PLANNING
TVN.06331/6 OWLS LODGE - additional bund and
change of access. The Parish Council had previously objected to
this application, as it had been confusing. Mr Faulds, the applicant,
had been invited to attend. He was able to explain that the internal
road system at Owls Lodge Farm needed to be connected and to do
this he needed to construct an additional bund. Mr Faulds reassured
the Parish Council that at present traffic was directed away from
the site away from, and not through, the village. Mr Faulds explained
that to the best of his knowledge, the objection submitted by the
Parish Council was stalling the change of access, which would in
fact lessen other heavy traffic through the village.
Mr Barber stated that in his opinion this objection
appeared to be unfounded, but that the members of the Council would
discuss the matter. He stated that he would confirm the decision
and follow the process as in Standing Orders. It was suggested
that those present sign a ????? stating that the previous decision
would now be amended to NO OBJECTION, and that Test Valley Borough
Council would be informed accordingly (Annex 1).
TVN.05628/3 OWLS LODGE – relaxation of
condition number 4, ie occupation of dwelling by person solely/mainly
or last employed in agriculture. Mr Faulds explained that he had
lived in the Bungalow at this site for 12 years but had now moved
into a family house, so wanted to change the restriction to keep
his family intact. He stated that this was a technicality as his
son did not earn his income from the farm and he was not likely
to be in a position to do so in future. Mr Barber reiterated the
concerns of the Parish Council about the development of the site,
particularly were the agricultural residency condition to be removed.
Mr Faulds stressed that the new farmhouse would not be split off
and that the residency condition would be swapped from the hew property
to be imposed on the bungalow. Mr Barber stated that the PC was
keen that this condition be retained, to which Mr Neal added that
the imposition of this condition would have been automatic at the
time when the new property was built. Mr Faulds added that it was
his intention that either a Manager or his son would take up residence
in the bungalow. In a situation where he should die his son would
not be a family member; his son did not have to draw his main income
from the farm whilst he was still alive.
At this point Mr Faulds left the meeting.
It was suggested that the residency condition
could be reviewed should the situation concerning Mr Faulds’
son arise in future, and that there was no apparent need to remove
the condition at this point in time. The issue of sustainability
of the land was discussed – Mr Bourne suggested that this size
of property would require a considerable area of land to sustain
it, Mr Neal added that he understood the Parish Council’s
concerns about developing the land, but that this would be strongly
opposed by TVBC, adding that it was now very difficult to get planning
permission to build on this type of property.
A vote was taken on the matter: 3 Councillors
voted to OBJECT, 2 Councillors voted to SUPPORT, 1 Councillor abstained.
Mr Barber reiterated that permission to build
the new farmhouse on this land was given subject to the occupancy
condition, ie that the house would be tied to agricultural land,
and that in his opinion circumstances had not changed significantly.
Mr Faulds returned to the meeting. Mr Barber
explained that whilst the Parish Council were sympathetic to his
concerns, its members hoped that the situation would never arise
and that this condition was imposed for a reason when the new farmhouse
was built. OBJECTION.
Finally, Mr Neal added that, although the Parish
Council’s representation would be taken into consideration,
ultimately Test Valley Borough Council would decide the outcome
of this application.
SHOOTING SCHOOL APPLICATION UPDATE (ongoing)
– Mr Neal explained hat an independent assessor was being brought
in to assess noise trials at the shooting school. He stated that
there would be a Public Meeting on the matter to explain the noise
experts’ report, and if necessary further trials would be held.
Mr Faulds advised the Parish Council that he did not want further
noise trials to be held, that despite the fact that the area of
land had changed shape, decibel readings would not have changed.
Mr Faulds added that the noise assessors were independent and unbiased.
Cartridges used in testing had been provided by Test Valley Borough
Council and tests had been carried out according to their Code of
Practice.
Mr Woodcock asked why noise testing had not
been made public. Mr Neal explained that the day of testing is
not decided until the morning of the tests. Mr Faulds expressed
the view that if the timing of noise tests was public, the public
would listen out for it. His wish was to continue doing what he
had already been doing for the past 12 years. This application
was for permission to shoot on weekdays, for a total of 4 days during
any one year, for a maximum of 5 hours a day, for a maximum of 3
days in any one week with 2 peopl shooting at any one time. He
went on to explain that Sporting Clay Pigeon Shooting required no
planning permission, but to train for the Olympic discipline a trench
with traps fixed below ground level was required, which did require
planning permission. The term ‘Shooting School had
been used to bring peace of mind, that the establishment would not
become a commercial business and that it would be primarily for
himself and his son.
Mr Barber explained that the original application
had been approved, and then removed as a result of a court action
between protestors and TVBC, as the objectors had not been allowed
to see the results of previous noise tests. A subsequent temporary
permission had now also expired. Mr Barber added that he had recently
visited the site, and that a visit would be of benefit to dispel
disinformation. Mr Faulds agreed that a visit would be valuable,
to take place on Saturday 20th January 2001 at 10am.
The Clerk would confirm attendance.
TVN.03359/5 BUCK GARAGE – provision of additional HGV refuelling
islands and installation of underground storage tank and associated
works. NO OBJECTION
|