Agenda item

Change of use of land to the rear of nos. 2-10 Royal Grove, Crook

Change of Use of Land to the Rear of Nos. 2-10 Royal Grove, Crook

Consideration was given to the report submitted in relation to the above application (for copy see file of Minutes)

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation on the main issues outlined in the report which included photographs of the site. Members had visited the site that day and were familiar with the location and setting.

Councillor J Bailey addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents and began by referring to Planning Policy. Paragraph 75 of the NPPF stated that planning policies should seek to protect and enhance existing public rights of way and access. Whilst he sympathised with the residents of Royal Grove he did not consider that anti-social behaviour was a relevant planning consideration.

If approved this proposal would not resolve anti-social behaviour problems but would move them elsewhere, and he noted that no evidence had been submitted by the Police in support of the application. Councillor Bailey read out the contents of an e-mail from DCC Rights of Way Section which gave details of their response as an internal consultee. He felt that their views should have been represented more fully in the Planning Officer’s report.

The Open Spaces Society had objected on the grounds that the footpath was well used and its closure would not solve the problem of anti-social behaviour. The footpath was in a usable condition and the alternative footpath adjacent to the road was potentially dangerous. He therefore felt that pedestrian safety was a key consideration for the Committee.

Councillor E Murphy, local Member spoke in support of the application. Residents had experienced problems of anti-social behaviour since 1994 and had received support from former Wear Valley District Councillors and Durham County Councillors since 1997. The new footpath was provided to give users an alternative route, particularly for those who found it difficult to access the bank up to the public path. He had visited the site that morning and had not witnessed one person using the public footpath.

If the application was approved it was a step towards making it more peaceful for the residents of Royal Grove, and would reduce demands on the Police.

Jo Bird addressed the Committee on behalf of the Open Spaces Society and local residents. She advised that the footpath between 9 and 10 Royal Grove was very important, being a section of Public Footpath 57, and forming part of a very well-used circular route which had been promoted by DCC. The popularity of the route was demonstrated by the well-worn grass. She understood that whilst there had been anti-social behaviour issues in the past there were no problems at present.

She also outlined the process required to make a Stopping Up Order to extinguish the Public Right of Way if the application was approved.

Mrs C Freeman, a local resident and objector commented that Councillor Murphy had not mentioned that the public footpath behind Royal Grove was also well used. The metalled path was prone to flooding and was unsafe for pedestrians, being situated on a bend on the B6298. She also agreed with Jo Bird that there were no anti-social behaviour problems in the area at present. Whilst she understood the challenges faced by local residents a long-term solution should be explored to combat the problem of anti-social behaviour altogether, involving partnership working between the Police and the community. 

Mr Winter, the applicant stated that residents had worked closely with the Highways Authority, the Police and the Community Safety Partnership over a number of years to explore options to resolve anti-social behaviour. As a result residents had been guided down this route. None of the objectors lived in Royal Grove and therefore did not have to experience the problems they suffered late at night. The Neighbourhood Policing Team was in support of residents and Durham County Council had a duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act to do all it could to prevent crime and disorder in the area. He also considered that the implication by objectors that DCC had created an unsafe footpath adjacent to the B6298 was incredulous.

In responding to the comments made D Stewart, Highways Officer stated that the alternative footpath adjacent to the B6298 had been created by the Highways Authority with part-funding from the highway allowances of local Members, and was not regarded as unsafe. There were no safety issues associated with the footpath being located on a bend, a situation which was common to many other areas, both locally and nationally.

In determining the application the Committee was reminded by the Council’s Legal Officer that consideration should only be given to the proposal before Members for consideration (ie the proposed change of use of the land to residential garden), and that the procedure for Stopping Up the public footpath would be subject to a separate process which was not before Members for determination.

The Committee considered that it had to balance the need to prevent anti-social behaviour with the needs of footpath users. The public footpath was well-used and a Member commented that since the bushes had been cut back anti-social behaviour had reduced. He therefore felt that it would be beneficial to retain both footpaths. A further Member agreed and added that the public footpath was a lot safer for pedestrians than the metalled path adjacent to the B6298, particularly for children.

Resolved:

That the application be refused.

Reason: The change of use of the land to residential garden would result in the loss of amenity to the local community by means of the loss of a well-used pedestrian route, without a safe and convenient alternative route, contrary to Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan as amended by Saved and Expired Policies 2007 and paragraph 75 of the NPPF.