Council urged to deal with local confusion and frustration over Hesleden Pit Heap enforcement notice

Throughout the past week I've posted updates from the council's planning department in response to my queries about reports of ongoing extraction and removal works at the former pit heap site in Hesleden. As things stand these works are in direct contravention of a planning enforcement notice issued to the applicant/owner earlier this week. A recap of recent developments can be found in the links here:

https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/council-to-take-enforcement-action.html

https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/enforcement-notice-served-on-pit-heap.html

https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/council-explains-implications-of.html

Apart from the continued adverse environmental impact on the community my specific concern, one shared by residents in Hesleden, is that there is no consistent approach from the council in dealing with the operator's breach of the terms of the enforcement notice. Those concerns are compounded by the confusion over which enforcement measures the council is both willing and able to take in these circumstances. 

For example, if the operator submits an appeal against either the enforcement notice or the council's refusal of the planning application the company may be able to legally continue works until the appeal is heard by the government's planning inspectorate. My understanding from guidance issued by planners is that under those circumstances there is little if anything that the council can do about it.

However, to date the operator has not submitted an appeal notice so it follows logically that the enforcement notice will come into effect - meaning that works on site must cease immediately.

All I want from the council is a clear and consistent approach to dealing with residents concerns, so I've written to the council's head of planning development this morning asking for clarity on what the council can or cannot do under the circumstances. I've also asked the council to issue a public statement explaining the current position and setting out the council's approach to taking enforcement action under any future scenario as described above. I've also asked the planning department to provide a named contact at DCC to enable residents to raise any ongoing and future concerns about this matter:

Thanks Rob

I appreciate the continued frustration felt by the residents because the site is continuing to operate.

In response to the email regarding possible appeal and timelines,  I would advise that an appeal against the enforcement notice has to be made before 27 October 2023.  An appeal against the refusal of planning permission has to be made within 6 months of the date of the issue of the refusal notice which was 11/09/2023, so by 11/03/2024.  It is likely that the operator will submit both appeals at the same time.  Appeals are made to and determined by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, entirely separate to the Council.

The site can continue to work if appeals are made and this would likely continue until the appeals are determined.  The Council could only seek to legally stop the work if it was felt it was causing the most serious level of planning harm to justify an injunction and/or a stop notice, which is not considered to be case here.

The appeals process requires information to be submitted at various dates and once we have been notified of an appeal we will be informed of those dates by the Planning Inspectorate.  The Planning Inspectorate endeavours to determine every appeal as efficiently as possible, and aims to do so in line with its performance targets. We will keep residents informed of the key dates once we receive notification of the appeal.

Details of the appeals process and the Planning Inspectorate’s performance targets can be found at Appeals - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

I'll update on developments as soon as I have a response from the service. 

Council explains the implications of the Hesleden Pit Heap enforcement notice

Yesterday I published an article confirming that an enforcement notice had been served on the operator(s) of the development at the former pit heap site in Hesleden: https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/8385517070577655169/4819760909797847625

Following reports from residents that works appeared to be continuing on site I asked the head of the planning department at county hall to clarify the full details of the enforcement notice, explain why the enforcement notice was issued against a variation of condition (VOC) from an application submitted in 2019 rather than the one refused by the planning committee on 11 September 2023 and then set out the implications for the company and the community if and when the operator submits an appeal to the government’s planning inspectorate. I've reproduced below the response in full:

I think the short answer to this is that because the most recent planning application was refused, there are no planning conditions associated with that application to be enforced.

The operator has been in breach of conditions attached to the original planning permission (as varied in 2019) since 31 January 2021 as that was the date by which the operations were required to cease.  Whilst a planning application to extend the working life of the site was being considered, we felt that it was not expedient to enforce the requirements of this permission. I was comfortable with this approach as it aligns very much with the law and advice in relation to the taking of enforcement action. However, now that that application has been refused, there is no longer any reason to hold off on enforcement action and accordingly, we have sought to enforce compliance with the existing conditions relating to timescale and restoration & aftercare details.

Whilst we could have alleged that that working was taking place outside of the scope of the existing planning permission, and served an Enforcement Notice in respect of that, the requirements of such (most importantly to cease mineral extraction immediately) would have been the same as that which we have issued.  So it was really half a dozen of one and six of the other when it came to the issue of choosing between an Enforcement Notice for mineral extraction or an Enforcement Notice for breach of conditions.

