> Home > Meetings > November 30, 2009

November 30, 2009

Mayor's Parish Reception and Conference

Questions raised by Parish Councils and responses from the Borough Council

1 - Since the disastrous floods in July 2007 there has been little evidence of BDBC and or HCC having a major blitz on clearing all ditches beside roads. With the wet summer of 2008, another downpour like 2007 could have even worse consequences. What are BDBC’S intentions?

The significant majority of roadside ditches are privately owned; often by the owner of the adjacent property. It is this land owner that has a common law responsibility to maintain his/her property. Where this is not the case, it is likely that the ditch or watercourse is the responsibility of Hampshire County Council, as Highway Authority.

Where a land owner fails to maintain a ditch or watercourse and this leads to problems, both the Borough Council (as the Land Drainage Authority) and the County Council (as the Highway Authority) have permissive powers to take action.

Clearly, both Councils can only act when they become aware of a problem; therefore all Parish Councils are encouraged to report such instance, usually in the first instance to their local Highway Inspector.

Both Councils also have various civil emergency response and planning duties, which in extreme situations may extend to include responding to flooding or severe weather events. For such situations, the Borough Council retains a stock of approximately 3,500 sandbags and as necessary utilises these and other available resources in taking an active role in helping residents affected by emergency situations.

Further information about the Borough Council’s approach to flooding can be found at www.basingstoke.gov.uk/regeneration/rad/Flooding.htm

2 - What can be done to prevent lorries from mainland Europe using and sometimes completely blocking the borough’s narrow country lanes and causing significant damage to the verges and overhanging trees?

The Borough Council has limited capacity to address this issue; and there is currently little that can be done to restrict larger vehicles from using these routes. Often these larger vehicles are taking legitimate access to commercial premises which happen to be located in a rural location. To get to these locations the driver is likely to be relying on a sat-nav system.

It is known that the majority of complaints to the Department for Transport (DfT) about sat-navs relate to larger vehicles using systems designed for cars. The use of these inappropriate systems results in the larger vehicles being directed along unsuitable roads; which in turn leads to them becoming stuck or causing the damage described.

The ’sat-nav’ issue was raised in a House of Commons debate on 26 October 2006. MPs recognised that a separate type of system, with a dataset specifically for heavy/larger vehicles, is needed. Such systems are being developed, but are not yet widely available or in use. It has been recognised that ‘truck’ sat-nav systems, with a smaller market place and with more information (such as height, width and weight restrictions) might be more expensive than car systems; although it is hoped that haulage companies would find the extra expense justified in view of the benefits of fewer delayed journeys, the possibility of greater public goodwill, and the potential improvements to road safety.

One suggestion was that ‘truck’ sat-navs could be complemented by a published list of roads unsuitable for HGVs, to be maintained by the DfT. Whilst compiling and maintaining such a list would be an onerous and expensive task for the DfT, it should be noted that much of the information needed is already available to motorists on many published paper maps.

The answer is not (as many rural communities suggest) to apply a weight or width restriction on rural roads. Such controls are only usually applied where there is a physical hazard (ie a weak bridge or where properties abut or overhang a very narrow highway). Furthermore, such controls require signage at entrance and exit points; and are unlikely to be the subject of regular Police enforcement.

The County Council’s Intelligent Transport Systems Group is aware of whole this issue and is happy to receive reports of larger vehicles becoming stuck or causing damage. HCC wishes to record the scale of this problem throughout Hampshire; and in doing so be able to direct mapping companies and sat-nav system developers. Such reports should be addressed to:

Darren Stevens, Intelligent Transport Systems Group
Environment Department, Monument House, Winchester
Tel 01962 847992
Fax 01962 870301
e-mail darren.stevens@hants.gov.uk

3 - What is the point of a planning process which allows developers to either build or convert without permission or to alter approved plans safe in the knowledge that they can then agree with the officers (without consultation with neighbours ward councillors or parish councillors) and obtain retrospective planning permission?

Not all development needs planning permission. Homeowners can make changes to their property as long as they work within the 'permitted development' rules which were altered in October this year. Advice on the need for planning permission is available on the Council's website.

In the event that planning permission is required, the advice to any developer is to seek planning permission before they commence work. In the event that a development has started (either because they have misunderstood the permitted development rules or not) the need for enforcement action will have to be assessed. Because a development is a breach of planning control, it is not in itself, a reason to take enforcement action. Central Government Guidance and the Council's own adopted Planning Enforcement Statement make it clear that there would need to be a test of 'expediency' - this is to assess whether the unauthorised activities are causing harm having regard to the Development Plan policies and other material planning considerations.

The Planning Enforcement Statement (available online) is a helpful document to explain what are breaches of planning control and what the service will do in the event of a breach. The fact is that if the development would cause no harm and planning permission would be likely to be granted, then it would be unlikely that any formal enforcement action would be necessary or required.

To refer back to the question, a small alteration could be seen to be harmful - such as an extension to a building in a conservation area which would fail Local Plan Policy - or an advert is displayed which causes amenity or safety issue. It will always be a case of assessing the works against relevant policy and material considerations and applying the expediency test. We would normally advise an applicant to seek retrospective planning permission for unauthorised works and any planning application would be judged against the Development Plan and other material considerations. The fact that a development is retrospective, does not mean that a different set of tests would need to be applied - or that the developer should be penalised for the breach, no matter how frustrating this is. As each case is judged on its own merits, there is no cut off point that I can refer to in answer to the question.

Referring to alterations after the granting of planning permission, developers can make minor amendments to their approved planning application without the need for a formal submission. However any significant change would need to be dealt with by the submission of a new planning application. We could not accept amendments if:

§ The application site area differs from the original application

§ The application description differs from the original application

§ There were any relevant objections to the original proposal which would be compromised by the minor amendment

§ If an amendment increases the size of any part of the development

§ If the amendment locates any part of the development closer to a neighbour

§ If the amendment changes windows in any elevation facing a neighbour which increases overlooking in any way

§ The development moves more than 1 metre in any direction

§ Would result in a greater visual intrusion to neighbours

§ The proposal would result in changes to the external details that would materially alter the appearance of the building

In the event that the developer ignores the above and develops contrary to his planning permission an expediency test would again apply as to whether any formal planning enforcement action is required.

4 - Is there nowhere in the Tadley and Baughurst area that can be developed as a recycling/tipping area? The nearest to Tadley is Basingstoke or Newbury. With the fortnightly collection charges for green waste, and the fee for collection of white goods, people are virtually encourage to fly tip.

Hampshire County Council is responsible for providing the network of HWRC sites and has that the HWRC at Paices Hill, operated by West Berkshire Council, was permanently closed for safety reasons on 24 October 2008. In the past Hampshire County Council came to an agreement with West Berkshire to keep the site open on a limited basis to serve residents in North Hampshire, however this is no longer possible due to the site failing safety requirements. We recognise that North Hampshire remains a service gap, and therefore site searches are ongoing for possible new sites but these have not been successful to date. In the meantime however, the expanded Basingstoke HWRC and the new Andover HWRC (opening 3 December 2008) are the best alternatives for residents in your area.

Borough Council officers have had discussions with Tadley Town Council about a possible site for depositing green garden waste and will be arranging a meeting with Tadley and Baughurst to see if this can be progressed.