Agenda item

Change of use from agricultural to off road motorcycle training centre, with creation of motor track.

The Principal Planning Officer, Leigh Dalby, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for change of use from agricultural to off road motorcycle training centre, with creation of motor track and was recommended for refusal.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out a statement from Local Member, Councillor J Miller:

‘I am writing this statement and requesting it is read out at the planning committee this morning, regarding the planning application being discussed for the off-road bike track in Thornley, within my Division.  Firstly, I want to apologise for not being there this morning. But due to unforeseen circumstances I am not able to attend.

I welcome any planning application that looks to resolve the issues that we are all facing with off-road bikes. We all know just how much time, effort and money it is costing not just the council, but the police, fire service and other agencies in reacting to the damage that is being caused.

I understand that some people have concerns about the noise that the track would cause, but I would much rather the noise was coming from an off-road bike track, rather than off-road bikes destroying grassed areas near homes and schools or being anti-social on the highways.  I also understand the concerns around the sensitivity of it being within close proximity to a cemetery.  However, ongoing conversations can take place between the applicant and Thornley Parish Council, to ensure the track is not used when a funeral is taking place.

If the committee was mindful to approve the application today, that isn’t the end of the matter, nor the concerns raised.  The Council Planning Department has an enforcement team that would be able to handle any future concerns and reports of breaches, and deal with them as they seem fit.  But at least as a council we have tried to take a different approach to dealing with off-road bikes, rather than the current approach that doesn’t seem to be working.

However, if the committee were mindful to object to the application, I would ask the committee to consider asking for a deferment of the application, in order to allow for a full and proper noise assessment to be completed, which the applicant has already agreed to within the report papers. This would also ensure that, as a council, we have tried all avenues to try and prevent further incidents of off-road bikes causing criminal damage to our grassed areas. That is not to say that I am accusing the Planning Officers of not completing thorough due diligence, because I know they have worked hard on this application.  But I think, when such an application has presented itself, as a council we should be trying all avenues to try and make it a success and part of the solution to a problem that we are all facing. 

I ask that my statement is taken into consideration when the Committee is deciding upon the application. Thank you’.

The Chair thanked the Committee Services Officer and asked Councillor L Hovvels, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor L Hovvels thanked the Chair and Committee and noted the problems in County Durham with off-road bikes and quads and the associated costs.  She explained it was better to have a place for the bikes to be used, with the site already having been used since 2021.  She noted the pandemic had exacerbated the issues in terms of the lack of activities for young people and noted that if the site turned out right, it could be very positive for local communities.  She asked that the Committee look at the assessments carried out in terms of noise and look at conditions to manage the site, such as improved signage.

Councillor L Hovvels noted the consultation with Durham Constabulary, querying which area of the Constabulary should have been consulted, and noted the concerns they had raised relating to the roadworthiness of vehicles.  She noted that screening that was referred to and that Committee could include further mitigation within any conditions they imposed.  Councillor L Hovvels asked Members to defer the application, pending further work in relation to noise issues, and for it to come back to Committee at a future meeting.

The Chair thanked Councillor L Hovvels and asked Mr Michael Emery, speaking on behalf of the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

Mr M Emery echoed the comments made in the statements from the Local Members as regards the scourge of off-road bikes and noted, with Police appearing not to be responding to the issue, the applicant had sought to provide a controlled environment for those bikes.  He added that since the recommendation for refusal, there had been a lot of changes which help with the concerns raised.  He explained that there was a three metre high bund and there would be additional landscaping and planting of trees to help screen the site and to reduce noise.  He noted the proposals were for the track to be open 52 days a year and that a reduction to 40 days could be offered.  He added that all bikes would be checked in terms of noise levels with decibel meters, and reiterated that the site was not a racetrack, rather a training and time-trial facility with limited numbers on site at any one time.  Mr M Emery explained that the nearby cemetery was screened from the track by 25 metre high trees and it was not possible to see the track from the cemetery, noting the sound bund and footpath were also along this boundary.  He noted the track was welcomed by the community and would help prevent ant-social behaviour.  He explained the repair workshop, with supervised repairs, would help encourage bikes to be stored at the site.

Mr M Emery noted that the Local MP, Graeme Morris had addressed the Parliamentary Committee on the matter of anti-social use of off-road bikes, that reiterated that Police did not appear to be dealing with the problems and supported the project in principle.  He concluded by noting that the applicant would adhere to any conditions as applied and look to be able to bring the project to fruition.

The Chair thanked Mr M Emery and asked the Principal Planning Officer for comments on the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer noted consultation with the Police was with Durham Constabulary’s Police Architectural Liaison Officer, as was standard practice.  He noted that, should Members be minded to approve the application, there were a number of issues that would require further information to be submitted by the applicant. 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) explained that in terms of any potential deferral of the application for a number of noise assessments to be undertaken, there were other reasons that Officers had felt meant that the application was unacceptable.  He noted the noise assessments had not been undertaken as Officers had felt the application was unacceptable and therefore to require the applicant to carry out such assessments was unreasonable when the proposals were not acceptable in principle.  He noted that the decision was for Members, however, he noted the in principle issues as set out within the Officer’s report.

