County Planning Committee

Date Tuesday 17 June 2014 Time 2.00 pm Venue Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham

Business

Part A

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Substitute Members

3. Declarations of Interest

4. Minutes of the meeting held on 1 April 2014 (Pages 1 - 16)

5. Applications to be determined a) CMA/4/107 - Land at Field House Farm to the south of Robin Lane, to the south east of West Rainton, north of Low Pittington and west of High Moorsley (Pages 17 - 112) Field House surface mine scheme involving surface mining operations for the winning and working of 514,000 tonnes of coal and up to 83,000 tonnes of fireclay, ancillary site operations with progressive restoration and aftercare to agriculture, broadleaved woodland, hedgerows, water bodies, wetland and low nutrient grassland over a 3 year period.

b) CMA/4/112 - Land south west of Station Road, West Rainton (Pages 113 - 158) Residential development of up to 150 dwellings, small scale community hub comprising use classes A1 and/or A2, A3, A4 and A5 of up to 950sq.m. and use class D1 of up to 950 sq.m. with open space, hard and soft landscaping, associated infrastructure and off site highway improvements (outline, all matters reserved except access).

c) DM/14/00920/FPA - Wolsingham School and Community College, Leazes Lane, Wolsingham, Durham, DL13 3DN (Pages 159 - 182) Proposed extension to the Wolsingham lower school building, part demolition of existing classroom block to the rear, and associated landscaping.

d) DM/14/00761/FPA - The Meadows School, Whitworth Road, Spennymoor (Pages 183 - 200) Erection of school extension, associated external works, and demolition of demountable classrooms.

e) DM/14/00762/FPA - North Durham Academy (West Campus), Blackett School, Annfield Plain. (Pages 201 - 218) Reuse of Greencroft Community School to provide a new school facility for Harelaw Special School. Partial demolition of existing building, erection of roof infill to existing courtyard area, external alterations and associated landscaping.

6. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration

7. Any resolution relating to the exclusion of the public during the discussion of items containing exempt information PART B

8. Such other business as, in the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, is of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration

Colette Longbottom Head of Legal and Democratic Services

County Hall Durham 9 June 2014

To: The Members of the County Planning Committee

Councillor K Davidson (Chairman) Councillor B Moir (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors J Allen, B Armstrong, D Boyes, M Dixon, D Hall, G Holland, A Laing, R Lumsdon, C Marshall, H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield, P Taylor and R Young

Contact: Ian Croft Tel : 03000 269702

Agenda Item 4

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL

At a Meeting of County Planning Committee held in Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Tuesday 1 April 2014 at 2.00 pm

Present :

Councillor K Davidson (Chairman)

Members of the Committee: Councillors J Allen, B Armstrong, D Boyes, M Dixon, D Hall, G Holland, A Laing, R Lumsdon, C Marshall, B Moir (Vice-Chairman), A Shield and R Young

Also Present: Councillor(s) J Charlton, R Crute, C Kay, L Pounder, D Stoker, C Wilson and R Yorke

1 Apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Buckham, G Richardson and P Taylor.

2 Substitute Members

There were no substitute Members in attendance.

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor D Boyes declared an interest in Agenda Item 5 (b) - CE/13/01542/FPA - East Durham College, Houghall Campus, Houghall, Durham, DH1 3SG as a Governor of East Durham College and withdrew from the meeting during the consideration of this item.

4 Minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2014 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following under Minute 5a:

Councillor A Shield expressed concern at the effects of the proposed development on infrastructure in the area, particularly the highways network.

5 Applications to be determined

5a CE/13/01660/FPA - Land to north of Castle Eden Brewery, Castle Eden, Durham

Page 1 The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application to erect a crematorium with upgraded access and associated works on land to the north of Castle Eden Brewery, Castle Eden, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

P Herbert, Senior Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to paragraph 100 of the report and informed the Committee that the figure for vehicle movements should read 136 movements in each direction per day, and not per week as printed. He added that since the writing of the report, a 68-signature petition of objection had been received from Castle Eden Golf Club, as well as 4 additional letters of objection from local residents.

Councillor Crute, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The local community of Castle Eden was opposed to the proposal, which had not received a single letter of support. A Planning Consultant engaged by residents of Castle Eden’s had identified a number of discrepancies in the report, yet the report of the Consultant had not been published, and many representations which opposed the development had not been published on the Planning Portal.

Councillor Crute referred to traffic generation which would arise from the proposal. The application placed an emphasis on average attendances at the proposed crematorium but made no mention of the possible impact on traffic flow on the Trunk Road A19 of larger funerals, of which there had been two recent examples. The proposal would bring with it an increased volume of traffic into Castle Eden which would impact on road safety within the village. There was insufficient car parking on the site of the crematorium to accommodate traffic for a larger funeral, and local businesses had expressed concern that in such an event, people may use their car parks while attending services.

The proposed site for the crematorium was an unsuitable location in an area which had been identified as being of high landscape value, with the Campaign to Protect Rural England expressing caution around developing the site. Castle Eden Golf Club fairways ran to the north and east of the site and there was concern that golfers would pass within close proximity of the crematorium chimney which may release toxins. The proximity of the golf course would, inevitably, also result in stray golf balls being hit into the crematorium area, which could cause injury to people and damage to property. To address this risk, trees or netting to the height of 100 to 150 feet would be required, which would impact on visual amenity and also be a risk to birds.

Councillor Crute referred to anti-social behaviour which had previously taken place on a lane, part of which was the proposed access road to the crematorium. The anti-social behaviour had necessitated the issuing of an emergency Order to prohibit traffic on the lane and a barrier had been erected to prevent such access. Since the issuing of the Order, the anti-social behaviour had reduced/been

Page 2 eliminated. Residents were fearful that if part of this lane was to be used as access to the proposed crematorium, and traffic once again allowed access to it, such anti- social behaviour would re-occur.

Councillor Crute informed the Committee that views of Planning Policy had been distorted in the report. Referring to paragraph 69 of the report, he informed the Committee that NPPF did not indicate that Local Plans carried little weight. He added that although a regular bus service had been mentioned in the report, there was in fact only one bus per hour through Castle Eden in each direction. The District of Easington Local Plan identified Castle Eden as a dormitory settlement, and saved Policy 7 within the Plan protected areas of high landscape value from development unless no alternative sites could be identified. Eleven such alternative sites for this application had been identified, and this site had been chosen by the applicant to increase their profit margin.

Councillor Pounder, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The key issues of concern were the impact on local residents and families if the access lane was re-opened and the previous anti-social behaviour re- occurred, concerns regarding injuries from stray golf balls on to the site and concerns about possible toxic emissions from the crematorium chimney. The application could be refused on the grounds of it breaching Policies within the District of Easington Local Plan, traffic generation, ecology, public safety from the nearby golf club and the return of anti-social behaviour on the access lane.

Councillor B Turnbull, Castle Eden Parish Council, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The proposed access lane had caused many problems of anti-social behaviour prior to it being closed to traffic. Prior to this taking place, street lighting and CCTV had been suggested to address the anti-social behaviour, but this was rejected as not being a suitable option because of the nature of the behaviour. There were already high traffic flows in the area, and although the road into Castle Eden was subject to a 40 m.p.h. restriction, traffic surveys showed that half the vehicles on the road exceeded this restriction, with 20% exceeding 46 m.p.h. Highways officers recommended a maximum splay speed of 42 m.p.h. for junctions. A planning consultant report which had been commissioned analysed alternative sites for the proposed facility and had concluded that the applicant’s assessment of this site was heavily flawed and biased towards this site. The consultant had analysed 30 alternative sites, with 12 being assessed as being suitable using the applicant’s criteria. Of these 12 sites, Castle Eden was shown as being 12th; therefore 11 sites were more suitable. This application was contrary to Policies 1,3,7,14,15,17 and 18 contained in the District of Easington Local Plan and there were a significant number of more suitable, alternative sites nearby.

Mr P Barclay, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the application. He referred to incidents of nocturnal anti-social behaviour which had previously taken place on the lane, part of which was now proposed for access to the development site, and also to incidents of sexual exhibitionism which had taken place on the lane. As a result of the nature and level of previous anti-social behaviour the Council had taken the unusual step of using emergency powers to prohibit traffic from this lane. This application included opening part of the lane for access and moving the barrier for traffic some 240m along the lane, and it was

Page 3 feared such anti-social behaviour would return to the area. If part of the lane was re-opened. Mr Barclay also expressed concern at the health and safety issue regarding the proximity of the proposed crematorium to the Castle Eden Golf Club and associated hazard from golf balls.

Mr A Lathbury of Dignity plc addressed the Committee in support of the application. Dignity plc was the largest bereavement service in the United Kingdom and also the most experienced operator of crematoria in the United Kingdom. The majority of funeral services now took place at crematoria, with 425,000 cremations taking place in the United Kingdom last year. A crematorium needed to be both a place where a cremation could take place and also a place of worship to which people could return to pay their respect. New crematoria were designed to meet these needs. Dignity had crematoria in areas such as Hartlepool and Sunderland which were surrounded by residential houses without any impact on the environment.

The demand for crematoria was increasing due to an increased lack of cemetery space and an increase in choice for cremations, which had risen from 60% to 74%. The age profile in the United Kingdom also showed that an increase in the death rate was predicted.

A crematorium was a greater use of land when compared to a cemetery and it was estimated that the proposed crematorium would serve surrounding population of approximately 100,000 people, with 750 cremations taking place on site each year. The proposed crematorium would offer 1 hour service times and services would take place Monday to Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It would charge a single fee for services and would conform to the latest disability access requirements. Sensor lighting would be installed in the grounds of the crematorium and the site and entrance would be covered by CCTV cameras.

Dignity plc acted to meet and exceed environmental requirements, and its Wyre Forest crematorium had recently been awarded a Green Apple Award. Cremators at the proposed site would be fully mercury abated and would require an annual licence from an Environmental Health Officer to operate.

The proposed crematorium would create 3 fte jobs on site, with extra grounds workers in the second year of operation. Additionally, local restaurants, caterers and florists would benefit from extra business.

The Senior Planning Officer addressed the Committee to clarify some of the points raised. He referred the Committee to a recent appeal decision in Cheshire where an application for a crematorium had been refused, but allowed on appeal, in which the Inspector had concluded that the NNPF referred presumption in favour of sustainable development and added that each application should be considered on its own merits. The Senior Planning Officer apologised for the omission of publishing some information on the Planning Portal but added that the information needed when making a recommendation on the application.

Referring to traffic, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the crematorium would carry out a maximum of 8 services a day, with an average of 17

Page 4 cars per service and this average number of cars had been accepted by Planning Inspectors.

Advice had been taken from landscape consultants who had concluded that the proposed development would have a low impact in an area of high landscape value.

Referring to environmental issues, both Natural England and Health and Safety had examined the application, which would be mercury neutral, and considered that there may be an increase in nitrogen levels due to increased traffic flows. However, dispersion models had been used and had concluded that on the balance of probabilities the proposed crematorium would have no impact on the surrounding area. Green netting had been used on various golf courses and the onus was on the applicant to address the issue of possible stray golf balls.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that he had spoken to the traffic management officer in the Specialist Operations Unit of the police who thought that anti-social behaviour was unlikely to return to the area as a result of the proposed development because the road to be used would be of a more open aspect and a barrier would still be in place on the more secluded parts of the lane.

Councillor Marshall sought clarification on why the Committee was being advised not to give weight to parts of the District of Easington Local Plan and to give weight to parts of the emerging County Durham Plan. He informed the Committee that he could find no community benefits from this application, which would not create high levels of employment. The proposed development did not fit with the rural nature of Castle Eden and he had concerns regarding increased traffic levels which would be generated and the possibility of anti-social behaviour returning to the lane.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to Policies 3 and 7 of the District of Easington Local Plan. Policy 3 referred to development within the countryside, and this was outlined in paragraph 26 of the report. Paragraph 37 of the report provided details of Policy 35 in the emerging County Durham Plan which was considered relevant to the determination of this application. Policy 7 of the Local Plan referred to protection of Areas of High Landscape Value, however Areas of High Landscape Value were not recognised in NPPF. It was the judgement of landscape colleagues that this application would have no impact on the Area of High Landscape Value.

Councillor Boyes agreed with the concerns raised by Councillor Crute regarding the publishing of information on the Planning Portal. He expressed concern at the increased levels of traffic which would be generated by this proposal. Currently, at peak times, traffic already backed up on the Trunk Road A19 slip road, and traffic wishing to turn right often turned left and entered Castle Eden to perform a U-turn in the bus turning circle. The Senior Planning Officer replied that there would need to be an 80-vehicle queue before traffic backed up on the Trunk Road slip road, adding that there would be a 60 vehicle car park on site and a 35 space overflow car park.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that many of the issues raised had not been material planning issues. While agreeing that the Local Plan was 14 years

Page 5 out of date, NPPF Part 8 referred to developments at the detriment to the health and wellbeing of the community. There was no evidence of the need for this development, with projected future death rates being used as an indicator of need.

Councillor Hall agreed with the views of Councillors Marshall and Dixon. NPPF Part 11, the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment also applied to this application. Councillor Hall added that he could see no other reason for the applicant selecting this site other than its proximity to the Trunk Road A19. He had concerns around matters of the impact in an Area of High Landscape Value, visual amenity and traffic issues.

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that 30 alternative sites had been considered, of which 11 were considered preferable to this site. The proposal to control anti-social behaviour on the lane may not be sufficient, and he was not minded to support the application.

In reply to a question from Councillor Laing, the Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that there had been no letters of support received for the application. Councillor Laing informed the Committee that she regularly used the slip road off the Trunk Road A19 at this location and was aware of the current high levels of traffic at peak times.

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that local objections to the proposal were both unanimous and forceful. The application was contrary to Local Plan Policies 1,14,15,17 and 18 and Local Plans were still adopted by the Council.

Councillor Davidson asked whether Local Plan Policies and NPPF Parts 8 and 11 were sufficient grounds to refuse the application. The Senior Planning Officer replied that he had based his recommendation on evidence measured against up to date Policies. Local Plan Policies were relevant where they aligned with the NPPF and some weight must be given to the emerging County Durham Plan. L Renaudon, Planning and Development Solicitor requested the Committee to identify how the proposal would conflict with NPPF Part 8. Although NPPF Part 11 referred to a wide range of issues around conserving and enhancing the natural environment, there no professional advice had been received that the application would affect the ecology of the area.

Councillor Dixon referred to the impact on the residential amenity which should be weighed against the demonstration of need for the proposed facility or the economic impact it may bring. Councillor Lumsdon referred to NPPF Part 8, the enjoyment of the area, and considered this application was contrary to this part of the NPPF. Councillor Armstrong referred to NPPF Part 3, supporting a prosperous rural economy, and informed the Committee she did not feel this was relevant to the application, which would only create 2½ jobs.

Moved by Councillor Dixon, Seconded by Councillor Marshall and:

Resolved: That the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed development, by reason of its nature and location, would diminish the levels of amenity that residents

Page 6 of Castle Eden could reasonably expect to enjoy, and would adversely affect the enjoyment of users of the surrounding countryside, contrary to Policies 1 and 3 of the District of Easington Local Plan.

Councillor D Boyes left the meeting.

5b CE/13/01542/FPA - East Durham College, Houghall Campus, Houghall, Durham, DH1 3SG

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for the redevelopment of the main entrance building to provide a new glass lobby and double heighted atrium, erection of animal care centre, animal sheds, equine centre, feed storage and associated facilities at East Durham College, Houghall Campus, Houghall, Durham (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that GCN and badgers surveys were currently being undertaken in line with the advice of the County Ecologist as detailed at Paragraph 63. She reminded the Committee that should it be minded to grant planning permission, it would be necessary for the application to be referred to the Secretary of State as a result of the extent of new floorspace proposed which amounted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Mr Tomlinson, local resident, addressed the Committee to object to the proposal. He informed the Committee that he was not against the proposal as it stood, apart from the proposed equine centre. The proposed equine centre was contrary to Policies E1, E2, E10 of the City of Durham Local Plan. Policy R16 of the Local Plan which referred to the establishment of equestrian facilities in the green belt stated that such development such be of appropriate scale. This proposal was for up to 36 stables, which was not an appropriate scale for the site. The application was also contrary to Policy T1 which related to traffic, as the equine facility would have a significant traffic impact on the amenity of occupiers of a neighbouring property. Proposed usage of the facility was for use by the College between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and on the weekend for events. The area was rated as a high flood risk area by the Department of the Environment and the proposed site was flooded by 4 feet of water in 2009. This was contrary to Policy U10.

Mr Tomlinson informed the Committee that the access road to the proposed facility was only one vehicle wide, with three passing places. However, cars often parked in two of these which made them inoperable as passing places. The access road was also used by walkers, which increased the hazard when vehicles, particularly those with horse trailers, passed along the road.

Councillor Stoker, local Member, addressed the Committee. He informed the Committee that while he had no objection to the proposed new reception area and new farm buildings in the application, he opposed that part of the application which

Page 7 related to the proposed equine facility. Policy U10 of the City of Durham Local Plan was a material reason to refuse this part of the application because the proposed site was, as previously mentioned, rated as a high risk flood area and had been flooded on previous occasions. The proposed equine facility incorporated a huge building which was too large for this Green Belt area.

Referring to traffic on the access road, Councillor Stoker informed the Committee that this was via a single track farm road. Access onto the road was from a ‘Y’ shaped entrance from the Road A177 and the area of access was used for carp parking. This restricted access onto the single track road, and if a vehicle and horse box and a second vehicle were waiting to access the single track road, this could result in traffic backing onto the A177. Should two vehicles meet on the single track road one vehicle could need to reverse up to 200 yards before reaching a parking bay. The road was also used by walkers, with no protection from traffic, and the proposed equine facility would result in a loss of amenity to these users. Although there was a proposed condition of no more than 15 movements of horse vehicles per day along the road, the proposed building was to be used for events, which would inevitably result in more than 15 movements taking place, and these would take place at the same time for the event.

Referring to Great Crested Newts, Councillor Stoker informed the Committee that there were many colonies in the area, as well as badger trails.

Suzanne Duncan, Principal of Houghall College addressed the Committee in support of the application. Houghall College, which was the only agricultural college in County Durham, was established in 1920. Over recent years the demand for study at the College had increased year on year and the the proposed development involved the redevelopment of Houghall College Campus which would establish the reputation of Houghall College Campus as the region’s leading provider of land-based courses and training.

The current condition of the building stock at Houghall College Campus had been highlighted by Ofsted as far back as 2002 as a restriction to learning at the Houghall College Campus. East Durham College had submitted a funding bid to the Skills Funding Agency for £10 million of investment to secure the delivery of the proposed development.

The proposed development involved the delivery of an up-to-date modern teaching environment which co-located the practical and theory elements of land based studies. As the entire Houghall College Campus was located in the Green Belt, a range of confidential Very Special Circumstances had been submitted to Durham County Council to justify the proposed development. East Durham College had also worked closely with officers at Durham County Council to ensure a satisfactory form of development, taking into account a range of planning and environmental constraints associated with the site such as flood risk, landscape, ecology, archaeology, and Green Belt. The proposed development would result in 101 existing jobs being retained, 101 new jobs created and an increase in student numbers of over 30%. Additionally, the proposed new development would bring with it a total staff salary spend of approximately £5.4m per year, a total spend of £5.4m by Houghall College on goods and services, Increased salary of students

Page 8 completing their studies to a total of approximately £2million per year; and £60.4million benefit to society.

The Senior Planning Officer addressed the Committee to clarify some of the points raised. While it was acknowledged that the proposals were contrary to Policy E1 of the Local Plan the principle of the development as detailed in paragraphs 77 to 82 of the report outlined why it was considered special circumstances had been demonstrated. Referring to the risk of flood, the Environment Agency had offered no objection to the proposal but had advised that condition 10 of the permission be implemented. The impact on the ecology of the area was detailed in the ecology section of the report at paragraph 63and GCN and badger surveys were currently being carried out.

Advice received from a landscape architect was that the proposed site for the equine facility was between woodland and the area was not sensitive from long distance views.

J McGargill, Highway Development Manager, addressed the Committee to clarify some of the traffic issues raised. The farm access road was a 4 metre wide lane with informal passing places. Condition number 6 of the planning permission required that passing places be formally constructed and signed as passing places. The entrance to the farm road was used as a parking area by visitors, bit not by commuters. Two vehicles would be able to pass at the entrance to the farm road and be able to see the next passing place. Pedestrians used the farm access lane which was also currently used by farm traffic.

Councillor Moir informed the Committee that he had considered favourably the recommendations of officers and that a lot of work by Houghall College had been put into the application. He gave great weight to the educational opportunity, skills, training and development which would arise from this multi-million pound project, although the objections which had been raised were reasonable.

Councillor Marshall informed the Committee that the proposal would bring economic benefits both now and in the future with its educational facilities. He had been assured by the conditions placed on the planning permission, but asked how the limit of 15 vehicles with horse boxes movement would be enforced. The Senior Planning Officer replied that this limit had been suggested by the applicant and there was no reason for the applicant not to comply with a restriction suggested by them. However, should complaints be received that this was being exceeded, the Authority had an enforcement role.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that the issues raised by objectors had been addressed within the Committee report. Policies quoted in the City of Durham Local Plan were 10 years old, and it was the NPPF which now needed to be considered. He added that the City of Durham Trust had no objection to the proposal.

Councillor Holland informed the Committee that this was a very important initiative. However, the proposed access road to the equine centre was inadequate for the passage of horse boxes and the number of vehicle movements could exceed 15

Page 9 per day if the equine centre performed a business role. He suggested that a condition be added to make the road to the equine facility up to a more appropriate standard.

The Principal replied that horse boxes and articulated trucks already used this road to the current working farm. Although the equine facility was proposed as an educational establishment, commercial income from it may need to be considered in the future in light of reductions in government grants.

Councillor Allen informed the Committee that this was a multi-million pound development which would retain and increase jobs. Houghall had an excellent reputation and the proposed development would enhance this. As such, she supported the application.

Councillor Shield informed the Committee that the benefits which arose from this application outweighed the dis-benefits. He referred to the frequency of arrivals of horse boxes and how this would be managed for an event where people arrived and departed at the same time.

The Highway Development Manager replied that Farm Lane was a narrow access road and as such vehicles moved at low speeds. If vehicles arrived at the same time for an event, then there was less likelihood of them meeting traffic coming in the opposite direction.

Councillor Lumsdon referred to the proposed works to be carried out at the main entrance building at the College and asked whether the existing stone surround could be retained and whether there would be disabled access.

The Principal replied that the College was currently DDA compliant and that the proposed development would enhance this. The College had amended its original scheme to meet requests from Planning Officers regarding windows to be used, but unfortunately the exiting stone surround and doors could not be retained as the plans were to introduce a wider doorway to increase flow around the building. The Senior Planning Officer added that while such concerns had been raised with the College, the Council had limited control over such matters as the building was neither listed nor within a conservation area.

Moved by Councillor Moir, Seconded by Councillor Marshall and:

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Councillor Boyes re-joined the meeting.

5c 1/12/0661/DM - Former Ever Ready Factory, Tanfield Lea Industrial Estate, Tanfield Lea

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for a mixed use re-development comprising housing, 1,357 square metres of retained industrial units (B1, B2 and B8 uses) and 1,454 square metres of

Page 10 retail (A1 use), together with associated landscaping, parking and access. Outline, all matters reserved apart from access (for copy see file of Minutes).

A Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the objection raised by the Environment Agency detailed at paragraph 42 of the report and informed the Committee that this had now been withdrawn, subject to a condition on the number of units being restricted to 65 before an upgrade was carried out to the sewage system.

Councillor Charlton, local Member, addressed the Committee on the application. Although she had no objection to the site being developed, local residents had expressed concern that construction traffic might travel through Tanfield Village. There were also concerns that the contribution towards public transport may impact on the bus service which already operated in the area, and concerns about potential flooding in the area.

Mr Lewis addressed the Committee to object to the application. He informed the Committee that he and Mr Bob Foster owned Units 16 and 20 by virtue of a long lease and rights and reservations over the Industrial Estate roads. While he was not opposed to the development proceeding, he asked that the Committee defer a decision on the application pending the resolution of issues around electricity supply and access to his Unit on the Industrial Estate.

Mr Green of Clayton Glass addressed the Committee in support of the application. He informed the Committee that Clayton Glass employed 250 people, 140 of them at Tanfield. He supported the relocation of the business to Harelaw because Tanfield was no longer fit for purpose. Once relocated to Harelaw the company would consider consolidating other sites to Harelaw.

Mr Harrison, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. He informed the Committee that the current Industrial Estate had been in decline since the late 1980’s and that a third of the site now had a nil rating value. While recognising the importance of on-site business, 9 of 11 businesses had chosen to relocate to Harelaw. Issues of concern from those remaining on the site would be addressed at the reserved issues stage. At the pre-application stage the proposal received 93% support from local residents and the proposed development met the defined housing needs in County Durham. The development was a £35m investment and would bring employment opportunities, with an agreement that 10% of labour would be local.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that conditions attached to the planning permission sought to preserve local amenity. Restrictions on construction traffic travelling through Tanfield Village would only be considered if there were highway safety issues. Conditions 5 and 18 of the planning permission were proposed to safeguard the retained industrial units.

Page 11 Councillor Marshall informed the Committee that he was pleased to hear that the developers were continuing to work with local residents and that the proposal had been brought forward with the backing of the local community. The proposal would secure 315 construction industry jobs and community benefits, as well as being a £35m investment.

Moved by Councillor Marshall, seconded by Councillro Boyes and:

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

5d CMA/3/50 - Fieldon Bridge, St Helen Auckland, County Durham, DL14 9AP

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of mixed retail units (Class A1), cinema (Class D2), other leisure uses (Class D2), restaurants (Class A3) and associated access, highway works, parking and landscaping at Fieldon Bridge, St Helen Auckland (for copy see file of Minutes).

