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 Principal Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  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 Principal Planning Officer asked Members to recall that the application had originally been deferred at the Committee’s meeting of 12 July 2022, to allow for further information as regards noise, transport and business issues to be brought forward, as well as to allow a site visit to take place.  He added that there had been 33 letters of objection to the application and five letters of support, as summarised within the agenda papers.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that while some aspects of the application were acceptable, Officers felt that the proposed use, in such a rural setting, impacted on the tranquillity and amenity of the area and relied upon unsustainable modes of transport.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked Mr Emery, on behalf of the Applicant, to speak in support of the application.

Mr Emery explained that the point of setting up the facility was to help reduce the number of off-road bikes plaguing the disused railway tracks and village greens within our towns and villages.  He understood the point raised in terms of transport to the track being via an unsustainable mode, however, that was a necessity to ensure no one simply rode to the track and gained access.  He added that there would be a marshal on the gate, with no bikes were admitted, only those transported in a van or on a trailer. 

He explained that there would be an attempt to encourage bikes to be kept on-site, with 10 purpose-built workshop/storage facilities, with a fee of £20 per week, for each of the 10 units, with each unit holding up to five bikes for a total of 50 bikes that would be kept off public roads and from illegal use.  Mr Emery noted that in addition to the storage on site, members of the club would have access to workshops and tutorials and lessons.  He added that this was all in with the £20 fee, which was for track days once per week, 45 times per year.  He added that the operation times would be 10.00am until 4.00pm and that those under 14 years of age would pay £5.

Mr Emery reiterated that the aim was to take bikes out from the community and limit their use to the track.  He explained that there would an ethos created where the members would take pride in their bikes, learn how to work on them, creating a club atmosphere similar to other sporting clubs, such as boxing gyms.  He noted that there was noise measuring equipment, and should a bike not pass in terms of decibel levels, then it would not be permitted to be used.  He added that there were clip on baffles for use.

Mr Emery summarised that the application included 10 units for storage, car parking, a toilet block, plumbed in and with drainage, first aid facility, member registration and would help suppress motorbike use on the road and encourage use on the track.

The Chair thanked Mr Emery and asked the Principal Planning Officer to respond to the points raised.

The Principal Planning Officer noted that the 10 units did not form part of the planning application and that this was the first Officers had heard in respect of such units, which themselves may require planning permission.  Mr Emery noted if retrospective application was required it would be made.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planning Officer and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor A Bell noted he felt it was a difficult decision and could appreciate the work the applicant had undertaken.  He added that all Members could appreciate efforts to relieve public areas of the plague of illegal off-road bikes and it that respect it was commendable.  He noted, however, the location was next to a cemetery and while had not been able to attend the site visit he asked as the location was being used, how many complaints had been made so far, and asked as regards permitted development rights, and how many days could be operated without permission.  The Principal Planning Officer explained that permitted development allowed for use on 14 days per year, however, did not allow for the engineering works that had created the track. 

He noted that while the track had been in use there had been some objections to the use, reiterating there had been 33 written objections to the application, while not a lot of objections, there was one objector who contacted when every event took place at the track.  

Councillor A Bell asked what day the track operated, he assumed Saturday.  The Chair asked Mr Emery to respond, Mr Emery noted that the track operated on Sundays.  Mr Emery noted that the cemetery was well screened with trees and bunds created on the track site.  He noted the applicant was in contact with the cemetery manager at 8.00am to enquire as regards any funerals taking place, and if so, activity would be shut down 30 minutes before until 30 minutes afterwards.  The Chair noted that people visited cemeteries at all times, not just for funerals.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that information from Environmental Health showed 13 noise nuisance complaints since March 2023.

Councillor D Oliver asked if there were any similar motorbike tracks elsewhere in the county and whether there was any evidence that such were removing illegal bikes from public roads.  He noted that the report from Environmental Health suggested if conditions were in place that they would be sufficient to mitigate statutory nuisance and asked Officers if they were in place would they remove the noise concern or not.  The Principal Planning Officer noted there had not been any recent applications for motorbike tracks in County Durham, however, there were a number of historic tracks in the county.  He explained that Environmental Health had commented that the noise level of +4dB was not sufficient to harm residential amenity, however, within County Durham Plan (CDP) Policy 10 wider amenity issues were considered and Officers felt that there was potential impact on noise sensitive receptors, so while the residential amenity may not be impacted, other use of the nearby countryside and cemetery was felt to be impacted.

Councillor L Brown asked as regards the members’ fee and noted that £20 for use of the track for one Sunday, and £20 for storage may put a lot of people off due to the cost.  She also noted that in terms of CDP Policy 29, motocross use was inherently harmful.  The Chair asked if Mr Emery could respond.  Mr Emery noted that the storage was across 10 units, each holding five bikes, therefore each person would pay £4.  He noted around 60 members on a Sunday and noise assessments that were carried out.

Councillor J Elmer noted he had attended the site visit and looked at the proposals.  He felt the site was well screened, had several bunds in place as well as a very wide tree belt.  He did not however that the cemetery was directly on the side of the site and therefore noise would impact upon the cemetery.

