Environmental issues in Blackhall Colliery

Following a number of queries from residents, and after a random walk around the streets in Blackhall Colliery this morning and again this afternoon, the following issues have been reported to the authorities for their attention.

Corroded road sign: A resident contacted me to report a badly corroded road sign outside the Aged Miners' Home on the Coast Road. I've asked the highways department at county hall to carry out an inspection and either make the sign safe or replace it:

Damaged barrier: Some time ago I reported a damaged barrier on Middle Street for repair following a vehicle collision. Safety barriers were erected and the barrier was cordoned-off but since then nothing has happened. As with similarly damaged structures in other locations I suspect delays have been caused by supply chain issues. I've asked the service for an update on progress:

Potholes: More potholes in the back lane between School Avenue and Park Avenue have been reported for inspection and repair where necessary:

Fly-tipping in back lanes: I've reported fly-tipping in a number of back lanes between Second Street and Eleventh Street:

Fly-tipping in private properties: In addition to litter in the back lanes, a number of incidents of fly-tipping in rear yards of private properties in Second Street, Fifth Street, Seventh Street and Eighth Street have been reported for clearance. Because these properties are privately owned or rented through the private sector these incidents have been reported and passed to the neighbourhood wardens for their attention:

Damaged footpath and kerbstone: The footpath outside the Blackhall Medical Practice and Blackhall Community Centre has become damaged, with a section of kerbstone missing entirely. I've reported both incidents to the highways department for their attention. There's a trip hazard because of these defects so until repairs are carried out please take extra care when walking in this location:  

Urgent Temporary Road Closure Notice

Yesterday I followed up on a query submitted last week with Northumbrian Water for repair works to be carried out to a damaged water pipe in rear Middle Street at the top of Fifth and Sixth Streets. As I reported on social media earlier today NW turned up on site this morning to carry out repairs.

Since then I have been notified of an urgent Temporary Road Closure Notice to take immediate effect to allow for those works to be completed.

Please see full details in the formal notice published below:

COUNTY COUNCIL OF DURHAM

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 URGENT TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE NOTICE MIDDLE STREET, BLACKHALL

WHEREAS THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF DURHAM BEING THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY FOR THE BLACKHALL AREA IS SATISFIED THAT SUCH RESTRICTION IS NECESSARY TO PERMIT URGENT NORTHUMBRIAN WATER URGENT WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SAID ROAD , THE COUNCIL IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER SECTION 14(2) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984, HEREBY GIVES NOTICE OF THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF AN APPROXIMATE 21 METRE LENGTH OF MIDDLE STREET, BLACKHALL, TO THE SIDE OF 28 SIXTH STREET.

THE MAXIMUM DURATION OF THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE UNDER THIS NOTICE IS 5 CONSECUTIVE DAYS (INC WEEKENDS) COMMENCING FROM FRIDAY 26TH JANUARY 2024. THE ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CLOSURE IS 5 DAYS.

THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF CLOSURE, ANY LOCAL ALTERNATIVE ROUTES WILL BE SIGNPOSTED ON SITE.

DATED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024

Pedestrian safety on the B1281 between Blackhall Colliery and Hesleden

Last year Stacey and I met with local residents and officers from the council's highways team and the police traffic management team to look at ways they could improve public safety on the B1281 between the Hardwicke Hall Hotel and Hesleden. Background details of the site meeting can be found here: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/07/site-visit-to-prevent-accidents-on-b.html

From day one I've consistently raised the concerns of some residents that the lack of streetlighting at this location increases the risk of traffic accidents, however the police and other agencies insist there is little in the way of  evidence to support this claim. That explains why the authorities have persistently rebuffed my calls to reinstate the lighting removed ten years ago as part of the council's street lighting and energy reduction policy - a well-intended policy aimed primarily at reducing energy costs, but one that has proved to be somewhat unfair in its application at some locations, especially on connecting roads in semi-rural areas like ours. 