H Jones, Senior Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members of the Committee had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the objection raised by the Environment Agency detailed at paragraph 42 of the report and informed the Committee that the Council’s Ecology Team was in disagreement with the views of these objections.

Since the publication of the report 43 letters of support for the proposal had been received supporting the employment benefits of the proposal and citing that the decline in Bishop Auckland Town Centre had been due to a number of reasons, not just out of town development.

Mr C Auld addressed the Committee on behalf of the Bishop Auckland Town Team. The Team was trying to resurrect Bishop Auckland town centre and was aware of some goodwill money from the developers of this proposed development. The Team had plans to refurbish the refurbish the pedestrian area of Bishop Auckland Market Place and main street and asked that he developers divert some goodwill money into the town area.

Councillor Kay, Member for Coundon, addressed the Committee in support of the application. In 2008 approval was given for the development of the St Helens site for Sainsbury’s, Heritage Park Football Ground and a cinema, although the cinema was never built. This application presented the opportunity to provide a much needed cinema and leisure opportunities in south Durham. Bishop Auckland Town Centre needed to re-invent itself to make attract employment, and work was ongoing around Bishop Auckland Market and Auckland Castle to explore tourism opportunities.

Page 12 Councillor Wilson, local Member, addressed the Committee in support of the application. The last cinema in Bishop Auckland closed some 30 years ago and there was overwhelming local support for this application. The 22 acre site proposed for development was currently an eyesore and local people would welcome the area being cleaned up. The application met all NPPF guidelines.

For decades the population in Bishop Auckland had been declining, but one third of new homes identified in the emerging County Durham Plan were in south Durham, with businesses at South Church. There was a positive future for Bishop Auckland Town, with work being carried out by Auckland Castle Trust and plans to attract up to 150,000 tourists to the area. The Market Place would evolve and adapt, perhaps through the tourism route.

The proposed development would retain and attract money into the local economy. The current retail park was a great success and had ben of benefit to a wider area than Bishop Auckland. The proposed development would create jobs in the construction and retail industry and would bring £300,000 towards the provision of business advisers to work with the Bishop Auckland and Shildon AAP through the Enterprise Agency.

Councillor Wilson read two letters she had received in support of the application. A letter from the St Helen Auckland Residents Association expressed support for the proposal in its entirety, with leisure facilities and a cinema lacking in the area. The proposal would revitalise an area of waste land and create employment and was a rare opportunity to attract people and economic benefit to the area.

The second letter received was from Derek Foster, Baron Foster of Bishop Auckland. The letter again supported the proposal, which was a £50m development and would bring a s106 payment of £300,000 to fund business advisers.

Mr C Kipling, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee. This was a strategic application for the Bishop Auckland area, with the population of the area growing for the first time in 10 years. The proposal had a Gross Value Added estimated at £50m and would also bring a significant investment of £300,000 to fund business advisers. The applicant would be agreeable to the development being undertaken in phases with the cinema, restaurant and leisure uses part of a first phase with an element of retail. The second phase would involve the majority of the retail elements of the proposal coming forward at a later date. Three of the four national cinema operators had expressed an interest in the site. The proposal would offer an option to local residents and residents of County Durham to avoid needing to travel outside of County Durham to visit a cinema.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the s106 financial contribution of £300,000 and to the request from the Bishop Auckland Town Team for the contribution to be used for wider purposes other than for business advisers and stated that this had previously been raised with but rejected by the agent. However, it was considered appropriate to ask Mr Kipling, the agent, again whether his client would be agreeable to this request. Mr Kipling replied that he had discussed this request with

Page 13 the developer who wished for the contribution to be made to the Bishop Auckland and Shildon AAP as originally intended.

The Senior Planning Officer placed emphasis on the NPPF and informed the Committee that this was a key material planning consideration. While he appreciated the current level of out of town development which had taken place and how popular this may be, retail studies had shown that Bishop Auckland Town Centre was increasingly struggling to attract retail business with commercial vacancies increasing While he appreciated the appeal of a cinema development, the Committee needed to consider that this was just one element of the overall mixed use proposal for main town centre development and why alternative sites in sequentially more preferable locations were not considered appropriate. The employment created by this proposal may be at the potential cost of jobs in the Town Centre if its decline continued.

Councillor Boyes expressed his support for the application. The development previously in this area had resulted in a fantastic retail park and this proposal would complete the development. He referred to the retail development at Dalton Park which had no effect on Peterlee Town Centre. This development could complement the heritage type developments which were taking place in Bishop Auckland Town Centre. He was content for the £300,000 financial contribution to be made towards business advisers. This was a £50m development which would bring 100 new jobs to the area.

Councillor Allen expressed her support for the application. Local people wanted a cinema, although it was recognised that previous proposed cinema developments had not materialised. She was supportive of a phased development so that the cinema, restaurant and leisure uses were part of a first phase with an element of retail. Bishop Auckland had a railway station and people who visited the cinema may use public transport. Referring to the financial contribution towards business advisers, Councillor Allen asked whether there could be some flexibility in this should circumstances change with time and the AAP wished to use the contribution for some other purpose.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that the legal agreement with the developer would be for £294,000 towards business advisers and £6,000 towards off-site compensatory ecology works. Referring to phasing, the applicant was agreeable to the first phase being cinema, restaurants and leisure uses with an element of approximately 25% retail. Councillor Allen replied that she would be agreeable to this level of retail for the first phase.

Councillor Dixon informed the Committee that it was essential for the cinema to be part of any condition for phased development. While he would have preferred for the cinema to be developed first, he would accept a level of 25% retail to be included with the first phase.

Councillor Wilson asked that this level of retail for the first phase be increased to 50%, to ensure the development was viable. The Senior Planning Officer replied that the phasing plan submitted by the applicant was for 25% retail.

Page 14 Councillor Armstrong queried the proposed number of parking spaces which seemed a lot for a single access and queried whether a second access could not be used. The Senior Planning Officer stated that a second access would only be suitable for emergency and service use but deferred to the Highway Development Manager for detail.

The Highway Development Manager confirmed that a secondary access would only be suitable for emergency and service vehicle use. The application was supported by a transport assessment and relevant modelling and the access arrangements and parking provision, in principle, were appropriate.

Councillor Marshall referred to comments made about Bishop Auckland Town Centre. Since the retail study was carried out on 2009 there had been a general recession which had impacted on retail across the country. This proposal would create jobs and was in line with the NPPF. Councillor Davidson also referred to the impact of on-line shopping on high street retailers.

Councillor Holland expressed concern at the divergence of the officer recommendation and the views expressed by Members.

Councillor Boyes, in moving approval of the application, informed the Committee he was not minded to agree with the view that the development would have an impact on Bishop Auckland Town Centre.

Resolved: That the Committee be minded to approve the application (referral to the National Planning Casework Unit necessary) and subject to the following: • A Section 106 legal agreement for a contribution of £294,000 to Bishop Auckland and Shildon AAP towards business advisers or for measures to increase employment prospects and £6,000 towards off site compensatory ecological works • Delegated Authority for Officers to apply the necessary planning conditions though to include a specific condition that the development must be implemented on a phased basis, the first phase being cinema, restaurant and leisure uses with an element of approximately 25% retail.

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 16 Agenda Item 5a

* Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

CMA/4/107 APPLICATION NO:

Field House surface mine scheme involving surface mining operations for the winning and working of 514,000 tonnes of coal and up to 83,000 tonnes of fireclay, ancillary site operations with progressive restoration and FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : aftercare to agriculture, broadleaved woodland, hedgerows, water bodies, wetland and low nutrient grassland over a 3 year period

Hargreaves Surface Mining Ltd. NAME OF APPLICANT :

Land at Field House Farm to the south of Robin Lane, to the south east of West Rainton, north of Low Pittington ADDRESS : and west of High Moorsley

Sherburn ELECTORAL DIVISION :

Claire Teasdale, Principal Planning Officer, CASE OFFICER : 03000 261390, [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The site

1 The application site (55.9 hectares) is located in the countryside (in a semi-rural setting) on land approximately 170m to the south east of West Rainton, immediately east of Rainton Gate, 170m from Low Pittington, 170m from High Moorsley and some 5.5km of the centre of Durham City. The site is primarily in agriculture, used for arable, with field hedgerows and trees. The site lies wholly within County Durham with the administrative of Sunderland City Council immediately to the east of the application site.

2 To the north west the site is bordered by agricultural fields with the Road A690 beyond. Robin Lane lies to the north and Footpath No.6 (West Rainton) to the north east. Bridleway No. 25 (West Rainton) (the former Durham and Sunderland Branch of the North Eastern Railway Line and now part of the Sustrans National Cycle Route, Walney to Wear) runs along the south east of the site. Pittington Lane and Footpath No. 7 (West Rainton) along the western boundary.

Page 17 3 The site occupies a south east facing slope. The highest part of the site is at 104m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) near Field House Farm. The land falls to the north being 96m AOD at Robins Lane. To the south the land also falls away to the south to approximately 80m AOD and 84m AOD to the south west. A revegetated spoil heap lies within the southern part of the site and is associated with former Lady Seaham Pit. Pittington Station Houses and Kennem Gill to the south (3 properties), Greengables House to the west and houses on Pittington Lane to the west are the closest residential properties. The closest properties in West Rainton are those to the south of the village abutting the A690 at Tollgate Fields and individual properties opposite the exit from the A690 to Robin Lane (Maple Lodge, Pine Lodge and Conifers).

4 There are no landscape or nature conservation designations within the site boundary but there are a number adjacent and within 1km. To the west of the site (and Pittington Road) the land is designated as Green Belt and (150m beyond) an Area of High Landscape Value. The Ramside Hall Hotel is 1.2km to the south west and is a Historic Park and Garden of local value (550m at its closest point to the site). An area of High Landscape Value also lies some 700m to the south east and Elmore Historic Park and Garden of local value lies 1.6km to the south east. Within 2km of the site there are two Scheduled Monuments, one Grade I listed building, one Grade II* listed building and thirteen Grade II listed buildings. The Hallgarth Conservation Area lies some 1.3km to the south. Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site lies 5.6km to the south west. The Great North Forest lies to the north of West Rainton and within the City of Sunderland, immediately to the east and north east of the site. Within 650m of the site are three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Within 2km of the site are a number of Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), the closest being Robin House and Moorsley Marsh to the north east of the site at the point where Footpath No. 6 (West Rainton) meets Bridleway No. 25 (West Rainton).

The proposal

5 The proposal relates to the extraction of approximately 514,000 tonnes of coal and up to 83,000 tonnes of fireclay by surface mining methods, from agricultural land over a 3 year progressive working and restoration period. The coal and fireclay would be taken from an area of 24.8ha which is just under half the total site area (55.9ha). The coaling period including extraction of fireclay would take place over 2 years 2 months. Most of the remaining area would be utilised as part of operations (mounds, lagoons, plant yard, etc.) and an area for early ecological enhancement to the north and north west. Subject to the receipt of planning permission, issue of a protected species licence from Natural England and necessary licences from the Environment Agency and the Coal Authority the applicant would wish to commence preliminary operations in late summer/early Autumn 2014 at the earliest or Spring/Summer 2015. The application site does not include Field House Farm house and associated agricultural buildings.

Preparatory works

6 Preparatory works would commence with the establishment of a new site access to Robin Lane, approximately 55m east of the existing access to Field House Farm. Fencing, construction of cut off ditches and water treatment areas, internal haul roads, plant yard, site offices, weighbridge and wheel wash would also be provided. The temporary offices and amenity accommodate would likely consist of four single storey Portakabins (12m (length) x 4m (width) x 2.5m (height)). A steel portal frame building would be located in the plant yard (20m (length) x 10m (width) x 5m (height)). Specific details of all buildings would be required through condition. Page 18

7 A coal processing area and coal and fireclay stocking areas would also be provided on land adjacent to Field House Farm in the northern part of the site. Water, telecommunications and overhead electricity lines crossing parts of the site would also be diverted at this stage. Preparatory works would take place within the first 2 to 3 months of site operations.

Soil stripping and overburden movement

8 Soil stripping to facilitate the removal of overburden and allow coaling and extraction of fireclay would be completed within the first four months with the resultant soil being stored separately and intermittently around its periphery. Soil mounds heights would vary between 5m for topsoil and 6m and 10m for subsoil. The higher subsoil mound being located around the plant yard, processing areas and office and parking areas. The mounds would perform a screening function especially along the A690, Pittington Lane and from properties at Pittington Station Houses and Greengables. The majority of the mounds would be in place for the entire life of the site and all would be seeded following formation to provide a grass sward.

9 Overburden from the initial box cut would be temporarily placed in the north eastern corner of the site in overburden mound 1. Thereafter all excess overburden that could not be backfilled prior to reaching the maximum void depth would continue to be placed in the mound which would extend in a south easterly direction until required to backfill the final cuts of the excavation. At its maximum overburden mound 1 would contain 2.0 million m3 of material, cover an area of approximately 13.8 ha and extend up to 20m in height. Overburden mound 1 would be in place for 32 months in total (maximum height for 25 months) although the footprint would vary over this time. A smaller temporary overburden storage mound (overburden mound 2) would be located upon restored excavated land in the central part of the site between months 16 and 29 months and extend up to 10m at its maximum height containing 0.45 million m3 of material and cover an area of approximately 6.0 ha when fully formed. Fireclay is present in the site, associated with the Fivequarter and Main seams, and is proposed to be recovered.

10 Overburden replacement would be completed within 33 months of initial works commencing at the site. Landfilling with imported waste materials is not proposed. Only material from the site would be used in restoration. Perimeter top and subsoil mounds would be removed during the latter stages of restoration with the final placement of soils completed within 36 months of initial works commencing.

Coaling

11 Coaling operations would take place over 2 years 2 months (26 months) within an identified excavation area comprising 17 cuts. These would commence in Phase 1 with a box cut in the north eastern part of the excavation area site moving initially in a north westerly direction for 2 cuts before turning in a south westerly and then southern direction through a further 15 cuts. The depth of working would range between 7m and 51m. Blasting is not proposed and this would be secured through condition should planning permission be granted.

12 Within Phase 1of working (at 6 months) the extraction of shallow seams in the box cut, in the north eastern part of the excavation, would take place. At the end of Phase 1 the overburden mound would be partly completed and extend over the previously worked shallow excavations. Within Phase 2 (at 13 months) excavations would move in a series of north west to south east cuts moving onto an east west

Page 19 orientation. At the end of Phase 2 overburden mound 1 would be complete and would extend and over cuts yet to be excavated (12 to 16). During Phase 3 (20 months) excavations would continue in an east west orientation. Part of overburden mound 1 would be removed to allow excavations to continue in a southerly direction. With the formation of overburden mound 2 the overburden storage would be at its maximum. Within Phase 4 (27 months) extraction would be at its most southerly extent (closest to the properties at Pittington Station Houses) and by the end of this Phase overburden mound 2 would be fully complete and extraction would come to an end with remaining stockpiles being exported from the site. At the final restoration Phase (at 36 months) all overburden and soils would be replaced with the site infrastructure, water treatment areas etc having been removed and the site would enter aftercare.

13 The proposal would take coal from the High Main, Five-quarter and Main seams. Most of these seams have been subject to deep mine working in the past. Once exposed the coal would be cleaned by small hydraulic excavators to remove any dirt bands between layers. It would then be excavated and taken to the processing and stocking area by dump truck. Coal would be crushed and screened with conveyors of up to 4m in height. Coal would be stocked prior to removal off site in designated areas to heights of no more than 4m.

14 Fireclay would be recovered also using small hydraulic excavators from below those seams where it is present and transported by dump truck to the stocking area. It would then be stockpiled prior to dispatch. Once fireclay is encountered at the site trail loads would be sent for testing for quality and suitability to brickworks. If a market is not found then the material would be incorporated into the backfill.

Working hours

15 The proposed working hours for site operations, including coal haulage, are 07:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 – 13:00 Saturday with no working on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays save in cases of emergency. Operations outside of these hours would be restricted to maintenance and pumping. Soil stripping, handling and restoration operations within 100m of Pittington Station Houses and Greengables would not commence prior to 08:00 hours Monday to Saturday and cease by 17:00 hours Monday to Friday and 12:00 hours on Saturdays. Maintenance hours would be more extensive (07.00 – 21.00 Monday to Friday, 07.00 – 17:00 Saturday and 08.00 – 16.00 Sunday excluding Bank and Public Holidays again save in cases of emergency) in order to ensure that the ‘down time’ for the plant and vehicles is minimised and the site runs to schedule . Pumping, if required would be continuous.

16 Some illumination of the site would be required, especially in the winter months, but this would primarily be in association with plant working in the void area which would be below ground level. Illumination within the processing and stockpile areas and site office area would be lit during the hours of darkness for security purposes. All lighting would be directional. Details of lighting would be submitted through condition should planning permission be granted.

Traffic and access

17 Approximately 5,200 tonnes of coal per week would be produced at the site over 26 months. It is expected that approximately 800 tonnes of fireclay per week would be produced at the site over the same period. An average of 74 (37 in and 37 out) and maximum 90 (45 in and 45 out) HGV movements per working day are anticipated during the extraction period. The dispatch of residual amounts of coal and fireclay Page 20 following the completion of extraction would largely be completed over a further 12 week period. Based on a 5.5 day working week (and maximum vehicle movements) it is anticipated that an average of 4 laden HGV’s would leave the site every hour (8 movements per hour). Vehicles would enter and leave the site via a proposed new access onto Robin Lane 55m to the west of the existing access to Field House Farm and approximately 240m from the junction with the A690.

18 The existing access would be removed and the area reinstated to grassland. All HGV lorries leaving the site would turn left onto Robin Lane then left onto the A690 then onto the A1 or utilising the roundabout to turn back onto the A690 to access the A19 depending on the market via the road network. Coal would be sent to power stations for electricity generation and potentially local markets and fireclay to brickworks within the region. On return to site HGVs would left turn from the A690 to Robin Lane then right turn into the site. No HGVs would cross the A690. Those unladen vehicles accessing the site from the A1 would be required to travel to the B1284 Rainton Meadows/Four Lane Ends junction and then turn back onto A690 westbound.

19 The coal and fireclay haulage route would be secured through legal agreement and would apply to all laden and unladen HGVs. Additional site traffic would include vehicles moving excavation plant and other items for a short period during the commissioning and de-commissioning phases.

Restoration

20 Progressive restoration would occur but the site would not be fully reinstated to topsoil until 8 months following cessation of mineral extraction. The land would be restored primarily to agriculture but with a mix of woodland and grassland. The detailed proposals include 36.2 ha agricultural land, 1.06 ha new native broadleaved woodland belt, 1.15 ha new open native woodland, 2.33 ha new native scrub, 1.70 ha permanent wet grassland, 4.58 ha new low nutrient grassland, 5.85 ha permanent field margins, 0.48ha existing ponds retained & improved, 1.64 ha new ponds and swales and 3.2 km of replacement and new hedgerows.

21 The site would be subject to the statutory 5 year aftercare requirement. The aftercare period would commence following the final replacement of topsoil. An additional 5 years of aftercare is proposed for those parts of the site to be restored as ecological management and habitat areas. Management of the area of early ecological enhancement (comprising new terrestrial habitat developed around seasonal waterbodies and minor scrapes to increase the depth of seasonal waterbodies on that part of the site closest to properties at Rainton Gate and new ponds and terrestrial habitat to support great crested newts on land in the vicinity of the proposed site entrance) would commence from the outset and continue for a period of 10 years (13 years in total). Those areas would then be managed in perpetuity in such a way as to permit and foster the development and conservation of its biodiversity through the natural colonisation of flora and fauna and no activities would take place which would prejudice this.

22 42 full time jobs would be created for the duration of the scheme plus 18 seasonal jobs. The applicant has proposed a community fund equivalent to 20p per tonne of coal (providing around £102,800 during the life of the site) to help fund local projects and activities. This would be administered through a site liaison committee that would also provide a forum for the operator and community representatives to engage with each other about site related issues, activities and concerns.

Page 21 23 The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES). This report has taken into account the information contained in the ES and amended details and that arising from statutory consultations and other responses.

24 This planning application is being reported to the County Planning Committee because it involves major minerals development.

PLANNING HISTORY

25 A number of planning permissions have been granted in the vicinity of the application site however, the application site is in agricultural use and has not previously been developed. The site did form part of a proposed site allocation for a surface coal mine in the past. In December 2010 the County Council published a Technical Consultation Report (New Minerals and Waste Sites in County Durham which listed all operator proposed mineral sites including Field House and also consulted on a small number of potential strategic sites. At this time the operator who proposed the site (ATH Resources) contended that sites they had proposed (three in total including land North of High Pittington, Land South of Pittington and land north of Shildon) should be considered as strategic mineral sites.

26 The sites were not allocated as it was considered that surface mined coal sites would not be considered as strategic sites as they are not central to the achievement of the strategy of the County Durham Plan. While the coal recovered could contribute to domestic coal production in England, for use in the domestic power generation market, none of this mineral would directly supply markets in County Durham. Also that while all three of the sites proposed were relatively large in size and were believed to contain a large quantity of coal, at least in a County Durham context, the sites were considered to be short term sites. The Council considered that all three of these sites should be considered through the Minerals and Waste Policies and Allocations DPD and/or through the submission of a planning application by the operator.

27 In response to the Technical Consultation Report 145 comments were made in relation to the proposed potential strategic surface mined coal sites. The overwhelming majority of which related to objections to proposed coal working on land between West Rainton and Low Pittington (site known as Land North of Pittington) and west of High Pittington (site known as Pittington South). These objections included a 1041 name signed petition. However, it should be noted that this petition was in response to a number of possible sites in the area.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY :

28 The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, minerals planning guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message of the NPPF is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependent.

Page 22 29 The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. The following elements are considered relevant to this proposal.

30 NPPF Part 1 – Building a Strong, Competitive Economy. The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity and to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Decisions should support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.

31 NPPF Part 3 – Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. States that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.

32 NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. States that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel. It is recognised that different policies and measures will be required in different communities and opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions which will vary from urban to rural areas. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

33 NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

34 NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.

35 NPPF Part 10 - Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.

Page 23 36 NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment. The planning system should contribute to, and enhance the natural environment by; protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the benefits of ecosystem services, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, preventing new and existing development being put at risk from unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability, and remediating contaminated and unstable land.

37 NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character.

38 NPPF Part 13 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals – Minerals are recognised as being essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life noting that it is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. However, since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, it is important to make best use of them to secure their long-term conservation. In determining planning applications for minerals development there are a number of matters to take into account. These include giving great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to the economy ensuring that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural environment and human health, taking into account the cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or from a number of sites in a locality, and providing through condition for restoration and aftercare at the earliest opportunity to be carried out to high environmental standards. Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be sought in exceptional circumstances.

39 Paragraph 149 states that permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so through conditions or obligations, or if not, it provided national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.

40 The NPPF identifies brickclay (especially Etruria Marl and fireclay) and shallow and deep-mined coal as being minerals of local and national importance. These being minerals which are necessary to meet society’s needs.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)

41 Accompanying the NPPF the Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters. Of particular relevance to this development proposal is the practice guidance with regards to mineral development and their working and restoration and the principal environmental issues of minerals working that should be addressed by mineral planning authorities. Paragraph 147 that the environmental impacts of coal extraction should be considered in the same way as for other minerals. However, both coal operators and mineral planning authorities must have regard to the environmental duty placed on them under Section 53 of the Coal Industry Act1994 when preparing and determining planning applications.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

Page 24

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

COUNTY DURHAM MINERALS LOCAL PLAN (DECEMBER 2000) [MLP] POLICY :

42 Policy M7 – Opencast coal and fireclay – states that within the exposed coalfield area there will be a presumption against proposals for the opencast mining of coal and/or fireclay unless they are environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations, or they provide local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal.

43 Policy M8 – Piecemeal Working – states that the piecemeal working of opencast coal deposits will not be allowed.

44 Policy M17 – Exploration outside site boundaries – requires that when considering proposals for mineral extraction where sufficient information on the extent of workable deposits is not otherwise available; and land outside the proposed boundary is physically capable of being worked as part of the application site; the mineral planning authority may require an applicant to indicate through supporting information their understanding of the location of mineral reserves in surrounding land in order to justify the proposed extent of mineral extraction. Such information may take the form of data from mineral exploration, old mining records and other relevant sources of geological information.

45 Policy M19 – Concurrent working of minerals – encourages the concurrent working of two or more minerals from the same site where mineral extraction is acceptable in principle with certain provisions.

46 Policy M23 – Designated landscapes – requires that in Areas of High Landscape Value and Historic Parks and Gardens, proposals for mineral working will be given the most careful consideration. Proposals will only be allowed where the environmental impact on the special character and quality of the landscape is acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations and where certain criteria are met.

47 Policy M24 – Local landscapes – requires that the scale of any adverse effects on local landscape character from minerals development is kept to an acceptable minimum and conserves as far as possible important features of the local landscape. It also requires that restoration schemes have regard to the quality of the local landscape and provide landscape improvements where appropriate.

48 Policy M29 – Conservation of nature conservation value –requires all proposals for minerals development to incorporate appropriate measures to ensure any adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of the area is minimised.

49 Policy M30 – Listed buildings/Conservation areas –states that planning permission for mineral development will not be permitted where this would have an unacceptable adverse effect on listed buildings, conservation areas, or their settings. Where it is justified the permission will only be granted where the working and restoration of the site ensures the retention of important built and landscape features; and final restoration is to at least the original landscape quality, with replacement of any landscape features that it is not possible to retain during working.

Page 25 50 Policy M31 – Archaeological field evaluation – relates to archaeology and the need for archaeological field evaluation prior to the determination of planning permission where there is reason to believe that important archaeological remains may exist.

51 Policy M32 – Archaeological remains – states that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings are affected by a proposed mineral development there will be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ. Proposals for mineral development that would have a significant adverse effect on regionally important remains will only be permitted where no other suitable locations are available; or where there is an overriding need for mineral which outweighs the requirement for physical preservation.