In any event, the operator is to lodge both an appeal against the refusal of the planning application for the extension and against the EN.  The planning merits to be decided by the Planning Inspectorate on the appeal against refusal of planning permission are not materially different to those which would arise on a ground (a) appeal against the Enforcement Notice so it is extremely likely that the Inspectorate would determine both appeals (against refusal of planning permission and against the Enforcement Notice) at the same time.  An appeal against the Enforcement Notice results in the suspension of the notice until disposal of the appeal and the legislation affords the applicant/operator these rights of appeal. I’m afraid there is nothing we can do on these points.

On review of the case with colleagues I am confident we are taking as robust approach as we can here within the remit of planning law and the level of harm arising.

Enforcement notice served on pit heap site owner

I received confirmation this morning from the planning department that an enforcement notice has been served on the owner/applicant of the former pit heap in Hesleden. However, I'm not at all clear about why the notice had been issued against a breach of planning conditions attached to the DM/19/02315/VOCMW application, and not the planning application that was refused by the planning committee on Monday 11 September. Either way, the applicant has been told to cease extraction of limestone, sand and combustible material from the land. I understand however that this will be subject to the applicant’s right to appeal.

I've asked the planners to explain why they’ve chosen to go down this route when we’d been led to believe that any enforcement notice would apply to the planning committee’s decision reached three weeks ago to refuse the latest application (DM/22/00010/MIN). I'll update with more information as soon as I receive it. In the meantime I've reproduced below the enforcement notice issued yesterday, including full implications:

A planning Enforcement Notice has been issued by DCC today, 25 September 2023, in respect of breach of conditions on planning permission DM/19/02315/VOCMW.

The Notice will take effect on 27 October 2023.  There is a legal requirement that the date it is effective from must be at least 28 days from the date the notice was issued.  A few extra days are added for delivery via the postal service.

The Notice requires the recipient to:

1.    Permanently cease the extraction of limestone, sand and combustible material from the Land and in accordance with Condition 4 of Planning Permission DM/19/02315/VOCMW.  The time for compliance is within one day from the date on which the notice takes effect.

2.    Submit the restoration and aftercare schemes for the Land in accordance with Condition 3 of Planning Permission DM/19/02315/VOCMW.  The time for compliance is within 3 months from the date on which the notice takes effect.

The Notice will be posted via Royal Mail to those parties with an interest in

the land. These being:

• B&S RECYCLING LIMITED
• DRS LAND REGENERATION LTD
• Haven Power Limited

 The Notice has also been emailed today to:

• The planning agent
• The leasehold owner/site operator. 

Operations can continue at the applicant’s risk at the site until the Enforcement Notice comes into effect on 27 October 2023.  However, prior to the Notice coming into effect those served have the right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.  If an appeal is made then this has the effect of suspending the Notice and operations could continue until the appeal is determined.

The applicant also has the right of appeal against the refusal of planning permission on 11 September 2023.  The time period for making an appeal is 6 months.

It may be the case that the applicant submits appeals in respect of the Enforcement Notice and refusal of planning permission and these are heard at the same time by the Planning Inspectorate.  Should appeals be made then again operations can continue at the applicant’s risk until determination by the Planning Inspectorate.

With regard to vehicle movements,  Planning Permission No. DM/19/02315/VOCMW permits 44 (22 in and 22 out) per operational day Monday to Friday and 22 (11 in and 11 out) on Saturdays.  The refused planning application proposed 20 (10 in and 10 out) per operational day Monday to Friday and 4 (2 in and 2 out) on Saturdays.  It is likely that the operator would continue to work up to the higher number of vehicle movements.

There has been a query regarding Footpath No.24 (Monk Hesleden Parish).  This footpath is subject to a Temporary Closure Order and the Secretary of State has given approval for a further 6 month period of closure.   

Landlord licensing scheme to focus on Blackhall

I've published several articles on these pages over the past few years describing how the council's Selective Licensing Scheme (SLS) can have a positive impact in our villages by bringing much needed regulation and accountability to the private-rented housing sector - but only if it's established quickly and managed effectively. The SLS is a time-limited scheme, and every day counts if it's to work for the benefit of our communities.