In respect of membership fees, if one was to store one’s motorbike on site and attend the Sunday meeting, that would equate to around £100 per month and questioned whether those that would ride motorbikes illegally on public roads would be the type to pay for such a facility.  He added that he struggled to see how those type of people would afford the cost, noting perhaps if it was free of charge, else he felt it could be only for the relatively wealthy to use.

Councillor A Surtees noted that she welcomed this type of application, however, she felt that this specific application may not necessarily alleviate the issues associated with off-road bikes.  She asked as regards the storage of fuel on the site or whether users would need to travel to the nearby JET petrol station at Wheatley Hill.  She noted the use of the cemetery next to the application site and noted that cemeteries were a sanctified place and should be peaceful to allow people to spend time with those they have lost.  She added that she felt that it was almost guaranteed that there would be people travelling on motorbikes to the track to use the facility.  She added that the turnover of bikes was huge, with any illegal bikes seized and crushed replaced very readily by eBay purchases or other means.  She reiterated she did not feel she could 100 percent support the application and asked as regards fuel storage, those turning up already on their bikes, and the interruption to the cemetery.

Councillor A Bell agreed with the issues raised by Councillor A Surtees, however, noted that under permitted development, the issues would be occurring, only on fewer days, and noted whether this was an opportunity to regulate the operation.  He asked if it were possible to grant a temporary permission.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that permitted development allowed for 14 days for motor events.  He added that granting a temporary consent was an option open to the Committee, however, there would need to be justification as such temporary permission was the exception rather than the rule, and timescales in terms of coming back and reassessing.  Councillor A Bell proposed that the application be approved for a period of 12 months, then to be assessed.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways), Laura Ackermann noted that the application was recommended for refusal by the Officers.  Councillor A Bell noted this and noted his motion was as he felt contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that the track had been operating already for two years, though once mitigations were all in place the situation could be assessed after.  Councillor A Bell agreed, after 12 months.

Councillor J Elmer noted he supported and would second Councillor A Bell, specifically approval for 12 months and for the situation to be monitored to establish whether there were complaints, and to be in touch with Durham Constabulary to gather feedback in relation to anti-social behaviour and off-road bikes. 

He noted they were unlikely to be able to be conditions, however, suggested that such monitoring took place.  He added could there be a condition to be in regular contact with the Cemetery Manager.

Councillor A Surtees reiterated she had concerns as regards fuel being transported and noted that a number of complaints were set out within the Committee report, adding that 12 months was a long to see if additional complaints were received.  She noted she felt she could not support the application in its current form and noted the complaints received over the last two years.  She added she was not convinced that that there would be less I the 12 month period if operating every week, indeed it was likely more complaints would be received.  She reiterated that she was not convinced that the proposals would make any difference to the situation in terms of illegal off-road bikes.

Councillor L Brown noted she was quite unhappy in terms of looking for improvement over the 12 months and also was wary as regards the 10 units that may require permission, and the toilet block that also may require permission.  Accordingly, she moved that the application be refused as per the Officer’s report.

The Principal Planning Officer noted he was not sure at this point whether the 10 units would require permission, and in terms of fuel he had received no details, with no fuel pumps forming part of the application before Members.  He reiterated that under permitted development rights, there could be 14 events per year, however, the facility had operated most weekends, and it was reiterated that Environmental Health had received 13 complaints.  He asked, should the Committee be minded to approve the application for 12 months, when permission would be granted from, for example 12 months from when works were completed.  Councillor A Bell noted he agreed, 12 months from when works were completed.

Councillor K Robson noted all Members were familiar with the problem of off-road bikes in County Durham, and indeed nationally, and therefore he felt that there would be interest in the proposals if they could be shown to have an impact in terms of any reduction in illegal use.  The Principal Planning Officer noted he did not have any additional information on such schemes elsewhere, however, information may be able to be gathered should Members be minded to approve for 12 months.  The Chair noted that none of the Local Members were in attendance today at Committee.

Councillor A Surtees asked how those riding up to the track would be prevented from accessing the facility and noted she had not noticed a decrease in anti-social behaviour associated with off-road bikes in the east of the County.  The Chair asked Mr Emery to respond. 

Mr Emery noted that on track days, there would be a Marshal at the entrance and if a bike was ridden up to the entrance it would not be permitted entry.  He noted the facility was gated and any such riders would not be able to get past and gain entry and reiterated that bikes would need to be transported in a van or on a trailer.  Councillor A Surtees noted she was not convinced.

The Chair noted the motion from Councillor A Bell, seconded by Councillor J Elmer had been for temporary approval for 12 months.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) asked Councillor A Bell if the suite of conditions would be delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.  Councillor A Bell agreed. 

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED for 12 months, with a suite of conditions to be delegated to Officers, in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.

Councillor L Brown asked what the process would be at the end of the 12 month period.  The Principal Planning Officer noted that any decision on further permission would be under delegated authority unless the application was called-in to Committee.