52 Policy M33 – Recording of archaeological remains – states that where the preservation of archaeological remains in situ is not appropriate planning permission will not be granted unless satisfactory provision has been made for the excavation and recording of the remains.

53 Policy M34 – Agricultural land – states that mineral development which affects or is likely to lead to the loss of 20 or more hectares of the best and most versatile land (Agricultural Land Classification Grades 2 and 3a) will not be permitted unless there is no overall loss of agricultural land quality following restoration; or there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sources on lower quality agricultural land.

54 Policy M35 – Recreational areas and public rights of way – aims to prevent development that would have an unacceptable impact on the recreational value of the countryside unless there is a need for the mineral which cannot be met from suitable alternative sites or sources. It also requires adequate arrangements for the continued use of public rights of way both during and after mineral development, either by means of existing or diverted routes.

55 Policy M36 – Protecting local amenity – requires the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from pollution by noise, vibration, dust and mud, visual intrusion, traffic and transport, subsidence, landslip and gaseous emissions are reduced to an acceptable level.

56 Policy M37 – Stand off distances – seeks to prevent mineral development within 250m (500m where operations involve blasting) of a group of 10 or more dwellings unless it is demonstrated that residential amenity can be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working.

57 Policy M38 – Water resources – states that if a proposal for mineral development would affect the supply of, or cause contamination to, underground, or surface waters, it should not be permitted unless measures are carried out as part of the development to mitigate those impacts throughout the working life of the site and following final restoration.

58 Policy M40 – Scope for rail use in planning applications – states that in determining a planning application for mineral development conditions may be imposed or planning obligations or legal agreements sought with the developer and rail operator, to ensure that, where rail use is feasible, the movement by rail of mineral, or mineral products, is maximised.

Page 26 59 Policy M42 – Road traffic – states that mineral development will only be permitted where the traffic generated can be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network and the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity is otherwise acceptable.

60 Policy M43 – Minimising traffic impacts – requires 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.

61 Policy M45 – Cumulative impact – requires that when considering proposals for mineral development the cumulative impact of past, present and future workings must be considered and states that planning permission will not be granted where the cumulative impact exceeds that which would be acceptable if produced from a single site under the relevant policies of the Plan.

62 Policy M46 – Restoration conditions – indicates that conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover a range of issues relating to the satisfactory restoration of minerals sites.

63 Policy M47 – After uses – provides advice in relation to proposals for the after use of mineral sites.

64 Policy M50 – On site processing – where planning permission is required, minerals processing and manufacturing plant, and other developments ancillary to mineral extraction, will be permitted within the boundaries of mineral extraction sites subject to certain criteria. Conditions will be imposed, planning obligations or other legal agreements sought as necessary to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, removal of the plant, structure, buildings as soon as extraction has ceased time limits on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere..

65 Policy M51 – Storage – in granting planning permission for mineral stocking areas the Policy requires conditions to be imposed or planning obligations or other legal agreements sought, to cover the minimisation of environmental impact, time limits on the storage of materials after working has ceased and preventing the import of materials from elsewhere.

66 Policy M52 – Site management – states the ability and commitment of the intended operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme will be taken into account.

LOCAL PLAN POLICY

City of Durham Local Plan 2004

67 Policy E3 – World Heritage Site – Protection seeks to safeguard the site and setting from inappropriate development that could harm its character and appearance. Specific reference is made to restricting development to safeguard local and long distance views to and from the cathedral and castle peninsular in accordance with Policies E1, E5, E6, E10, E23 and E24. Applying Policies E1, E5, E6, E10, E21, E22, E23 and E24 relating to green belt, landscape setting, conservation areas, listed buildings and archaeological remains. As well as seeking the conservation and management of buildings, archaeological remains, woodland and open spaces which make up the world heritage site and its settings. Page 27

68 Policies referred to Policy E3 are set out below for completeness but are not all relevant for this application given their purpose or the matter is dealt with through County Durham Minerals Local Plan policies.

69 Policy E1 – Durham City Green Belt – reflects national advice formerly set out in PPG2 ‘Green Belts’ and now in the NPPF and outlines the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt in order to preserve its intrinsic openness.

70 Policy E5 – Open Spaces within Durham City – does not permit proposals which would detract from the functional, visual and environmental attributes they possess.

71 Policy E6 – Durham City Centre Conservation Area – states that the special character, appearance and setting of the Durham (City Centre) Conservation Area will be preserved or enhanced as required by section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The policy specifically requires proposals to use high quality design and materials which are sympathetic to the traditional character of the conservation area.

72 Policy E10 – Areas of Landscape Value – is aimed at protecting the landscape value of the district's designated Areas of Landscape Value.

73 Policy E21 – Historic Environment – requires the Council to preserve and enhance the historic environment by requiring development proposals to minimise impact upon features of historic interest, and encourage the retention, repair and reuse of visual of local interest.

74 Policy E23 – Listed Buildings – seeks to safeguard listed buildings and their settings from harmful development.

75 Policy E21 – Conservation and Enhancement of the Historic Environment – requires consideration of buildings, open spaces and the setting of these features of our historic past that are not protected by other legislation to be taken into consideration.

76 Policy E22 – Conservation Areas – seeks to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas, by nor permitting development which would detract from its setting, while ensuring that proposals are sensitive in terms of scale, design and materials reflective of existing architectural details.

77 Policy E23 – Listed Buildings – seeks to safeguard Listed Buildings and their settings from unsympathetic development

78 Policy E24 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Remains – sets out that the Council will preserve scheduled ancient monuments and other nationally significant archaeological remains and their setting in situ. Development likely to damage these monuments will not be permitted. Archaeological remains of regional and local importance, which may be adversely affected by development proposals, will be protected by seeking preservation in situ.

79 Policy U9 – Watercourses – relates to development which may directly affect watercourses stating that they will only be permitted provided they do not result in flooding or increase floodrisk elsewhere; result in the pollution of the watercourse; adversely affect nature conservation interests; affect visual appearance of the landscape and their environmental impact is properly assessed. Page 28

80 Policy U10 – Development in Flood Risk Areas – states that proposals for new development shall not be permitted in flood risk areas or where an increased risk of flooding elsewhere would result, unless it can be demonstrated that alternative, less vulnerable areas are unavailable, that no unacceptable risk would result, or that appropriate mitigation measures can be secured.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered most relevant in the Development Plan the full text, criteria, and justifications of each may be accessed at http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/durham/text/00cont.htm.

EMERGING POLICY:

81 The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision- takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. To this end, the following policy contained in the Submission Draft is considered relevant to the determination of the application:

82 Policy 57 – Surface Mined Coal and Fireclay – sets out the future policy framework for the determination of planning applications relating to surface mined coal and fireclay. This Policy is based upon Policy M7 of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan and has been amended to incorporate reference to the NPPF’s national benefit test and additional text relating to economic, environmental and local and community benefits.

The Policy states:

Proposals for the extraction of coal and/or fireclay should not be granted permission unless: a. They do not have an unacceptable adverse impact on both the environment and amenity of local communities, or can be made acceptable by planning conditions or obligations; or if not b. They provide national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the unacceptable adverse impacts of the proposal to justify the grant of planning permission. In assessing such benefits particular regard will be had to: 1. The economic benefits of the proposal including its contribution to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth through the provision of domestically produced coal for power generation and other sectors of the UK economy and the employment generated through the working, restoration and after-use of the site; 2. The environmental benefits of the proposal in particular those that can be delivered through the high quality restoration and after-use of the site; 3. The local and community benefits generated by the proposal including those that can be provided to the economic and social well-being of local communities 4. The contribution of the proposal towards the comprehensive reclamation of areas of derelict or contaminated land, or the remediation of coal mining legacy issues; 5. The avoidance of the sterilisation of mineral resources in advance of development which is either subject to a planning permission or allocated in the County Durham Plan in accordance with Policy 60 (Safeguarding Mineral Resources); and

Page 29 6. The need for supplies of fireclay to meet the ongoing needs of local brickworks or if this is not possible other brickworks regionally or nationally. In this regard all proposals for surface coal mining should avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of fireclays and brickclays. In order to minimise the environmental impacts of surface coal extraction and provide certainty, the piecemeal working of surface mined coal sites will not normally be permitted.

In order to minimise the environmental impacts of surface coal extraction and provide certainty, the piecemeal working of surface mined coal sites will not normally be permitted.

83 The Proposals Map does not include any Site specific allocations. The Proposals Map shows Green Belt to the west of Pittington Road with a Historic Park and Garden of Local Importance further to the west beyond intervening agricultural land. A National Recreational Route follows the alignment of the dismantled railway outside and south east of the Site.

http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

84 Pittington Parish Council – objects to the application noting that the application lies outside but immediately abuts its administrative area. It is stated that the development works would be readily viewed from many homes and public viewpoints within the Parish and importantly, panoramic views of the wider development site are visible from Pittington Hill, with its network of public footpaths and elevated vantage point. Furthermore, most of its parishioners use the roads and public rights of way (walkers, cyclists and horse riders) that surround the site on a regular basis. Many also frequent Haswell’s Farm Shop and tea rooms that are situated immediately to the west of the application site. Reference is made to a public meeting attended by 80 residents and 12 comments forms completed by members of the public are submitted with the Parish Council’s representation. Objections raised relate to several specific issues. In terms of visual impact it is considered that there would be significant adverse visual impacts upon residents and visitors for the duration of the proposal. Concerns are raised regarding traffic generation and highway safety with queries regarding the submitted traffic figures, reference to existing congestion and how the proposal would exacerbate existing conditions. The possible use of minor roads by employees is also raised and impact upon cyclists noting the existence of the Sustrans National Route cycling ‘super-route’ along A690. Concerns are raised regarding noise noting that there are discrepancies relating to working hours and maintenance periods and that it appears that local communities would have to endure noise impacts for seven days a week during the whole development period. The Parish Council is concerned that current flooding problems (at the southern end of the development site and close by on Station Road, Low Pittington) would be exacerbated by the proposed development. Dust and health related issues are raised and it is stated that submitted technical evidence does not convince parishioners that dust would not be a problem and urges the Council to review and carefully test the applicant’s submissions on this matter - if necessary using independent consultants - before any decision is made.

Page 30 85 The loss of agricultural land is considered to run counter to becoming more self- sufficient in home grown food and less reliant upon coal and other fossil fuels especially given that it would take potentially 8 years or more before the site would become fully productive again. The Parish Council is not convinced about the suggested opportunities for job creation within the local community and that the developers existing workforce would be moved to the site and that local firms would not benefit from the proposal. It is considered that if the proposal goes ahead it would open the floodgates for further mineral extraction in and around the Parish noting that the Church Commissioners have recently served notice on certain landowners to protect the Commissioners’ mineral Rights. The Parish Council considers that the proposed development would seriously intrude upon the setting of significant Durham and Sunderland heritage assets and that the applicant has not properly addressed the significance of any heritage asset affected.

86 Specific reference is made to views from Pittington Hill noting that it is a popular and well-visited viewpoint. It is considered that if application is approved then a S106 legal agreement should ensure the subject land and any other sites within the Pittington/Sherburn electoral wards will not be subject to an application by Hargreaves (or any entity in anyway related to Hargreaves) for future open-cast coal mining. Furthermore it is considered that the 20p per tonne community fund is far too low considering the likely significant detrimental impacts on local people, the environment and infrastructure for a significant period of peoples’ lives, young and old in the Pittington area. Reference is made to appeal decisions whereby the Secretary of State did not consider a planning obligation sought from the developer by the relevant local planning authority would overcome his reasons for dismissing the appeal. The Parish Council considering that the benefits that would accrue from the proposal would not outweigh the serious environmental, visual impact, health and other concerns cited above and the application should be refused also asking that significant weight be given to its representations.

87 West Rainton & Leamside Parish Council – objects to the application. The grounds for objection can be summarised as follows. Subsoil mounds would be close to some residents’ homes. There are existing flooding problems at the site and any increase in water coming from the site would only exacerbate the problem. There is a danger that streams in the area would be contaminated resulting in catastrophic effects on the local wildlife. Waste and water would be diverted over the Bridleway, along with pipes, resulting in permanent damage affecting rights of way and use of the Bridleway. Worry that the culvert that would be used to divert the water would be unable to cope with the volume of water and wasted and consideration needs to be given to protection and support of the culvert to prevent underground problems for neighbouring properties. Visual impact is raised as a concern. Disappointment is expressed that Hetton Town Council had not been consulted on the application. Prevailing wind comes from the south west which would carry dust over parts of East Rainton and Hetton and have particular effects in the two schools in the path of the wind. It is suggested that an ecological survey be undertaken due to concerns over possible effects on wildlife such as the amphibians that are known to breed in the small ponds and ditches on the site. The proposed site entrance onto Robin Lane is considered to be hazardous noting that there is a bend in the road near to the proposed entrance. It is considered that the A690 would be unable to cope with the volume of expected traffic and a designated route should be agreed if the proposal goes ahead. The accumulative impact of other developments in the area (housing proposals at West Rainton, extension to the Ramside golf course and housing) would increase traffic and disruption in the area generally.

Page 31 88 General disturbance to the communities is raised with the concern that as a result of other developments car users would be result in car users using Station Road in West Rainton and Leamside as a rat run noting that there are already major concerns about the overuse of this road. Concerns are raised that rights of way and the Wearside Walk would need to be protected. Concerns are also raised regarding possible disturbance and dust on the meteorological weather station at Moorlsey. It is stated that there is an old farmhouse in the middle of the development which may be of architectural value. There are ancient hedgerows which need protection and no amount of reclamation would protect them once removed. If approved then the provision should be required to ensure that wagon wheels and vehicles would be cleaned on site along with regular cleaning and maintenance of the roads. Effects on the local farming community are of great concern with specific reference to the local farm shop and concerns for the welfare and health of cattle as well as local wildlife. It is stated that there is no provision for opencast mining in the plan previously agreed by Durham Council. It is requested that the application is determined by Committee rather than being delegated.

89 Hetton Town Council – objects to the application noting that the Town Council arranged for the applicant to hold public exhibitions for the Sunderland residents. The grounds for objection can be summarised as follows. Subsoil mounds would be close to some residents’ homes. There are existing flooding problems at the site and any increase in water coming from the site would only exacerbate the problem. There is a danger that streams in the area would be contaminated resulting in catastrophic effects on the local wildlife. Waste and water would be diverted over the Bridleway, along with pipes, resulting in permanent damage affecting rights of way and use of the Bridleway. Worry that the culvert that would be used to divert the water would be unable to cope with the volume of water and wasted and consideration needs to be given to protection and support of the culvert to prevent underground problems for neighbouring properties. Visual impact is raised as a concern. Disappointment is expressed that Hetton Town Council had not been initially consulted on the application. Prevailing wind comes from the south west which would carry dust over parts of East Rainton and Hetton and have particular effects in the two schools in the path of the wind. It is suggested that an ecological survey be undertaken due to concerns over possible effects on wildlife such as the amphibians that are known to breed in the small ponds and ditches on the site. The proposed site entrance onto Robin Lane is considered to be hazardous noting that there is a bend in the road near to the proposed entrance. It is considered that the A690 would be unable to cope with the volume of expected traffic and a designated route should be agreed if the proposal goes ahead. The accumulative impact of other developments in the area (housing proposals at West Rainton, extension to the Ramside golf course and housing) would increase traffic and disruption in the area generally.

90 General disturbance to the communities is raised with the concern that as a result of other developments car users would be result in car users using Station Road in West Rainton and Leamside as a rat run noting that there are already major concerns about the overuse of this road. Concerns are raised that rights of way and the Wearside Walk would need to be protected. Concerns are also raised regarding possible disturbance and dust on the meteorological weather station at Moorlsey. It is stated that there is an old farmhouse in the middle of the development which may be of architectural value. There are ancient hedgerows which need protection and no amount of reclamation would protect them once removed. If approved then the provision should be required to ensure that wagon wheels and vehicles would be cleaned on site along with regular cleaning and maintenance of the roads. Effects on the local farming community are of great concern with specific reference to the local farm shop and concerns for the welfare and health of cattle as well as local Page 32 wildlife. It is stated that there is no provision for opencast mining in the plan previously agreed by Durham Council. It is requested that the application is determined by Committee rather than being delegated.

91 Sunderland City Council (neighbouring Authority) – Offers no formal objection to the proposed development but have made a number of observations and comments which its Members would like to record. Firstly, HGVs should be prohibited from using East Rainton 30mph zone, Hazard Lane, Easington Lane and Fence Houses. Secondly, a number of matters have been raised in respect of ecology. It is considered that the applicant has dealt with all potential concerns regarding biodiversity and that the development proposal offers a restoration scheme appropriate to the nature and location of the site. As such there are no major objections to the proposal subject to the applicant addressing the following: • All of the recommended species and habitat mitigation and enhancement measures are implemented in full and the measures are extended to similar habitat outwith the site, in particular the wildlife corridor (wetland and grassland habitats) along Bridleway 25/ the former railway line and Robin House and Moorsley Marsh Local Wildlife Site. • Ensure that the hydrology and wetland habitats of the Moorsley Burn catchment to the north-east of the site are not adversely affected by the development and opportunities to improve water quality and flow, and habitats, are implemented as part of the scheme wherever possible. • Planning approval must be subject to a comprehensive management plan that ensures species, habitat and landscape mitigation and enhancement measures are sustained in perpetuity; including monitoring and modification where necessary to retain and improve biodiversity gain associated with species such as water vole, bats and amphibians.

92 Finally, a Member for Hetton, the nearest Ward in Sunderland to the application site has requested that his comments be conveyed in the consultation response. The Councillor is concerned about the disruption to this rural area of the City with his concerns relating to the potential for dust and scarring to the landscape as well as the tangible mental stress being caused to many residents. It is also noted that two letters of objection have been received by the City Council from residents within East Rainton raising concerns relating to the disruption of peace and quiet, as well as noise, dust and increased traffic impacts arising from the development. The objections also express concern about views and recreation impacts. The letters also state that local residents were not informed of the planning application.

93 Highways Authority – raises no objections to the export of materials from the site. It notes that development would have a purpose built access and that the location achieves desired visibility splays, but hedges and bushes would need to be trimmed back and maintained throughout the development. At the site entrance the highway verge would need to be protected and would require a concrete apron. The Council’s Assets Team has concerns that it may be difficult to provide a suitable overlay as is partly kerbed and depth of overlay would affect access to surrounding fields therefore ask for a commuted sum to be used to repair and resurface road at the end, so will need a joint inspection at start of development. A commitment from the applicant to provide a commuted sum is requested and can be secured through an appropriate legal agreement. Conditions are requested to cover mitigation measures set out within the submitted Traffic Management Plan, vehicle numbers, design of the new access and warning signs on Robin Lane.

Page 33 94 Highways Agency – in relation to the proposed development, as the flows to and from the site are relatively small and the majority do not fall within the peak hour for the A1(M) Carville junction the Agency has no objection to the proposals. However, as no in-depth capacity assessments have been carried out for the A1(M) Carville junction a condition is requested specifying that no more than 45 laden HGV’s shall leave the site on any working day.

95 Environment Agency (EA) – has no objection to the proposed development as submitted providing that a number of planning conditions are imposed on any planning permission. The conditions require a surface water drainage scheme for the site to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development to prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site. Advice is given in respect of foul drainage and water treatment (any proposed non-mains foul drainage system may require a consent to discharge sewage effluent and water treatment area discharges will need a consent to discharge), groundwater (is below the proposed depth of the excavation and is therefore unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on groundwater), ecology (the EA welcomes the mitigation and enhancement measures) and water voles (records show there could be water vole in the area).

96 Natural England (NE) – has no objection with conditions. Although close to the Moorsley Banks, High Moorsley and High Pittington Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), given the nature and scale of the proposal NE is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on these sites as a result of the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application as submitted. NE therefore advises that the SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining the application. The suggested conditions require that the proposed dust control measures are implemented in full as set out in the ES and Dust Action Plan to ensure that excess blown dust does not affect the habitats for which the SSSIs have be designated.

97 Other advice is provided in terms of other ecological impacts as well as on soils, land quality and reclamation. It is noted that 22 ha of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land. NE is generally satisfied that the proposed site working and reclamation proposals meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development. Detailed comments are provided on soil handling along with suggested conditions to safeguard soil resources and agricultural interests. Advice in relation to green infrastructure and restoration and biodiversity enhancements are also provided.

98 English Heritage (EH) – considers that the proposed development would have no direct impacts upon any designated heritage asset that would come under EH’s national remit. The proposals have the potential to impact upon the setting of the scheduled mining remains at Mallygill, to the west of the proposed development area, and to the Grade 1 listed Church of St Lawrence and the Scheduled Prior’s Hall at Hallgarth to the south. EH has examined the setting of these assets in details and advise that there would be no detrimental impacts resulting from the proposals. As a result EH would have no, in principle, objections to the development taking place.

99 It is noted that there is potential for buried archaeological information on the site as indicated by the geophysical survey that accompanies the application. With this in mind and taking into account potential impacts of the proposals on undesignated Historic Environment Assets as well as Grade II Listed Buildings in the area, EH strongly advises consultation with the Council’s archaeologist. EH urges the Council to address these issues and recommend that the application should be determined

Page 34 in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of specialist conservation advice.

100 The Coal Authority (CA) – As owner of the coal the CA encourages and supports the working of coal in environmentally and socially acceptable ways to meet the market requirements. It is stated that it would process any associated application for an operating licence under Part II of the Coal Industry Act 1994 in accordance with its statutory duties. The CA makes a number of comments in support of the application which are summarised as follows: • The application would contribute to the Government’s policy framework for a diverse and secure energy supply and incorporates the principles of sustainable development. This policy objective was incorporated into the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). • It is noted that the NPPF sets the most challenging standards for surface coalmining in England and the CA believes that the coal industry can successfully operate within these principles provided they are applied equitably by all MPAs. • Records indicate that the application site contains a range of coal mining legacy features, including mine entries and past underground coal mining at shallow depth. The CA considers that through the submission the applicant is fully aware of these constraints and would ensure that operations on site are carried out safely. • That the planning regime takes account of the occurrence of minerals which can only be worked where they occur. • The role of surface mining in supplying the UK market with good quality coal including energy generation and that the electricity generators made similar statements in their submission to the Energy Review in 2006 which informed the current Energy White Paper in 2007. • That coal supply in the UK should contain a significant proportion of indigenous production. Noting that UK supplied coal offers security against the volatility of international coal prices, freight and exchange rates and a reliance on port capacity • The environmental impacts of imported coal are highlighted in terms of increased transport related carbon and sulphur emissions. • The importance of continued production and the need to bring environmentally acceptable new sites on stream to replace exhausted sites on a regular basis. • That it is essential that any unnecessary sterilisation of coal reserves through permanent development should be avoided as recognised in the NPPF. • Surface mining frequently assists with the removal of surface dereliction but view that local benefits go beyond this and include dealing with instability. • Rather than divert investment away from an area, surface mining of cola has often created inward investment particularly in transport infrastructure as well as reduced hazard potential from mine gases and spontaneous combustion, improved water quality from treating minewater discharges and recovery of minerals other than coal which helps to support the fireclay, building and brick clay industries.

101 Northumbrian Water – has no comments to make.

NON -STATUTORY RESPONSES :

102 The Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation) (MOD) – has no safeguarding objections to the proposal. However, requires confirmation that no structure on the site would be higher than 55m above ground level, and that any tree planted after the project has ended would not grow taller than 55m. Anything above Page 35 55m may cause adverse impacts to the Met office radar at High Moorsley. The radar operates at 5.6GHz frequency, therefore nothing on site should operate in this protected band.

103 Meteorological Office – states that it currently works alongside the MOD for safeguarding its radio sites, and as such it has responded to the Council on the Met Office’s behalf.

104 Public Health England – notes that the main emission of public health significance is particulate matter likely to be emitted fugitively from excavations, material processing, stockpiling and vehicle movements. Providing the applicant complies with all relevant requirements and maintains control measures detailed in the Dust Action Plan, Public Health England has no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population. It is also noted that the site would be operated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. Regulatory aspects, such as the management and monitoring of emissions to air would be addressed by a separate Environmental Permit.

105 NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) –has provided a health profile of the population living in the vicinity of the proposed development. It is noted that the number of deaths from respiratory causes is significantly worse than the England average for the population living in the relevant MSOA geography. It is stated that the causes of this are complex but worth noting. The comments provided by Public Health England are highlighted and it is reiterated that providing the applicant complies with all regulatory requirements and maintains control measures detailed in the dust action plan submitted with the application, the CCG has no specific concerns related to the health of the population. The CCG is aware of concerns raised by local residents in respect of the potential health impact from the proposed development, specifically in relation to particulates of below 10 microns (PM10).

106 British Telecommunications plc (BT) – considers that the project as indicated should not cause interference to BT’s current and recently planned radio networks.

107 Durham Wildlife Trust –notes that the Trust’s Rainton Meadows and Joe’s Ponds (SSSI) sites are located to the north of the application area on the other side of the A690, down slope from the proposed surface mine site. Water feeds into Rainton Meadows from the higher ground surrounding the site, but detail on the actual source of the hydrological inputs to the site in not known. The information provided with the planning application states that the Pittington Beck will be the receptor for flows from the site, but plans do show some surface water flowing towards the A690. It is queried if an assessment was carried out to evaluate if there would be an input of water from the proposed site to Rainton Meadows. As both Rainton and Joe’s Pond are significant for their wetland habitats alterations to the volume and or quality of the water entering the site might be damaging. It is appreciated that the A690 and settlement of West Rainton lie between the mine and Rainton Meadows but it is felt worthwhile seeking some reassurance on this point. This query has been addressed to the satisfaction of the Trust.

108 Durham County Badger Group – the Group does not have any setts recorded on or near this site, and are not aware of it being in use as badger foraging. The Group does not therefore have any objections to the proposal.