So instead my requests over the years have been driven by a need to ensure wherever possible the safety of all road users and particularly pedestrians who use the B1281 as a connection between friends and relatives in Hesleden and Blackhall Colliery. In addition we’re all being encouraged to exercise more frequently but this isn’t so easy when residents are running, walking and exercising in locations where they don’t feel safe. With that in mind Stacey and I met with highways officers last year to see what could be done to make people feel safer when using the B1281 to exercise or to visit friends and relatives in neighbouring villages.

The outcome of the site meeting was that the council would renew the reflective bollards at those locations where they had been damaged or were no longer effective. In addition the authorities agreed to reinstate the central highway markings and also apply additional markings to warn drivers of impending twists and turns in the road. We also asked for renewed and additional advisory signage along the B1281 to both reinforce the speed limits and alert drivers that other road-users such as horses and their riders may be in the road ahead. Works to install these measures started late last year and are ongoing. To aid increased visibility the trees and hedges at the sides of the road close to the entry points to Belchford and the Hardwicke Hall Hotel have been cut back.

In addition we raised concerns on behalf of residents and road users about the flow of water from the fields into the highway, particularly at the roundabout adjacent to the ongoing housing development on the B1281 at Blackhall Colliery. As a result the council has carried out an inspection of the drainage system nearby and the developers have been made aware of their responsibility to make the highway safe at this location. The latest details can be found here: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2023/12/addressing-problems-of-excess-water.html

In associated developments the B1281 between Hesleden and Castle Eden is scheduled to be resurfaced next month and I'll update on any proposed traffic management issues closer to the time or when I have more details from the highways team.

Finally, anyone passing the B1281 between Hesleden and Blackhall Colliery will have seen that emergency repair works were carried out on a stretch of the public footpath following flooding and drainage issues late last year. Unfortunately the council didn't take the opportunity to resurface the rest of the pathway which is in an extremely poor condition, and is quite dangerous in parts. I asked the council to carry out repairs to the entire stretch of the public footpath last year, but for some reason the highways inspectors insist that the surface is in an acceptable condition and requires no attention at the moment. The images I’ve taken of the footpath would suggest otherwise!

I've since asked the highways team to meet with me on site to give them the opportunity to explain their reasoning. I'll update on progress as soon as I have more details.

Hesleden Pit Heap Planning Enforcement Appeal: Comments submitted to the planning inspectorate

Earlier this week we were notified that the government-appointed planning inspector was now open to receiving written submissions from interested parties in relation to DRS Regeneration Ltd's appeal against the county council's enforcement notice issued late last year against the company continuing to work on site. 

Please see details here, including additional links to the planning inspector's online portal and details of the email and postal address for use by those who prefer not to submit their representations online: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2024/01/hesleden-pit-heap-government-inspector.html

Stacey and I have submitted our separate but coordinated written representations to the planning inspector's office this afternoon.

Please note that at this stage the inspector is asking for written representations only. It is not known yet whether the appeal process will widen in scope from written representations to a hearing in public where interested parties will have the opportunity to speak directly to the inspector. That is a matter for the inspector to decide, and I would expect that we will be notified by the inspector in due course.

In the meantime I have published my comments below for information: 

Re: Enforcement Notice Appeal: APP/X1355/C/23/3332060

Cllr Rob Crute, Durham County Council

Please accept the comments below as my written submission to the planning inspectorate in regard to enforcement notice appeal reference APP/X1355/C/23/3332060.

I have referred in the preamble to the background to works on site, alongside the policy issues I used in submitting my objections to the planning application DM/22/00010/MIN put before the county council’s planning committee on 11 September 2023 for consideration.

For completeness the notes I used when addressing the planning committee are provided in the final section of this submission.

With the exception of just one abstention the planning committee rejected the application to extend the time allowed to remove spoil from the former pit heap in Hesleden. This was partly because of the policy points I raised at the meeting, alongside testimony from local residents who spoke of the unacceptable impact the development was having on the community, including in environmental terms, its impact on traffic generation and concerns raised locally about the effect of the development on the health and amenity of residents.

