Agenda item

Reclamation of former colliery spoil mound to extract coal spoil, reprofiling of mound on completion of works and landscaping works.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the reclamation of a former colliery spoil mound to extract coal spoil, the reprofiling of the mound on completion of works and landscaping works at the former colliery spoil heap, Hesleden (for copy see file of Minutes)

 

C Shields, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the application which included photographs of the site and working proposals.  Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that Conditions 3 (f) ii and 11 (b) should be amended to read ‘the southbound sliproad of the A19’

 

Councillor R Crute, local Member addressed the Committee to object to the application.  He informed the Committee he was also speaking on behalf of Councillor L Pounder, the other local Member for the area.

 

From the outset Councillor Crute informed the Committee that there was no specific objection to the renovation of the former pit heap at Hesleden.

 

However, Councillor Crute objected in the strongest terms to the unacceptable impact the removal of the former pit heap would have on the residents of the village and the negative impact it would have on road safety which would affect many road users from local villages and the many visitors travelling to and from the coastal area.

 

While it was acknowledged that a number of statutory consultees had either offered no objection to the proposal or had suggested mitigation measures, both local Members knew of the real and potentially devastating impact this development could have on residents and the wider community.

 

The development site was in an Area of High Landscape Value and lay within 1km of two Sites of Special Scientific Interest.  Furthermore the removal of material from this site would have an immediate and negative impact on the Conservation Area at Castle Eden as it would be transported to the A19 directly through the Conservation Area.

 

In policy terms objections were based on the following policies in both the Mineral Local Plan and the District of Easington Local Plan.  The Policies of the emerging County Durham Plan had been disregarded for reasons outlined in section 57 of the report.

 

Policy M23 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan (MLP) referred to planning proposals in Areas of High Landscape Value and stated that these would only be allowed where there were no alternative sources of the material under consideration

 

Policy M35 of the MLP referred to the impact on particular facilities such as paths and other public rights of way and again stated that such developments would not be permitted unless there was a need for the mineral which could not be met from alternative sites or sources

 

Policy M36 of the MLP which referred to protecting local amenityrequired the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from pollution by noise, vibration, dust and mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport were reduced to an acceptable level.  This aim could not be achieved satisfactorily in this case and that as a result residents would suffer unnecessarily from noise and nuisance for a protracted period of time

 

Policy M37 of the MLP referred to stand-off distances and stated that unless it could be demonstrated that the amenity of local communities could otherwise be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working, mineral development would not be permitted where the extraction or associated activities were within 250 metres of a group of 10 or more dwellings

 

Policy M42 of the MLP referred to road traffic and stated that mineral development would only be permitted where the traffic generated could be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity was otherwise acceptable.  This is one of the main objections as it was feel that an increase in traffic could not be accommodated safely on the highway

 

Policy M43 of the MLP referred to minimising traffic impacts and required that planning conditions should be imposed, and planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover a range of matters such as routeing of traffic to and from the site, highway improvements or maintenance, prevention of the transfer of mud and dirt onto the public highway and operating hours of lorry traffic to and from the site.

 

Policy 15 of the District of Easington Local Plan referred to the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and National Nature Reserves and stated that development that was likely to adversely impact on a site of special scientific interest would only be approved where there was no alternative solutionor the development was in the national interest

 

In terms of public consultation responses there had been a total of 65 individual letters of objection and these were supplemented by 2 petitions with a total of 212 signatures.  Many letters of objection included material planning reasons for objection to the proposal, such as concerns about road safety and the environmental impact of the pit heap removal.

 

In contrast there have been 34 letters of support, all written by pupils of Hesleden Primary School.  This was supplemented by a petition with a total of 48 signatures.  The common theme of these submissions was around public safety at the site.

 

While those safety concerns were acknowledged, matters of trespass, safety and security at the site were the sole responsibility of the landowner and were not in themselves valid or justifiable reasons for removal of the pit heap material

 

Notwithstanding the total numbers of objectors and supporters the quality of the letters of objection far outweighed the comments of those supporting in terms of valid material planning considerations submitted.

 

Meetings both with Parish Councils and local objectors had taken place and their concerns about a number of matters, but mainly the following, were shared by both local Members:

 

 Noise and nuisance, particularly for those residents in many parts of Hesleden who would be expected to put up with noise, dust and other nuisance from heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the site at a rate of 4 each hour, every hour for 12 hours per day, 5 and a half days per week for at least 20 months.  The highway at Gray Avenue was prone to surface water following steady rainfall, and partial flooding had taken place on the morning of 5 January 2016. This clearly would add to nuisance and flooding for properties at this location.  Residents of The Factory at Castle Eden would have to contend with the same volume of traffic for the same period and this would seriously affect the residential amenity of the residents in those two locations.