109 Durham Bird Club – does not object to the application but does not support it, and recognises that if planning permission is granted it provides an opportunity to

Page 36 improve habitat and biodiversity as has happened at Rainton Meadows. If permission is granted the Club encourages the imposition of conditions to ensure that this is of the highest possible standard.

110 British Horse Society – raises a number of concerns noting the close proximity to Bridleway 25 and the extensive surrounding bridleway network. The concerns relate to potential impacts on the public right of way network in this area noting that Bridleway 25 has regional importance as a recreational route which is extensively used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders, connecting through Hetton-le-Hole to Sunderland City Centre and numerous settlements along the route. Noise, dust and impacts upon horses despite mitigation measures; loss of peaceful routes; potential flooding and deterioration of Bridleway No. 25 and Footpath No.6; potential conflicts between horseriders and HGVs access the site and associated safety issues; conflict along the line of the HGV route; need for signage; increase in traffic in an area where housing is either being constructed or at the application stage. In addition suggestions are make to upgrade Footpath No. 6 as a positive gain for the local community and all public network users. Additionally any improvements to Bridleway 25 would also be welcomed.

111 County Durham Local Access Forum – raise issues relating to potential impacts on the public rights of way and users from noise, dust, visual impact, and need to consider any unrecorded rights of way but adds that more details of the aftercare plan structure should be made available to the general public and there should be a living policy regarding aftercare and this should also be available to the general public.

112 Tyne & Wear Access Forum – raise issues applying to the adjacent area in the City of Sunderland, and through routes into County Durham. Like the British Horse Society the Forum is are particularly concerned with possible effects on Bridleway No. 25, National Cycle Route 20 and Footpath No. 6, all routes of regional significance, and a safe, off-road facility for walkers, cyclists and riders/drivers of horses. The concerns are related to access and use of the above routes and Robin Lane. Issues raised relate to noise; risk of increased flooding; use of Robin Lane by HGVs; need for road widening and signage; queries over possible diversions of public rights of way during the proposed works, and support for the possible upgrading and improved access to Footpath 6, if possible to a bridleway and improvements to Bridleway No. 25 would be considered a community gain.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

113 Spatial Policy – the response highlights relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance in relation to the assessment of the proposal. It highlights relevant saved development plan policies contained within the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, the City of Durham Local Plan and the emerging County Durham Plan.

114 The policy framework against which this planning application will need to be determined is evolving. Nevertheless, given the timescales for the preparation of the County Durham Plan, it is understood that that the planning application will be determined prior to the adoption of the County Durham Plan. In these circumstances it is recommended that due weight be given to the relevant saved policies of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, in particular Policy M7 which is broadly in line with paragraph 149 of the NPPF and relevant policies of the City of Durham Local Plan (in particular Policy E3 if applicable). It is also recommended that the guidance set out in the NPPF and its associated Guidance be considered as key material

Page 37 considerations which should be read alongside the relevant saved development plan policies. In this respect officers consider it is essential that full regard is given to:

• Paragraph 144, in particular the requirement ‘to give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including to the economy’; and • Paragraph 149, in particular if the proposed development is found not to be environmentally acceptable any outweighing national, local or community benefits which outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission.

115 Landscape – officers consider that the proposals would have some significant landscape and visual effects but these would be localised and relatively short term in nature.

116 Ecology – officers are satisfied with the level of survey work provided and the restoration plan provided. The only concern is that a robust legal agreement is put into place which will ensure the retention and management of the restored habitats for as long as possible. This should also include the early stage mitigation suggested in the Ecological Assessment.

117 Design and Historic Environment – The world heritage site and designated assets within 2km have been assessed, but has only assessed non designated assets within 1km which is less than satisfactory. In addition the assessment of setting impact appears to rely purely on impact on views and intervisibility, and does not consider fully the way in which the heritage assets are appreciated. Having regard to the English Heritage guidance on Setting of Heritage Assets it is considered that the proposed development is likely to have significant noise, dust and vibration impacts, and officers are concerned that the impact of this on nearby heritage assets has not been taken into account. It was requested that this additional layer of assessment was undertaken prior to determination of this application. An assessment of all non- designated assets within a 2km radius should also be undertaken, as originally agreed. It is noted that English Heritage raises no issues but it focuses only on the Grade I and II* buildings and scheduled monuments, whereas the Council must consider all the grade II buildings, the Pittington Hallgarth Conservation Area and non designated assets as well. Additional information on the setting of those and specifically the impact of the noise, dust and vibrations on how those assets are appreciated was requested.

118 Following submission of additional information officers consider that the level of assessment is still deficient in terms of the level and range of assessment of setting undertaken and the assessment of effects section only presents a number of conclusions without any underpinning assessment to demonstrating the validity of the conclusions. Officers consider that a fuller assessment (in accordance with English Heritage guidance and DCC standard practice) of the setting of all heritage assets which should go beyond issues of indivisibility and proximity is outstanding. However, officers do not believe the proposals would have any adverse impact on the setting and universal values of the Durham World Heritage Site. Having assessed additional information in relation to noise officers are satisfied that there would be no adverse impact on the ambience of the Pittington Hallgarth Conservation Area.

119 Public Rights of Way – Raise no objection noting that there are three registered public rights of way which may be affected by the proposals; Bridleway 25 and Footpaths 5 and 6 West Rainton Parish. It is noted that Bridleway 25 and Footpath 6 in particular are locally important recreational routes which are well used by the

Page 38 public, and form a major part of a promoted walking route entitled the Purple Clover Leaf Walk. This forms one of a set of 3 routes published in leaflet form by the West Rainton Green Group, supported by DCC, and widely distributed in the local area. Officers therefore welcome the assurances provided in the application that the public rights of way will be kept open throughout the period of working. Officers note that Footpath No. 7 would pass through an early ecological enhancement area, with completed restoration to include minor scrapes to increase the depth of seasonal water bodies. Although Footpath No. 7 is prone to seasonal flooding, concerns are raised that the proposed restoration scheme will exacerbate this. It is therefore requested that appropriate drainage is installed on the path, or if necessary a possible formal diversion of the path onto a route through the proposed new terrestrial habitat zone. This would have the added benefit of permanently moving the legal line of the path further away from the rear gardens which it currently abuts. With regard to Bridleway No. 25, it is considered that any comments, concerns or recommendations provided by the British Horse Society relating to the safety and well being of horse riders arising from dust or blasting should be given serious consideration

120 Travel Plan Team – initially considered that the travel plan submitted with the application did not satisfy the requirements of the PAS 500:2008 ‘National Specification for Workplace Travel Plans’ Bronze Grade. A revised plan has been submitted and the Travel Plan Team considers this to be acceptable and all outstanding comments have been addressed.

121 It is noted that the Cycle Super Route alongside the A690 would be to the north of the site and links into West Rainton from Carrville so would be mostly unaffected by these plans. However, cyclists using Robin Lane would be at greater risk with increases of traffic and in particular lorry traffic which is well known to have blind spots for drivers causing many fatalities around the country, in particular in London. It is suggested that safety measures should be adopted by the lorry company such as installing Trixy mirrors, low skirts and sidebars. It is considered that the road and junction should also be designed to safely accommodate cyclists and pedestrians so they can be separated from traffic whilst maintaining a safe, direct and comfortable journey. It is considered that in an ideal world a bridge across the A690 would be of massive benefit.

122 Environment, Health & Consumer Protection (Noise) – In order to minimise the potential for a statutory nuisance a number of comments have been made regarding noise, no objection is raised. Officers note that the assessment is based on worst case noise levels and during short term operational development phases, noise levels would reach the stated criteria level of 70dB(A) at Pittington Station House and noise increases by 23dB(A) and 17dB(A) above background level are predicted at Pittington Station House and Greengables. It is noted that operations from the mine would encroach quite significantly during short term operations at Pittington Station House and Greengables It is recommended that if the site is developed the opperator should take a proactive approach to ensure noise levels are minimised and that they are carried out during times of the day which least impact on the two identified premises.

123 Environment, Health & Consumer Protection (Air Quality) – No objections are raised but have made comments regarding the assessment undertaken. It is noted that the assessment of nuisance dust has been carried out for the identified different phases of working on the site. This includes earthworks for the construction of mounds in the vicinity of the perimeter of the site. It is noted from the assessment that the

Page 39 distance of the earth mounds, is for the majority of the phases of working, close to some of the identified sensitive receptors.

124 It is considered the greatest potential for nuisance dust to occur is from the movement of earth during the work to construct the earth mounds particularly as this work will be in close proximity to some of the dust sensitive receptors. By comparison, it is recognised that once the mounds have been constructed, profiled and planted with grass seed and are left ‘in situ’ the potential for emissions of dust will be minimal. An effect magnitude for these dust receptors has been determined as minor to negligible with an effect significance of minor adverse to insignificant taking into consideration that the soil storage mounds will be seeded to grass once constructed. This is considered to be a conservative estimate when the work to construct the earth mounds is being carried out given the proximity of the nearest dust sensitive receptors. Officers recognise and accept that the formation of the topsoil/subsoil mounds are for the provision of bunding on the perimeter of the site and fall into the category of short term operations. Following the formation of the bunding it is noted that grass sward will be planted to reduce the potential for dust emissions to occur to a minimum. The implementation of dust mitigation measures detailed in the proposed Dust Action Plan (DAP) would minimise the potential for dust emissions when the earth mounds are being formed and profiled. Conditions requiring the submission of a DAP are recommended and comments are made regarding the dust monitoring strategy for the site.

125 It is noted that an assessment of the potential for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 has been carried out and determined that the resultant concentration levels of PM10 and PM2.5 from the surface mineral activities would be kept well below the air quality objectives for both of these pollutants. It is recommended that the continuous monitoring of background concentration levels of both of these pollutants is carried out over an annual period prior to the commencement of activities on the site and used to establish a ‘trigger level’ for the site incorporated within the Dust Action Plan as a level, that if exceeded will ‘trigger’ the carrying out of measures on site to reduce dust emissions from the site. However, given monitoring has been undertaken over a three month period over the winter period officers have agreed that to provide a representative assessment over an annual period monitoring measurements should additionally be made for three months over the summer months.

126 Environment, Health & Consumer Protection (Contaminated Land) – raises no objection highlighting that parts of the site are on the Council’s database of potentially contaminated land sites. These areas typically being: the Lady Seaham Pit and colliery spoil, the Rainton and Seaham railway, and shafts. Officers note that details submitted with the application details the potential contaminants on the site, however presents a hazard rating of low given no intrusive site investigation has been undertaken. It is considered that there is insufficient evidence to prove there is no contamination on the site particularly in these areas and as a result contaminated land conditions are recommended. Following the submission of additional information detailing how materials encountered would be dealt with during the works Officers are happy with the proposals put forward for handling any contaminated material encountered.

127 Employability Team –believe there is an opportunity to explore employment and skills training that will assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability. At the operational phase it is estimated that at least 6 of the posts created should be new FTE opportunities (either jobs or apprenticeships) which officers would like to be included as a target within the S106 agreement, if possible.

Page 40

128 Archaeology – officers have no significant objections to the proposal. However, further information is needed to understand to understand the significance of anomalies highlighted by the geophysical survey to be sure that the strong ridge and furrow magnetic responses are not masking earlier features. It is need to devise a suitable and reasonable mitigation strategy. Given the geophysical survey results do not appear to be indicating there are any significant archaeological features within the site it has been agreed that trial trenching could be conditioned as the first phase of archaeological works post determination. This would affect the timetable of works and why it was advised that the work is done pre-determination. Officers would require trial trenches to be the first work agreed and carried out before any other groundworks. Results of trenching will then need to inform a suitable mitigation strategy to be agreed before any other works can commence on site and conditions are requested to secure this.

129 Countryside Team – officers consider that the development would potentially have an impact on a stretch of the Pittington Railway Path for approximately 860 metres. The proposal site adjoins the Council’s boundary with Sunderland for a distance of approximately 480 metres. Apart from a visual intrusion and potential for noise and dust from the site, it is considered that there would appear to be little impact on users of the Railway Path. A number of practical areas for consideration are set out in the consultation response as per those highlighted in the response to the pre-application enquiry. These relate to the accommodation of a stream for the duration of the works; opportunities for the creation of wetland; provision of additional signage and interpretation of the development site and any subsequent habitat creation along the railway path; woodland management improvements, and assistance with surface improvements on the Railway Path itself between the public highway and County boundary which would assist the Authority in its maintenance programme.

130 Drainage Engineer – officers have no objections to the proposal, considering it would assist with the flooding issues because the land would be reduced in height. It is noted that the Environment Agency would be the body to approve the site.

131 Business Durham – considers that there are points in favour of the scheme from an ecological view, but Business Durham’s prime concerns are economic. It is a strong point in favour of the scheme that there would be 42 jobs created for the lifetime of the scheme, and these would be new jobs in that Hargreaves Surface Mining does not have current schemes that staff can be transferred in from; in addition there would be 18 jobs during the set up and remediation phases. There would also be potential for local procurement in a variety of areas. Finally, coal is still a very significant source of electricity generation and the local coal produced would substitute for imported coal. Nonetheless, Business Durham is concerned that the scheme should not have an adverse impact on Ramside Estates, specifically it’s enabled housing development and hotel development plans and expect that appropriate conditions would be placed on the company to mitigate, in particular, dust and noise problems. Business Durham notes that the development is 1km away from the hotel site at its closest and that the prevailing wind direction is away from the Ramside Estate. Subject to appropriate conditions as referred to, Business Durham supports the scheme due to the economic benefits.

132 In terms of the proposed restoration guarantee proposals Business Durham considers that it would be useful to quantify the remediation liabilities (how much and over what time period they would be discharged) in the context of parent guarantee and review process. It is noted that that Hargreaves Services is a Plc and works within a strict financial reporting environment, reduced somewhat as it is only listed

Page 41 on AIM and not the full London Stock Exchange. The guarantee and review process seems a fair offer; the detail would of course need to be worked through.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

133 The proposals were displayed at public exhibitions held by the applicant at High Pittington and West Rainton in County Durham and in East Rainton and Moorsley within the City of Sunderland prior to formal submission. The application was also advertised by site notice in a number of locations within County Durham and the City of Sunderland and in the local press (the Northern Echo and Sunderland Echo) as part of the planning procedures. Notification letters were sent to individual properties within 1km of the proposed site boundary. In addition the application was publicised on Durham County Council’s weekly list. Sunderland City Council was consulted as neighbouring authority. At the request of Sunderland City Council Hetton Town Council was consulted.

Objection

134 209 letters of objection have been received from individuals in response to the application from the local area, County Durham and beyond. Of these 62 are proforma letters and 41 are signed leaflets encouraging people to register their objection to the proposal. The grounds of objection and concern raised by those objecting to the proposed development are summarised below.

Residential amenity/Quality of life ° The future safety of Pittington and Rainton children is raised as a concern given that water attracts children and a permanent silting pond is proposed and fears that a child may drown. ° It is considered that there would be an adverse impact upon residential amenity given the close proximity of properties to the proposed development as well as neighbouring villages. ° The proposed development would have a catastrophic effect on village life. ° Potential odours from the proposed works is raised as a concern. ° The duration of the proposal including restoration considered to be too long and would result in years of misery for local residents. ° Working hours are considered to be too long. Reference is made to the length of the working day and ‘out of hours’ operations. ° Concerns that there would be an adverse impact on house prices as a result of the proposal and the housing situation in the villages would be worsened as a result. ° Concerns that human rights would be affected by the proposed development given the development would be so close to residential properties. ° The village is a rural location and is surrounded by unspoilt countryside with lovely walks and views. ° The proposal would completely destroy the area north of the village, disrupting and blighting the views from the beautiful walks on Pittington Hill and Moorsley Bank which are popular with residents and visitors alike. ° There are no benefits for these village communities or for this area of Durham, just destruction and disruption for years to come for 6 weeks worth of coal that would not be used locally. It is stated that the fireclay would not be used locally either. ° The close proximity of the site and mounds associated with it are too close to residential properties (it is stated that a 5m high topsoil mound would be 17m from a particular property) and would result in a loss of light and feeling of imprisonment.

Page 42 ° Speculation over possible blasting although none is proposed. ° Loss of sleep, hearing damage, loss of a tranquil environment and physical and psychological deterioration.

Noise ° At the public consultation it was stated that noise levels would be no more than 10dB at the site boundaries but this logarithmic scale of perceived noise is equivalent to a substantial increase because of the logarithmic nature of the dB scale. ° At the public consultation it is stated that there was no reference to the frequency of noise and it is noted that low frequency noise from heavy plant can travel considerable distances. ° No information on daily duration or weekend working was provided at the public consultation. ° General noise concerns are raised given the location of the site in a rural and residential area. ° Noise from Eppleton Quarry (some 3 miles away) is heard by residents in High Moorsley and concerns are raised that noise from the proposed development would definitely be heard comparing the noise to that of a construction site.

Dust ° Dust pollution concerns have been raised given the location of the site in a rural and residential area and given the dominant wind direction from the west. ° Concerns regarding dust generated from the site and the ability to control it are raised along with concerns that house windows and doors would need to remain closed and washing could not be hung outside. ° Health related issues relating to dust and emissions from surface mining have been raised. A number of people have raised specific concerns relating to children and elderly people with asthma. ° Concerns are raised following press reports detailing a link between exposure to the air pollution and heart attacks. ° It is noted that after deep mining a generation suffered from health effects of coal dust and the current proposal would put a greater population at risk. ° That opencast mining without more research into its impacts is in direct contradiction of the precautionary principle and that the Council seeks the advice of the European MP. ° That an epidemiological study should be commissioned prior to determination of the application. ° Concerns that local weather monitoring stations have not been used as a baseline for the assessments undertaken. ° Comments are made regarding the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures that are proposed to minimise the impacts of dust. ° Strong winds frequently experienced in the area would cause dust to travel over a wide area, affecting residents living in Pittington, West Rainton and East Rainton. ° Concern that although the application is within County Durham the impacts would be most felt in settlements within Sunderland.

Traffic ° Increased traffic generation and highway safety issues on the road network as a result of the proposals have been raised as concerns. It is noted that increased traffic flows on the A690 have resulted from the opening of the second Tyne Tunnel and the Western Bypass. ° The view is expressed that the traffic numbers associated with the proposal have been underestimated.

Page 43 ° The proposal would have a serious negative impact on traffic travelling north and south on the A690 used mainly by commuters. Laden HGVs travelling at high speed to meet delivery schedules would destroy road surfaces, increase repair costs, generate tremendous noise and airborne pollutants negatively affecting the community of West Rainton and surrounding villages. ° Robin Lane is a narrow scenic country lane not suitable for HGVs. ° There would be safety issues relating to users of the public rights of way network and on young people walking to school as a result of increased traffic. ° Concern that the A690 is already a busy road and it can take some time to get out the village that way. Extra lorries and traffic from the development would increase congestion and make the road more dangerous around junctions which have already been the scene of fatal accidents. Residents do not want any more. ° Comments are made regarding traffic calming in neighbouring villages and how they have not worked. ° Traffic associated with other businesses in the area are mentioned and that the proposed development would exasperate existing problems. ° Concerns that proposed HGV routes would not be adhered to and vehicles would use unsuitable roads through surrounding villages and other unsuitable roads. ° The proposed road widening works raise concerns as it is thought that vehicles would travel faster. ° Reference is made to other developments in the area that have impacted and may impact upon local communities including developments at Ramside and proposed housing at West Rainton. Specific reference is made to impacts of traffic.

Landscape and Visual impact ° There would be a loss of views. ° The proposal would spoil the beautiful natural landscape surrounding the area which would be severely impacted. ° There would be an adverse visual impact as a result of the proposed working method and mounds associated with it. ° It is considered that there has been a lack of consideration of views including that from Pittington Hill. Views from Pittington Hill include views of Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site, Penshaw Monument, Angel of the North and Cheviot.

Ecology ° There would be damage to the natural plant and animal life in the designated area of Pittington Hill. ° Harmful impacts on flora and fauna including butterflies, voles, foxes, rabbits, hares, deer and protected species would result from the proposed development. ° Reference is made to adverse effects on the designated area of Pittington Hill and specific concerns are raised in terms of the area being susceptible to damage by dust. ° The loss of mature trees and hedgerows is highlighted noting that hedgerows are protected and recently planning permission was refused for removal of hedgerows. ° Concerns regarding the impact on water courses and springs within the site and detrimental impact upon ecology including pollution that could occur.

Hydrology ° Concerns have been raised regarding water table drawdown as a result of pumping groundwater from the proposed excavation. An estimate provided is that the watertable could be drawn down sufficiently to affect trees and hedges to Page 44 a distance equal to the depth of the excavation of some 50m. Trees and hedges could suffer severely and streams could disappear. ° There is concern that the proposed development has the potential to exacerbate existing flooding problems at the site. With some objectors concerned that houses would be at greater risk. ° View that there is a risk of water pollution from extractive operations and adverse impact on groundwater and impact on trees and hedges some distance from the site. ° Flooding in recent years affecting roads and properties in Pittington has occurred and there are concerns that given the location of the site (very close to roads and houses) extra water and silt running off the site could not fail to make things much worse for householders and road users alike. ° The height of the site compared to Rainton Meadows Nature Reserve would mean that water and waterborne pollutants would flow towards that site increasing threat to flora and fauna there.

Recreation ° Concerns are raised regarding the impact upon the local rights of way network used for recreational purposes (walking, cycling, horse riding, running). ° The routes would become less attractive. ° It is queried if money could be found to make a safe route for cyclists noting that the County Council has plans to make a cycling super route along the A690 and that these plans should be consulted and included in any proposed road alterations at this junction with Robin Lane.

Agricultural land ° There would be a loss of agricultural land and concerns are raised that productive agricultural land should not be lost in order to produce coal especially given the rise in global food prices.

Restoration ° Restoration of the site would take at least 15 years to return to how it is currently. ° Concern that the site would be restored through landfill. ° Restoration proposals appear to fail to resolve an issue of water accumulation to the rear of properties on Pittington Lane instead they would seek to increase the amount of water allowed to pool there.

Legacy issues ° It has taken many years to rectify the negative impact of old coal mines, the wish is expressed not to revert back to those days. ° If coal mining is necessary it is queried why coal mines closed in the 1980s. Since then the North east has become a better place to live and work. ° Concerns with hazards associated with two nearby landfill sites given the close proximity of them and the application site.

Cultural heritage ° The proposed development would have an adverse impact on heritage assets. ° Field House dates back to the 17 th Century and this raises the possibility of archaeology dating back further.

Employment ° Misleading information on potential local employment opportunities has been provided as part of the application process. ° Queries are raised if jobs to be created would be new jobs or jobs for workers who have worked on previous sites.

Page 45 Impact on tourism and effect on the local economy ° The proposal would be detrimental to local businesses (including hotels, pubs, farm shop, cattery and livery) as a result of the various environmental impacts and to tourism including impacts on Durham City and entrance to it. ° Potential unemployment if local businesses close as a result of the proposed surface mining scheme. ° The proposed development would have a negligible impact on local employment as opposed to the Ramside. ° A negative perception of the area would result should the development be permitted. ° Statement that legal action would be taken against the Council should property and business values decrease as a result of the proposed development.

Future development ° View that the proposal would open the floodgates for further mineral extraction in and around the parish.

The applicant and the coal industry ° Concerns have been raised regarding the potential financial instability of the coal industry in general and the applicant. Comments have been made regarding the applicant’s current operations and takeover of bankrupt surface coal mine operators. ° View expressed that a financial guarantee should be offered by the applicant in the event that planning permission is granted as well as the reimbursement of flood damage costs. ° Queries regarding the need for the coal and comments regarding the possible need to blend the coal. ° Consideration that the NPPF has altered planning guidance with a key emphasis on the Country seeking to resource its own energy needs rather than imports. It is also considered that shale gas as opposed to coal will supply energy needs and that cheap imports are available from America as a consequence of shale gas extraction there. However, if there is a move to shale gas then there is no justification.

Other matters ° Concerns regarding the resource ability of the County Council, Durham Constabulary and the Environment Agency to monitor the site should planning permission be granted. ° The proposed community fund should be greater than 20p per tonne. ° The proposed Section 106 Agreement should cover the land and other sites within the Pittington/Sherburn electoral wards. ° Query regarding the responsibilities of the landowner/operator during site restoration and confusion as to whether or not the applicant is to lease or purchase the land and speculation as to whether or not it would be restored to farmland. The possibility of housing is mentioned. ° It is stated that the hill is prone to sink holes and concerns that the proposal would exacerbate the problem. ° The area has been subjected to opencasting in recent years with related environmental problems and another three years would be unacceptable. ° Thought that any Council with an eye on the environment would steer clear of fossil fuel extraction. ° The Council would be failing local residents if the application is approved. Rather than being ‘Altogether Greener’ or ‘Altogether Better’, perhaps ‘Altogether Unhealthier, Altogether Dirtier, Altogether Noisier, Altogether Unsightly’. ° Queries if the short term financial gain for a small company is worth potential health risks for local populations. The financial gain from coal sales would most Page 46 certainly not equal the long term financial cost suffered to local residents and the Council. ° Lack of community benefits proposed. ° That the community has sufficient play areas for children and well maintained village hall and does not require any sweeteners. ° Concerns relating to hazardous materials, ground contamination, omission of harmful substances, sedimentation and erosion as a result of the proposed development. ° The thought that the Council has previously advised that it would not consider any planning applications for mining in the area as it is not of national strategic importance. It is queried why the change. ° FOI request as to how much income directly and indirectly the Council would receive. ° Lack of consultation with local residents, including those in Sunderland, regarding the planning application. ° Problems are reported with the Councils’ website when trying to view the application details. ° It is noted that public meetings attended by local residents demonstrated the lack of support towards the application. ° It is queried if Council members would want a surface coal mine on their doorstep. ° View that letters of support have come from those with a vested financial interest in the application being approved, being suppliers or employees and none appearing to be local residents.

135 A petition against the proposal (800 signatures) was submitted in April 2013, prior to submission of the application in August 2013.

