounted for a significant delay between the initial discussion paper consultation in 2008, and a point at which we could resume the plan (after submission of the Core Strategy, in 2013). During this time there was a change of government and a radical overhaul of the planning system, so it was necessary to relaunch the plan's preparation, which included our consultation between December 2013 and February 2014.

We plan to make upsome time by gathering as much of the required evidence as possible in advance of the consultation. As regards costs we now have an opportunity to run plan stages (consultations and examination) for both plans together, thereby reducing costs. It will also reduce the risk of having to add additional consultation stages (which is a greater risk if we hold the next stage prematurely before some of the waste management options and site investigations have been assessed).

We have a statutory duty to objectively consider all sites nominated to us (including Parley Court) but it is vital that local communities have the chance to consider such proposals. Hence, whilst we make every effort to minimise the costs of preparing plans, consultation exercises like that at Muscliff are important ways of keeping people informed and hearing their views. Furthermore, the local plan process requires that we consult at key stages and we have little control over this. The postponed consultation will not add any additional consultation stages and, by running concurrent plan preparation stages for both plans, we should be able to minimise costs.

We are aware of the flooding concerns and other matters surrounding Parley Court and your previous correspondence and photographs are still on our files. We also maintain regular dialogue with your officers to ensure that we are taking account of all considerations. The next consultation will be important in moving us forward to a position of identifying 'preferred' sites and, where appropriate, indicate those sites which are not intended for inclusion in the plan. This is crucial because in the interests of achieving a sound plan we must consider all sites objectively, based upon evidence and relevant assessment work, and consult on our findings. It is not appropriate for us to withdraw any site outside of this due process otherwise the plan could be deemed unsound. Whilst I appreciate that there are local concerns about Parley Court it needs to be treated in the same manner as any nominated site and assessed objectively through the normal plan process.

I hope this has been helpful...

Regards,
Trevor Badley
Minerals and Waste Planning Policy, Dorset County Council