DUNKESWELL PARISH COUNCIL
Minutes for PUBLIC MEETING held in Dunkeswell Community Hall on Monday 31st July, 2006 at 7pm to discuss DUNKESWELL KART RACING CIRCUIT PLANNING APPLICATION 06/0319
Present:
Geoffrey Sworder (Chairman) Dunkeswell Parish Council Claudia Napier Sheldon
Parish Council
Mark Williams (Chief Executive), Kate Little (Head of Planning), John Milverton (Development Control Manager), Simon Smale (head of Environmental Health) East Devon District Council
Brian Hensley (Highways Officer) Devon County Council Highways Department
Paul Diviani (Chairman of AONB Management Group, also Portfolio Holder for the Economy EDDC), Lisa Turner (Community Planning Officer) Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership
Helen Parr (The Elected Member standing in for the Ward Member for this application)
Apologies:
1 Introduction by the Chairmen Mr Geoffrey Sworder (Chair Dunkeswell
Parish Council) and Mr
Mark Williams (Chief Executive East Devon District Council).
Mr Sworder made clear what is being applied for, which is a large building and explained that prepared questions have been given to the Officers, but there would also be an opportunity after each topic for questions from the floor.
In addition he explained that planning is a ‘plan led’ system as laid down in acts of parliament and that the officers are the advisors, the elected members are the decision makers, their decisions were based on advice given by the officers but this advice was not always followed. Mr Sworder said that this was not a democratic process, but is based on whether an application follows the policies laid down. The Parish Councils, being statutory consultees, offer advice to planners, but have no part in decision making.
Mr Williams thanked the Parish Council for arranging the evening and drew attention to the fact sheet given out to all attendees. This sheet is to allow officers to refer questions to detail of planning history; that is current permissions, applications and other site conditions. (see appendix 1).
Mr Williams commented on the value of some of these historic files in relation to the protection and value of the AONB as well as the relevance of existing wording. Most relevant to the District Council is whether a building of this size is appropriate in the AONB. However the existing use of the site does mean that there are other considerations as follows;
AONBs are second only to National Parks, however this does not mean that nothing can happen here, but that there must be further considerations. Environmental Health have been monitoring noise and have recently served an Abatement Notice. This gives a period for the owner to abate the nuisance, or appeal. The application will not increase the two stroke racing, but will increase the usage of the four stroke karts (which have few restrictions at present). Highway issues are relevant and there are other material planning considerations.
Mr Williams has read and understands the concerns raised and officers are now
trying to assess the potential implications. These reports will be checked by
Mrs Little before submission to the committee and it is down to the Elected
Members whether to follow the recommendations made by the officers.
Mr Williams said that this was in fact a democratic process and that the Planning Committee could ask the Planning Inspection Committee to inspect the site and report in then have further discussions before making a decision.
The application will be unlikely to make it to a Committee Meeting prior to the end of October as further information is still awaited. This may not be the close of the matter even if the District Council are minded to refuse the application as an applicant may still go to appeal.
2 Questions for response by EDDC representatives
Devon Structure Plans and AONB Nigel Hirst, Broadhembury
I would like to open the discussion with questions about the application of
policies whose aim is to protect Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I will
remind you that the Blackdowns national AONB designation was given despite the
existence of the brown field site.
The planners obviously know the policy well, for the benefit of the audience I need to explain that Devon County Structure plan has a policy which is designed to protect AONBs & it directly reflects national policy & policy in the SW regional assembly’s Spatial Strategy.
Devon Structure plan policy states:
In AONBs, the conservation and enhancement of their natural beauty will be given
priority over other
Considerations….development will only be provided where it would support
their conservation or
would foster social and economic well-being provided it is compatible with their
conservation.
All householders have a right to quiet enjoyment of their properties, and the council have policies and procedures to protect and preserve the right to tranquillity. Indeed as citizens, the right to peace and quiet is fundamental to the Human Rights Act. In relation to the kart track, the injury and impact of noise was recognised by the government's Inspector at the 1998 Appeal, and in order to preserve the qualities of the AONB and the living conditions of local residents, no further increase in intensity of karting activity was permitted, irrespective of any noise control measures that the club may wish to introduce. It would appear that this statutory ruling has been abandoned by the current EDDC planning management.
