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