The council’s subsequent enforcement notice was issued against the appellant DRS Land Regeneration Ltd in October 2023. I believe the enforcement notice appeal ought to be rejected for the reasons set out in my comments below.

Hesleden Pit Heap planning report notes and comments to DCC planning committee

The following paragraphs set out the policy issues relating to the planning application (based on the planning officer’s report to committee) to extend the time allowed to extract minerals from the site of the former colliery spoil heap in Hesleden:

Para 10: works began on site in January 2018 (prep works began in July 2017)

Planning permission for 2 years so works should have been completed by January 2020 (almost 4 years ago)

VOC application seeking to extend time allowed submitted in 2019 giving a 24 month extension to January 2022 (it is noted that works continued on site beyond this date, and are still in operation today).

Para 12: original estimate of 278k tonnes of combustible material, revised to 410k tonnes = 240k tonnes remaining

Para 13: the developer also seeks to remove 125k tonnes of limestone and 175k tonnes of sand

Para 14: the developer seeks consent for 9 years, reduced now to 7 years, 4 months

Reference to site works continuing for 20 months since planning application was submitted (if application was submitted in 2019 (para 10)

Para 18: working hours from 7am to 7pm, 7am to noon on Saturday. Local residents report that these conditions are occasionally ignored.

Para 20: traffic and access: 10 in 10 out per day are *anticipated*

Para 23: the planning report suggests that ‘all works are essentially restorative’. This appears to not be the case to the residents of Hesleden who continue to suffer the effects of large-scale industrial, excavation works day after day, year after year.

PLANNING HISTORY

Original application submitted in 2014 was granted in 2016 (works commenced in 2018)

The developer has had 2 separate opportunities to complete works. On both occasions the deadline was missed. It is not acceptable that they’re now coming back to seek permission for a third attempt

PLANNING POLICY

Para 33: NPPF 2: presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’ (economic, social and environmental)

**Para 35: NPPF 8: ‘promoting healthy and safe communities’

Para 36: NPPF 9: support solutions that ‘reduce greenhouse gas emissions’ – materials from the site (including fossil fuels) are being used to generate power at a cement factory

LOCAL PLAN POLICY

Para 42: Policy 10: Development in the countryside

**Para 47: Local Plan Policy 31: development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there will be no UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT on health, living or working conditions

Development will NOT be permitted where ‘inappropriate odours, noise and vibration cannot be mitigated against – noise dust and dirt from the site is constant and unacceptable

**Para 50: Policy 39: the current proposals cause unacceptable harm to the character and quality of the landscape or to important features or views (sheer limestone cliff at the southern edge of the development)

Para 51: Policy 40: as above

**Para 56: Policy 47: where the proposal ‘does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on either the environment, human health or the amenity of local communities’

**Para 58: Policy 50: ‘in respect of working of magnesian limestone and sand proposals for new working on prominent escarpment slopes will be resisted in order to avoid unacceptable landscape and visual effects

Para 59: Policy 51: ‘future needs for sand aggregate working will be met through working of existing permitted reserves and through working of sites allocated as strategic sites’

CD MINERALS LOCAL PLAN

**Para 61: Policy M37: refers to the amenity of local communities being protected from adverse impacts of mineral working. Mineral development will not be permitted where extraction or associated activities are within 250 metres of a group of 10m or more dwellings.

Para 62: Policy M28: where development affects the supply, or causes contamination to surface waters, it should not be permitted

**Para 63: Policy M42: mineral development will only be permitted where the traffic generated can be accommodated safely… and the impact of traffic generated on local amenity is acceptable

**Para 65: Policy M45: refers to ‘cumulative impact of past, present and future workings’

**Para 68: Policy M52: the ability and commitment of the site operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme will be taken into account

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY

**Para 70: Policy MW1: refers to individual or unacceptable adverse impacts on human health and the amenity of of local communities, the local strategic road network and public rights of way network