Background details can be found in this link: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/06/ongoing-private-sector-housing-issues.html

From the feedback I've received since the idea of an SLS was first mentioned residents broadly welcome the introduction of the scheme in our area, but they're frustrated that it doesn't seem to be having a discernible impact since it was first rolled-out. That reflects my own concerns that the council isn't acting quickly enough to establish the programme.

I've continued to raise residents' concerns with the council about how the slow the programme is being rolled-out, especially in places in like Blackhall and the rest of East Durham where it can make a significant difference to the quality of housing in our villages and towns, and bring improvements to the streets and surrounding area.

Last month I raised these concerns again in an overview and scrutiny meeting held in county hall, where I told officers in the housing team that the general public were fully behind a licensing programme that would hold (mainly absent) private-sector landlords responsible for the condition of their properties and accountable for the behaviour of their residents. However, I added that those same residents were concerned that less than one-third of the landlords across the county had been registered with the SLS since its introduction in April last year.

Thankfully the council appears to be reacting in the way I would expect, because earlier this month I received confirmation that the SLS team will be focusing on signing-up landlords in the Blackhall area for six weeks from next Monday, 25 September 2023. I've posted full details below:

We are moving to Blackhall as the next area of the  delivery plan from 25^th September 2023 for six weeks. The main focus will be Blackhall Colliery North but also taking in the wider areas of Blackhall Rocks North, Blackhall Rocks South.

We will be focusing on ensuring any properties without licenses are so licensed and will be contacting  owners of unlicensed properties. In addition we will be carrying out targeted work based on intelligence around landlords and properties of concern. Could you let me know if you have any addresses, landlords or residents of private rented properties that are problematic.

Should you require any further information or wish to discuss further please do not hesitate to get in touch and I will respond upon my return. Alternatively please contact Housing Team Leader.

I'll update on progress with the scheme, as soon as I have more information from the council.

Council to take enforcement action against pit heap developer

Last week I published an article on these pages defining the ‘risk’ the developer would be undertaking if extraction works were to continue at the former pit heap in Hesleden in contravention of the council’s decision on Monday 11 September to refuse planning consent for the site: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/developer-at-risk-if-extraction-works.html

In subsequent posts I’ve set out details of a scheduled joint meeting between planning officers and the legal team to decide how the council will react to reports we’ve raised on behalf of residents that the developer appeared to be continuing to extract and remove minerals from the site without the benefit of planning consent: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/on-monday-last-week-councils-county.html

I’ve received confirmation from the planning team today that the council has decided to proceed with enforcement action against the developer to ensure that they comply with the ruling of the county planning committee. 

Details are unknown at the moment so I’ve asked the planning officers to let me know about the form of enforcement action available to the council, and I’ll update on progress as soon as I have more information.

Hesleden Pit Heap: Confirmation of the council’s decision to refuse planning permission

On Monday last week the council’s County Planning Committee refused a planning application seeking consent for a 10-year extension of works on site at Hesleden Pit Heap. Full details can be found in the article published on these pages last week: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-community-stands-together-as.html

As a follow up the council recently published a formal notification confirming its decision:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

11th September 2023

Continued restoration of colliery spoil heap, including extraction, processing and export of combustible material, limestone and sand for a period of 10 years

Former Colliery Spoil Heap Hesleden TS27 4PN

B & S Recycling

The above application received on 11 February 2022 in respect of the above development was considered by the Council where it was decided that permission should be refused. I enclose the relevant notice of decision.

As you can see from details published in the link below, the original planning application had asked specifically for consent to continue ‘extraction, processing and export of combustible material, limestone and sand’, so now that consent has been refused it stands to reason that the applicant has no legal right to continue works on site.

With that in mind I think it’s incumbent on the applicant to cease works immediately, and it follows that the council is now obliged to use enforcement measures wherever necessary to ensure that the applicant complies with the council’s decision. That’s my personal view, and I’ve written to officers in the planning department several times over the past week or so to let them know exactly what I expect to happen next.

To avoid confusion about who does what in these circumstances, it’s perhaps useful to point out that there’s a clear distinction between the roles of paid officials of the council and local elected members. For example, all operational and enforcement issues are for officers in the planning and legal teams to resolve, while as elected members our role is to maintain contact with council officers, represent the best interests of our communities and raise any ongoing concerns on behalf of our residents.

As mentioned in previous posts, the council’s planning officers are scheduled to meet with legal representatives this week to formalise their response to residents’ reports that works appear to be continuing on site.