136 County Councillor Stephen Guy (Electoral Division member for Sherburn) – objects to the proposal being unable to see any benefits to the local area should the application be approved. His considered opinion is that this proposal would deliver nothing but damage and disruption to those who reside in the local area. The long term cost to the environment is a major worry too noting that Hargreaves recently closed deep mines in other areas of the UK who seems to be turning their attention to perceived cheaper forms of solid fuel extraction. It may well be cheaper to the applicant but the costs to our community will be huge. The Councillor has asked that a number of matters be considered when determining the application which are summarised as follows. Concerns that great crested newts present on site would be at risk from the proposed development. Major disruption to wildlife and flora as a result of noise, dust and vibration would result from the development. The site is currently agricultural land and would not be suitable for farming following restoration. Concern that proposals to alter the watercourse to accommodate great crested newts would exacerbate the risk of flooding in an area which is already susceptible to flooding are also raised.

137 The Councillor notes that this area of County Durham is very picturesque and the environment and views are enjoyed by locals and visitors alike. The fear is raised that visitors would be discouraged with consequences for the local economy. The development would disturb the tranquil area of Moorsley, Pittington, West Rainton and East Rainton given the proposed working hours and local residents’ sense of wellbeing and enjoyment would be compromised. It is noted that there is a South Westerly prevailing wind in this area and any dust generated by mining in the area will travel the short distance to the secondary school in Hetton, potentially damaging the health of young people. He is concerned that the proposed coal haulage route via Robin Lane and the A690 is unsuitable and not adequate to facilitate a safe flow

Page 47 of traffic. Reference is made to the A690 being designated walking route for school age children who reside in West Rainton and attend Belmont Secondary School. Any increase in heavy plant traffic along this stretch of road would expose these children to greater risk. Concerns are raised regarding negative impacts upon Ramside Hall Estates which has been described as bringing economic and leisure benefits to the area. Reference is made to the ‘Purple Clover Leaf Walk’ and an active walking group within West Rainton supported by the County Council and the BBC’s Breathing Spaces. (Breathing Places was a five-year campaign set up in 2005 to encourage people to do one thing to help nature on their doorstep. It ended in December 2010.) Concerns expressed relate to the walk losing its appeal as a result of the proposed development. The impact of dust in relation to a neighbouring farm shop business serving food is raised as a concern.

138 STop the Opencast between Pittington and West Rainton (STOPWR) group of residents – object to the proposed development and urge each Committee member to wholly reject this application. It is stated that the village has a rural location and is home to the historic church of St Lawrence and is surrounded by unspoilt countryside with lovely walks and panoramic views. The proposed mine would completely destroy the area north of the village, disrupting and blighting the views from the beautiful walks on Pittington Hill and Moorsley Bank which are popular with residents and visitors alike. It is stated that residents are worried about dust which would pollute the air in their village and blow towards others, particularly the Raintons and Hetton, and related health concerns particularly for older people, very small children and those with asthma and allergies. There are several schools in close proximity to the proposed site, some directly in the path of prevailing winds. Reference is made to BMJ published articles highlighting this concern as well as press reports linking exposure to air pollution and heart attack. Flooding in recent years in Low Pittington has badly affected roads and properties. It is noted that the site is very close to those roads and immediately adjacent to some homes. There is concern that extra water running off the site would undoubtedly make things much worse for road users and householders alike, some of whom are elderly and have lived in their homes for more than 50 years.

139 Concerns are also raised regarding access and traffic. It is noted that the A690 is already a busy road and it can take some time to get out of the villages that way. STOPWR is of the view that the extra lorries and traffic from Hargreaves would increase congestion and make the road more dangerous around junctions which have already been the scene of fatal accidents. Residents do not want any more on a road that forms a major route into our City and its World Heritage Site. Residents have chosen to live here because of the positive effect such a location has on the welfare and well-being of their families and themselves. Residents have worked hard to buy and maintain homes in this beautiful, rural environment so do not want to see their local area destroyed and our homes devalued for at least 3+ years (perhaps for ever, for effective and sympathetic restoration, as seen in other parts of the country, is not guaranteed) for the sake of removing the tiny amount of 6.5 weeks’ worth of coal which would not be used locally, together with fire clay which has little usage at all and that which does exist does so many miles away from this area. STOPWR consider that there is absolutely no benefit to be had locally by the proposed scheme.

140 Hetton School – On behalf of the Governing Body of Hetton School, the Head Teacher has advised the Council that it objects to the application. It is stated that with a secondary school of 750 students located so close to the application site the Body is worried that prevailing winds would mean air pollution to its students when they are outside for break times and PE lessons. The Body is also concerned that if

Page 48 there is additional traffic generated by the site that passes near the school entrances such as North Road and Hazard Lane then this could pose additional dangers to already dangerous roads. It is also stated that Hetton Primary School is co-located on the same site.

141 The Coal Action Network – objects to the proposal citing that it is too close to the local population and there is no way to mitigate the effects on the local people who could be exposed to the effects of mining for a long time to come through a succession of applications and extensions. Health issues associated with surface coal mining are raised along with recent financial difficulties with a number of surface coal mining companies as well as the fact that coal powered power stations are being phased out. Reference is made to traffic problems, delay in commencing sites, noise, dust and general damage to local communities.

142 Ramside Estates – objects to the proposed development. Considering the likely significant effects upon the local environment (landscape and visual, noise, air pollution, vibration and traffic impacts) individually and cumulatively would have considerable impact upon the local environment not least upon the amenity of residential properties and commercial businesses that lie immediately and adjacent to and within close proximity of the site. It is stated that the hotel is proud to be the largest privately-owned luxury hotel in Durham and the North East. It is highlighted that the original hall is a Grade II listed building and the gardens are designated a Historic Park and Garden. The objection goes onto focus on the effect on tourism and the economic benefits of the hotel and its facilities which makes a significant contribution to the local economy each year and employs a number of local people.

143 Ramside Estates is concerned that the proposed development would lower the environmental standards of the hotel and its grounds and would inevitably lead to less visitors and lower occupancy rates. The Ramside Hotel largely sustains the Estate’s hotel business (which includes Hardwick Hall and Bowburn Hall) and as such there are plans to expand the hotel through the approved enabling development scheme. Concern is expressed that the proposed development would be detrimental to these expansion plans. The direct environmental and economic impacts upon Ramside, as a result of the proposed opencast mine in such close proximity, together with the adverse impact upon the perception of County Durham as an attractive visitor destination, could result in major economic impacts that are not outweighed by any benefits arising from the approval of the application. It is submitted that the proposals are likely to be very damaging to Ramside Hall, the wider tourism economy and the perception of County Durham as an attractive designation for tourists.

144 Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Durham – objects to the proposal for a number of reasons. These include: any new sites being contradictory to the Government’s objective of reducing greenhouse gases; such developments are unsustainable; concerns regarding the loss of best and most versatile land, and that the needs of industry can currently be met by imports of coal.

Support

145 33 representations of support have been submitted. The letters include expressions of interest from brickwork companies noting a strong demand for brick production and expressing interest in the material for use at brickworks at Todhills, Birtley, Throckley and Claughton Manor. Reference is made to the beneficial physical characteristics of the material from the North East, the benefits of the location of the

Page 49 proposed site to local brickworks and the opportunity of prolonging the life of brickworks are cited as benefits of the proposal.

146 8 of the letters of support have come from County Durham businesses who have worked with or are suppliers to the applicant. Those businesses note the arguments for and against the proposal. Highlighting the positive economic impact that the proposal would have including local spin-off work at a time when businesses in the area need a boost and when jobs are hard to come by. It is considered that from an environmental view the applicant has vast experience in such schemes and know how to avoid disturbance issues with noise, extra traffic etc. It is considered that project would only last a couple of years and the area would be re-planted with trees and a hedgerow making it a better place for locals and wildlife than it is now. The community fund is also referred to as a benefit.

147 20 individual letters of support are generally from residents within County Durham and employees of the applicant. Those individuals supporting the application refer to the proposal in terms of employment and the protection of jobs in local brickworks and noting that the area and villages were founded on coal and importance in terms of the region’s heritage. General support of opencast mining in Durham is given. It is noted that whilst there are issues and concerns in areas such as transport, noise and the environment the overall benefit to Durham would outweigh any difficulties. It is stated that the applicant is known to be both professional and highly skilled and that the company would act with integrity and consideration with regard to transport and noise and the area would be left after mining in a better condition to that in which it was found. It is considered that such a scheme would have a positive effect on the local community with the creation of new employment which would in turn create extra spending in local shops, businesses and services. It is also stated that the scheme would be for a short period of time and the investment in the local community is generous given any perceived disruption to a limited section of the community. Noting that the vision of the Council is to increase the number of jobs in the County. It is further considered that the community fund would allow for spending directly benefitting the local community. It is considered that highway improvements would provide benefits to road safety.

148 The demand for coal in the UK power industry is mentioned and the continued importance in the Country’s energy mix. The benefits of homegrown energy and reduction in the carbon footprint for fuels used at various production units in the North East and reduction in imports are also mentioned. A resident who lived next to a former surface mine considers that fears regarding disruption are likely to be overstated and that site did not cause disturbance for residents and that the site has been restored to a high level and how she regularly uses the facilities of the restored site. It is noted that the applicant is an established business based at Esh Winning providing substantial employment locally and across the UK. Sites like Field House are an important part of their future business activities and provide major economic benefits and that the application is planned to support the ongoing future of the business. It is noted that there are no objections to the proposal from statutory consultees.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

149 Hargreaves Surface Mining Limited (“HSM”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hargreaves Services plc (“HS”), a Durham based public limited company which employs almost 3,000 people in total. HSM is a major operator of surface coal mine schemes with 9 current operational sites in the United Kingdom.

Page 50 150 HSM has submitted a comprehensive planning application for the environmentally led Field House Surface Mine Scheme which covers 55.9ha, located to the south east of the settlement of West Rainton and the A690, south of Robin Lane and approximately 5.5 kilometres north east of the centre of Durham City.

151 The Scheme involves surface mining operations for the winning and working of 514,000 tonnes of coal and up to 83,000 tonnes of fireclay, ancillary Site operations, with progressive restoration and aftercare to agriculture, broadleaved woodland, hedgerows, water bodies, wetland, and low nutrient grassland, over a 3 year period. Within this timescale Site excavation operations would be completed within an estimated 2 year and 3 month period (including coal and fireclay extraction over a 2 year and 2 month period). The Scheme includes early ecological enhancement works covering 3.6 hectares of land to the north and north west of the Site. The early ecological enhancement works along with the restoration and aftercare proposals for the Scheme have been designed to achieve a balance between the creation of habitat and species biodiversity appropriate to the locality, the enhancement of the landscape quality, the requirement for continued agricultural use and the need to create a viable long term landscape that can be managed in a sustainable manner.

152 An Environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) has been carried out in in relation to the Scheme and the results are set out in an Environmental Statement (“ES”). The Scheme has been assessed in relation to a comprehensive range of environmental matters involving: landscape and visual impact; noise; historic environment; ecology; hydrology; hydrogeology; air quality and dust; soils and agricultural land use and quality; transport and access; contamination; stability; mine gas; socio-economic and cumulative effects. In this respect, it is concluded that the Scheme would be environmentally acceptable, including the potential for cumulative impacts, subject to planning conditions and obligations.

153 In addition, the many benefits of the Scheme are summarised as follows: • a ‘once and for all’ surface mine scheme to extract 514,000 tonnes of indigenous coal that would contribute to the maintenance and diversity of fuel supply in the UK power generation sector and other potential markets; • extraction of up to 83,000 tonnes of fireclay for the brick manufacturing market; • creation of an estimated 42 full time jobs during the working of the Site and up to 18 seasonal jobs; • provision of opportunities for businesses, including local companies, to supply goods and services throughout the Scheme; • enhanced restoration in keeping with the surrounding landscape; • enhanced ecological and biodiversity benefits as part of the restoration and aftercare proposals including: over 2.1ha of new native broadleaved and open woodland; 2.3ha of new native scrub along with almost 0.5ha of retained scrub; 3.2km of replacement and new native hedgerow with intermittent trees; over 1.6ha of new ponds and swales and around 0.5ha of existing ponds retained and improved; 1.7ha of permanent grazed wet grassland (including the existing northern paddocks); 4.5ha of new low nutrient grassland and 5.8ha of permanent field margins; and • highway verge improvements at the A690 to Robin Lane junction.

154 HSM also propose to provide a community fund which will accrue during the life of the Site at a rate of 20 pence per tonne of coal extracted. This will produce an anticipated total sum of £102,800, available for the benefit of local community groups and good causes during the Scheme.

Page 51 155 In this respect, it is concluded that significant weight should be attached to the national, local and community benefits that would flow from the Scheme, which would clearly help achieve economic growth and outweigh the likely impacts. The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework confirms minerals of local and national importance include coal and fireclay and recognises that “ Minerals are essential to support sustainable economic growth and our quality of life.” and “It is therefore important that there is a sufficient supply of material to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs .” Coal remains an important part of this country’s energy mix (it provides 40% of all electricity generated in the UK) and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Demand for coal in the UK is far greater than can be met from indigenous production, a situation that will prevail for the duration of the Scheme. Coal from the Site would directly replace imports on a tonne for tonne basis.

156 The statutory consultees and Durham County Council’s internal consultees raise no objections to the Scheme. Indeed, a number of consultees acknowledge the benefits of the Scheme. These include:

• Business Durham: in relation to the economic benefits of the Scheme; • The Coal Authority: recognises that the Scheme seeks to work coal in environmentally and socially acceptable ways to meet market requirements; • Natural England: welcome the restoration plan.

157 It is considered that the Scheme comprises sustainable development which accords with the development plan and other material planning considerations including the National Planning Policy Framework. In this respect, HSM request that DCC should grant planning permission for the Scheme.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at the Strategic Planning Team, County Hall, Durham and at http://spatial.durham.gov.uk/dcs/DetailMain.asp?appid=2823&AppRef=cma%2F4%2F107&Category=All&Status=All&App eal=All&District=All&Month=All&Year=All

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

158 Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development, the effects of the development on residential amenity (including noise, air quality and dust), landscape and visual impact, biodiversity interests, cultural heritage, recreational amenity, agricultural quality and use, hydrology and hydrogeology, access and traffic, contamination, stability, mine gas, cumulative impact, alternatives, piecemeal working, legal agreements and national, local and community benefits. Other matters raised are also considered.

Principle of the development

Coal extraction

159 MLP Policy M7 contains a presumption against proposals for the opencast mining of coal and/or fireclay unless they are environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations, or they provide national, local or community

Page 52 benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal. In assessing such benefits, particular regard is to be had to the contribution of the proposal towards the comprehensive reclamation of areas of derelict or contaminated land, and the avoidance of sterilisation of mineral resources in advance of development which is either subject to a planning permission or allocated in an adopted development plan. Regard is also to be given to the contribution (or otherwise) to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment and the need for supplies of fireclay to serve local brickworks. All proposals should avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of other minerals, particularly fireclays and brickclays.

160 Paragraph 149 of the NPPF states that permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so through conditions or obligations, or if not, it provided national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57 which sets out matters to be considered when assessing national, local and community benefits is consistent with the NPPF. Policy M7 is similar to that in the NPPF. Although rather than stating that there is a ‘presumption against proposals’ , the NPPF states that ‘permission should not be given unless’ and there is also a requirement to consider national, local and community benefits. Nevertheless, it is considered that the Policy remains consistent with the NPPF.

161 For the presumption against in MLP Policy M7 to be set aside, and for paragraph 149 and Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57 to be met the proposal has to be environmentally acceptable or provide national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposal with regard to environmental effects. Surface mining is an operation which involves the movement of heavy vehicles over open terrain and removes established features in the landscape. It is noisy, likely to generate airborne dust and cause disruption over a number of years.

162 Consideration of the proposal’s environmental effects and national, local or community benefits in relation to MLP Policy M7, the NPPF and Submitted Plan Policy 57 are assessed in the following paragraphs of this report including the scope for control by condition or legal agreement.

Government Energy policy

163 In the July 2011 Energy White Paper ‘Planning our Electric commitment Future: a White Paper for Secure, Affordable and Low Carbon Electricity’, the Government sets out its intention to transform the UK’s electricity system to ensure that our future electricity supply is secure, low-carbon and affordable. The White Paper notes, that traditional fossil fuels leave the Country open to volatile prices, deepens our dependence on imported energy and lead to the emission of too much carbon. Also in July 2011, six energy National Policy Statements for Energy were approved. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) re-affirms the Government’s commitment to meet EU and prevailing national targets. EN-1 states the UK economy is reliant on fossil fuels, and they are likely to play a significant role for some time to come. However, the UK needs to wean itself off such a high carbon energy mix: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to improve the security, availability and affordability of energy through diversification.

164 The Government sees an important continuing role for coal through the transition to a low carbon energy mix. Consistent with its decarbonisation objectives, Government policy is “no new coal without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)” and

Page 53 it has a programme to seek to ensure the successful deployment of CCS technology. The UK’s coal-fired generation is regarded as an important part of our energy mix, currently providing a third of the country’s electricity needs. In 2013 coal fired power stations provided 36% of our electricity generation. In Great Britain there are currently 12 coal-fired power stations totalling around 20 GW of generating capacity currently operational. The Government considers that coal is a source of flexible and reliable generation and in winter periods of peak demand can provide as much as half of our generating needs and that indigenous coal production has an important role in the UK energy mix. UK coal output was around 16 million tonnes in 2013, almost all of this used within the UK, mainly as power station fuel. Around 25% of coal used in GB power stations was from indigenous sources .

165 Although there is a use for coal, the Government recognise that coal-fired generation is a relatively high-carbon source of electricity, with carbon emissions around twice that of gas per unit of electricity generated. The Government has therefore committed to preventing new unabated coal generating stations being built in the UK and this is set out in the National Policy Statements that require any new coal plant to be equipped with at least 300MW (net) of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and the Emissions Performance Standard limits carbon emissions to around half that produced by unabated coal. In addition the Government has also taken measures to limit coal plant emissions of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen under the requirements of EU air quality Directives.

166 In recent years it is recognised that there has been a shift from gas generation to coal as a result of a change in the relative price of gas and coal and a fall in the cost of EU ETS emissions allowances. There have been strong coal export levels from global producers such as the US, Columbia and South Africa that have kept European coal prices relatively low. European gas prices have not fallen in the same way, owing to tight markets, encouraging a shift to coal in generation. EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) prices have also remained low during 2013 minimising the penalty for the increased carbon dioxide emissions associated with coal burn.

167 The Government considers that this increase in coal generation is expected to be a relatively short-term phenomenon and this is consistent with its decarbonisation policy, and will be driven by a number of domestic and EU policies. There is the view that coal will maintain its price advantage over gas in the near term. However, there are constraints which are coming into force which will affect the use of coal. These being the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive that sets an emissions limit for sulphur dioxide. An initial exemption from this requirement will end in 2015 or sooner for plant that have used up their allowance, and they will cease generating electricity. There is also the domestic Carbon Price Floor that acts as a tax on carbon and alters the price of coal compared to gas, as coal has higher carbon emissions than gas for each unit of electricity generated.

168 In January 2016 the Industrial Emissions Directive will come into effect which tightens emissions limits on fossil fuel power stations. The Directive sets a number of options for coal fired power stations. They can opt-out of the Directive and instead run for up to 17,500 hours between January 2016 and the end of 2023 and then close, or enter the Transitional National Plant (TNP), which gives time, between 2016 and 2020, to fit equipment needed to meet the IED limits. If operators do not do so they must either close or operate for a maximum of 1,500-hours per year. As a result it is expected that there will be very few coal power stations to be operational beyond the early 2020s. Any longer-term role for coal will be dependent on the successful deployment of cost-competitive carbon capture and storage which the Government is investing in.

Page 54

169 Coal from the site would be sent to power stations for electricity generation and potentially local markets. In this respect, it is envisaged that the principal market for the coal from the site would involve the energy supply industry market based in Yorkshire and the Midlands. However, opportunities to explore local markets would be maximised.

170 It is clear that at this time and in the short term there is a continuing requirement for coal, and coal from the proposed development would assist in meeting current demand from an indigenous source and reducing the reliance on imports in line with the Government’s energy policy.

Fireclay

171 Some 83,000 tonnes of fireclay is proposed to be removed concurrently with the coal and within the proposed working timescale. The avoidance of sterilisation of mineral resources and the contribution (or otherwise) to the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment and the need for supplies of fireclay to serve local brickworks would be met if the fireclay is put to beneficial use. MLP Policy M7 indicates that all proposals should avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of other minerals, particularly fireclays and brickclays. The economic benefits of fireclay are also highlighted within the Policy.

172 The quality and marketability of the fireclay would not be known until sampling took place. It is expected that potential markets would be in the north east region or further afield. Letters of support have been received from brickwork companies (Wienerberger, Hanson and Ibstock) in respect of the application.

173 It has been the case with previous surface mines that the concurrent working of fireclay was regarded as beneficial but the material was found not to be marketable and was used as backfill as no other suitable use was identified. Nevertheless, the potential benefits of concurrent working of both important minerals is encouraged and would avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of a valuable resource and allow the concurrent working of two minerals, in accordance with Policies M7 and M19.

Consideration of the environmental acceptability of the proposals

174 To comply with MLP Policy M7(a), and to pass the first test of paragraph 149 of the NPPF, surface coal mining proposals are required to be environmentally acceptable or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations. This report will assess each identified likely environmental impact against the relevant Development Plan policy and NPPF.

Residential Amenity

175 The proposed site lies in countryside between West Rainton to the north and Low Pittington in the south with Rainton Gate to the west. The A690 runs to the north separating the site from West Rainton. Pittington Station Houses and Kennem Gill to the south (3 properties), Greengables House to the west and houses on Pittington Lane to the west are the closest residential properties. The closest properties in West Rainton are some 213m to the north west at Maple Lodge, Pine Lodge and Conifers and at Tollgate Fields. The Ramside Hotel lies some 1.2km to the south west. The closest dwellings and their proximity to the site and proposed operations Page 55 are listed below (distances in metres). The properties named are either specific or representative of groups of dwellings.

Approximate distance in metres from identified sensitive properties to various site operations Property Site Operational Excavation Overburden Soil Storage Coal Boundary Site area/void Mound Processing Boundary Pittington 10 10 101 185 26 965 Station Houses (1 Pittington Crossing) The Conifers, 213 213 611 630 302 345 Chantry Place, West Rainton Greengables, 78 78 132 152 85 231 West Rainton The Fold, 633 633 690 710 639 1215 High Moorsley Pitfield House, 131 131 239 253 139 461 Pittington Road, Rainton Gate West Ridge, 67 304 392 408 316 426 Pittington Road, Rainton Gate Bells Hill 197 276 490 500 277 319 Bungalow, West Rainton 19 Lea Rigg, 188 188 626 640 288 347 West Rainton Robin House, 547 547 587 594 554 719 Alexandra Flat

176 The application site boundary is within 250m of a group of 10 or more dwellings. These being properties along Pittington Road, properties in West Rainton closest to the A690 and properties at Rainton Gate. However, the site boundary encompasses areas of early ecological enhancement which are closest to properties along Pittington Road and those properties in West Rainton closest to the A690 and properties at Rainton Gate. As can be seen from the Table above the distance from the operational site boundary and extraction or associated activities (soil stripping, overburden and soil storage areas and coal processing) are further distant. Residential areas with groups or 10 or more dwellings are more distant from the operational elements of the development. Some 7 properties along Pittington Lane would be just within 250m of the western most topsoil mound. However, there are approximately 20 properties to the south eastern part of West Rainton within 250m of the site access onto Robin Lane.

177 The closest properties to the proposed mineral development would be the individual properties at Pittington Station Houses and Kennem Gill, Greengables and Pitfield House on Pittington Lane. These properties would be closest to areas to be stripped of soil, the locations of the proposed soil storage and overburden mounds and the excavation areas. The coal processing area and site access are closest to Greengables. In the case of Pittington Station Houses and Kennem Gill water treatment areas and mineral extraction (towards the end of the extraction period) Page 56 would be in close proximity. Initial disturbance would be caused by soil stripping and subsequent creation of soil storage mounds but these mounds would seek to reduce the impact of extraction operations for the duration of the excavation works. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has considered the proximity to occupied properties when designing the site and has sought to demonstrate that residential amenity can be protected from the adverse impacts of mineral working. The principal effects of working on residential amenity would be in respect to noise, dust and visual impact. Blasting is not proposed.

178 Planning Practice Guidance advises on separation zones/buffer zones noting they may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, based on site specific assessments and other forms of mitigation measures (such as working scheme design and landscaping) a certain distance is required between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and occupied residential property. Any proposed separation distance should be established on a site-specific basis and should be effective, properly justified, and reasonable. It should take into account: the nature of the mineral extraction activity; the need to avoid undue sterilisation of mineral resources, location and topography; the characteristics of the various environmental effects likely to arise; and the various mitigation measures that can be applied.

Noise

179 Government guidance (as contained in the Planning Practice Guidance which reaffirms advice contained in the now withdrawn Technical Guidance to the NPPF) advises that during normal working hours (0700 – 1900) and subject to a maximum of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field), mineral planning authorities should aim to establish a noise limit, through a planning condition, at noise sensitive properties that does not exceed the background level by more than 10bB(A). It is recognised, however, that where this will be difficult to achieve without imposing unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, the limit set should be as near to that level as practicable. During the evening (1900 – 2200) limits should not exceed background level by 10dB(A). During the night limits should be set to reduce to a minimum any adverse impacts, without imposing any unreasonable burdens on the mineral operator, but should not exceed 42dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) at noise sensitive properties. The Planning Practice Guidance also recognises that mineral operations will have some particularly noisy short term activities that cannot meet the limits set for normal operations. These include soil stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance. The Planning Practice Guidance advice is that increased temporary daytime noise limits of up to 70dB(A) L Aeq 1h (free field) for periods of up to 8 weeks in a year at specified noise sensitive properties should be considered in order to facilitate essential site preparation and restoration work and construction of baffle mounds where it is clear that this will bring longer-term environmental benefits to the site or its environs. Where work is expected to take longer than 8 weeks a lower limit over a longer period should be considered and in wholly exceptional cases, where there is no viable alternative, a higher limit for a very limited period may be appropriate in order to attain the environmental benefits.