**Para 72: MW4 – Noise

**Para 73: MW5 – Air quality and dust

**Para 74: MW7 – Transport: refers vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development should have no unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety

CONSULTATION & PUBLIC RESPONSES

Monk Hesleden Parish Council raised concerns about traffic generation and highway safety. Also PROW, noise, dust health and viability, along with the ability of the operator to restore the site – insufficient bond

**Paras 84 – 94: Internal consultees offer no objections, but it’s noted they don’t live near the development site and don’t have to put up with constant noise, dust and dirt outside their homes day in day out, year after year

PUBLIC RESPONSES

Para 95: 61 local objections including those relating to traffic generation and highway safety and residential amenity. Reports of damage to the highway surface and to the walls of properties

Air quality and noise is reported by most objectors, including problems associated with vehicle emissions alongside dust and noise disturbance.

Disruption caused to walkers, cyclists etc because of the closed PROW

Concerns are expressed that the restoration bond insufficient to restore the site on completion of works.

Para 95: both local members object on loss of amenity, impact on public health caused by dust emissions and impact of noise and nuisance, traffic generation and associated safety concerns.

APPLICANT’S STATEMENT

**PARA 106: applicant claims the extension is necessary to complete the works delayed because of COVID. The developer has not made it clear why an extension of 10 years is necessary to make up for works delayed during a less than 2 year pandemic period.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS & ASSESSMENT

Para 115: considers that the main planning issues relate to residential amenity (ie noise, air quality, dust and health and vehicle movements), access and traffic generation, landscape and visual impact, PROW.

**Para 117: presumption in favour of development EXCEPT where there are any adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits.

**Para 120: refers to the relevance of MW1 – see Para 70 above.

**Para 132: it is noted that the works site is located within an Area of High Landscape Value and a Local Wildlife Site.

**Para 133: suggests the site is not allocated within the Plan but development can be permitted, Presumably ONLY where it can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment, human health or the amenity of local communities

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

**Para 141: Para 174 of NPPF states planning decisions … should prevent new and existing development from contributing to, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution and air pollution. Development should help to improve local environmental conditions such as air quality.

Para 185 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate to its location, taking into account the likely effects of pollution on health and living conditions

Para 187 of the NPPF advises that planning decisions ‘should ensure that new development can be integrated with existing businesses and community facilities’.

**Para 142: states that ‘development will not be permitted where inappropriate odours, noise vibration etc cannot be suitably mitigated against. Again refers to MLP Policy M37 (Para 61 above).

Emerging Policy MW1 – proposals for mineral development will be required to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in unacceptable impacts on human health, the amenity of local communities…see Para 70 above

**para 248: Policy m52 states the ability and commitment of the operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with an agreed scheme will be taken into account. Given the frequent changes in named operators/companies, is there any evidence available to prove the operator’s ability and commitment to reclaim the site at the end of the development period?

**Para 255: states that LPAs should consider whether an ‘unacceptable’ development could be made acceptable through the use of planning obligations, and that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to mitigate impacts through conditions. If a planning obligation is required in this case, surely that confirms that the development is ‘unacceptable’ **see Para 250 which confirms that a planning obligation is in place for the existing site

 

Points of objection re: Hesleden Pit Heap (planning application DM/22/00010/MIN) to be heard by the DCC Planning committee on Monday 11 September 2023

Cllr Rob Crute (Blackhalls Division)

By way of a brief background, I submitted a letter of objection to a previous planning application at this location (DM/14/00519/FPA) to the council in 2014. Many points of contention recorded at that time remain unresolved and form the basis of my objections to the current planning application.

My objections to the current planning application can be summarised in the following material planning considerations. This is simply a list of objections at this point and I intend to expand on each one in turn.

·         Loss of amenity for residents in Hesleden and Castle Eden

·         Impact on health of dust emissions from the site

·         Impact of noise and nuisance from the site

·         Traffic generation and associated safety concerns

·         Environmental impact on the surrounding area

 

The comments I make to planning committee members are based on my own personal observations and correspondence from residents, and they follow regular contact over the years with residents from Blackhall, Hesleden and Castle Eden – all individual communities affected in one way or another by the impact of this ongoing development.