I’ll update on developments as soon as I have more information from the council, but in the meantime I’ve published in the link below full details of the council’s notification.

As ever, if you have any comments or queries about this issue please get in touch with me direct at: rob.crute@durham.gov.uk

https://publicaccess.durham.gov.uk/online-applications/files/DC315F3644A45DB51ECF6CE00DB69D3A/pdf/DM_22_00010_MIN-REFUSAL_MIN-3442904.pdf

Pass Wide & Slow: Promoting road safety for horses and their riders

Although the weather was a bit dull and grey it was my pleasure to go along to the stables next to Hurlevent on Fillpoke Lane this morning to show my support for the local Pass Wide & Slow campaign - an annual event that promotes the safety of horse riders on our roads. 

This morning’s event was one of many held across the country over the weekend with the aim of highlighting the dangers horse riders face when drivers pass riders at speed or fail to allow sufficient space when passing horses on the road. The main aims of the campaign are to encourage drivers to reduce their speed to a maximum 10mph when approaching horses and their riders, and allow a gap of at least 2m when passing by. Full details can be found on the Pass Wide & Slow website in this link: https://passwideandslow1.wixsite.com/website

The press also came along this morning so there will be detailed coverage of the local Pass Wide and Slow campaign in the free and online newspaper East Durham Life next week. In the meantime please take a look at the campaign material in the link above and think about how you can play your part in helping to promote better road safety for horse riders.

Developer ‘at risk’ if extraction works continue at Hesleden Pit Heap

Earlier this week I reported that the county planning committee in county hall had refused planning consent for extraction works to continue on the former pit heap site in Hesleden. The implication in the planning report put before committee members was clear that the only operational option open to the applicant at this stage was to begin works to restore the site, with those works to be completed within 12 months. 

Full details can be found in the articles published on Monday: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-community-stands-together-as.html

Since then we’ve been contacted by residents reporting that extraction and removal works appear to be continuing. From details confirmed in the planning report this is without the benefit of planning permission.

When we reported these incidents to the planning office we were told that development continues ‘at the developer’s risk.’ In return we’ve asked the planning case officer to confirm precisely what ‘at risk’ means, and what the implications will be in planning terms if development or extraction works continue on site. Background details can be found here: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-pit-heap-councils-legal-team.html

In addition to the response I received earlier this week we’ve now received further clarification from the planning office. I’ll update on progress after the planning office confirms legal opinion next week:

Dear Cllrs

Thank you for your e-mails.  I understand that there is some confusion with what is meant by ‘at their own risk’ when we are describing the current operations at the Hesleden Pit Heap.

In general, if development is carried out without the benefit of planning permission then there is a ‘risk’ that the LPA will pursue enforcement action.  Such enforcement action may simply require development to cease, or it may be more prescriptive to address any harm that has occurred.

With the case of the Hesleden site the operator is continuing ‘at risk’ because they don’t know what enforcement action may be taken yet and the continuation of works at the site could make the restoration requirements more costly or difficult.

However, as previously stated, a decision has not yet been made in relation to enforcement and we are meeting with legal next week to discuss next steps.

I trust this is of assistance.

Hesleden Pit Heap: Council's legal team to 'consider next steps' over potential breach of planning decision

I published an article on these pages earlier this week confirming that the planning application to extend extraction works on site at the former pit heap in Hesleden had been rejected by members of the county planning committee on Monday morning. Please follow this link for full details: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-community-stands-together-as.html

Since then I've received reports from residents that works appear to be continuing on site, which in my opinion would be in direct contradiction to the decision reached by the planning committee. As far as I'm concerned the developer does not have planning consent to continue extraction works on site. 

Understandably residents are concerned about what happens next so I've contacted the planning case officer with a request that they confirm the current legal position. My email is reproduced below, with the case officer's response directly beneath it:

Morning *****,

I’ve received reports from residents in Gray Avenue this morning that loaded wagons continue to leave the site. My understanding was that now the application has been refused all extraction works would cease with immediate effect, and given the concerns expressed by both residents and committee members at the county planning committee meeting I would expect the applicant to comply. 

For the same reason I would also expect that extraction and removal works would be prohibited in the interim period if the applicant decides to appeal yesterday’s decision.

