Wednesday, 6 January 2016

Hesleden pit heap removal to go ahead - despite our protests!

Some of you may already know about the disappointing outcome of yesterday’s planning committee at county hall when a decision was made on Hargreaves plc’s application to remove the pit heap at Hesleden (please see post dated Wednesday 23 December 2015 for background information and a link to the committee officer's report).


Despite our strong arguments against the proposal going ahead, the comments of the highways authority officer that the proposal would not constitute a risk to road traffic safety on the B1281 between Hesleden and Castle Eden held sway. Along with members of the public with us in support we were astounded to note that our comments and concerns relating to recent road traffic accidents in the area were disregarded simply because they didn’t show up on his RTA figures as a result of a time lag in collating records!

We made it perfectly clear yesterday that our residents and communities will suffer from unacceptable disturbance, noise and nuisance, and we remain convinced that there will be a serious accident at this location as a direct result of this planning consent. 

We sincerely hope that time will prove us wrong.

However we will be pragmatic about the outcome and we will make the most of the current position on behalf of our residents. Conditions were attached to the consent which means that the applicant will now have to make the access from Gray Avenue, Hesleden onto the B1281 safe in terms of access and visibility (please see the comments in our notes below). We will contact planning officers at county hall to insist that we have some involvement in meeting this condition as we are completely at a loss as to how this can be achieved. We understand that if the visibility splay cannot be satisfactorily improved the condition will not be met and consequently the removal of the pit heap will not be allowed to proceed.

Naturally we are extremely disappointed at the outcome of the planning application submitted by Hargreaves but we would like to thank members of our local parish councils and the residents of both Hesleden and Castle Eden for making their representations and giving their support.

For information, we have published below the notes we used in putting our objections to the planning committee yesterday. Please get in touch with us directly if you have any comments:

DM/14/00519/MIN: Hesleden pit heap removal

Objections from local members: Cllr Rob Crute & Cllr Lynn Pounder:

From the outset we would like to make it clear that we have no specific objection to the renovation of the former pit heap at Hesleden.

However, we do object in the strongest terms to the unacceptable impact its removal would have on the residents of the village and the negative impact it would have on road safety which would affect many road users from our local villages and the many visitors travelling to and from the coastal area.

We acknowledge that a number of statutory consultees have either offered no objection to the proposal or have suggested mitigation measures but, as local councillors representing local residents, we know perfectly well the real and potentially devastating impact this development could have on our residents and wider community.

We note that the development site is in an Area of High Landscape Value and lies within 1km of two Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Furthermore we note that the removal of material from this site will have an immediate and negative impact on the Conservation Area at Castle Eden as it is transported to the A19 directly through the Conservation Area.

In policy terms we base our objections on the following policies in both the Mineral Local Plan and the District of Easington Local Plan. We have disregarded the policies of the emerging County Durham Plan for reasons outlined in section 57 of the report.

M23: refers to planning proposals in Areas of High Landscape Value and states that these will only be allowed where there are no alternative sources of the material under consideration

M35: refers to the impact on particular facilities such as paths and other public rights of way and again states that such developments will not be permitted unless there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from alternative sites or sources

M36: Protecting local amenitythis policy requires the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from pollution by noise, vibration, dust and mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport are reduced to an acceptable level. We believe that this aim cannot be achieved satisfactorily in this case and that as a result residents will suffer unnecessarily from noise and nuisance for a protracted period of time

M37: Stand-off distances – this policy states that unless it can be demonstrated that the amenity of local communities can otherwise be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working, mineral development will not be permitted where the extraction or associated activities are within 250 metres of a group of 10 or more dwellings

M42: Road traffic – this policy states that mineral development will only be permitted where the traffic generated can be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable. This is one of our main objections as we feel that an increase in traffic cannot be accommodated safely on the highway

M43: Minimising traffic impactsrequires that planning conditions should be imposed, and planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover a range of matters such as routeing of traffic to and from the site, highway improvements or maintenance, prevention of the transfer of mud and dirt onto the public highway and operating hours of lorry traffic to and from the site

Policy 15: Protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and National Nature Reservesstates that development that is likely to adversely impact on a site of special scientific interest will only be approved where there is no alternative solution or the development is in the national interest

In terms of public consultation responses we note that there have been a total of 65 individual letters of objection and that these are supplemented by 2 petitions with a total of 212 signatures. Many letters of objection include material planning reasons for objection to the proposal, such as concerns about road safety and the environmental impact of the pit heap removal.