Under Mansell's proposals, the local community is to be bombarded with noise 7 days per week from 9am to 9pm, not just on Saturday's and Sunday's. As to the so called noise barrier, our tests have shown the noise behind the barrier is only reduced by 5 decibels, in other words it has been ineffective in reducing noise. According to the sound experts, who have visited the site on race days, the village of Sheldon and Dunkeswell regularly suffer noise nuisance, and they are prepared to testify to that effect.
Just recently, Mr Smale seems to concur, with the issue of a Noise Abatement Order against the kart club. Unfortunately we have no details as to when the infringements were recorded, where the recordings were taken, and what were the levels found. We would like to have sight of the Order.
Will the AONB be your primary consideration, or will it come second
to other matters? If not, why not?
What is the evidence that the Mansell plan will enhance and conserve the natural
beauty of the Blackdowns AONB? (ie is it consistent with CO3?)
At a national level, the ODPM Policy Statement 7 states:
Major developments should not take place in AONBs, except in exceptional circumstances
AND should be in the public interest.
Mr Hirst reminded the floor that what happens in a brownfield site still has a substantial effect on the AONB.
KL
Mrs Little stepped back to reiterate the point that is a ‘plan led’
system, and that the assessment of the policy is one part, however there were
other considerations, although these plans do not deter economic development,
they do lead the advice given.
NH
What are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ and what ‘public
interests’ are being served by developing this racetrack here? (see PPS7)
KL
Felt it would be improper for her to say whether it is or isn’t in line
with policy as yet, as the District Council are still not in possession of all
the information to make a recommendation to committee, when all evidence is
collected policies will be interpreted based on this.
MW
Assured the meeting that Mrs little would justify in her report how and why
public interests and exceptional circumstances have influenced her recommendation.
Noise – The right to quiet enjoyment and environmental impact
John Cunningham, Sheldon
Why have EDDC abandoned the Inspector’s ruling in 1998 on noise and the
intensity of racing?
Given the difficulty of controlling noise, how can the planners contemplate
acceptance of Mansell’s plans?
SS
Environmental Health have been involved with taking readings for many years,
and have tried to act impartially in dealing with an existing permission. They
have had to be mindful of ensuring their case was watertight in terms of monitoring,
legislation, and possible failure of such a notice before acting.
MW
Stressed the point that owners can do anything on their land provided it does
not constitute development, ie not a material change of use (this definition
involves an assessment of what will take place). In this instance the whole
area can be used for go karting, the District Councils understanding was that
the only widening of the track that took place was clearing of grass. The Motor
Sports Association allow 4 karts per 100mtrs of track, and 7 karts per 100mtrs
of track depending on width, this was not therefore a planning issue, but governed
under MSA rules.
Mr Peter Adams - Sheldon
Mr Glyn Thomas (EDDC Planning Officer) believed at the time of the track extension
that there would be no traffic implications and no increase in the maximum number
of racers, and therefore a longer track would lower the noise level as the karts
would be more spaced out, this was in black and white on the approval of the
last application to extend the track. It is felt that the widening was by deception
and engineered.
MW
The track was examined and the repairs were not felt to be engineered widening,
just repairs and resurfacing. Enforcement issues will be dealt with only if
a breach is deemed to have occurred.
Mr Richard Morris - Sheldon
Two stoke and four stroke karts are completely different and the permission
is for leisure karting, not two stroke racing machines. Racing of leisure karts
is actually prohibited.
A gentleman asked how a minor infringement in their parish could justify emphatic pursual when such a breach as a 25% widening of the track has not seemingly been investigated, would this be influenced by money?
JM
Said that Mr Mansell has the same rights as any householder, and the resurfacing
did not require planning consent and the numbers of karts that can be raced
is not a planning issue, but controlled by the MSA. Resurfacing does not require
planning consent. And was emphatic that widening could take place without planning
consent.
JC
Why has noise been so poorly enforced?