 

Traffic generation and road safety, again for the residents at the two locations but also for all pedestrians and motorists using the B1281 which linked Hesleden with Castle Eden and the A19 beyond.  The B1281 itself was largely unlit, twisting and undulating and had a long and notorious history of speeding traffic and accidents, particularly on the stretch of highway between Hesleden and Castle Eden.  This posed a real danger for motorists and pedestrians alike and an increase in slow-moving traffic would have a potentially catastrophic effect on road safety at this location.  The junction of Gray Avenue at Hesleden and the B1281 was very poor in terms of visibility and the proposed measures would not address the concerns of residents.  In addition, once vehicles accessed the B1281, fully-loaded HGV’s would struggle to pick up speed on the incline westward to Castle Eden and the A19.  This would cause considerable problems for other vehicles as they approached the junction from Blackhall and other coastal.  This was a very busy route with either very narrow paths or no paths at all and was used by other heavy vehicles from nearby businesses and also by school buses.  It was also a public service bus route and, being predominantly agricultural, the roads in this area were frequently subject to slow moving agricultural plant and this brought its own road safety problems.  HGV’s were to use the very busy and confusing Wellfield interchange as they accessed the A19 at Castle Eden.  There were real and serious concerns about road safety as a result of this proposed development

 

The proposed development would cause serious and unacceptable upheaval, particularly for the residents of Hesleden and a considerable proportion of Castle Eden.  Incidents of noise and nuisance would have a negative impact on residential amenity would far outweigh any proposed community benefits of the development.

 

The transport effects of the development, in terms of traffic generation and road safety in Hesleden and Castle Eden, and the connecting B1281 highway, would have a seriously detrimental impact on road safety for all road users and pedestrians.

 

Councillor Crute strongly urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Mr E Ruocco, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application.  He informed the Committee he had lived in Gray Avenue for 20 years and had used the cycle path which was alongside the spoil heap without being aware it was there.

 

Properties on Gray Avenue, which was the road HGV’s would use, were in close proximity to the road.  Gray Avenue was a narrow road with two bus stops and cars parked on it.  The road junction from Gray Avenue onto the B1281 was dangerous and only had a visibility splay of 75 metres towards Blackhall.  The national speed limit applied to the B1281 and therefore the visibility splay should be 215 metres.  Mr Ruocco was unsure how the junction could be improved to produce the necessary visibility splay and details of this were awaited from the applicant.  Additionally, the road from Hesleden to Castle Eden was narrow and twisty, and HGV’s were wide.

 

The application would bring with it a dirt, nuisance and noise disruption and possible danger to health through the spread of PM2.5 particles, which could travel up to 3 miles.

 

Mr Ruocco informed the Committee that the spoil heap had existed for over 100 years, yet had only been termed as a problem in the area over the last 5 years.  He asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Mr L Weatherall, Development Manager for Hargreaves Services, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Hargreaves was a local company which employed a significant number of workers in the region and this application was to carry out remediation works to a former spoil heap and restore the site.  Remediation works to the spoil heap were required because it had a history of spontaneous burning and was also suffering from failure of one of the slopes.  The soil heap currently suffered from trespass and incidents of anti-social behaviour which was of concern to local residents and the landowner.

 

The proposed scheme had been subject to a full independent Environment Impact Assessment which demonstrated that it was acceptable in environmental terms.  Under mineral policy, schemes had to pass one of two tests – whether they were environmentally acceptable or whether benefits outweighed disbenefits.  This proposal passed both of these testes.

 

The application was consistent with both local and national policy and would provide a source of energy, local jobs, remediation and improvement of the local environment and the provision of an area of conservation and ecological interest with the creation of a habitat suited to the Dingy Skipper butterfly.

 

A number of meetings had taken place on site to investigate improvements to the junction of Gray Avenue with the B1281 to increase visibility splays and it was proposed to remove vegetation at the junction to achieve this.  The increased visibility splays would be of benefit to all users of the road junction.

 

Hargreaves would be using its own fleet of vehicles for the duration of the works and would impose a speed limit on these vehicles when passing through Hesleden.  A detailed transport management plan would also be submitted and Mr Weatherall asked the Committee to approve the application.

 

A Glenwright, Principal DM Engineer addressed the Committee on the highways issues raised.  The highways report on this application was carried out in March 2014 and at that time there had been three road traffic collisions in the previous 5 years, none of which were on Gray Avenue, all being on the B1281.  A check update on the RTCs in the last 5 years from 5 January 2016 confirmed there had still been only three ‘slight’ road traffic collisions.  An accident rate of this level was not deemed to be of concern to the Highways Authority.  There was a two month time lag for non-fatal accidents to appear on the County Council’s database and therefore the County Council would not, as yet, be aware of any recent accidents referred to by Councillor Crute.

