We are particularly angered that the developers consider it acceptable to resubmit an almost identical application so soon after it was refused by the planning committee at county hall and subsequently dismissed on appeal by the national planning inspector. Clearly they have no regard or respect for planning policy or for the wishes of residents, local businesses and elected representatives in Castle Eden.
We have reproduced our objection letter in full below. Please feel free to use it (or any part of it) when you submit your own letter of objection:
To:
Chris Shields
Senior
Planning Officer (Strategic)
Durham
County Council:
Letter
of objection from Cllr Rob Crute & Cllr
Lynn Pounder, Blackhall Division, Durham County Council in relation to:
DM/15/01841/FPA | Erection of new cremation
facility comprising a crematorium building, new access road, car parking
facilities, ancillary external areas including gardens and pond | Land To North Of Castle Eden
Brewery Castle Eden
Our first reaction upon receiving notification of this
planning application was one of extreme disappointment with Dignity plc for opting to submit a
planning application which had in effect been refused recently by the Planning
Committee at Durham County Council (DCC) and subsequently dismissed just a few
weeks ago by the Planning Inspector on appeal. It appears to us that this tactic
represents nothing other than an attempt by the applicant to gain consent
through attrition against the judgement and decision of the members of the DCC
Strategic Planning Committee, the Planning Inspectorate and against the wishes
of the people, businesses and elected representatives of Castle Eden.
We note that there is no significant difference between
this current application and the one previously submitted and we feel strongly
that the planning office at DCC ought to have exercised its powers under s70a of the Town & Country Planning Act and refused to consider this
application as it is not materially different to a previously dismissed
application.
When the previous planning application was considered by
the DCC Planning Committee in 2014 one of our main concerns related to the risk
to mourners and crematorium staff of being hit by stray golf balls from the
Castle Eden Golf Club which lies immediately adjacent to the proposed site. We
note that this concern was shared by members of the Castle Eden Parish Council,
local residents and businesses, the Golf Club itself and the Planning Inspector
who dismissed the application on appeal, partly in recognition of this
particular issue. We consider that the applicant has signally failed to fully understand
this problem and, as a result, has failed to address the concerns of the parties
mentioned above by mitigating the impact of stray golf balls.
By way of demonstration, Castle Eden Golf Club members
invited the planning case officer to witness for himself the likelihood and
real impact of golf balls regularly straying onto the proposed site. We were
both in attendance at this demonstration too and we saw first-hand the
frequency, and the potentially catastrophic impact, of stray golf balls landing
in the adjoining field (the proposed site). This location is not currently in
use of course, but if consent is given to develop the land it is plainly
obvious to us that there will be a real and serious risk of injury (or worse)
to users and of structural damage to buildings and vehicles at the site. We
challenge the applicant to prove otherwise.
In addition to our concerns about stray golf balls we
also have serious misgivings about the potential return of crime and
anti-social behaviour to the proposed access road adjacent to the site. As part
of our representations during the previous planning process we demonstrated
that persistent incidents of quite serious crime and anti-social behaviour had
been eliminated by the imposition of a Traffic Prohibition Order which
restricted the use of the access road by vehicles. It follows that rescinding
that Order would effectively facilitate the return of those crimes and incidents
of anti-social behaviour. We feel that this is unacceptable. At the time of
writing we are currently in the middle of a series of meetings with residents,
local businesses and senior police officers to assess the implications of
lifting the TRO at this location. For the purposes of this report however we feel
that the applicant has failed to adequately address our concerns and we feel
that their proposals in relation to access management are ineffective in
reducing crime or the fear of crime and disorder at this site. This is clearly
a significant point in terms of planning policy.
Our concerns about road safety and traffic generation as expressed
during the previous consultation process still stand. We regularly attend
meetings of Castle Eden Parish Council and other public events and barely a
month goes by when we don’t receive complaints from residents or local
businesses about the traffic flow and confusion of the traffic management
system at the busy Wellfield/A19 interchange immediately to the West of the
proposed site. From this local knowledge and audit of complaints received we
are convinced that increased traffic generation will have a dangerous and
unacceptable impact on an already busy highway network, particularly at peak
travel times.
We are currently collating evidence gathered from nearby
local crematoria in Hartlepool, Durham and Sunderland as we feel that the
applicant’s case for need fails to stack up. When challenged during the
previous planning process Dignity plc
failed to adequately demonstrate any real need for this facility and we believe
that they also failed to supply any tangible data to back up their claims.
Having met regularly and worked closely with the Parish
Council, residents and local businesses we are aware that they share our
concerns about the impact of this development on the landscape. In our previous
representations to the planning committee we noted that the proposed site
verges onto an Area of High Landscape Value (Castle Eden Dene) and that Castle
Eden itself is a Conservation Area. We also note that the current plans refer
to the loss of three trees and a significant section of hedgerow at the edge of
the site. Along with the potential impact of a 7.5m high flue and the
installation of new street lamps we feel that this is an unacceptable development
in a Conservation Area.
Finally we would like to draw the attention of planners
to the solid and unwavering opposition of local people to this application. As
will be noted from comments in this correspondence we have met regularly and
worked closely with members of the Parish Council, local businesses (including
the long-established Castle Eden Golf Club) and residents over many months and
we can state confidently that we have never been part of a more cohesive,
well-organised and justified opposition to a planning application in our
electoral division. Although taken by itself this level of community cohesion
and objection is not sufficient reason for the planning office or planning
committee to justify refusal, we feel strongly that public feeling must be
acknowledged as part of the planning process. In addition there are adequate
examples of material planning considerations identified in this submission to
warrant refusal of this application.
In summary we are of the opinion that the issues relating
to the certain dangers posed by stray golf balls and the potential impact of
the access road reopening (in terms of crime, fear of crime and anti-social
behaviour), along with other concerns relating to environmental, ecological and
highways issues, mean that this location is simply not safe for a development
of this nature. As such we urge planners and planning committee members to
refuse consent for this proposed development.
Cllr Rob Crute & Cllr Lynn Pounder
Blackhall Division
Durham County Council