SS
Environmental Health have been building a case which has now resulted in an
abatement notice being served.
JC
How can EDDC ever guarantee that the track will not cause a noise nuisance?
MW
That question has already been dealt with, this application is for a building
not for kart racing, although it is being taken on board that the noise issue
is a problem and this is being taken forward separately under different legislation.
Visual intrusion and landscape impact Peter John, Dunkeswell
'The AONB derives its designation from the unique plateau and character of the
Blackdown Hills, rising above the Devon and Somerset countryside at over 800
feet. The siting of this development is on the western escarpment of the Blackdowns,
overlooking the Culm Valley, and the north Somerset coast, with Exmoor visible
from the site. The proposed building, covering 30,000 sq. ft., at a height of
10 metres with modern cladding, is entirely inconsistent and out of character
with the AONB, and because of the prominence of the site, will be visible for
miles. Whilst some tree screening is provided during summer, the building will
be visible from the south west, through to the north west, for the rest of the
year. In addition, the CAA are so concerned with the height of the building,
standing as it does at the end of one of the two runways, that they have raised
a formal objection on safety grounds. That runway provides for 40% of air traffic
at the aerodrome, and unless the planners wish to shut down the flying facilities,
the building must be rejected.
Will the Council undertake an independent Environmental Impact Assessment study and a Landscape Assessment, or will they rely on the Mansell team to provide these?
KL
Environmental Impact Assessment regulations guide large scale developments,
a screening process has been carried out and this development does not qualify
for this to be required from the applicant. Although this is not a formal requirement
all the same criteria will still be considered.
A Landscape Impact Assessment has been requested and will be judged by an EDDC expert as to whether it is a fair assessment. This will be tested and EDDC may commission their own assessment if it is felt inadequate.
PJ
The Council’s landscape architect has said that the car park has already
been raised by one metre (without permission) making cars more visible, and
has said that it should have been lowered. Is the Council going to make them
lower the car park?
KL
The car park has been raised by 300mm, the matter of quantative impact must
be considered, if this adverse impact makes a difference then it would be refused,
but if there is none then it cannot be. It has now become part of the application,
and the District Council would need to hear reasons as to why this would be
objectionable.
JM
The report stated 1mtr, but this was not the case the DC landscape architect
was wrong.
A lady voiced her complaint that the higher level has already been noticed as a visible difference, as the caravans could be seen very clearly now from their house.
MW
Thanked the lady for her input and asked that she made a formal complaint as
this was just the type of information that they needed to assess if there would
be an impact by the retrospective granting of this change in level.
A gentleman suggested that this new hard standing was sufficient for parking formula three cars, lorries and a multitude of other uses, he was concerned what the final purpose of this may be.
JC
If a landscape assessment shows significant intrusion on the landscape, what
difference will this make to the decision?
MW
Explained that as well as specific statutory jobs as a council, their part in
the AONB was important to them and landscape was indeed an important consideration.
Increase in karts racing and noise from disputed track widening
Claudia Napier, Sheldon
'There is no point at this meeting detailing the methods with which Woodbury
Park achieved their objective of building a racing circuit to international
standards of at least 8 metres wide. However, what the council should be concerned
about is the end result. The re-licensing of the track at 8 metres now permits
an increase of 30% in the numbers of karts racing, and opens the way for licensing
acceptance of Formula 3 or Formula BMW to practice, test or time trial these
incredibly noisy vehicles. We note the planners have never had a response from
Woodbury Park on exactly what their intentions are for these vehicles.
What concerns the local community is that more karts is proven to mean more noise. This abandons the statutory findings of the government inspector in 1998, and is directly contrary to the condition imposed by Sheldon Parish, that no more karts must be allowed to race when the track was extended.
Could the planners explain why they have not enforced the findings of the inspector in 1998 as a means of controlling the noise?
Why hasn’t the Council imposed enforcement in accordance with the conditions proposed by Sheldon and Dunkeswell parishes?
JM
The widening carried out was not significant enough to require planning permission
– if he widened the track by another metre would he need permission.