 

Visibility at the junction of Gray Avenue with the B1281 was currently 2.4 metres by 75 metres, which was appropriate for an approach speed of 33 m.p.h.  A speed survey carried out on the B1281 showed an 85^th percentile centile speed of 55 m.p.h. and it was therefore necessary for the visibility splay at this junction to be improved to 2.4 metres by 160 metres in both directions, and this was covered by Condition 11 of the permission.  The issue of visibility splay at this junction was the only issue the Highway Authority was confident of being able to object to at any future Planning Appeal should the application be refused.

 

The Principal DM Engineer added that the B1281 had been accepted by Highways England and Durham County Council as the local Highway Authority as a recognised diversion route both northbound and southbound if there was an incident on the A19 and this could result in it carrying up to 50,000 vehicles per day, rather than the normal 5,500 vehicles.

 

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that he had attended the site visit and considered the access road to the site from Gray Avenue to be problematic.  The application site was an appalling mess and in need of remediation.  Councillor Dixon asked how the lane to the site would be upgraded.

 

Mr Weatherall replied that the visibility splay at the junction of Gray Avenue and the B1281 would be improved by controlling the vegetation at the junction to meet the requirements of Highways Officers.  Hardcore or surfacing would be laid on the lane to the site and the applicant would accept this as a planning condition.

 

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that the improvement to the access lane should be included as a condition of any planning consent.  Although he understood that the scheme would have an impact on local residents, this would be for a limited period of 18 months.

 

Councillor Shield expressed concern about the spontaneous combustion of the spoil heap, as well as the anti-social behaviour and fly tipping which took place.  While he had sympathy with the objectors regarding noise levels, these would not exceed set limits and would be monitored.  The application brought with it a community fund of £28,500.

 

Councillor Nicholson shared members concern about the condition of the spoil heap and the site in general.  He understood local concerns about the proposal, but on balance supported the recommendation for approval.

 

Councillor Lumsdon informed the Committee she was familiar with the B1281 and its junction with Gray Avenue.  The visibility at the junction of Gray Avenue onto the B1281 was an issue of the curve of the road rather than vegetation.  There were a number of pinch points on the B1281 and Councillor Lumsdon was unsure how these would be overcome if HGV’s met in opposite directions.  Referring to the crossing point on the railway walk at the site, Councillor Lumsdon asked whether warning signs would be erected as this was a popular walkway.

 

The Senior Planning Officer replied that the applicant would need to demonstrate safe visibility splays at the junction of Gray Avenue with the B1281.  The B1281 was the same width along the route, although the Senior Planning Officer agreed there was a perception of pinch points because of the topography of the surrounding land.  There was a condition that warning signs must be erected at the crossing point on the railway walkway and all vehicles would be required to stop at this point, which would also be gated.

 

Councillor Clare informed the Committee the two issues about this application were highway safety and residential amenity.  Referring to highways, the Highways Authority was satisfied that no objection could be raised if the condition was met regarding visibility at the junction of Gray Avenue with the B1281.  Any perception or impression of highway danger would not be sustainable on appeal.  Referring to residential amenity, Councillor Clare informed the Committee that while no resident would be happy with HGV passing their property this would be for a time limited period after which there would be positive benefits of the remediation works.  Councillor Clare suggested that the access lane to the site from Gray Avenue should be a consolidated sealed surface rather than hardcore and this should be a condition of any permission.  Mr Weatherall confirmed that this condition would be acceptable to the applicant.

 

Councillor Boyes informed the Committee that it was its duty to interrogate any evidence put before it, including that of highways officers.  He was familiar with the B1281, which had a speed limit of 60 m.p.h., and its junction with Gray Avenue.  It was difficult to egress from Gray Avenue onto the B1281 in a car, let alone an HGV.  He had concerns on grounds of highway safety, despite the advice given by the highways officer, and also concerns for the residential amenity of local residents during the remediation works.

 

Councillor Conway referred to the issues of highways, residential amenity and the safety of the spoil heap.  While he understood the highways concerns expressed, there were conditions which the applicant would have to meet before any works could commence.  He agreed that the pathway to the spoil heap needed consolidating, and considered that the long term improvement to the safety of the spoil heap and improved amenity would outweigh the short term impact on residential amenity.  Councillor Conway suggested that the hours of operation could be reduced to finish at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. which would reduce the impact on residential amenity.  However, Councillor Dixon replied that any reduction in hours of operation would necessitate an extended period of working to remediate the site and therefore would prolong the impact on residential amenity.

 

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that he was surprised at the quantity of combustible coal material on the site and considered that to waste this would be unacceptable,

 

Moved by Councillor Dixon, seconded by Councillor Nicholson and

 

Resolved:

That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report, subject to the amendments outlined by the Senior Planning Officer and the addition of a condition that the access lane to the site from Gray Avenue be made up with a consolidated sealed surface.