180 A noise assessment has been carried out as part of the proposals the results of which are contained in the ES. Monitoring was undertaken at four properties around the site having been agreed with the Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection Team. These being Pitfield House, Pittington Station Houses (also referred to as 1 and 2 Pittington Crossing in the assessment), Chantry Place, West

Page 57 Rainton to the north of the site and Green Gables. Noise generated from the development would vary as operations progress across the site. Predictions have therefore been made at four representative phases during the life of the site, these being at 6, 12, 20 and 27 months. Predicted noise levels (based on a ‘worst case scenario’) indicate that normal site operations would not exceed the nominal limits of 55dB(A) L Aeq 1h and would not be 10dB(A) above measured background levels. The recorded background noise level for Pitfield House was 51dB and for Pittington Station Houses the background noise level was 47dB. The predicted level for normal operations at Pitfield House ranges between 49 and 50dB, and between 44 and 50 dB at Pittington Station Houses. For Chantry Place the background noise level was 54dB and the predicted level for normal operations range between 50 and 51dB. At Greengables the background noise level was 48dB and the predicted levels range between 50 and 53dB. The assessment concludes that the site would meet levels set out in the Planning Practice Guidance at all noise sensitive properties at all times for routine operations.

181 The assessment concludes that all temporary operations would be carried out within the nominal limit of 70dB(A) in any one hour L Aeq 1h over an 8 weeks period as specified in the Planning Practice Guidance. Predicted levels for temporary operations would range between 53 and 70dB at the aforementioned properties. The greatest increases would be at Pittington Station Houses, an increase of 23dB(A) from 47db, and at Greengables an increase of 17dB(A) from 48dB. The creation of the soil mounds closest to Pittington Station Houses (topsoil mound C and subsoil mound A would take one day and six days respectively. The closest mound to Greengables (topsoil mound B) would take seven days to construct.

182 As well as the construction of earth mounds, proposed noise mitigation measures also include the screening of pumps or generators at semi-permanent or permanent locations, steps to minimise the noise from vehicles and machinery, including the fitting of efficient silencers and regular monitoring of all site plant and machinery to ensure that silencer performance is not diminished. In addition soil handling, overburden extraction and backfill operations would be restricted to 07.00 to 19.00 Monday to Friday and 07.00 – 13.00 on Saturdays with no such operations on Sundays, Public or Bank Holidays. A Noise Action Plan is proposed and has been submitted with the application. If permission is granted through condition a Noise Action Plan would be submitted and agreed. Noise monitoring at the identified noise sensitive properties is proposed on a three monthly basis, the frequency increasing in the event of complaints or decreasing if routine monitoring consistently indicates compliance with noise levels.

183 The Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection Officer notes that the temporary operations would encroach quite significantly at Pittington Station House and Greengables. It is therefore recommended that if the site is developed the operator take a proactive approach to ensure noise levels are minimised and that operations are carried out during times of the day which least impact on the two identified premises. Officers advise that during periods when short term operations impact the most on residential premises, this should be conditioned which ensures further monitoring is carried out and operating hours may also be restricted for example 08:00 to 17:00. In response the applicant has confirmed that soil stripping, handling and restoration operations within 100m of Pittington Crossing/Station Houses and Greengables would be carried out between 08.00 to 17.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 – 12.00 on Saturdays. In addition, during these temporary works monitoring would take place once a week during the initial three months of the development and then at a frequency to be agreed with the Council. This could be secured through condition.

Page 58

184 The proposed working hours for site operations (07:00 – 19:00 Monday to Friday, 07:00 – 13:00 Saturday with no working on Sundays or Public/Bank Holidays save in cases of emergency) are typical of mineral sites within the County. Reduced hours are proposed for operations within 100m of certain properties. Maintenance hours tend to longer in order to ensure that the ‘down time’ for plant and vehicles is minimised and the site runs to schedule . In this case the proposed hours are 07.00 – 21.00 Monday to Friday, 07.00 – 17:00 Saturday and 08.00 – 16.00 Sunday excluding Bank and Public Holidays again save in cases of emergency. Although outside normal working hours plant maintenance would generally take place in the plant yard area within the north west of the site away from sensitive receptors and only elsewhere in the case of a breakdown but during normal operational hours. The applicant has stated that the extent of such plant/vehicle maintenance activities outside the normal hours of operation on site would be minimised. The area would be surrounded by 5m high soil mounds. Maintenance may also take place in the working void below surrounding ground levels. It is not considered that significant noise would be generated and a noise limit that would not exceed 55dB(A)Leq 1 hr (free field) is proposed. An assessment of a diesel pump operating continuously in the quarry void has been calculated as being below 42 dBLeq, the noise limit for night time operations specified in the Planning Practice Guidance.

185 Having regard to the nature and location of operations it is accepted that there would be notable changes in some local noise levels during the life of the site especially during temporary operations which could have the potential to cause nuisance to local residents, especially at the two properties at Pittington Station Houses and Greengables. However, the predictions are based on worst case scenarios and the higher levels from temporary works would be limited to 8 weeks in any one year and within acceptable levels as specified in Planning Practice Guidance. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection Team has no objections. In view of this and given suitable controls would be put in place to ensure that these limits are adhered to, it is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policies M36 and M37 and with paragraph 123 of the NPPF.

186 The Planning Practice Guidance does not provide guidance on appropriate noise levels for recreation areas. Previous Government Guidance (MPG11) recommended a noise level of 65dB Leq,1hr during the working day. The submitted noise assessment has compared noise levels on the footpaths and bridleway around the site to this limit and confirms that the 65dB Leq,1hr limit would be met during normal operations.

Air Quality and dust

187 Mineral sites give rise to dust issues and it is recognised that the large amounts of overburden to be moved as part of opencast operations and intensity of activity associated with that movement can contribute significantly to the increased potential for dust emissions. It is also accepted that the generation of dust can only be minimised and controlled rather than eradicated.

188 A Department of Health and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions research study ‘The Impact of Particulate Matter from Opencast Coal Sites on Public Health’ was published in December 1999. The Planning Practice Guidance reflects the good practice recommendations made in the report. The key assessment criteria are the proximity of residential communities to a site and

Page 59 background levels of small particles (PM10) in relation to the National Air Quality Standard. The proximity distance to settlements for assessment purposes is 1km.

189 The background PM10 levels for the site are quoted as being between 14.28 – 14.98 µg/m 3 and the predicted increase from open casting (typically opencast site operations can produce 2.1 µg/m 3 of PM10s) would still maintain levels that are below National Air Quality Standard of 40 µg/m 3 annually and 50 µg/m 3 (24 hours mean). Environment, Health & Consumer Protection Officers do not consider that there would be breach of current air quality standards as a result of the proposal but recommend monitoring of levels for 12 months prior to the commencement of the development and during the life of the site. However, having considered monitoring carried out over a 3 month period and the results it is considered that it would be acceptable for this requirement to be reduced to a shorter period but still ensuring a representative assessment is made. Air quality monitoring commenced in November 2013 and would continue during the life of the site or a shorter time should it be demonstrated that there was ongoing compliance with air quality limits. It would be necessary that the control measures consisting of the Dust Action Plan (DAP) and the requirements of the conditions of the Environmental Permit that would be required for the operations on the site would ensure dust emissions do not consequently result in levels that exceed the Air Quality Objective concentrations.

190 As well as considering PM10s the assessment also considers PM2.5s as the annual mean PM2.5 objective, of 25 µg/m 3 has to be met in January 2015. The background PM10 levels for the site are quoted as ranging between 8.22 – 9.09 µg/m 3. Using the same predicted increase for PM10s of 2.1 µg/m 3 the overall concentration would be marginal and the annual mean objection would not be exceeded.

191 Those making representations have raised concerns regarding health issues associated with surface coal mining and adequacy of the submitted assessment. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection Officers recognises the health impacts associated with emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 and that there is potential for emissions of both of these air quality pollutants from surface mineral extraction activities. However, in support of this particular proposal the potential impact of emissions of air quality pollutants has been assessed and provided a Dust Action Plan can be agreed and effectively implemented on the site together with the continued monitoring of dust from the site then it is considered mitigation measures may be put in place to minimise the emissions of both nuisance dust and emissions of PM10 and 2.5.

192 Whilst accepting that compliance with general air quality standards can be achieved there are residential properties well within 1km of the site which would potentially be at risk from any fine particle dusts generated by site activities. With regard to larger dust particles, depending on wind speed, the degree of rainfall and surface topography, these particles would generally return to the surface over a much smaller distance. The air quality and dust assessment assesses each phase of the proposed development. It concludes that without the use of mitigation measures there is potential for risk from dust nuisance but given the distances between site operations and a number of the sensitive receptors it would allow most, if not all, dust to be deposited naturally before it reaches the properties. However, Greengables may have an increased likelihood of experiencing dust effects due to the prevailing wind direction and proximity to the site.

193 Those objecting to the proposal have raised health concerns. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers recognise the health impacts associated with emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 and that there is potential for emissions of both of Page 60 these air quality pollutants from surface mineral extraction activities. However, in support of this particular proposal the potential impact of emissions of air quality pollutants has been assessed and provided a Dust Action Plan can be agreed and effectively implemented on the site together with the continued monitoring of dust from the site then it is considered mitigation measures may be put in place to minimise the emissions of both nuisance dust and emissions of PM10 and 2.5. Regard has been given to the views of Public Health England and NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group and the Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers as well as Government guidance, and it is considered that the application can be determined on the basis of the information provided.

194 Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers consider that the greatest potential for nuisance dust to occur is from the movement of earth during the work to construct the earth mounds particularly as this work would be in close proximity to some of the dust sensitive receptors. The closest soil mound would be some 25m away from Pittington Crossing and 90m from Greengables for most of the phases of working. This property is close to the perimeter of the site and as work commences through the different phases of the working void this will bring the activities in closer proximity to this receptor. By comparison, it is recognised that once the mounds have been constructed, profiled and planted with grass seed and are left ‘in situ’ the potential for emissions of dust would be minimal. An effect magnitude for these dust receptors has been determined as minor to negligible with an effect significance of minor adverse to insignificant taking into consideration that the soil storage mounds will be seeded to grass once constructed. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers consider this to be a conservative estimate when the work to construct the earth mounds is being carried out given the proximity of the nearest dust sensitive receptors. The distance between Pittington Crossing and the working void after 27 months would be at its closest (approximately 101m). A topsoil mound would be some 25m from the properties.

195 The ES includes an assessment of known meteorological information. For the sensitive locations it identifies the total number of working hours in an average month during which winds may blow dust towards sensitive locations within 500m of working activities on the site. Dominant winds are from the west.

196 The operator intends to adopt a full Environmental Management System to ensure high standards of operation and mitigation would be in place as recommended in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance Notes. A Dust Action Plan has been submitted proposing the setting of trigger levels relating to wind speeds so that additional dust suppression measures would be implemented under certain conditions. Mitigation measures that include the use of water sprays/bowsers and dampening down of haul roads and stocking areas, grading and seeding of external faces of soil and overburden mounds at the earliest opportunity and subsequent maintenance, use of wheelwash facilities and sheeting of laden HGVs, and the temporary suspension of operations giving rise to fugitive dust in dry windy weather until additional equipment is provided or conditions improve. Monitoring of dust deposition levels around the site would also take place and results would be made available to the Authority upon request.

197 Public Health England and NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group have no significant concerns regarding the risk to the health of the local population providing the applicant complies with all relevant requirements and maintains control measures detailed in the Dust Action Plan. Noting that the site would be operated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers have no objections to the proposed development.

Page 61

198 The suitability of meteorological readings from locations not in the immediate vicinity of the application site has been raised by those making representations against the proposed development. To ensure the reliability of meteorological data the technical guidance that covers the review and assessment of air quality supports the use of monitoring sites that produce data to which Quality Assurance and Control procedures have been applied. It is therefore recommended the use of data produced by monitoring sites operated by the meteorological office since this will ensure the integrity of the data with available hourly measured data with no requirement for extrapolation to fill gaps. The nearest met office monitoring location to the site at Field House is located at Durham. However this was considered by the air quality consultants prior to the undertaking of the assessment and as it only provides rainfall and temperature but not wind speed or direction, that are both required for the assessment of dust, it is not appropriate to use the data from this site.

199 Those objecting to the proposals have raised concerns regarding the use of meteorological data from Newcastle Airport as opposed to the local area. The meteorological data used for the air quality assessment covers the analyses of hourly data over an 8 year period from the monitoring site at Newcastle Airport. The analysed data determined the predominantly prevailing wind is from a westerly to a south westerly direction (covering wind speed and direction). This is what can be expected at the site at Field House. It is considered by Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers that the wind direction and speed monitoring data used is representative and that the selection of the monitoring site at Newcastle Airport is appropriate for the purposes of the assessment.

200 Concerns have been raised from Sunderland residents regarding noise and dust impacts. It should therefore be noted that Sunderland City Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officer has raised no objection to the proposals. Stating that provided the applicant complies with all relevant regulatory requirements, maintain control measure detailed in the submitted documentation, and operate under the terms of any Environmental Permit issued under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (2010), they have no comment to make to the development proposal.

201 Public Health England and NHS North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group and the Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection officers have no objections to the proposal. In view of this and given suitable controls would be put in place to ensure that dust levels are minimised, it is considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policies M36 and M37 and with paragraph 123 of the NPPF.

Residential amenity summary in relation to noise and dust

202 There would be disturbance to residential properties for the duration of the proposed development and there would be operational development within 250m of a group of 10 dwellings (albeit divided from the development by the A690). For those properties closest to the extraction and associated activities the impacts would be significant especially during the temporary operations. However, having considered the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity in terms of noise it is considered that the impacts could be controlled through condition setting limits and requirements to mitigate any adverse effects on the nearest properties thus according with MLP Policy M36 and with paragraph 123 of the NPPF and advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance. In terms of air quality and dust, given the mitigation Page 62 measures proposed it is also considered that the proposal would accord with MLP Policies M36 and M37, NPPF paragraph 123 and advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance Notes.

Landscape and Visual Impact

203 The County Durham Landscape Character Assessment (2008) shows the site as lying within the Wear Lowlands County Character Area which forms part of the larger Tyne and Wear Lowlands National Character Area. It lies in an area belonging to the Lowland Valley Terraces Broad Landscape Type in the Eastern Valley Terraces Broad Character Area. It lies close to the Magnesian Limestone Escarpment which falls partly within County Durham (Pittington Hill) and partly within the City of Sunderland (High Moorsley). The site lies largely within the shallow valley of the Pittington Beck which runs along the foot of the escarpment. The valley is defined in the northwest by a low ridge parallel to, and south of, the A690.

204 The site itself is largely made up of open farmland belonging to the Terrace farmland: open arable Local Landscape Type and the Old Enclosure subtype. The landform of the site is gently rolling. The greater part of the site is arable but with small areas of wet pasture. Field boundaries are hedges of early post-medieval origins with scattered hedgerow trees. The boundary network is intact in places and fragmented in others. There are localised low spots which contain areas subject to seasonal flooding or slightly more stable ephemeral ponds. The site is crossed in the south by the remains of the Pittington Bank waggonway which survives largely as a lynchet lined with scrub and the remains of the Lady Seaham pit, in the form of a scrub covered pit heap, lies in the south of the site.

205 The site lies in an area identified in the County Durham Landscape Strategy (2008) as a Landscape Improvement Priority Area where the strategy is to enhance landscape character. This reflects the relatively fragment character of the field boundary network in that area. The landscape of the site itself is in moderate condition. There has been some fragmentation of the field boundary network but it still retains many positive features. It is of moderate scenic quality being reasonably attractive open countryside forming part of wider views from higher ground. It has little recreational value in itself but is bordered by and overlooked by public footpaths and bridleways including nationally and regionally promoted trails.

206 The submitted landscape and visual impact assessment considers that during the operational stage there would be short term landscape and visual disruption but this would be relatively well contained within the wider landscape and significant adverse physical and visual impacts would be limited. Operational measures are proposed that would reduce visual impacts during the working stage of the scheme. Restoration measures are proposed to return the site to a condition that reflects its characteristics while providing ecology and landscape enhancements which would benefit both the site and wider landscape character in the future.

Effect on landscape features

207 Officers consider that the landscape impacts on the topography of the site would be low and it would be restored broadly to existing levels and character. There would be a loss of the field boundary network within the site, although retaining some features in the plant yard and processing area, trees and arable fields for the life of the site. There would be a loss of some 64 individual trees (from a total of 279 within the site) and several groups of trees as well as a loss of 1,853m of hedgerow from a

Page 63 total of 3,834m. There would be a loss of historical interest in that features and industrial archaeological features would be removed including the remains of the Pittington bank waggonway.

208 The restoration proposals provide for the reinstatement of field boundaries to a pattern similar to that which currently exists with some localised strengthening. Upon restoration there would be a replacement of field boundaries made up of hedgerows and trees. The line of the waggonway would be reinstated as a linear belt of woodland. A broad swathe of woodland grassland and wetland would be created along the southern / south-eastern edge of the site which would consolidate the line of woodland and scrub along the railway walk. Areas of woodland, wetland and conservation grassland would be created in the north of the site and a connecting strip of woodland and wetland with the appearance of a linear woodland belt would connect these with similar habitats to the south.

209 Although there would be a loss of features over the life of the site and until maturity of new planting, it is considered that the overall balance would be broadly positive in the longer term. A management plan (to be secured under S39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1980) is proposed. This would seek to ensure that the proposed landscape features are secured as the success is dependent upon future management.

Effect on landscape character

210 The effects of the proposals would be localised given the topography. High ground of the limestone escarpment running through High Moorsley and Pittington Hill would restrict visibility to the south – west. Middle-distance views to the north-west would be restricted by a low ridge running through the Raintons. From the south–west and north-east views towards the site are shallow and site features would be increasingly screened or assimilated by other features in middle distance views. The overall effect on the character of the broader Eastern Valley Terraces and Limestone Escarpment character areas, in respect of the loss of features within the site and the visual intrusion of engineering operations, would be low. There would be high effects on the character of the landscape in the immediate vicinity of the site, within around 500-1000m east of the A690. Operations would be visible at close quarters as large scale engineering operations in this otherwise rural landscape. The views would be screened in varying degrees in views from lower ground by intervening vegetation. From the higher ground of the escarpment they would be open to view in broad panoramic views that are a notable and valued feature of escarpment spurs like Pittington Hill. Although the proposals have been designed to reduce landscape and visual impacts, the residual effect in such views would still be substantial. The seeding of soil and overburden mounds would reduce impacts in some views, subject to the vagaries of season and climate, but they would remain conspicuously engineered features out of keeping with their surroundings.

211 The operational period would be relatively short term (2 years 3 months). Given the proposed phasing of operations and restoration it is likely that there would be bare and disturbed ground over the majority of the life of the site. At the end of that period the impact on landscape character would diminish as the site returns to close to its present character. The newly emerging landscape would be lacking in ‘time-depth’ and would lack the maturity and visual interest found in its older features until maturity at around 10 years. Officers consider that the long term improvements to the character of the landscape would be modest and localised and it would take some time before they outweighed the substantial but localised short term harm.

Page 64 Effects on designated landscapes and heritage assets

212 The site lies in close proximity to an AHLV as designated in the CDLP but would have no direct physical effects upon it. The development would be visible in some views of and across areas of AHLV in the Wear and Sherburn Beck valleys west of Pittington Road and Lady’s Piece Lane and would detract from the quality of those views to some degree. However, the scale of change in the view would be typically low or medium. The proposals could be intermittently visible from elsewhere in the AHLV but would be generally screened by vegetation or topography. Given the relatively short duration of the operations it is considered that the effect would not be significant. The proposals would be visible in views from areas of AHLV on the northern slopes of Pittington Hill. The scale of change in the view would be high although affecting views which are clearly views out from, rather than within, the AHLV. The proposals would be entirely screened from the greater part of the AHLV. The proposal would not be in conflict with MLP Policy M23 given it relates to development within AHLVs. Nor is it considered that the proposal would conflict with CDLP Policy E10. The Submitted County Durham Plan has not identified an AHLV instead it relies upon an assessment of impacts upon Landscape Character.

213 The site lies close to parkland at Ramside, identified as parks and gardens of historic or landscape value in CDLP Policy E26. There could be some localised views of the upper parts of overburden mound 1 in the later phases of development but the proposals would not be generally visible from within the designated area due to the screening effects of existing woodlands. The effect on the historic character of the park would not be significant and it is not considered that there would be a conflict with existing or emerging policy. The proposal would not be in conflict with MLP Policy M23 or CDLP Policy E26 given they relate to development within historic parks and gardens.

214 The upper parts or overburden mounds would be visible in the backdrop to the World Heritage Site in some views from higher ground in the west of the city in the Observatory Hill area. At the distance involved (greater than 6km) the mounds would be an inconspicuous feature seen against higher ground in visually complex panoramic views. The scale of change in these views would be negligible and short term and the effect on the setting of the World Heritage Site would not be significant. The proposals would be visually prominent during the operational period in views to the north-west from Pittington Hill from where there are also distant views of the Cathedral to the south-west. However, the Cathedral is seen in these views in the context of a settled lowland landscape containing many urban and industrial features. While the proposals would clearly detract from the quality of views from Pittington Hill in the round, the effect on the setting of the World Heritage Site in itself would not be significant.

215 The proposals would be seen in the backdrop to the Cathedral in more distant views from the west in areas such as Pithouse Brandon. At the distances involved, around 12km, it would be an inconspicuous feature seen against higher ground in visually complex panoramic views. Officers consider that the scale of change in these views would be negligible and for the duration of the development and the effect on the setting of the World Heritage Site would not be significant. It is considered that the proposals would not conflict with CDLP Policy E3.

Visual effects - Settlements and individual properties

216 Officers agree with most of the findings of the submitted visual impact assessment in terms of the visual effects from settlements. In terms of West Rainton, it is Page 65 considered that the operational site would not be visible from much of West Rainton which lies on land falling away to the north. From some properties and public spaces on the southern edge of the village some screening mounds in the north of the site would be partially visible in views over the busy A690 but would be generally blocked or heavily filtered by vegetation. The scale of change in the view would be small. It is considered that there would be more open views from the upper storeys of town houses at Lambton View at distances of around 400m where the change in the view would be of a medium scale.

217 At Low Pittington the operational site would be visible from properties along the northern edge of Low Pittington. Lower level features and activities would generally be screened or heavily filtered in ground level views by intervening vegetation. The upper parts of overburden mounds would be visible and relatively prominent in views from some properties, and particularly from upper floor windows, at distances of 550- 1000m. The change in the view would vary between properties from small to medium-large in scale depending on the degree of localised screening.

218 It is considered that the operational site would not be visible from much of High Pittington which would be screened by vegetation and topography. It would be open to view from properties and public vantage points around the junction of Coalford Lane and Elemore Lane from where overburden mounds 1 and 2 would be relatively prominent features at distances of around 1000 to 1500m. The change in the view would be of a medium scale.

219 From East Rainton the operational site would not be visible from much of East Rainton which lies on land falling away to the north-east. From some properties in the Fieldside area the upper parts of overburden mounds and perimeter soil mounds would be visible in shallow views partially filtered by intervening tree cover at distances of around 1200m. The change in the view would be of a relatively small scale.

220 The operational site would not be generally visible Low Moorsley. The upper part of overburden mound 1 would be visible in views from the upper floors of some properties in the west of the village at distances of around 1500m. It is considered that the change in the view would be of a small scale. The operational site would be visible at greater distances in views from some properties on the edges of Hetton-le Hole, Sherburn and Sherburn Hill from where the upper parts of overburden mounds would be visible at greater distances (greater than 2km)

221 Officers agree with most of the findings of the submitted visual impact assessment in terms of the visual effects from individual properties. It is considered that the proposals would have impacts of a medium magnitude on a number of nearby residential properties including Greengables, 2 Moorsley Lane, 2 Piittington Crossing, Pitfield House, Bungalow adjacent to Homer Hill Farm, The Fold, High Moorsley. The development would have relatively low impacts on other nearby residential properties including Robin House Farm, Barn Cottage and Robin Cottage, Homer Hill Farm, Properties east of Pittington Road (West Ridge, Fenside, Magnolia, Fourstones, Morningside, Woodsmoor, Greenlaw, High Thorn, Stonesdale, Thornhill and The Brindles), Rainton House, Rainton Grange Farm and Valley View. The site would have some significant effects on the visual amenity of local residents but the effects would be for the duration of the development and are not considered to be unacceptable.

Page 66 Public rights of way and access land and roads

222 The proposals would have high impacts in views from the public rights of way in the area. This includes the path immediately adjacent to the site but also includes paths running across higher ground to the south with open panoramic views across the site (Footpath 15 Pittington, Footpath 15 Hetton, which is also the Great North Forest Trail and Footpath 20 Hetton). The proposals would also have high impacts in views from the higher ground of Pittington Hill SSSI which is access land and well used. The proposals would have a high impact in views from recreational paths of some national/sub-regional status and from Pittington Hill SSSI but that those high impacts would be temporary and for the duration of the development (2 years 3 months).

223 The proposals would have high impacts in views from a number of roads in the vicinity including Pittington Road adjacent to the site and Moorsley Road which overlooks it from higher ground. Impacts in views from other roads in the vicinity would be generally low. Again, this would be for the duration of the development.

224 Illumination would be required primarily during winter months the site. This would mostly be needed for plant working in the void area which would be generally below ground level. The coal processing and stocking areas would also have a level of directional lighting pointing into the site. Localised low level lighting may be required when removing material from the inner faces of the overburden mounds. In all cases it is proposed that lighting is not directed towards residential receptors near to the site.

