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 amenity – this 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 impacts – requires 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 Reserves – states 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
Tuesday 5 January 2016
