Objections 2023: Verwood Town Council
Verwood Town Council maintains its strongest objection to the proposed development for the extraction works on land at Purple Haze.
​
The Applicant references Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act and the principle that decisions should be made in accordance with the Development Plan is acknowledged. However, critically, the caveat to this is, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan is now considered aged, 10 years old and since its adoption and the Inspectors report that led to its adoption, a considerable number of material planning considerations are now in place, including important case law that changes the threshold that must be reached in decision-making for such developments that will have an impact on important protected habitats.
Significant pieces of case law, particularly from the CJEU, re-enforces that for the LPA be able to make a decision on such applications, the Appropriate Assessment to be carried out must be able to satisfactorily prove scientific certainty that harm to such internationally important habitats (in this case including Ebblake Bog, a wetland of international importance) will be avoided beyond all reasonable doubt.
​
Purple Haze, Nr. Verwood. LPA Ref: 21/10459. Site Ref: NF272
​
Consultation Response from Verwood Town Council
Verwood Town Council maintains its strongest objection to the proposed development for
the extraction works on land at Purple Haze.
The site under consideration at 72.3 hectares (178.7 acres) is a major development that will
have materially significant impact on the local environment, highway network and amenities
of the residents of Verwood, Dorset. The reduced site size is noted; however, this remains a
very modest reduction given the considerable scale of the development area.
Verwood Town Council consider that the additional information submitted at the request of the
LPA remains poorly prepared, low quality with a high degree of unsubstantiated assertions
and assumptions that does not meet the high threshold required for the LPA to have scientific
certainty that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the many and various
protected habitats.
​
Verwood Town Council supports the very thorough analysis and detailed assessment of the
East Dorset Environment Partnership (EDEP) that highlights in forensic detail the various and
numerous short comings of the EIA submissions. The area both consisting of, and surrounding
the application site, is a network of protected areas, with some being of national and
international value. The responsibility on LPA is therefore considerable in the context of
compliance with the EIA (2017) regulations.
​
The Applicant references Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act and the principle
that decisions should be made in accordance with the Development Plan is acknowledged.
However, critically, the caveat to this is, unless material planning considerations indicate
otherwise. The Development Plan is now considered aged, 10 years old and since its adoption
and the Inspectors report that led to its adoption, a considerable number of material planning
considerations are now in place, including important case law that changes the threshold that
must be reached in decision-making for such developments that will have an impact on
important protected habitats.
​
Significant pieces of case law, particularly from the CJEU, re-enforces that for the LPA be able
to make a decision on such applications, the Appropriate Assessment to be carried out must
be able to satisfactorily prove scientific certainty that harm to such internationally important
habitats (in this case including Ebblake Bog, a wetland of international importance) will be
avoided beyond all reasonable doubt.
​
CJEU judgement in the case of People Over Wind (2018) also tells us that ‘assessments must
contain complete, precise and definitive finding and conclusions removing all reasonablescientific doubt as to the effect of the proposed works on the protected site concerned’. Thedetailed analysis of the proposed development by EDEP demonstrates that an Appropriate Assessment cannot possibly be completed to prove such scientific certainty that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites.
For this reason alone, the application must surely fail.
​
In the case of Grace & Sweetman para.52 of the decision states that, ‘any positive effects of
the future creation of a new habitat, which is aimed at compensating for the loss of area and
quality of that habitat type in a protected area, are highly difficult to forecast with any degree
of certainty.’ Again, the mitigation and restoration put forward by the Applicant does not provide
for the high threshold test of certain for the reasons set out by EDEP in their submission to the
consultation.
​
The Planning Statements’ reference to Para. 11 of the NPPF (2021) and the presumption in
favour and in particular, para. (d) is not relevant as footnote X does not apply as the proposal
is not for housing.
​
No loss of any habitat, including SINC habitat, should be considered acceptable in decision-
making. s.26(2) of the EIA Regulations 2017, directs LPA’s that they ‘must not grant planning
permission …unless satisfied that the reasoned conclusion….it [being the Environmental
Statement] addresses the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment
that are likely to arise as a result of the proposed development.’
​
The critical word is ‘must’ as a clear direction to decision-makers. The evidence put forward
by EDEP shows that the revised ES submitted by the Applicant does not address the
significant effects of the proposed development on the environment.
​
The EIA does not appear to have considered the ‘do nothing’ option.
Moving on now to Highways. Verwood has a population of circa 15,000 residents. There are
only 3 principal routes out of the town. The B3081 is the heaviest used by commuters due to
the links to the major employment hubs of Bournemouth and Southampton. The road width of
3.5m in each direction is relatively narrow given the width of a HGV is circa. 2.6m (without
wing mirrors). For such a heavily used carriageway, it would expect to be in the order of 7.5m
for safe passing of vehicles and other road users.
​
The continued degrading of the section of highway running to the north of the site that will be
greatly exacerbated by the proposed development of circa.45 HGV’s per day (80 movements).
This section of road is currently in poor condition littered with potholes and delamination of the
surface. Should the application be approved, the section of B3081 to the north of the
application should be widened and upgraded prior to the commencement of any extraction
works to include new white lines etc.
​
Terminating cyclists routes through the site that are currently enjoyed when works take place
will push cyclists onto the B3081. The B3081 has a history of accidents and fatalities ( 4 in the
last 20 years) between Verwood and Ringwood that demonstrates the poor nature of this road.
This has not appeared in the TA.
​
Without prejudice - s.106 Heads of Terms we make the following observations:
• Lorry Routing - ‘reasonable endeavours’ is not precise enough to be enforceable.
Needs to be an absolute. No more than 20 HGV movements per day as Planning
Statement states 45 HGV trips per day.• Hours reduced to 09:00 - 17:00 to reduce conflict with commuting traffic into and out
of Verwood.
​
• T junction to be constructed prior to the commencement of any extraction works
​
• The highway matters should include widening and re-surfacing of the stretch of road
to the site frontage along its entirety as the road surface is failing.
​
• Monitoring measures as per s.26(1)(d) of the EIA Regulations 2017.
​
• Nature Conservation Management: any LEM Monitoring Plan should be submitted with
the application as form part of the determination of the application and not left to be a
matter to be resolved. This aspect of any permission is fundamental to the acceptability
of any scheme and the assessment of the impacts on the significance of the
development.
​
In conclusion we remain totally opposed to the extraction of minerals from the site identified
as Purple Haze in the planning allocation and request that should this matter come before the
HCC Planning Committee for consideration that Verwood Town Council be given the
opportunity to address the committee as an objector to the application.