There was no permission granted for a track, therefore widening does not require permission, the area just has permission for a track.
Mr Peter Adams - Sheldon
In a letter responding to a complaint regarding widening of the track EDDC has
asked for evidence to be produced that widening was carried out, and if this
could be proved then there would be enforcement action?
JM
If there was evidence EDDC would consider what had been done, the legal position
was checked at the time and it was decided no permission was necessary.
CN
Mr Napier objected to parishioners being expected to investigate after a complaint
was made as Enforcement were instructed not to act, particularly as an internal
memo from the DC solicitor clearly said widening did require consent, whereas
resurfacing would not.
Mr Sworder said this would be pursued after the meeting as the discussion was no longer constructive.
NH
Referred to the fact that all EDDC pre 1974 records have been destroyed, and
so how is detail of 1971 permission being discussed?
MW
The officer was responding to a question relating to freedom of information
act in the reply being quoted from.
The use of formula 3/BMW for testing/practice/sprints Ben Mangan,
Hemyock
'Everyone must be concerned why workshop facilities are required for these vehicles,
so far from recognised racing venues. How can they be used as workshops if the
track cannot be used to test them, or practice with them? It is well known Mansell
wants to support his two sons in their racing careers through Formula BMW, and
it is inconceivable he will not try at some stage to open up the track to this
entirely new class of noise nuisance. We have established that BMW themselves
want nothing to do with this development – in other words it is an entirely
selfish desire by Mansell to provide himself with a racing practice ground for
his sons.
The Council has asked Mansell for an explanation of what his intentions are with regard to F-3 & F-BMW - but no reply has been received. What is the Council going to do about this?
Will the Council undertake to guarantee that neither F-3 nor F-BMW will be permitted to be tested, undergo time trials or raced at Dunkeswell?
MW
If the planning officer recommends approval is appropriate, a condition can
be recommended to prevent this if it is felt these activities are inappropriate.
Mr David Jonas - Dunkeswell
Commented that he felt the racing exceeded nine days per year at present; Mr
Williams responded that he had not had any evidence of racing beyond the nine
permitted days, although there are other activities other than racing which
noise may be attributed to.
BM
Woodbury park has not answered as to whether testing will be operative on the
site yet. The Rally School was also recently turned down on the grounds that
this is an AONB.
Traffic impact and absence of business plan Mark Farrell, Hemyock
The various traffic assessments put forward so far have been completely inadequate.
The wrong routes, incorrect road widths, ignorance of pinch points, non-existent
bus services, cycle paths and footpaths, and vehicular traffic calculations
pulled out of the air so as not to overly concern Highways Department. There
is also no mention of the additional HGV traffic – making deliveries,
transporting F-3 vehicles to and from the site. Although several attempts by
Mansels agent at submitting a factually correct assessment have been made I
am advised that the response which I had produced dated 17th June is not on
file for public viewing, why is this ?
The singular failing of the assessment, is that no attempt has been made to fit the business model for the project to the vehicle impact and traffic scenario. A 300 seat restaurant has to be viable in business terms, which means it has to be filled on a regular basis. Where is the business plan that shows the customer throughput that has to be achieved? The truth is Woodbury Park don't want to tell you – because the traffic through Hemyock and Dunkeswell will as a result, lead to gridlock and chaos. It is no good taking the easy way out, with conditions that can never be enforced. A realistic assessment of the proposal will show that the whole project needs large numbers of paying customers to ensure long term financial viability. The subsequent increase in Traffic through the surrounding villages is my main concern. The Blackdowns will never be the same with a development of this scale and resulting increase in traffic.
Why has the Council not insisted on seeing the Mansell business plan?
JM
The plan has now been requested and is awaited, and will be on file, the application
is not progressing until this is received. The Traffic Assessment was rejected
and a new one was supplied, this may also be the case with the Business Plan.
MW
Nothing has yet been approved, EDDC will allow as long as the applicant needs
to collate information requested. An application of this size will always overrun
the 8 weeks target which usually influences time given on smaller applications.
BH
This is now the fourth transport assessment submitted, and if the business plan
does not tie up with the traffic assessment, they will be asked to review both
together to become realistic.