In contrast we note that there have been 34 letters of support, all written by pupils of Hesleden Primary School. This is supplemented by a petition with a total of 48 signatures. The common theme of these submissions is around public safety at the site.

We acknowledge those safety concerns but we insist that matters of trespass, safety and security at the site are the sole responsibility of the landowner and are not in themselves valid or justifiable reasons for removal of the pit heap material

Notwithstanding the total numbers of objectors and supporters we would suggest that the quality of the letters of objection far outweighs the comments of those supporting in terms of valid material planning considerations submitted.

We have met on a number of occasions with both parish councils and local objectors and we share their concerns about a number of matters, but mainly the following:

1.    Noise and nuisance: particularly for those residents in many parts of Hesleden (Gray Avenue, Front Street etc) who will be expected to put up with noise, dust and other nuisance from heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the site at a rate of 4 each hour, every hour for 12 hours per day, 5 and a half days per week for at least 20 months. We also note that the highway at Gray Avenue is prone to surface water following steady rainfall (note: partial flooding on the morning of 5 January 2016). This clearly would add to nuisance and flooding for properties at this location. We have also received contact from residents of The Factory at Castle Eden who will have to contend with the same volume of traffic for the same period. We feel that this will seriously affect the residential amenity of the residents in those two locations
2.    Traffic generation and road safety: again for the residents at the two locations above but also for all pedestrians and motorists using the B1281 which links Hesleden with Castle Eden and the A19 beyond. The B1281 itself is largely unlit, twisting and undulating. It has a long and notorious history of speeding traffic and accidents, particularly on the stretch of highway between Hesleden and Castle Eden (note: email from resident detailing 3 accidents in last few months, images attached). This obviously poses a real danger for motorists and pedestrians alike and it is quite clear that an increase in slow-moving traffic (48 HGV movements per day) will have a potentially catastrophic effect on road safety at this location. We know that the junction of Gray Avenue at Hesleden and the B1281 is very poor in terms of visibility and we consider that proposed measures will not address our concerns or those of residents (note: heavy flooding at this location on 5 January 2016). In addition, once they get on to the B1281, fully-loaded HGV’s will struggle to pick up speed on the incline as they head westward to Castle Eden and the A19. We feel that this will cause considerable problems for other vehicles as they approach the junction from Blackhall and other coastal settlements (these vehicles will be travelling at a national speed limit of up to 60mph toward a junction which is not visible from the Blackhall side). It should be noted that this is a very busy route with either very narrow paths or no paths at all. It is used by other heavy vehicles from nearby businesses and also by school buses. It is also a public service bus route and, being predominantly agricultural, the roads in this area are frequently subject to slow moving agricultural plant and this brings its own, quite obvious, road safety problems. It should also be noted that HGV’s are to use the very busy and confusing Wellfield interchange as they access the A19 at Castle Eden. Consequently we have real and serious concerns about road safety as a result of this proposed development

For the reasons outlined above we feel that the proposed development would cause serious and unacceptable upheaval, particularly for the residents of Hesleden and a considerable proportion of Castle Eden (it should be noted that the whole of Castle Eden is a conservation area which holds some resonance for a planning application of this nature). Incidents of noise and nuisance, certainly in specific locations, will have a negative impact on residential amenity which we are convinced will far outweigh any proposed community benefits of the development.

In addition we feel that the transport effects of the development, in terms of traffic generation and road safety in Hesleden and Castle Eden, and the connecting B1281 highway, will have a seriously detrimental impact on road safety for all road users and pedestrians, both local and visiting alike.

Consequently, for the reasons we have outlined here, we would strongly urge members of the planning committee to refuse consent for this proposed development.

Cllr Rob Crute & Cllr Lynn Pounder                           

Tuesday 5 January 2016