Yesterday Stacey and I were notified of an application seeking to extend the footpath (No24) closure order in Hesleden for a maximum period of 6 months from 29 September 2023. Long-term readers of these pages will recall that the original footpath closure order was issued several years ago as part of the works programme to remove spoil from the former pit heap in Hesleden.
However, over the years the council has received several sequential requests to extend what is meant to be a ‘temporary’ closure order. Obviously if this request is constantly renewed almost as a matter of course there’s a risk that a temporary closure order will eventually become permanent. This gives us real cause for concern, especially when the closure order is linked to the ongoing extraction of materials from the former pit heap nearby.
This is a development that has dragged on for much longer than residents were initially led to believe, bringing with it unacceptable levels of noise, dust and dirt. To make matters worse it’s been subject to persistent delays in the planning process, thereby prolonging the misery and disruption for residents in and around Hesleden and Castle Eden.
For that reason we have written to the highway network management team this morning to formally lodge our objection to this latest additional extension. I’ve reproduced our comments below in full:
Having carefully considered the implications of the extension requested in the email thread below Cllr Deinali and I wish to formally object to the proposal.
We note there have been several similar requests over the years for a 'maximum' period of 6 months, yet the requests are simply resubmitted when the time limit is up. This gives the impression to us, and the residents of Hesleden, that the process is being used as a device to extend the time allowed to remove spoil from the former pit heap in the village.
Further, we note that the planning application to extend the timescale mentioned above is expected to be put before the planning committee in September for deliberation and decision. To avoid charges of pre-determination Cllr Deinali as a member of the planning committee is obligated to reserve judgement until the time of the meeting, but for my part I will be opposing in the strongest terms any proposal to continue extraction works on site.
For those reasons I would suggest that the application to extend the temporary footpath closure (beyond September) should be refused until a decision is reached on the planning application mentioned above.
Regards,
Cllr Rob Crute (Blackhall Division)
Deputy Leader of the Labour Group
Durham County Council
We’ve been assured that our comments have been noted - whether or not they have the intended effect remains to be seen. But one thing’s for certain, the only real opportunity we’ll have to put and end to this development will come when the application is eventually put before the planning committee and as a community we can at last put our case to planning committee members.
Although we’ve been told that September is now the earliest date the hearing can be held, we’ve been down that path a number of times before. However, we’ll update residents as soon as we are notified of a planning committee date.