The works to remove spoil from the former pit heap in Hesleden (including preparatory works) began on site in July 2017 and since then residents and business in the area have had to contend with its impact.

Traffic Generation:

This includes the cumulative impact that several wagons (both empty and full, and occasionally unsheeted) have when passing through the villages, leaving behind dust, mud and other debris on roads and pavements, noise from the engines, and damage to highway surfaces and kerbstones at junctions at Gray Avenue and the Castle Eden war memorial en route to the A19 Interchange at Castle Eden.

In addition, the increased volume of traffic continues to cause concern to residents and visitors travelling between Blackhall Colliery and a holiday resort at Crimdon and the A19 at Castle Eden.

Dust Emissions:

Residents have reported frequent dust emissions which have an impact all year round. This matter has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions, either in correspondence, at ward surgeries and at a number of local public meetings held within the past two years.

The problem is reported to be particularly bad during the spring, summer and autumn months when dust is blown across the whole settlement of Hesleden, depending on the prevailing wind conditions, with dust accumulating on vehicles, on door and window ledges and clothes drying on the lines. Residents report that during these times they are not able to leave their doors and windows open, nor are they able sit outside their homes or enjoy outdoor activities for any meaningful length of time.

It’s worth noting at this stage that in terms of health deprivation Hesleden residents are ranked in the lower quartile nationally, so it is of particular concern that frequent dust emissions from the site are having an additional unacceptable and adverse impact on residents’ health and also on their quality of life.

Environmental Impact:

It is noted that the development site encroaches onto Hesleden Dene. Images available online show a sheer drop from the working site, down an exposed limestone cliff and into the Dene itself. For many years this location has thrived as a natural habitat for birds, insects and flora and there are local concerns that this development has already had a negative environmental impact at these locations. An extension of time allowed to remove spoil from the former pit heap will continue to erode the natural habitat, regardless of potential outcomes described in the planning report.

Site Restoration:

From speaking to residents on a regular basis I know that one of their major concerns is the management and restoration of the site after works have been completed.

Before the initial planning consent was granted the developer had assured residents that the works would be completed within 20 months and that site restoration works would return the location to an improved condition compared to what it was before works commenced. Images of the site today raise concerns that those promises are unlikely to be met. This has eroded trust in the development and the developer alike.

Consequently, I have genuine concerns about the developer’s ability and commitment to reclaim the site following works. It is of additional concern that the developer operating the site in future may well be someone different to the operator today.

If there is any evidence available that the operator can produce to prove that they have a track record of site restoration it would be useful if it could be provided for public inspection. As things stand, based on the persistent delays to date, residents have very little faith that the site can eventually be reclaimed for the long-term benefit of the community.

Finally, in acknowledging that members of the planning committee will require material planning considerations at hand if they are to reject this application I would refer to the following policies which are confirmed in the case officer’s report to be relevant to this instance:

LOCAL PLAN POLICY

Para 47: Local Plan Policy 31: confirms 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, the same policy confirms that development will NOT be permitted where ‘inappropriate odours, noise and vibration cannot be mitigated against – testimony from residents confirms that noise dust and dirt from the site is constant and unacceptable.

Para 56: Policy 47: suggests that development should only be permitted where the proposal ‘does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on either the environment, human health or the amenity of local communities’

Para 58: Policy 50: ‘in respect of the working of magnesian limestone and sand proposals for new working on prominent escarpment slopes, development will be resisted in order to avoid unacceptable landscape and visual effects

Para 61: Policy M37: ‘unless it can be demonstrated that the amenity of local communities can be protected from adverse impacts of mineral working, mineral development will not be permitted where extraction or associated activities are within 250 metres of a group of 10 or more dwellings’. It is noted in regard to ‘associated activities’ that several wagons are travelling through the village on a regular daily basis, with the impact described elsewhere in these notes.