225 Sunderland City Council raises no concerns in terms of visual and residential amenity noting that during the operational phase the submitted landscape and visual impact assessment identifies a substantial adverse impact upon the Great North Forest Trail, part of which runs through its boundary, along with a moderate impact on Moorsley Road itself where it adjoins the applications site’s boundary to the north of Pittington. It also note that the assessment has only identified The Fold, a residential property on Moorsley Road in High Moorsley, as being moderately adversely impacted by the proposal during the operational period.

226 Having regard to the overall balance of landscape effects it is considered that although there would be adverse effects upon the landscape character of the area during the life of the site and until the site matures these impacts would be largely localised and be for the duration of the minerals development. The proposed development would seek to ensure that the scale of the effects on the local landscape character is kept to an acceptable minimum in accordance with MLP Policy M24. The restoration proposals would also accord with MLP Policy M24 in that these have regard to the quality of the local landscape and seek to provide improvements to it where appropriate being consistent with the Landscape Strategy for the area which is to enhance its character.

227 There would be some significant impacts on the visual amenity of local communities over the life of the site on a number of residential properties and on those using local roads and footpaths these would be for relatively short period. Consideration as to whether this level of impact is acceptable is a matter of judgement. Landscape officers raise no objection to the objection to the proposals. Mitigation measures incorporated into the scheme should reduce visual intrusion to an acceptable level in accordance with MLP Policy M36. Proposals would also accord with relevant guidance in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance.

Page 67

228 It is not considered that there would be significant impacts upon the adjacent AHLV and the Ramside Park and Garden designations. Nor is it considered that there would be a significant effect on the setting of the World Heritage Site given the distant views of the site. It is not considered that the proposal would conflict with CDLP Policy E3.

229 The site lies close to the Durham City Green Belt but not within it. Local Plan Policies are not therefore applicable as they relate only to development within the Green Belt.

230 Objectors to the proposal have referred to a lack of assessment of the views from Pittington Hill. The application has assessed the visual impact of the scheme during the operational and restoration stages from elevated rights of way on the northern and eastern flanks of Pittington Hill and elevated views over the site from Moorsley Road. It is considered that officers have sufficient information to assess the proposals.

Biodiversity interests

231 The proposed site is not affected by statutory nature conservation designations. However, there are three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within 650m of the site. High Moorsley SSSI is approximately 375m to the south east. Moorsley Banks SSSI, some 400m to the south east and Pittington Hill SSSI, approximately 650m to the south east. Natural England is satisfied that there is not likely to be an adverse effect on the SSSIs and that they do not represent a constraint in determining the application but have requested that proposed dust control measures will be implemented in full to ensure that excess blown dust would not affect the habitats for which the SSSIs have been designated.

232 Within 2km of the site are a number of Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), the closest being Robin House and Moorsley Marsh (in Sunderland) to the north east of the site at the point where Footpath No. 6 (West Rainton) meets Bridleway No. 25 (West Rainton). Within County Durham some 980m to the west of the site are Moorhouse Wood LWS and Mallygill Wood Ancient Woodland, Rainton Park Wood LWS (approximately 1.4km), Frankland and Kepier Woods LWS and Grange Wood Ancient Woodland lie approximately 1.8km to the south east. To the south east is Pittington Hill LWS (approximately 700m to the south east) and Hetton-le-Hole Wood Ancient Woodland (2.1km) and Elemore Woods LWS beyond. The designations would not be directly or indirectly affected by the proposals.

233 A number of detailed ecological surveys were undertaken prior to consideration of the application. In terms of habitats the site is considered to be of variable nature conservation value due to current agricultural practices. Habitats recorded included arable fields, horse grazed pasture, marshy grassland tall ruderal vegetation, hedgerows and other boundaries, trees scrub habitat, watercourse and standing water (permanent and ephemeral ponds). Hedgerows are reported as being generally of moderate conservation value. Forty six individual trees (including ash, oak, sycamore and lime) were surveyed, all but one being associated with field boundaries, and found to be in overall good health. A number of trees and hedgerow would be removed as part of the proposed development.

Page 68 234 The site is of local interest for breeding birds and wintering birds. A number of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and birds on the RSPBs red, amber and green lists were recorded but no Schedule 1 (of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) breeding bird species were present. A number of operations would have potential short term effects on nesting or breeding birds (such as initial ground works and vegetation clearance) but conditions can be imposed restricting the timing of vegetation clearance to comply with legislation and there would be no long term implications on the bird population from working and restoring the site. In addition mitigation for the loss of habitat for breeding birds would be provided in the form of nest boxes and the re-establishment and planting of new and existing landscaped areas.

235 Whilst there would be some localised nature conservation effects from the loss of open land and hedgerows, the proposal would provide, in the longer term, a more varied and sustainable habitat for wildlife and one that is appropriate to the ecology of the area. The proposed after uses would meet objectives set out in the BAP to increase the amount of species rich grassland, native species woodland, acidic grassland, ponds, marsh and hedgerows in County Durham.

236 In terms of protected species, the presence of some trees suitable for roosting bats was noted along with existing buildings. However, no roosts were identified and foraging appeared limited. Two trees were identified in previous surveys as bat roosts, one within and one outside of the application site. Site clearance and operational phases would have an impact on the use of the site by bats but given there are no roosts and the low use of the site the impact is likely to be a minor adverse effect. Bat boxes are proposed and provision would be secured through condition.

237 The site is not utilised by badgers, water vole or otter, although records exist of their presence within 2km of the application site. As a result it is not considered that operations would impact significantly on these species. A small sized population of great crested newts (4 in total) were recorded within the application site, within an area where ecological enhancement works are proposed. Previous surveys identified great crested newts in other ponds within the site but these ponds have since dried up and no further newts have been recorded.

238 The presence of great crested newts is a material consideration in planning decisions as they are a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and a European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). The Habitats Directive prohibits the deterioration, destruction or disturbance of breeding sites or resting places of any European protected species. Natural England has the statutory responsibility under the regulations to deal with any licence applications for works affecting European Protected Species but there is also a duty on planning authorities when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a development which could harm a European Protected Species to apply the three derogation tests contained in the Regulations. These state that the activity must be for imperative reasons of overriding public interest or for public health and safety, there must be no satisfactory alternative, and that the favourable conservation status of the species must be maintained.

239 In terms of the 3 derogation tests it is considered firstly that there are no satisfactory or realistic site alternatives in this case as minerals can only be extracted where they occur. The site has been designed to minimise disturbance to the newt population through limiting operational development in the vicinity of the pond. The favourable

Page 69 conservation status will be maintained through the original newt breeding pond being retained in situ with habitat enhancement occurring around the pond at the start of the working process. This would include minor scrapes to increase the depth of the waterbody along with more general habitat creation and management. Upon final restoration further habitats will be created across the whole of the site.

240 Habitat enhancement works and mineral extraction works would take place within 500m of the existing great crested newt pond and will therefore require a development licence from Natural England, if planning permission is granted then a condition of complete compliance with the licence will be required. The proposal as it stands would safeguard the great crested newt population and avoid sterilisation of minerals. If planning permission is ultimately granted for the development having due regard to the relevant material issues then it is also in the public interest that a permission is capable of implementation. In this case after due regard to all the above factors and the mitigation measures proposed it is considered that the local planning authority can properly discharge its legal obligations under the Habitats Regulations.

241 The Council’s Ecologist is satisfied with the level of survey work submitted with the application and the restoration proposals for the site. A management plan, secured through legal agreement would ensure the retention and management of the restored habitats for a prolonged period. Mitigation works would be secured through condition.

242 A management plan would be secured through legal agreement, in which it is proposed to extend the aftercare period for the areas of early ecological enhancement and the areas of restored woodland, low nutrient grassland and water bodies and wetland for an additional 5 years following the completion of the 5 year statutory aftercare period. In addition the management area would be managed in perpetuity following completion of the extended aftercare period in order to permit and foster the development and conservation of its biodiversity through the natural colonisation of flora and fauna.

243 Sunderland City Council made specific mention to ecology in its response to the Council. It considers all potential concerns have been addressed and has no major objections subject to the applicant addressing certain matters. These include the implementation of recommended mitigation and enhancement measures being extended to similar habitat outside of the site; ensuring no adverse effect upon the hydrology and wetland habitats of the Moorsley Burn along with opportunities to improve water quality and flow, and that planning approval be subject to a comprehensive management plan to ensure certain measures are sustained in perpetuity.

244 The proposed species and habitat mitigation and enhancement measures as detailed within the ES would be implemented as part of the proposed development and be secured through the proposed Section 39 Agreement. However, the applicant is unable to extend such mitigation and enhancement measures to land under third party control in relation to the wildlife corridor (wetland and grassland habitats) along Bridleway 25 and the former railway line along with the Robin House and Moorsley Marsh Local Wildlife Site. It is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on water quality in Pittington Beck located to the south east of the Site. Information submitted with the application confirms that the Field House Scheme lies in a separate catchment from that of Joe's Pond and Rainton Meadows, which are located to the north east of the Site, and that water from the Scheme would drain to Pittington Beck and this would continue throughout the operation of

Page 70 the surface mine, albeit through suitable treatment lagoons and subject to the controls of a discharge consent. The water flows from the Site area to the south west in its own valley and not towards Joe's Pond or Rainton Meadows. The restoration proposals include areas of wetland and open water along the south east margin of the Site that would provide permanent additional attenuation and provide for a biodiversity gain in relation to various species including bats and amphibians.

245 The submitted dust assessment considers the impact on nature conservation designations within 2km of the application site concluding that the given the distance and direct of the SSSIs from the site boundary they are not considered to be sensitive to potential dust impacts arising from the proposal. Ancient and Semi- natural woodlands located within 2km of the site are also not considered to be sensitive to potential dust impacts. No concerns have been raised by Ecology Officers or Natural England in this respect. The suggested conditions require that the proposed dust control measures are implemented in full as set out in the ES and DAP to ensure that excess blown dust does not affect the habitats for which the SSSIs have been designated.

246 Durham Wildlife Trust raised concerns regarding the integrity of the water environment of Joes Pond SSSI and Rainton Meadows during the operation of the scheme. This has been considered and concluded that it is highly unlikely that there would be an impact.

247 On the balance of biodiversity issues, it is considered that there would be no overall adverse impacts. The proposed benefits within a comprehensive programme of restoration and management would be beneficial in the long term. Natural England and the Council’s Ecologist have no objection to the proposed development. The proposal would be in accordance with MLP Policies M27 and M29 and paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF.

Cultural Heritage

248 There are no listed buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments or Conservation Areas designations within the site. There are eighteen designated heritage assets within 2km of the site comprising two Scheduled Monuments, one Grade I listed building, one Grade II* listed building and thirteen Grade II listed buildings. Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site lies 5.6km to the south west. The Hallgarth Conservation Area lies 1.3km to the south.

249 A heritage assessment has been submitted with the application with additional information being submitted during consideration of the application. The assessment considers the impact on the designated and non-designated heritage assets located within 2km of the application site including visual impact, noise, dust and vibration. The assessment also considers the removal of the features.

250 Closest to the site are a 19 th Century cast iron post (Grade II) on Low Pittington Front Street (approximately 450m to the south with the setting and significance associated with its immediate surroundings). Within West Rainton the former 19 th Century Londonderry School and Ebenezer Chapel within the village and separated from the application site by the A690 (Grade II) (some 330m and 370m to the north of the proposed site entrance) and the Church of St Mary (Grade II*) (450m to the north of the proposed site entrance) with the heritage significance associated with historic and architectural interest and associations and significance associated with their immediate surroundings. More distant, approximately 1.4km to the south at Hallgarth are a number of designated assets that include the Scheduled Monument Page 71 of Priors Hall, the Church of St Lawrence (Grade I), two listed tombs within the church yard and gate piers and entrance to the church yard (Grade II), 180m north of the church yard is Hallgarth Manor Hotel (Grade II). This grouping along with the Conservation Area is of very high importance overall but the setting of individual buildings and Conservation Area is provided by their immediate surroundings. The application site is not visible from these assets due to intervening woodland and part of High Pittington. It is therefore unlikely that their setting would be affected.

251 Some 1.3km to the south west is Ramside Hall (Grade II), the setting being provided by the associated golf course and Historic Park and Garden. The application site is screened by intervening trees and landscaping with some possible long distance views. Mid19 th Century road bridges (Grade II) over the Great North railway are located at Broomside Cutting, Belmont (1.8km to the south west) and to the north west at Station Road and Marks Lane beyond West Rainton (870m and 1.45km from the site boundary). The setting of these assets is formed by the railway line and road approaches and the site is not visible from these locations. Within East Rainton approximately 1.8km to the north east are the Grade II listed buildings, High House Farm (early 17 th Century) and the Church of St Cuthbert, the application site does not form part of the setting of these buildings. A Scheduled Monument at Mallygill Wood lies 1.2km to the west (remains of Medieval and Post-Medieval mining) the application site does not form part of the setting of the Monument.

252 In terms of Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site, its significance highlights the exceptional architectural value of the Cathedral and importance of the site’s archaeological remains. However, reference is also had to the visual importance of the site and its surroundings. Although distant views of the site are possible from the Cathedral Tower they are mixed with 20 th and 21 st Century commercial, industrial and residential development.

253 Within 1km of the site there are some twenty six non-designated heritage assets, nineteen of which largely comprise below ground archaeological remains of prehistoric and possibly Roman dates. There are nine non-designated heritage assets within the site relating to 19 th Century coal workings, pits, shafts and railway sidings, and below ground evidence of pre-modern field systems and agricultural activity. Through the site is the course of a 19 th Century branch railway that served Lady Seaham Pit in the southern part of the site. The remaining spoil heap would not be removed as part of the proposed development.

254 As a result of soil stripping and earth moving works the assessment considers that the proposed development would have a high adverse effect on these assets and without mitigation the effect would be of moderate significance. Effects on former field systems and agricultural activity would be of slight significance due to the lower level of importance associated with them. Mitigation measures proposed include further archaeological investigation and recording in advance of soil stripping and the reporting of results. With mitigation the impact upon significance of the effects on identified heritage assets would be negligible.

255 A geophysical survey undertaken has identified a number of anomalies and further information is required in order to understand their significance. However, the Council’s Archaeologist does not object to the proposal considering that trial trenching could be required through condition. Results of the trial trenching would then be used to inform a mitigation strategy prior to any other works commencing on site.

Page 72 256 The submitted assessment concludes that the proposed development would not have an effect on the significance of designated heritage assets within 2km of the site due to their distance from the site and the limited contribution that the wider setting makes to their significance. In terms of the potential effects of noise, dust and vibration on designated and non-designated heritage assets within 2km, the assessment concludes that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse effect on any heritage asset or its setting. Proposed operations would have a high adverse effect on those non-designated assets within the site but little impact those outside. At worse the effects on non-designated heritage assets between 1km and 2km of the site would be low adverse and the majority of assets would have no change to the significance having negligible significance or neutral.

257 The Council’s Design and Historic Environment officer considers that the submitted heritage assessment is lacking and fuller assessment (in accordance with English Heritage guidance and DCC standard practice) of the setting of all heritage assets which should go beyond issues of inter-visibility and proximity is outstanding. In respect of the assessment undertaken of the impact upon the Pittington Hallgarth Conservation Area, officers are satisfied that there would be no adverse impact on the ambience of the Pittington Hallgarth Conservation Area. Officers consider that the proposals would not have any adverse impact on the setting and universal values of the Durham World Heritage Site. In visual terms the effect on the setting of the World Heritage Site would not be significant. It is considered that the proposals would not conflict with CDLP Policy E3.

258 English Heritage, having considered the potential impact of the proposed development in relation to the scheduled mining remains at Mallygill and Grade I listed buildings of the Church of St Lawrence and Prior’s Hall at Hallgarth, has no in principle objections to the proposal, considering that there would be no resulting detrimental impacts.

259 There is no indication of any archaeological features of national significance that would warrant the preservation in situ of remains at the site and further investigation works would ensure suitable mitigation should any features of local interest be found. It is unlikely that the development would have any adverse impact upon designated and non-designated assets. The proposal is temporary in nature and mitigation measures would seek to ensure that any disturbance would be minimal. The restoration scheme proposes measures seeking to enhancing interest and appreciation of the historic environment of the site which include the reinstatement of the line of the Pittington Bank railway branch in the form of a woodland belt and field margin to the width of the railway embankment, abstract conical earthworks are proposed at the locations to the former pit shafts. Interpretation boards explaining the history of the site and subsequent habitat creation, are proposed and would be erected adjacent to Bridleway No. 25 (West Rainton) providing a beneficial link to the historical past. Subject, therefore, to the imposition of appropriate conditions Archaeology officers have no objections to the proposal.

260 Design and Historic Environment officers have not objected to the proposals but consider that further information is required in order to demonstrate the validity of conclusions made in the submitted heritage assessment. Notwithstanding the views of the Design and Historic Environment officers, whilst the information contained in the Heritage Assessment may be considered to be lacking in certain areas the actual physical development in terms of heritage impact would be limited and therefore considered to be acceptable. Overall it is not considered that there would be no harm to designated heritage assets given the proposed development is not within the setting of a designated heritage assets and it does not affect the significance of a

Page 73 heritage asset given the given the distance from the application site and intervening development.. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with MLP Policy M30. There would be a direct loss of non designated assets, however, there would be a loss of however, it is considered that this would be acceptable. The proposal would accord with MLP Policies M30, M31 and M33 and advice contained in Part 12 of the NPPF.

Recreational amenity

261 The area has an established and well used public rights of way network. Three footpaths run immediately adjacent to the site. Footpath No.7 (West Rainton) runs north south along the western boundary of the site to the rear of properties along Pittington Road at Rainton Gate and to the west of an area identified for early ecological enhancement works at which point it passes through the site. Footpath No. 6 (West Rainton) follows the site’s north eastern boundary to the south west of Greengables and is within the site boundary. Bridleway No. 25 (West Rainton) follows the line of the former Durham and Sunderland branch of the North Eastern Railway and runs adjacent to the site’s south eastern boundary. The Sustrans National Cycle Route 70 route runs along Bridleway No. 25. There are a number of other rights of way in the wider vicinity of the site. None of the rights of way are directly affected by the proposed development and would not need to be diverted should the development proceed. Soil storage mounds would separate users of Footpath No. 7 (West Rainton) from the works. Footpath No. 6 (West Rainton) would be in the vicinity of the early ecological enhancement works and would not be affected.

262 The West Rainton Green Group, supported by DCC, has produced a series of walks and leaflets using the public rights of way network, known as the Clover Leaf Walks. The Purple Clover Leaf Walk is a circular route from West Rainton that crosses over the A690 onto Footpath No. 5, then crossing Robin Lane onto Footpath No. 6 and Bridleway No. 25 and onto Low Pittington and the Ramside Estate before crossing the A690 and returning to West Rainton.

263 The possibility of diverting Footpath No.7 (West Rainton) in order to avoid areas that are considered to be prone to flooding has been considered. It is not expected that the proposed development would adversely affect the drainage regime in this area and the scheme includes the creation of scrapes to increase the depth of existing seasonal waterbodies in the area proposed for early ecological enhancement works east of the footpath thus providing additional surface water attenuation within the planning permission boundary. Diversion of the Footpath would likely result in a more lengthy route and would not be beneficial with the proposals to provide enhanced habitat for great crested newts.

264 A number of those making representations including the British Horse Society and County Durham and Tyne and Wear Local Access Forums have raised concerns relating to the potential impacts to users of the public rights of way network and loss of peaceful route, potential flooding and conflict with HGVs. The development would be noticeable for the duration of the scheme but measures would minimise the impact. Drivers would be advised to be considerate and signs would be erected enabling users of the rights of way to be informed of the existence of the development and take suitable care when in the vicinity. The Cycle Super Route alongside the A690 would be to the north of the site, linking into West Rainton from Carrville, and would be mostly unaffected by the proposal. Cyclists like other users would need to travel with care but signs would ensure that they are made aware of the existence of the development.

Page 74

265 The applicant is prepared to discuss the upgrading of Footpath No. 6 following completion of the development and this could be secured through legal agreement and providing a benefit to the local community by increasing access for bridleway users.

266 The footpaths adjacent to the site provide good opportunities for countryside access and informal recreation for the nearby population as can be evidenced from the representations received and existence of the ‘Clover Leaf’ walk leaflet. The routes would not be physically affected and their use would continue during and after mineral extraction.

267 Impacts such as noise, dust and visual impact are addressed elsewhere in the report. The proposals would not have a direct impact upon existing rights of way in that they are not proposed to be stopped up or temporarily diverted during the course of the development. Any adverse impact on users of the routes would be for the duration which they use the route and measures would be put in place to ensure that any potential impacts would be mininised. It is therefore not considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact upon the recreational value of the countryside. Any proposals to further improve the rights of way network are welcomed but not considered necessary as part of the current proposals which are considered to be acceptable. The proposals would therefore accord with MLP Policy M35.

Agricultural Quality and Use

268 Most of the site is currently in agricultural use (barley production in 2013). Land within the planning application boundary is recognised as best and most versatile under the agricultural land classification. Of the 55.9ha application area 10.2ha is Grade 2 and 12.1ha is Grade 3a. The remaining being 26.4ha 3b, 2.7ha Grade 4, 1.5ha being non-agricultural and 3ha not having been surveyed as regarded as ecological mitigation. Following restoration of the site the amount of land available for agricultural use would return approximately 36.2ha to agricultural use including the Grades 2 and 3a in broadly similar locations as at present. There would be some rationalisation and concentration of the relevant soil types to form coherent areas to be reinstated to best and most versatile agricultural land, as opposed to lower quality grade 3b land and or other areas to be restored to non-agricultural uses.

269 There would be a loss of agricultural land during the life of the site but this would be reinstated upon restoration, 22ha being ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’. Natural England, noting that 22 ha of the site is best and most versatile, has no objections to the proposals being generally satisfied that the proposed site working and reclamation proposals meet the requirements for sustainable minerals development. A methodology for soil stripping, handling, storage, replacement and assessment of suitable soil handling conditions has been submitted with the application. If the development takes place the handling and storage of soils would be carried out in line with good practice and be adequately controlled. Natural England has suggested conditions which would be applied should planning permission be granted. With the methodology proposed it is not considered that there would be an overall loss of agricultural land quality following restoration of the site and it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with MLP Policy M34 and paragraph 143 of the NPPF.

Page 75 Hydrology and hydrogeology

270 The site lies within the catchment of Pittington Beck, a tributary of the River Wear, that flows in a south westerly direction along or adjacent to the course of the former Sherburn to Hetton-le-Hole railway along the south east boundary of the site. It joins other Becks in the locality before discharging into the River Wear. Drainage ditches and channels are located along the perimeter of the field boundaries and it is thought that they are probably connected to a system of historic agricultural drains. Within the site there are areas of poorly drained land and ephemeral bodies of standing water likely to have been caused by mining subsidence and subsequent damage to the drainage system. Downward drainage is impeded by the low conductivity of the underlying glacial till. Surface water generally drains towards the A690 from land to the north of Field House Farm with the remaining part of the site draining towards the south and south east and into Pittington Beck. Pittington Beck would be retained as part of the proposal.

271 A hydrology and hydrogeological assessment has been submitted. In terms of floodrisk the site is within Flood Zone 1 and the submitted assessment considers that the site is not at significant risk of flooding and provided that discharge flows are maintained at greenfield rates or other rate to be agreed with the Environment Agency, the risk of downstream flooding should not be increased.

272 During site working all water would be directed to a number of water treatment areas along the south eastern boundary of the site prior to discharge to Pittington Beck to ensure that no contaminated water enters watercourses. Although the site would be securely fenced so as to prevent unauthorised entry, additional fencing would be erected around the water treatment areas and lifebuoys placed in the vicinity. The discharges would also require Environment Agency consent. Old workings would be encountered in the Fivequarter and Main seams. However, as a result of continued drainage and pumping by the Coal Authority it is thought that the bedrock strata and the old mine workings are dewatered. Due to the nature of the geology it is not considered that there would be significant groundwater inflows. Ground water levels have been found to be well below the strata that would be worked and are unlikely to either affect or to be affected by operations. There are records of one licensed groundwater abstraction in the area for general agricultural spray irrigation. There are two licensed surface water abstractions in the area one for spray irrigation of a golf course and one for general agricultural spray irrigation. The proposal would therefore not affect the direct water supply of properties.

273 Concerns have been raised regarding localised flooding and the potential for reimbursement by the applicant should it occur. The Council’s Drainage Officer considers that the proposal would assist with flooding issues because the land would be reduced in height, noting that the Environment Agency would take responsibility for this site. In response to queries regarding flooding the EA has stated that the Flood Risk Officer has no known knowledge of any issues of flooding within or immediately surrounding the site. The EA has suggested a condition requires a scheme to be submitted to demonstrate that the surface run-off generated up to and including the critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall.

274 There is one historic landfill site some 890m from the site at High Moorlsey and the Marks Quarry site over 2km to the north west. In addition a site at Stobley Moor Farm and Hazard Lane is over 1km from the site. Given the distance from the application site and the geology is it not considered that these would impact upon the

Page 76 development. In terms of the High Moorlsey site it is not considered likely that any leachate would migrate into the proposed excavations.

275 Based on available information the proposals would not have unacceptable adverse environmental effects in terms of hydrology and hydrogeology. No surface or ground water issues have arisen that cannot be controlled through mitigation measures and other pollution controls regulated by the Environment Agency which has no objections to the scheme and nor does the Council’s Drainage Officer. The proposal would therefore accord with MLP Policy M38 and Part 10 of the NPPF. Furthermore it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with CDLP Policies U9 and U10.