Could you confirm please that the removal of minerals/combustible material from site from this point on will be solely for the purpose of regrading the site, with restoration works to be completed within a maximum 12-month period.

In response:

Dear Cllr Crute

Thank you for your e-mail.  Following the Committee decision on Monday, officers are aware that the expectation would be for extraction to cease and restoration works to commence, or for all works to cease until the appellant has decided to appeal or not.  The decision notice was issued on Monday and the applicant has 6 months to make an appeal.

The site is likely to continue working in the interim and I understand that working has been taking place today and yesterday at the operator’s risk.  We are meeting with the Councils solicitor next week to consider the next steps and further updates will be available in due course.

I trust this is of assistance.

Regards

Given reports from residents over the past day or so it appears that the applicant has no intention of complying with the decision made by planning committee members on Monday morning.

I note from the response published above that planning officers are to meet with the council's solicitors to 'consider next steps'. Given the concerns we set out at the planning committee meeting on Monday morning on behalf of residents, I think the next steps taken by the council should be to physically block access to the site to prevent any further illegal extraction of minerals. In addition, the operator should be served with an injunction prohibiting any extraction works that would contravene planning regulations. Unfortunately those measures are beyond my influence and will be decided by the legal team next week. 

I'll continue to press the planning office to properly monitor developments on site to ensure that the operator is not acting against the council's decision to prohibit further extraction works. 

In the meantime if you have any comments or concerns about this matter please contact me direct: rob.crute@durham.gov.uk

Update on measures to address parking issues at Crimdon

At the end of June this year I was contacted by a resident concerned about the impact of unregulated parking at some locations in Crimdon.

In response I contacted the traffic engineer at county hall to ask what measures could be introduced to mitigate the impact of parking, particularly in certain areas along the sea front. I was told at the time that the council intended to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order which would have the effect of limiting where people could, and could not, legally park in defined areas.

Following further concerns expressed recently I asked the traffic engineer for an update on progress, and I have received the following response by return: 

Good morning Cllr,

We had initially started consultation on the proposed TRO for the car park however the Environment/Heritage Coast section(s) later flagged up concerns with planning conditions which were imposed as part of the development work for the café’s introduction. There were concerns these conditions restricted the capacity of the car park at the detriment of our initial proposals to which we have been locked in discussions since, in a bid to find a solution that satisfied all parties involved.

Recently we have revised the proposals which we now believe satisfy all concerns however we are awaiting confirmation and approval from the coastal team before we can progress further.

Unfortunately we still have all of the required consultation left to undertake before any measures can be introduced on-site, I’ve broken down these stages below for you as a guide to approximate timescales: 

• Statutory Consultation with emergency services, transport service providers, elected members etc. – 3 weeks
• A ballot exercise with properties considered to be directly affected. (the café, the holiday park, pony world & the bungalows)  – 3 weeks
• A formal advert where the proposals are advertised on-site, online and in the local press for the wider public to comment. – 3 weeks

Ideally we would like these consultations to run back to back over 9-weeks and whilst we have full control for the first two stages, there will inevitably be a slight delay for the third stage when our legal department take over to draft the order.

Best case scenario is that we don’t get any objections and we can then arrange for the physical work to be ordered (signs and road markings) which we would estimate at 4-6 weeks at which point the TRO would be sealed and enforcement could begin.

Worst case scenario is that we do receive objections which could delay a stage of consultation but in the event we also can’t then resolve an objection we would need to refer the TRO to our Highway’s Committee where the proposals and objections are considered before a panel of elected members. Committees for this type of Traffic Order run every 2 months with the next available dates schedules for February and April. If then approved we would still need to allow 4-6 weeks after that for the physical work.

White advisory ‘access protection/keep clear’ markings were introduced here as an immediate deterrent in strategic locations around the car park however it is clear these markings haven’t had the desired effect and are currently being abused by a number of vehicles at busy times.

We had planned to have the formal measures in place for the busy summer months however the unforeseen delays prevented us from meeting this timeframe.

Although we do hope these problems ease as we approach the end of the summer period, without the presence of formal restrictions our authority is limited and therefore we have advised the coastal team that, in the meantime, any obstruction issues should be reported to Durham Constabulary via their ‘101’ contact number who have the authority to enforce these offences without the presence of formal restrictions. 