Mrs Mulstroh - Dunkeswell
Said that Dunkeswell was already under significant pressure from traffic due
to existing development.
BH
As the application stands at this point in time the application before us will
not substantiate a refusal on traffic grounds.
Mr Jeff Marshall - Dunkeswell
The 1991 Highways survey said the road was already inadequate. Mr Hensley said
the problem was always deciding the definition of inadequate.
MF
Why has the Council accepted at face value the traffic estimates provided by
the applicant?
BH
Nothing has been accepted at face value, any applicant would be allowed as much
time as needed to submit the required information.
A lady asked that the officers listen to the local inhabitants and protect our landscape from applications which would have a detrimental effect on the quality of life for residents, people are being affected deeply by the increasing noise nuisance, pollution and traffic, particularly as the years have gone by and karts become louder, and faster. She asked when would they stop giving the applicant chances to resubmit his assessments until they fitted policy?
MW
There will be a point at which the DC say to the applicant is this final submission
– they will then assess the application based on the information submitted.
Parish Councils are consulted and the quality of the replies are relied upon,
this is why Parish Councillors are offered training on policy and planning.
A gentleman asked if Culmstock Parish Council will be consulted, Mr Williams asked that they made representation and also agreed that EDDC would liaise with MDDC over the proposed increase of race meetings at Smeatharpe to 24 per annum.
Dr Malcolm Lewis-Jones – Blackborough
Asked about the traffic implications of a 280 cover restaurant/bar (requiring
approximately 150 covers per day to be served in order for viability) on traffic
– is another 75 cars per day enough to trigger concern and if not how
many would be?
BH
The business plan is still awaited - a material increase in traffic would trigger
concern - 5% is considered material (that is 5% of the current 1500 –
2000 vehicles per day) presently using the road.
A lady expressed concern that money would play a part.
MW
Assured the meeting it would not.
A lady said that any further increase at all was enough to prohibit further development as the road was already inadequate and dangerous.
A gentleman asked what was different between Traffic Assessments 123&4?
BH
Traffic predictions were not significantly different between traffic assessments.
There were 60 spectator cars counted at a recent meeting on a visit by Environmental
Health.
MF
Does the Council realise that if traffic is heavier than predicted by Mansell
there will be nothing they can do about it?
BH
This point is being debated at present, and no answer is currently available.
Peak hours and current road use do not coincide in this application as peaks
vary.
MF
I put it to You, that if a child is injured or killed due to this development
and the subsequent increased level of Traffic that the responsibility will be
on your shoulders so please take this very serious point on board when considering
your recommendations to the EDDC.
Destruction of current economic activity Peter Girling, Sheldon
Whilst the council’s holder of the economic portfolio has *reported no
significant economic benefit to the community, he has failed to look at the
potential damage and negative impact on existing rural businesses: Tourist and
country pursuits such as rambling, horse riding, fishing, cycling and holiday
retreats many of which are run by farmers who are struggling to make their businesses
pay. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the constant noise, added
traffic and increased air pollution will quickly put paid to rambling, horse
riding, holiday Centres B&B etc – thus destroying the current economic
and recreational amenities of the area. On present evidence its economic impact
will be negative. (I mentioned here the problems facing all visitors and locals
during the peak holiday months in the West Country when traffic often comes
to a standstill, the example used was the A30 over Bodmin Moor and the Reverend
Wall’s experience last weekend when it took him 4.5 hrs to travel from
Cornwall for a wedding and 5.5 hrs to return to Hayle). Itinerant karters bring
their vans and tents, and add nothing to the local economy. Meanwhile, the corporate
business guests will be shipped in by car or coach to the closed restaurant
facilities at the site, which will be staffed by teams imported for the occasion
again adding nothing to the local economy for this Jersey based enterprise,
who probably pay no corporate taxes in this country anyway.
The area has a lot to lose in economic terms if this proposal is allowed to go ahead. The proposal before the EDDC makes no sense whatsoever.