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor J Elmer noted the application was very tricky and noted the loss of agricultural land and the lack of Police objection, though their concerns as regards the roadworthiness of the vehicles.  He noted that Environmental Health had not requested a noise assessment adding he felt it was not possible to understand the impact without such an assessment.  He added that he has been involved in such assessments previously and understood as regards the amount of information required in terms of receptors, the nearby cemetery, the public right of way and nearest settlement.  He noted that was it was needed to be able to help inform as regards the impact, though noted the comments from the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) in terms of the application not meeting approval in principle.  Councillor J Elmer noted that there was no information in terms of the number of users and therefore it was not possible for the Highways Section to be able to assess the impact upon the highway network.  He noted he would wish for the application to be deferred, not only to obtain further information in terms of noise, but also on other those other matters.

Councillor J Quinn noted he agreed with Councillor J Elmer in terms of needing more information and also suggested a site visit in addition to be able to understand the proximity to the cemetery.  He added he agreed with the statement from Councillor J Miller in that, if successful, the scheme could be seen as a pilot for other areas.  He noted that legally, the landowner could use the land for such use every day.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that track itself required permission as it was engineered and added that the hypothetical level of use the applicant would be able to generate themselves would likely not be sufficient for a change of use.  Councillor J Quinn noted he felt the application was trying to help reduce anti-social behaviour asked if not in the type of place as within the application, then where?  He seconded Councillor J Elmer’s motion for deferral.

Councillor C Hood noted that the application site was in the neighbouring Electoral Division to his and his area had a similar blight of anti-social use of off-road bikes.  He too asked if not in such places, then where would such tracks be developed.  He agreed in terms of deferral or support for the application, noting that tackling the issue of off-road bikes could not continue to be kicked down the road.

Councillor LA Holmes noted that in his area, Spennymoor, after 6.00pm it could be guaranteed that young people wearing balaclavas would been seen on off-road bikes.  He explained he felt he should support the application, adding that tackling such anti-social behaviour was important, noting the economic impact with investment less likely where there were high levels of anti-social behaviour.  He noted his concerns with the application related to noise impact, especially on the cemetery, and how the bikes would arrive at the site, noting if the young people were riding to the site, how was the track keeping them from riding on the roads?

Councillor D McKenna noted he liked the idea in principle, however, he asked how it would work in practice in terms of how the bikes and young people got to the site, how would the young people behave, and that behaviour be managed.  He noted they were unlikely to join a club or association and there was the issue raised in terms of the roadworthiness of the bikes.  He reiterated he could not see how it was a solution to the off-road bike problem and added that the application required more thought.

Councillor S Deinali noted that there were issues with off-road bikes in her Division and noted the applicant had noted bikes would be taken to the site, repaired and stored on-site.  She noted that younger children had nowhere to go in terms of such facilities in terms of learning to ride and repair bikes in a responsible manner.

Councillor K Robson noted he had listened carefully and added there were similar issues in his area, Aycliffe.  He explained that there must be a cost implication, who was paying for the work, and asked that that information be brought forward, should the application be deferred.

Councillor L Brown noted the comments of previous Members and asked whether the scheme would actually take such anti-social off-road bikes off the street.  She referred to the County Durham Plan (CDP) and noted it was willing to overlook policies in cases where there were special circumstances.  She asked if, during a financial crisis, whether people would be willing to pay to access such a track.  She noted she supported deferment, though the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) had spoken against deferment.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that there had been a motion for deferment put by Councillor J Elmer, seconded by Councillor Quinn. 

He reiterated that the point he had made that deferral to obtain further information relating to noise may not address the other issues that warranted the refusal recommendation from Officers.  He asked if the reasons were purely in relation to noise, and for site visit to take place. 

Councillor S Deinali suggested that other issues that may required additional information could include the business case for the track, details of how the bikes would be stored, timings and costs/operating model, for example support for children who may not be able to pay a full rate.  Councillor A Surtees noted that deferral would also allow for information in terms of the proposed reduced number of operating days and the 3 metre bund and screen planting.  She asked how many complaints had been received as regards the site since it began operating in 2021.  The Principal Planning Officer noted he did not have that information to hand, however, if the application was deferred it could be obtained.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that a transport statement could be useful information Members may wish to have, should they defer the application.

Councillor J Elmer noted he agreed with the points raised in connection to deferral and for information to come back on those points and in relation to noise levels, key receptors, how to reduce the impact.  He also noted a site visit, and information on the business model and how young people may be able to use the site if they were unable to afford costs.  He added that further information on how vehicles would get to the site, parking at the site, storage and roadworthiness of vehicles would also be useful.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED, to allow further information to be brough forward relating to noise, transport, business and cost, storage and repair, and for a site visit to be arranged prior to consideration of the application by Committee.