We are delighted to report that once again the members of the planning committee listened carefully to our objections and refused consent for the development. We based our opposition on a number of carefully considered and reasoned factors including a loss of residential amenity, increased traffic generation, impact on the golf club, a return of crime at the access road to the site and finally the real dangers posed by stray golf balls, particularly from the 3rd and 4th tees at the neighbouring golf club.
Members of the planning committee were persuaded by our opposition arguments and rejected the application on the grounds that the development would compromise safety for people on the site of the proposed crematorium. This is precisely the same conclusion reached by the national planning inspector when a previous, almost identical, planning application submitted by Dignity plc was dismissed on appeal last year.
This is now the third time that Dignity plc's plans for a crematorium have been rejected, twice by the strategic planning committee at county hall and once by the national planning inspector.
We sincerely hope that Dignity plc will now react in good faith and finally acknowledge the total opposition locally to their proposals and then do the decent and dignified thing and focus their attentions elsewhere, leaving Castle Eden and its residents in peace.
We have published below the arguments we used when we addressed planning committee members yesterday:
Members of this planning committee rejected an almost identical planning application to this one in April 2014.
The
reasons then were stated as:
“the development, by reason of its nature
& location, would diminish the levels of amenity that residents of Castle
Eden can reasonably expect to enjoy and would adversely affect the enjoyment of
users of the surrounding countryside”
We
struggle to see what is different now.
We
would again like to emphasise the strength of objection last time in noting
that there was absolutely no community support. This total objection remains.
This application has been described to us by a resident as a square peg in a
round hole. We also note a significant increase in risk associated with traffic
generation at this location.
Very
little has changed in this new application. The applicant has proposed an extra
barrier with an open access road during the day and has also suggested moving
the Garden of Rest to the centre of the site.
Critically
though, the problem of stray golf balls and the risk and fear of crime have not
gone away.
Remember
DCC planners did not highlight these problems, the Inspector did at
appeal. We believe there are shortfalls
& omissions in the original committee report and together we will
demonstrate these failings have been repeated.
We
do not accept there is sufficient justification to reconsider this application
as outlined in paragraphs 123/4 of the committee report.
There
is legislation to prevent aggressive developers submitting repeated
applications, trying to wear down opponents by attrition. Planners have chosen
not to use it and we think this is a mistake.
Phil
Barclay, who is on the Management Committee of Castle Eden Golf Club, and a
resident of Castle Eden, will talk in detail about the dangers posed by stray
golf balls but we would like to say a few words first about how this application
will affect the Golf Club itself.
We attended a demonstration on the golf course to get an idea of how far and
how hard golf balls can be hit from the tee boxes on the 3rd and 4th
holes.
We
were amazed at the distance golf balls can travel. There is no doubt that if a
person was hit with a golf ball struck with that ferocity it would cause
serious injury, and perhaps worse, as many previous examples will attest.
At
the demonstration, from the 4th tee box, the ball was being hit more
than 100 yards beyond the boundary of the proposed crematorium site, so if
there was a miss- hit then all buildings, car parks and public areas
would easily be in range, and thereby at risk of being hit.
We have spoken with golf club officials on several occasions and we are
all concerned that the planners show no evidence of having considered case
law affecting sports clubs and adjacent developments.
In
their objections to the planning application members of the golf club
highlighted several very relevant cases we should be learning from.
There
is a fundamental point here about allowing developments in areas where it is known
there will be consequential claims for nuisance and damages.
We’ll
briefly give two examples:
The
nearby Lintz Cricket Club is relevant in this regard. Cricket balls were
damaging houses that were allowed to be built on the boundary of the cricket
field. Lord Denning determined that “the
newcomer status of the plaintiffs was fatal to their claim and they “should never have given permission for the houses to be built”
A
case from 2014 in Hampshire is also relevant.
A house owner on a cricket club boundary lost his case, Justice
Lang ruling that the proposed development created unacceptable risks, not
merely for occupants of the house but also for the cricket club in the form of
potential legal liabilities. The planning permission was subsequently quashed.
We
feel that planners ought to reference such cases in committee reports and we
would be interested to know the county council’s legal position if an
application is allowed, in the knowledge that claims for damages are highly
likely?
We are bemused how the report can state with confidence “there remains a risk the occasional golf
ball would land in the publicly accessible areas” and there would be “an
acceptable level of safety”.
Our reading of the report is that only the architect commissioned by Dignity, who
has never even set foot on the golf course at Castle Eden, supports this line.
Yet it is not accepted by the Management Committee of Castle Eden Golf Club,
whose collective knowledge of the course must be better than that of anyone
else.
Tim
Jenkins, the golf pro at Castle Eden, Jonathan Gaunt, a golf course architect
with an extensive international CV and experience and Graeme Storm, a
professional golfer who plays on the European golf tour, all highlight the
danger of stray golf balls and the associated risk of serious injury.
We would quote from Jonathan Gaunt’s report “where
a local authority has taken professional advice (from two golf course architects)
the planning refusal, or consent, needs to make reference to this – in terms of
responsibility, should an incident occur in the future as a result of an errant
golf ball.”
It
should be noted that Mr Gaunt feels “there
is an unacceptable risk of serious injury or fatality to employees working
within the margins, or to a member of the public straying from the designated
area.”
And
finally, please note that even Dignity’s own architect concedes in his report,
as quoted in section 117 of the committee report “that of the thousands of golf balls struck every year on holes 3 and 4 it
is not possible to guarantee that one will not cross the 80m margin and land
within the public areas of the proposed crematorium.”
In
other words, they cannot guarantee that a stray golf ball will not land on
any part of the proposed site, including those accessible to the public.
We
believe that is a critical point and we would ask you to keep it foremost in your
mind when it comes to reaching a decision on this application.