Durham County Council REJECTS Hesleden pit heap planning application

Well, it was an arduous, long drawn-out campaign - 10 years to be precise** but this morning we got our just rewards when we managed to persuade members of Durham County Council’s planning committee to reject a proposal which would have extended works on the Hesleden Pit Heap site for another 10 years.

Together we stood behind a long-running campaign united in opposition to an unjust planning application that would have brought another decade of dust, dirt and upheaval to the village of Hesleden. 

The concerns we raised with committee members ranged from problems with dust emissions, noise created by dozens of wagons thundering through Hesleden and Castle Eden and all points in between, road traffic safety caused by those same wagons and a general loss of amenity to our local settlements - all issues in direct contravention to planning policy contained in the Local Plan and other policy documents.

Ultimately committee members were persuaded by the quality of the arguments put forward by speakers on behalf of our community campaign. If committee members were to refuse consent for the application however we had to give them a valid reason - a material planning consideration. In the end we gave them several - but the one that covered all bases was Planning Policy 31 which states that 'development will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impact on health, living or working conditions'. In addition it holds that 'development will not be permitted where inappropriate odours, noise and vibration cannot be mitigated against.'

We'd already shown the committee that development of the site since 2017 had had an adverse and unacceptable impact on the community, so that was the policy members chose to refuse the planning application.

In doing so, committee members suggested that any exposed combustible material on site should be left in the ground, and in order to prevent any future incidents of spontaneous combustion it was further suggested that any remaining exposed minerals should be covered with clay from the site, which would have the effect of eliminating the risk of random fires on the site. It was felt that this could be achieved cheaply and quickly, in direct contradiction to the developer’s claims that works would have to continue for another 10 years to prepare the site for reclamation.

It's not possible at this stage to know what will happen next. The applicant has the option to appeal against the committee's decision, but it should be noted that if that happens the council's planning officers are compelled to argue any appeal case on the basis of the committee's rejection of the case officer's report. In other words, the council must defend the committee's agreed position, which in effect means it stands on the side of the community.

I've contacted the council's planning office to ask them to confirm the status of the current site works. Given the objections of the planning committee members I would have thought that works in their current form would come to an end, but the planning report suggests that site restoration works should begin immediately and last for no longer than 12 months. We need to know exactly what this entails and we need clarification from the planning department on what happens next.

I'll update on developments as soon as I have more information, but in the meantime members of the community should give themselves a collective pat on the back for the campaign we've run for over 10 years. By standing together, united behind a common cause, we've achieved a significant victory against all the odds. It's vital now that we stick together and maintain that unity for whatever comes next.

A broadcast of the committee proceedings can be found in the following link. But be warned, the agenda item on the Hesleden planning application alone took almost 2 hours to decide! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHAcHXVfnMw

**A timeline of our campaign, from December 2013 onwards, can be found in this link: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2022/03/hesleden-pit-heap-timeline-of.html

Community campaign group stands together to oppose the Hesleden Pit Heap development

There was a fantastic turnout from residents this afternoon when county planning committee members came to Hesleden to see for themselves the impact of the ongoing works to remove the pit heap. 

The message was loud and clear: No more filth, dust and dirt in our village. Say no to 10 more years! 

The planning committee meets on Monday morning when we’ll speak together on behalf of the campaign group in urging committee members to REJECT this unjust proposal. 

We met yesterday to coordinate our response to the committee report and to agree how best we can persuade committee members to see the proposal from the viewpoint of long-suffering residents. With arguments based on loss of amenity, public health concerns and the impact on the environment amongst others, we feel we have a strong case to put to committee members next week. Only time will tell….

Updates to follow on Monday.

Monthly Update on Local Issues - August 2023

As regular readers of these pages will know I publish monthly updates on recent developments and progress with local issues, just to keep residents informed about what's currently going on in their neighbourhoods. 

In case you missed them first time around I've brought together a range of recent articles containing just a few of the local issues I've been working on over the past few weeks in the community and in county hall.

