We have now written to the national planning inspector with our additional comments in objection to this unwanted and unnecessary development.
We have published below our representations in full:
Cllr Rob
Crute and Cllr Lynn Pounder (Blackhall Division, Durham County Council)
Planning
appeal case number: APP/X1355/W/16/3148225
Re: Appeal
by Dignity plc against Durham County Council’s refusal to construct a
crematorium at Castle Eden
We remain resolutely
opposed to plans by Dignity plc to construct and operate a crematorium adjacent
to Castle Eden Golf Club, on land to the north of the former brewery site in
Castle Eden. In doing so we would draw the planning inspector’s attention to
the solid and overwhelming opposition of the residents, elected representatives
and businesses of the community to this proposed development.
We are firmly
of the opinion that the fundamental problems underlying this contentious and unwanted proposal have not been addressed, and cannot be addressed. There is clearly a
real risk of serious injury to mourners and staff at the crematorium, and also
of damage to property in the vicinity of the proposed development. Furthermore, we
are convinced that incidents of serious crime and anti-social behaviour will return to the community if this development is allowed to proceed.
For ease of
reference, and to avoid repetition, we refer below to the comments we made to
the planning committee at Durham County Council in February 2016:
Members of the 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. We also note a significant increase in risk
associated with traffic generation at this location.
Very little has changed in this new application. 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 (in September 2014). We believe
there are shortfalls & omissions in the original committee report and we
will demonstrate that 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.
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 offer two examples to illustrate our point:
The 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.”
Dignity plc 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.
In reiterating
our concerns as detailed above we note that members of Castle Eden Golf Club
have subsequently submitted their own representations to the planning inspector.
As their comments address in much greater detail the individual points and
concerns raised in our own objection comments we ask the planning inspector to
consider the comments made by members of the Golf Club in conjunction with our own.
Although
the risk of damage and serious injury from errant golf balls is a primary
concern for the residents and businesses of Castle Eden it should be noted that
there are other determining factors which put this proposed development completely
at odds with the wider community.
Additional concerns include those relating to:
Crime and anti-social behaviour: In 2011 emergency powers were used to
designate the road approaching the development site as a Traffic Prohibition
Order due to frequent and serious incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour.
Once barriers were put in place as part of the TPO, anti-social behaviour in
this area was effectively eliminated. Residents, with justification, fear that
any attempt to rescind the Order to allow this development would see problems of
crime and anti-social behaviour return to this location.
Crime and
anti-social behaviour in this area is of a serious nature and it has been
effectively eliminated through such measures. We do not accept the position of
Durham police that such problems will not return. There is no evidence for
their assertion and the potential danger to the local community is much too
serious to risk.
Traffic generation and road safety: The applicant has put a heavy emphasis on average attendances at funerals in the
hope of underestimating the impact of traffic on the community, and
particularly on the road network, including the busy A19 interchange and dual
carriageway to the west of the proposed site.
We feel that this is misleading
because the fully negative impact on traffic flow (and on road safety) is only
likely to be revealed in the event of a large, well-attended funeral. Funerals
of this size are not unusual in this area and we think it is obvious that these
instances are much more likely to have a detrimental effect on traffic flow and
road safety in an area already having to contend with significant traffic
problems.
We have documentary evidence from
the Police Traffic Management Officer that the volume and speed of traffic
approaching the development site from the east is a particular problem.
Members
of Castle Eden parish council, along with police officers in attendance, can
testify to the volume of complaints about traffic management at the western
approach to the development site from the aforementioned Wellfield/A19 interchange.
Any increase in traffic volume will obviously have a detrimental effect on road
safety.
We urge the planning inspector to consider
this eventuality, rather than take for granted the applicant/appellant’s statement
of average vehicle attendances in previous
reports.
Community issues: considering the factors set out
above we do not believe that there is any benefit to the community of Castle
Eden or East Durham associated with this proposed development, either in
social, economic or environmental terms.
Indeed we feel that this development, were it to be
approved, would have a seriously detrimental impact on the health and safety of
residents and visitors to the area, and also potentially place established
local businesses and facilities at risk.
We believe there is no sustainable case for a development of
this nature at this location.
Of the thirty potentially viable sites offered by the
council to the applicant/appellant, Dignity opted for the site at Castle Eden
(a location which was not even on the list of thirty supplied by Durham County
Council at Dignity plc’s request). We feel they have done this for entirely
commercial reasons and without any care or consideration for the quality of
life of residents or the viability of local businesses. Furthermore, Dignity
plc has persisted with this application in the face of steadfast and complete
opposition from the entire community, and despite it being refused twice by the
local planning authority and dismissed once already on appeal.
Our position is reinforced in light of the fact that Dignity
plc failed to even consult the local councillors, businesses and residents from
Castle Eden when their second, virtually identical, planning application was submitted
to the council.
Either Dignity plc believe the views of the community are
not worthy of consideration, or alternatively they feel that their second application
was not sufficiently different to the first to warrant public consultation
(which of course means it should never have been validated by the LPA). Either
way, we consider this a snub from the applicant which brings into question their
judgement, and in doing so, severely undermines their case for constructing and
managing a crematorium at this location.
For the reasons we have set out above, relating to the unmitigated
risk of damage and serious injury from errant golf balls, site-specific issues,
detrimental impact on road safety from increased traffic generation and the
potential return of crime and serious anti-social behaviour at this location, we
strongly urge the planning inspector to dismiss the appeal.
Cllr Rob Crute & Cllr Lynn Pounder
Blackhall Division
Durham County Council
May 2016