Para 65: Policy M45: refers to the ‘cumulative impact of past, present and future workings’ which I feel would have a prolonged adverse and unacceptable impact on the community.

Para 68: Policy M52: refers to the ‘ability and commitment’ of the site operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme. As mentioned earlier, along with residents, I have seen no evidence to back up the operator’s claim that the site can be properly or adequately restored.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY

Para 70: Policy MW1: refers to unacceptable adverse impacts on human health and the amenity of of local communities, the local strategic road network and public rights of way network.

Para 72: Policy MW4 – relating to noise.

Para 73: Policy MW5 – relating to air quality and dust.

Para 74: Policy MW7 – relating to transport matters. This policy refers specifically to vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development having an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety.

Given the concerns raised in these comments, all of them supported by relevant material planning considerations, and in light of the unacceptable conditions residents have had to endure for many years, in the strongest terms, I would urge members of the planning committee to reject this planning application. It has blighted the community for many years past, and it holds out nothing more than the prospect of more filth, dust, noise and disruption for many years to come.

Cllr Rob Crute

11 January 2024

Hesleden Pit Heap: Government Inspector calls for public comments

Stacey and I were notified this morning that the government's planning inspector is now open to receiving public comments on the development company's appeal against the council's planning enforcement notice.

The notification we received is set out below, along with details of how to make your comments to the inspector:

The appeal reference is APP/X1355/C/23/3332060.

The ‘start letter’ the Council has received from the Planning Inspectorate advises that interested persons make their views known by writing to the case officer, Tracy Warry, at The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3B - Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN, quoting the reference number APP/X1355/C/23/3332060.  

The email address is teame2@planninginspectorate.gov.uk

Representations must be sent within 6 weeks of the starting date, by 08 February 2024.  If comments are submitted after the deadline, the Inspector will not normally look at them and they will be returned.  Wherever possible interested persons must submit copies of their comments electronically.  Please note that their views will be disclosed to the parties to the appeal unless the representations are withdrawn before the 6 weeks deadline;

Although the appeal is against the enforcement notice, the Council will be writing to those notified of planning application no. DM/22/00010/MIN.

If you prefer to submit your comments online the inspector's planning portal can be accessed via this link: Planning Inspectorate 

Using the last 7 digits of the case reference number (3332060) will bring up this page where you can make your representations:

PLEASE NOTE: The information provided above refers to a planning appeal hearing under the jurisdiction of the government’s Planning Inspectorate, and not Durham County Council.

Temporary Road Closure in First Street, Blackhall Colliery

I have been notified this morning that a Temporary Road Closure Order has been issued by Durham County Council to enable Northumbrian Water to carry out urgent works in the lane behind First Street in Blackhall Colliery.

The Order has been issued on the terms set out in the notice below and will take effect for a period of up to 5 days:

First Street (rear), Blackhall Colliery Urgent Temporary Road Closure Notice I refer to your notification relating to the urgent works being carried out by Northumbrian Water at the above location. 

The immediate/urgent restrictions will be effected by a Notice under Section 14(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. 

The Notice will be effective from Friday 5th January 2024 for a maximum period of 5 consecutive days (includes weekends). 

It will be necessary for you to comply with the provisions of the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Procedures Regulations 1992 which require that: - (i) A copy of the Temporary Closure Notice shall be displayed in a prominent position at each end of the length of the road to which the Notice relates and at the points at which it will be necessary to diverge from the road. (ii) Each such copy shall be displayed throughout the period during which the temporary prohibition is in force and all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the Notices remain in a legible condition and continue to be so displayed for so long as the Notice remains in force and are promptly replaced as often as occasion requires during that period. 

In addition, you must provide and maintain at each end of the length of road the subject of restriction, and at suitable points along the diversionary route for pedestrian traffic, appropriate closure and diversion signs which accord with Chapter 8 of the Department of Transport Traffic Signs Manual. The provision of the signs, and their maintenance should be undertaken by a reputable traffic management company.