Please follow the individual links below for full details. And as ever, if you have any issues in your community that you want me to know about please contact me at: rob.crute@durham.gov.uk

Tackling anti social behaviour & crime in the community: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/08/next-steps-in-tackling-community.html

Blackhall PACT meeting, August update: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/08/update-from-monthly-blackhall-pact.html

Police safety camera survey: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/08/police-safety-camera-survey-at_19.html

Government funding cuts put essential public services at risk: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/08/basic-services-are-at-risk-as.html

Anti social behaviour & crime initiative established: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/08/new-anti-social-behaviour-crime.html

Highways defects repaired in Park Avenue: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/highways-defects-repaired-in-park-avenue.html

Committee date set for Hesleden Pit Heap planning application: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-pit-heap-planning-committee.html

Planning committee site visit in Hesleden: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/planning-committee-members-to-visit.html

Positive outcome for residents in Station Road, Blackhall Rocks: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/positive-outcome-for-residents-in.html

Highways defects repaired in Park Avenue

Following a resident’s request for an update on highway repairs in Park Avenue, Blackhall Colliery I contacted the highways team to check on progress.

By return I received confirmation that all defects had been addressed some time ago. I’ve published the response received in full below:

Please see below an email and photographs which the team has provided about the road repairs in Park Avenue.

All actionable defects have been repaired. See attached photo. The lads have been back on numerous occasions to do the potholes.

The Highways Team consider the reported works to be complete. If you believe that further works are needed, please let me know and I will log these on the CRM.

If you are aware of any additional defects at this location or any other please contact me (preferably with images of the defects) and I’ll forward them to the highways section for inspection.

Positive outcome for residents in Station Road

A couple of weeks ago I reported on residents’ concerns about a letter they’d received from a highways engineer demanding that they install pavement crossing points (dropped kerbs) outside their properties in Station Road, Blackhall Rocks at their own expense. 

Understandably residents were alarmed, both at the tone of the letter and also the demand that they should fork out for works that weren’t their reponsibility. Consequently they contacted me to see what I could do to help put things right. 

Full background details can be found in the article I published on 22 August: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/08/unacceptable-response-to-footpath.html

Since then I've been in touch with the highways engineering team to ask them to find a way round this issue, and as a result I met on site this morning with the team manager so that I could put the case on behalf of residents and also to enable him to see for himself what the issue was all about from a resident’s perspective.

By way of an update, the highways manager has agreed that because the properties on the north side of Station Road are largely owned and maintained by Believe Housing the company themselves should be responsible for installing dropped kerbs, rather than their tenants having to install them at their own expense.

The council has now agreed to contact officers at Believe Housing to arrange for any necessary works to be carried out by the company. I've also asked the highways team to write again to individual tenants in Station Road to correct their previous approach and assure residents that they will not be held financially responsible for installing dropped kerbs outside their homes.

Residents should receive those letters shortly, but in the meantime if anyone has concerns about any of the issues raised in this post please get in touch with me at: rob.crute@durham.gov.uk

Planning committee members to visit the site of the Hesleden Pit Heap development

I've received notification that members of the county planning committee will be visiting the Hesleden Pit Heap on the afternoon of Friday 8 September. This is to enable committee members to see for themselves the impact of the development in advance of the planning committee meeting scheduled to be held at 9.30am on Monday 11 September in County Hall: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/09/hesleden-pit-heap-planning-committee.html

Incidentally, there are rumours circulating around the community that the planning application has already been decided. Please ignore the voices of those who want you to believe that the fight is over - they're representing the wishes of the company bosses, not the best interests of our community. They want you to give up hope and stand down - and at this stage we can't afford to let them get their way.

Undoubtedly the odds are stacked against us, that always seems to be the case, however we can’t give up the fight now after a whole decade of hard slog. We have a convincing argument to put to the planning committee on 11 September. But the only chance we have of winning is if the whole community stands together behind a common cause. 

Ignore the doubters and defeatists who want you to believe that this is a done deal. We've been fighting this battle for 10 years now and we mustn't fall into their trap at the last minute. If we don't continue to fight on the company will get their way and the community will pay the price for years to come.

I'll update on the site visit as soon as I have more information.

Hesleden Pit Heap - Planning Committee Date Confirmed

Despite baseless rumours circulating in the community lately that the planning application on the former colliery spoil heap in Hesleden had already been given the go ahead, I’ve just received confirmation from the planning department that the application will be put before the County Planning Committee on Monday 11 September 2023 at 9.30am for a decision.

Stacey and I will make arrangements with the parish council clerk and proposed community speakers to meet up next week to discuss the most effective way to address the committee and oppose the planning application.

I’ll update on progress in due course.

Full details of the application can be found on the DCC website: https://democracy.durham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=318&MId=15086