What assurances can the council provide that they will undertake a proper analysis of Mansell’s business plan and its implications for the local economy? And has the council considered the damage to rural tourism that the proposed development will cause in this AONB?
PD
Explained he wears a number of hats EDDC Elected Member for Yarty Ward, EDDC
Portfolio holder economy, EDDC representative on the AONB Management Committee
and chair to that group (not however on the EDDC planning committee).
Mr Diviani stated that social, environmental and economic issues are closely related and any sensible businessman would do nothing to harm the landscape. Three million pounds investment would need substantial justification and Mr Diviani would welcome the application in East Devon, BUT NOT HERE it is too big and in the wrong place, the quiet tranquillity of the AONB needs to be respected and any planning authority in the AONB should have due regard for. This is defined under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, which as far as he knows has never been tested, but this application could be a case for a test. The BHAONB are not a statutory consultee, but the District authority do listen to their views.
Mistrust is evident, what you say may or may not have an effect, all responses are being heard and there are still points being raised that are new and have not been heard already. He assured the meeting that the Elected Members would make a decision that they felt was correct and fair.
An overwhelming case for rejection? Peter Adams, Sheldon
We all hope the council understands the depth of opposition from the Blackdown
community to this selfish and thoughtless proposal, which will forever change
the character and reputation of the Blackdowns. You, the council, are the guardians
of the National Parks and AONB's, preserving these unique national landscape
treasures for all time and future generations. It seems to us that you are strongly
in favour of the development, in spite of the very strong objections from your
partners in the AONB and the Countryside Agency, who along with the Campaign
to Protect Rural England, clearly do not believe that this is in any way a desirable
development.
There are no economic benefits to the community, there would be an increased burden of traffic on a poor road network, the appearance of the building would damage the landscape and above all the noise will continue to damage the quiet enjoyment of the AONB.
This proposal is not just about local interests; it has national ramifications, and could be very damaging not only to our AONB but would also send out a very negative signal about AONBs across the country. Please do the right thing, refuse this application.
Mr Adams quoted from Glyn Thomas’ recent correspondence with the SWRDA that this application was described as a ‘small scale development of existing use’, do you regard this as a small scale development?
KL
In the southwest, in terms of regional and sub regional development this is
not large scale, however in terms of this landscape and small village and in
an AONB, it is a significant development and must be judged as such. This is
not a new track being started on a green field site which would be an easy decision,
it needs to be considered whether this application will make the situation worse,
if so it would mean refusal.
Theoretically, this application could lead to an opportunity for the council to gain control over existing permissions, if enough benefit can be found.
If an independent arbitrator comes in and the facts point to a decision in the applicant’s favour no controls will be in place, it is also important to ensure that any recommendation is sound and cannot be tested.
A lady asked about the increase in noise as karts get louder, faster and in the light of the magnitude of the existing problem why is it even being considered?
MW
Since his meeting with Mrs Napier a Statutory Noise Nuisance Abatement Order
has been served to try and resolve the problems. The point of tonight’s
meeting is to hear the views of the residents which will be addressed and if
the right decision is refusal then the council will do just that.
Mrs Mulstroh - Dunkeswell
Environmental issues must be considered for all our futures, these have not
even been touched on, fumes and carbon though increased traffic and the karts
themselves as well as on the landscape.
A lady asked how a building of this size could be considered when she was ordered to remove a small agricultural building.
Another lady stated that at the beginning of the meeting Mr Williams had asked for input from people and he would take that away with him, she asked that the welfare, quiet and quality of life be considered as not emotional responses but real planning issues in this case.
A Mid Devon gentleman was told that no extra consideration is taken into account over a Statutory Noise Nuisance in an AONB, is this correct?
SS
This is not taken into account; a statutory nuisance is a statutory nuisance
in or out of an AONB.
Mr Michael Buck - Dunkeswell
People in Dunkeswell need to walk without a pavement between the two parts of
the village, children and push chairs, old folk included. Cars constantly speed
along this road. What will happen when this is an increased problem? What measures
will be taken to prevent injury?
Mr Sworder thanked the public and officers for coming and in summary
hoped that all points raised will be taken on board in consideration of this
application.