276 Concerns have been raised regarding water table drawdown as a result of pumping groundwater from the proposed excavation. An estimate provided is that the watertable could be drawn down sufficiently to affect trees and hedges to a distance equal to the depth of the excavation of some 50m. Trees and hedges could suffer severely and streams could disappear. The submitted assessment advises that the superficial (glacial) deposits are already under-drained and because they predominantly comprise glacial till of very low conductivity any further drawdown that arises from the proposed excavations would be very minor and limited in extent. It is therefore highly unlikely that vegetative growth and crop yields would be adversely affected on land lying adjacent to the Site. There should also be no adverse impact on its ecology. The superficial deposits will not be saturated so a typical drawdown profile will not be formed. Even if the material was saturated, drawdown would not extend much more than a few metres from the excavations due to the very low conductivity of the material. In addition, it is noted that tree and shrub roots tend to be concentrated within the top 0.4 to 0.6m of the soil horizon, indicating water is taken up from lower reaches of topsoil and the upper layer of subsoil. The Environment Agency and Natural England raise no objections to the proposed development in this respect.

Access and traffic

277 Approximately 5,200 tonnes of coal per week would be produced at the site over 26 months. It is expected that approximately 800 tonnes of fireclay per week would be produced at the site over the same period. An average of 74 (37 in and 37 out) and maximum 90 (45 in and 45 out) HGV movements per working day are anticipated during the extraction period. The dispatch of residual amounts of coal and fireclay following the completion of extraction would largely be completed over a further 12 week period. Based on a 5.5 day working week (and maximum vehicle movements) it is anticipated that an average of 4 laden HGV’s would leave the site every hour (8 movements per hour). Vehicles would enter and leave the site via the proposed new access onto Robin Lane.

278 All HGV lorries leaving the site would turn left onto Robin Lane then left onto the A690 then onto the A1 or utilising the roundabout to turn back onto the A690 to access the A19. On return to site HGVs would left turn from the A690 to Robin Lane then right turn into the site. No HGVs would cross the A690. Those unladen vehicles accessing the site from the A1 would be required to travel to the B1284 Rainton Meadows/Four Lane Ends junction and then turn back onto A690 westbound.

279 The transport assessment undertaken to consider the traffic implications of the proposal acknowledges that the proposal would add traffic to the surrounding road network. It concludes that there would be no discernible effects on traffic delay (given that vehicle movements from the site would be spread across the day); road Page 77 safety and accidents (having undertaken a road safety assessment with reference to personal injury collision records). Severance (following consideration of the increase of less than 30% increase in traffic flows along Robin Lane); pedestrian delay (an increase in traffic levels of less than 30% would create a negligible effect); pedestrian amenity and fear and intimidation, predicted increases in traffic are below thresholds set out in recognised guidelines. The applicant has noted that although Robin Lane has limited scope for pedestrian activity it does provide a link between Footpath No.6 and Footpath No.5 to the north and is willing to review the potential for providing an informal route along the east bound highway verge on the north side of Robin Lane. The Highways Agency has no objection to the proposal but requests that through condition no more than 45 laden HGVs leave the site in any working day.

280 Consideration has also been given to light vehicles these being cars and vans. It is thought that these would be concentrated during the morning (06:00 to 07:00 hours) and the evening (19:00 to 20:00 hours) and be associated with staff arriving and leaving work, outside of peak commuter hours. The assessment considers that staff movements would generate a maximum of 42 vehicle movements.

281 A travel plan has been submitted with the application. The travel plan includes a target for the reduction of single occupancy car movements by 10% during the life of the development, measures to seek to achieve this focusing on accessibility on bicycle and car share and an annual monitoring programme. The implementation of the travel plan could be secured through planning condition should planning permission be approved. The Council’s Travel Plan Team considers this to be acceptable.

282 The Highways Authority has highlighted the need for pre and post development surveys along part of Robins Lane and the potential need for a commuted sum secured through legal agreement for potential repair work for maintenance during the working life of the surface mine and for repair on completion of the mining process. In addition the maintenance of visibility splays during the life of the development, the realignment of the bend at Robin Lane near the exit from the A690, protection of the highway verge and possible resurfacing of a stretch of Robin Lane prior to works commencing have also been identified as issues which can be addressed through condition and Section 278 Agreement. A Section 106 agreement would cover lorry routing and sets out penalties to drivers not following the adhered route. The applicant would also enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 with the County Council, as Highways Authority.

283 Warning signs would be required on Robin Lane and direction signs for HGVs. Details of the signs and their locations would need to be submitted to, approved by the Council and erected prior to any mining operations commencing. Such requirements would either be secured through condition or Section 278 Agreement.

284 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe. Traffic generated by the proposal could be accommodated safely and conveniently on the highway network with the impact of traffic generated by the development on local and recreational amenity would be acceptable. Provision of the new access prior to any mining operations commencing, the provision and maintenance of a wheel wash facility, measures to ensure that the highway is kept clear of mud or debris and the sheeting of vehicles, recording vehicle movements, would also be a highways requirement but these and related matters can be covered by planning condition. Provision of warning signs would also be erected prior to any mining operations commencing. The Highways Authority and the Highways Agency Page 78 have no objections to the proposal. The proposed development would accord with MLP Policies M36, M42 and M43 and Part 4 of the NPPF.

285 Sunderland Highway Officers consider that the level of increase in traffic as a result of the development would not have a material impact on road safety. Sunderland City Council raises no objections in relation to highway matters commenting that HGVs should be prohibited from using East Rainton 30mph zone, Hazard Lane, Easington Lane and Fence Houses. The proposed coal and fireclay HGV haulage route for the proposal would be secured through legal agreement. It is confirmed that the coal and fireclay HGV haulage route would not include the East Rainton 30 mile per hour zone, Hazard Lane, Easington Lane or Fencehouses.

Contamination

286 As a result of historical uses of the site parts of the site are considered to be potentially contaminated. These being areas associated with the former Lady Seaham Pit and colliery spoil, Rainton and Seaham Railway and shafts. Based on the assessment undertaken in the ES it is considered that there is a low hazard rating for the site because most of the site has been used for agricultural purposes with only very limited surface activity associated with underground mining. It is considered that there are no significant sources of contamination at present and the proposed development would not change the situation as the backfill would not have an adverse impact on human health or groundwater resources. The spoil heap to the south of the site, immediately to the north of Pittington Station Houses/Pittington Crossing Houses would remain in situ, offering additional screening from the proposed development.

287 The Council’s Contaminated Land officer raises no objections to the proposal and accepting the proposed methodology for dealing with any contaminated material encountered. The proposed methodology would be secured through condition.

288 Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner. As part of the proposal, areas of potentially contaminated land would be removed and treated if necessary ensuring the site is made safe and appropriately remediated. This would be in accordance with paragraphs 109 and 120 of the NPPF. These requirements would be conditioned as part of any planning permission.

Stability

289 In assessing the environmental impacts from mineral extraction the Planning Practice Guidance advises that the consideration of slope stability that is needed at the time of an application will vary between mineral workings depending on a number of factors, e.g. depth of working; the nature of materials excavated; the life of the working; the length of time interim slopes are expected to be in place; and the nature of the restoration proposals. Appraisal of slope stability for new workings should be based on existing information, which aims to identify any potential hazard to people and property and environmental assets and assess its significance, and identify any features which could adversely affect the stability of the working to enable basic quarry design to be undertaken. Part 11 of the NPPF (Paragraphs 109, 120 and 121) requires the planning system to consider remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land where appropriate. Noting that where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

Page 79 290 A geotechnical assessment report accompanies the submission. The report considers a number of matters with the intention of preserving the integrity of adjacent properties and safeguarding members of the public throughout the working life of the proposed development. Recommendations are also made regarding construction methodology of the proposed soil, overburden mounds and mineral stockpiles, slope designs for the mounds and excavations, surface excavations including standoffs distances from properties, backfilling of the extracted overburden and its subsequent settlement, construction of internal haul roads, surface and groundwater management and frequency of inspections to be carried out the site operator. There are specific requirements for surface coal mine site operators under the Quarry Regulations 1999 including the requirement for the regular review of geotechnical assessments. All sites are subject to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive.

291 The assessment concludes that the development can be worked in a safe and satisfactory manner by taking full cognisance of the recommendations made in the geotechnical assessment and guidance provided by the Health and Safety Executive. This would be in accordance with MLP Policy M36 requiring the incorporation of suitable mitigation measures to ensure potentially harmful impacts from subsidence and landslip are reduced to an acceptable level. This would also be in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance and paragraph 120 of the NPPF.

292 Issues of sink holes in the area have been raised by objectors and that the view expressed that the proposal would exacerbate the problem. The risks posed by mining subsidence would remain the responsibility of the Coal Authority who supports the application.

Mine gas

293 A number of gases are associated with abandoned mines. These include combustible gases (methane, hydrogen and carbon dioxide) and excess inert gases (nitrogen and carbon dioxide). Methane or firedamp, formation of which is a natural phenomenon with emission rates at their greatest during extraction, can have explosive effects. Stythe or blackdamp can be formed in former deep coal mines from the oxidation of the coal and timber left behind. This is depleted in oxygen and can cause a number of health effects, where the oxygen composition is low and where normal atmospheric air has been displaced can be dangerous. Large volumes of the gas can accumulate and can be displaced if groundwater levels recovered and workings become flooded. Gases can come to the surface through old access points to the mine, through cracks and fissures in the underlying rock.

294 A mine gas risk assessment has been submitted considering the risks associated with the proposed development and concluding that they are very low. Gases will have accumulated in old mine workings and have been displaced where flooding has occurred. The Coal Authority has taken measures to control groundwater levels so there are no controlled discharges and dewatering is not required. The presence of glacial clay (with low conductivity) would impede the migration of mine gases but the assessment states that there would be an inherent risk where the cover is thinner but this would not be increased by the proposed development and risks beyond the site boundary would remain unchanged. It is also considered that the development may provide a preferential flow path for mine gases reducing the risk elsewhere as well as removing abandoned workings, a potential source of gas. The site would be restored using backfilled material excavated from the site and restored to agricultural and nature conservation end uses. Any risks of mine gas from old workings would be minimised through on site safety measures.

Page 80

Cumulative impact

295 Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance recognise that some areas may have been subject to successive mineral development over a number of years. It is recommended that development plans and when determining planning applications local planning authorities should take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality. It is stated that the cumulative impact of mineral development is capable of being a material consideration when determining individual planning applications.

296 With the exception of coal mining in the 19th Century, the application site and its surroundings has not been subject to recent mining activities. To the north and north west of West Rainton (within 2km of the application site) there has been previous opencast activity and waste disposal activities taking place between 1963 and 2005. These include the former surface coal mining sites of Adventure Pit West and Blue House Farm (1985 to 1996), Adventure Pit East (1986 to 1988), Cocken Lodge, Priors Close and extension between 1985 and 1991, and Priors Close North between 1994 and 1999. Rainton Meadow (Rye Hill) was worked and restored between 1992 and 1996. Marks Quarry (coal extraction, brick making materials with landfill) and extension lies some 1.45km to the north of the application site and is partly restored.

297 The submitted assessment considers that the impact of past surface coal mining and landfill would not give rise to an unacceptable successive cumulative effect. In relation to concurrent cumulative impacts, noting that there are no operational surface mines or any with planning permission and no activities taking place at Marks Quarry it is concluded that there would be no unacceptable adverse simultaneous cumulative impact.

298 The noise assessment has considered the cumulative impact of any further working at Marks Quarry and extension and given the distance between the two sites it is concluded that although it may occasionally be just audible at the identified noise sensitive properties, the cumulative effects would be negligible.

299 As a result of previous development land between West Rainton, Lumley, Chilton Moor and Houghton-le-Spring the landscape in that area is relatively immature. That area is some distance from the proposed site and there is not a strong visual relationship between them. There would be some cumulative effect on the wider valley terrace landscape in respect of the removal of mature landscape features but this would not be particularly notable in any individual views and would be temporary (short-medium term). There would be some cumulative effect on the character of the landscape arising from the succession of visually intrusive surface mining operations in the area. The visual separation of the site from the area of most recent activity is such that cumulative effects would be low. The resumption of restoration works at Marks Quarry may give rise to noise and dust but given the separation distance, as well as mitigation measures that would be in place at that site, it is not considered that there would be an unacceptable cumulative impact.

300 There would be a degree of inter-visibility between the proposals and Eppleton Quarry which lies around 3.5 km to the north-east. The number of vantage points from which both sites would be visible would be relatively small due to local screening effects of topography and vegetation. The two would rarely seen in close

Page 81 visual association. It is considered that cumulative effects would be low and short term and none would be would be significant.

301 There has been no surface mining in the past in the immediate vicinity of the site but a number of sites have operated in areas to the north in recent years. There is not a strong visual relationship between that area and the proposed site and the visual effects of the proposals would generally fall on different receptors. There would be some cumulative visual effects with Eppleton Quarry but largely in sequential views along roads and paths. It is not considered that there would be significant cumulative effects on the visual amenity of residents. There would be some cumulative effects of past and present mineral working on the visual amenity of the locality in the round but not significant enough to conflict with MLP Policy M45.

302 In terms of non-mineral activities in the area an outline planning application for 150 houses and commercial centre on land to the South of West Rainton (approximately 200m to the north west) has been submitted to the Council for determination. Objectors to the proposal have raised concerns relating to the cumulative of this and other approved developments at the Ramside in terms of increase traffic and disruption in the area generally. It is possible that the major housing proposal at West Rainton and the surface mine scheme developments could be undertaken at the same time subject to grant of permission and approval of details through condition.

303 The proposed housing and surface mine proposals are essentially different in character. The construction phase of the housing development would involve some engineering operations such as soil stripping and storage that would be similar in nature to works involved in the opencast operation. The visual effects of these would generally fall on different parts of the village. From the upper storeys of town houses at Lambton View there would be some visibility from south-facing windows of surface activity and storage mounds in the proposed opencast site at distances of around 400m to the southwest. There would be visibility from north-facing windows of construction activities associated with the proposed housing. While there would be potential for some cumulative effects should the two proposals overlap or closely follow each other, both would be temporary and short term operations and the overall effect on residential amenity would not be significant. In addition the surface mine development is for a temporary period and has demonstrated that it can be worked within acceptable limits and conditions would seek to ensure that this would be the case.

304 In terms of traffic generation, neither the Highway Authority nor the Highways Agency has raised objections in terms of either the surface mine scheme or the housing proposal (subject to conditions and specific works). The traffic generation from the opencast would be limited to 45 movements per day (in and out). It is not considered that this level of trip generation would have any significant impact on the proposed junction of the A690/Chantry Place. It is not considered that the developments at the Ramside would give rise to significant impacts in the area sufficient to cause significant traffic disturbance. It is not considered that the possible cumulative impact of the proposed non-mineral development would be unacceptable and would not conflict with MLP Policy M45.

305 The submitted assessment considers residential and recreational amenity and other environmental matters concluding that there would be no unacceptable cumulative effect. For residential properties at Greengables, Pittington Station Houses and Kennem Gill and Pitfield House the assessment acknowledges that there would be moderate adverse visual impacts during site working and reducing through restoration and becoming beneficial as the restoration scheme matures. In terms of Page 82 noise levels would be within levels specified in the Planning Practice Guidance Notes. For dust there may be an increased likelihood of given the prevailing wind direction and distance from the site and there would only be a marginal increase in concentrations of particulates. However, it is considered that with mitigation measures and use of planning conditions the combined impacts involving visual impact, noise, dust and fine particles would not give rise to unacceptable cumulative effect in relation to residential amenity. Officers concur with this view and conditions would seek to control the impacts of the proposed development.

306 In terms of public rights of way, there would be views of the site with the greatest impact being from those footpaths and bridleway in the immediate vicinity of the site and on higher land at Pittington Hill for the operational life of the site. Like with the residential properties the impact would reduce when the site is reinstated and matures. Noise and dust could be adequately controlled. It is not considered that the impacts of the scheme upon residential amenity equates to an unacceptable cumulative effect subject to the proposed mitigation measures and planning conditions. Officers concur with this view and conditions would seek to control the impacts of the proposed development.

307 The combined effects of working any large-scale excavation may in its self also have some cumulative impacts on environmental and living conditions and the perceptions of the those within the vicinity of the area. The impacts of working and restoration of the site have been assessed within this report. Whilst these have some weight, sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the effects can be effectively mitigated and would not raise material conflict to MLP Policy M45 concerning cumulative effects.

Alternatives, piecemeal working and future development

308 As mineral reserves can only be worked where they are found the consideration of alternative development options has largely involved looking at different ways of working the site rather than possible locations or sources of energy supply.

309 Consideration has been given to the extent of the coal reserve limits is influenced by the land to the north east of the site not containing viable coal reserved as a result of ‘longwall’ mining and physical constraints including geological, roads and proximity of residential properties. The proposed scheme is therefore regarded as a ‘once and for all’ development. In this respect the Company is prepared as part of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to undertake that no future opencast coal mining takes place on land in its control in the vicinity of the site. This Agreement would apply to any successors in title.

310 A smaller site was ruled out in order to provide for a comprehensive and complete working of the available coal reserve. Reducing the life of the site would likely increase the environmental impacts of the development by involving the use of more plant, increase in the size of the working void and overburden mound and traffic movements. Extending the timescale of operations would delay the working and restoration of the site. In terms of alternative access point, an existing access from Field House Farm to Pittington Lane was considered and discounted.

311 Careful consideration was given to the location of overburden mounds with them being located to reduce their visual impact. The direction of working has been considered. The proposed scheme would extract the shallowest coal seams first to allow the quicker working of the site allowing for early backfilling and creation of space for overburden surcharging additional overburden avoiding disturbance of land

Page 83 outside of the site boundary. Consideration has also been given to alternative locations for site offices, plant yard, coal processing and mineral stocking areas and wheelwash and weighbridge facilities. Having regard to the environmental impacts it was considered appropriate to site them to the north of Field House Farm as opposed to the east of the buildings. Consideration was given to the mode of transportation for the dispatch of coal and fireclay, acknowledging rail to be more sustainable and the applicant having coal handling facilities at Tyne Dock and Redcar coal would be transported to one of these locations for dispatch to market or if a short distance continue by road.

312 MLP Policy M8 is intended to deter piecemeal working by proposed extensions to existing sites and the repeated return of operators to areas for a series of workings. Given the constraints to further working in the immediate vicinity the proposal would deal comprehensively with the viable coal resources and would not be contrary to MLP Policy M8. Through legal agreement no working is proposed on land immediately adjacent to the site.

313 Comments made regarding the Church Commissioners serving notice on certain landowners to protect the Commissioners’ mineral rights is a private matter and any mineral working would require planning permission and would be assessed accordingly against development plan policy and Government guidance including consideration of cumulative impacts. Concerns have been raised by those objecting to the proposal that should planning permission be approved then further proposals would follow. Although land in the vicinity of the application site was included in the Council’s 2010 Technical Consultation Paper any further development would require planning permission and again be assessed accordingly. The applicant has agreed to limit the extent of working on land adjacent to the application site through legal agreement but has not, as Pittington Parish Council has requested, to enter into an agreement precluding further applications within the Pittington/Sherburn electoral wards.

Legal Agreements

314 The provision of a community fund would be covered in a proposed legal agreement under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This would also restrict future working of adjoining land in the applicant’s control, the provision of a parent Company guarantee for the restoration of the site, requirements for a site liaison committee and provision of a community fund. The agreement can only include land which the applicant has control, it cannot include land outside of his control as other landowners would need to be signatories to such an agreement. It would require the applicant entering into a Habitat Management Plan for those parts of the site to be restored as ecological management and habitat areas. The payment of a commuted sum for off-site highways works to be undertaken prior to any mineral being exported from the site is also included the proposed agreement. The applicant would also enter into an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 with the County Council, as Highways Authority.

315 The agreement also proposes to use reasonable endeavours to co-operate and work closely with the Council to provide up to 6 new employment or apprenticeship opportunities for local people. This is welcomed by the Council’s Employability Team.

Page 84 316 The proposed Habitat Management Plan would be secured through an agreement under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Through the Habitat Management Plan areas to be restored under ecological management as priority habitats would be managed for an additional 5 year period following the expiry of the statutory 5 year aftercare period. The early ecological enhancement areas would be managed from the outset (13 years in total). In addition the management area would be managed in perpetuity following completion of the extended aftercare period in order to permit and foster the development and conservation of its biodiversity through the natural colonisation of flora and fauna. In addition an undertaking not to fell newly planted trees for a period of 40 years would be given.

317 Recent surface coal mines in the County have been accompanied by restoration bonds or financial guarantees, these applications were determined pre-NPPF. The Planning Practice Guidance provides guidance on financial guarantees and considers that a financial guarantee to cover restoration and aftercare costs will normally only be justified in exceptional cases. These being very long-term new projects where progressive reclamation is not practicable, such as an extremely large limestone quarry; where a novel approach or technique is to be used, but the minerals planning authority considers it is justifiable to give permission for the development; and where there is reliable evidence of the likelihood of either financial or technical failure, but these concerns are not such as to justify refusal of permission. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that Mineral planning authorities should address any concerns about the funding of site restoration principally through appropriately worded planning conditions.

318 The applicant has been asked to provide a financial guarantee because the proposed development is the first site applied for in County Durham and there is no track record of sites being worked and restored within the County, although it is acknowledged that the applicant has experience of surface mining elsewhere in the County. Also issues have arisen in Scotland regarding the restoration of sites and it is understandable that concerns have been raised by those objecting to the proposal. In addition recent announcements regarding other surface mine companies have further caused concern. The applicant has highlighted his experience and track record and although considering that such an undertaking is not necessary has proposed to provide a parent Company (Hargreaves Services) guarantee for the restoration of the site along with a periodic review process linked to the half yearly and annual account reporting periods whereby if there is a material decline in the financial robustness of Hargreaves Services during the working and restoration of the site, then alternative financial arrangements would be put in place to secure the restoration of the site. It is proposed that that this covered through legal agreement.

319 A check on the Company accounts for HSM has been undertaken which does not highlight any significant risks. Comments from Experian state ‘Should prove good for credit transactions to the limit assigned (£170,000). More significant dealings may require a referral to the parent company’. Based upon the credit check and the offer of the parent company guarantee (which the Council should accept) there should be minimal risk to the restoration of the site being undertaken.

320 In accordance with MLP Policy M52 the ability and commitment of the intended operator to operate and reclaim the site in accordance with the agreed scheme have been taken into account. Given advice in the NPPF and recognising the likely concerns of members of the public and the Committee it is considered that the proposal for a parent company guarantee is reasonable on this occasion.

Page 85

Conclusion of the environmental acceptability of the proposals

321 The environmental impacts of the proposed development in terms of residential amenity (including noise, air quality and dust), landscape and visual impact, biodiversity interests, cultural heritage and design and conservation, recreational amenity, agricultural quality and use, hydrology, access and traffic, contamination, stability, mine gas, cumulative impact, alternatives and piecemeal working have been considered. It is concluded that as a whole the proposal would be environmentally acceptable with the application of appropriate planning conditions and obligations and would accord with MLP Policy M7a and the first part of paragraph 149 of the NPPF as well as Policy 57a of the Submitted County Durham Local Plan.

Provision of national, local and community benefits

322 Officers consider the proposed development meets the requirements of MLP Policy M7(a), the first part of paragraph 149 of the NPPF and part a of Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57. The national, local and community benefits are assessed in this section of the report for completeness and in the event that the Committee takes a different view from officers on the environmental acceptability of the proposed development.

323 In terms of national, local and community benefits the site would contribute to economic growth through the supply of domestically produced coal, provide direct and indirect employment for the life of the site, generate direct and indirect expenditure. The supply of fireclay to meet the needs of brickworks is an economic benefit. The site contains limited derelict or contaminated land and the proposal would not have significant reclamation benefits. Sterilisation in advance of other development is not applicable in this case.

324 Community benefits proposed are long term environmental enhancements, a community fund of 20p per tonne of coal per tonne of coal transported off site. This would provide around £102,800 during the life of the site) to help fund local projects and activities. The fund would be administered by the site liaison committee made up of local residents, Parish Councils and County Councillors. Policy 57 of the Submitted Local Plan Policy additionally refers to environmental benefits and in particular those that can be delivered through high quality restoration and after-use of the land which would be achieved in this instance.

325 A socio-economic assessment accompanies the application that considers the impact of the proposal. It concludes that for the life of the site there would be a positive impact upon the national local economy and help to meet the Government’s national planning policy objectives for economic growth. It is not considered that that the proposal would present a threat to local third party businesses, environmental improvement or inward investment. Benefits of provision of indigenous coal and fireclay, employment, input into the local economy and environmental enhancement upon restoration.

326 One objective of the MLP in relation to the provision of minerals is to assist in employment retention where this is consistent with resource conservation and environmental protection. Part b of Submitted County Durham Local Plan Policy 57b refers to economic benefits with reference to employment generated through the working, restoration and after-use of the site. It is predicted that 42 full time jobs for the duration of the scheme would be created plus 18 seasonal jobs. The applicant Page 86 does not have any current sites within the County and it is currently envisaged that the majority of employees would be new recruits rather than transferees. Recruitment would likely include employees with histories at other surface mining companies, from allied industries (quarrying and construction), suitable prospective employees without a mining or similar background who could be offered appropriate training. It is anticipated that a high percentage of workers on the site would be recruited locally and through legal agreement the applicant has committed to using reasonable endeavours to provide up to 6 new employment or apprenticeship opportunities for local people.

327 The coal from the site would contribute to the provision of domestically produced coal for power generation reducing the demand for imports. The NPPF and Policy 57 of the Submitted County Durham Local Plan recognise the economic benefits of such a contribution and give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction. The need for the coal is not required to be demonstrated nor is there a threshold on the amount of coal to be produced to be considered to be a national benefit.

328 There is still a requirement for coal use in the energy mix as alternative technologies to seek to ensure a secure, low carbon energy supply and to maintain high and stable levels of growth have yet to be developed. This is likely to be the case for some time to come and there would still be a requirement for the coal from application site, and other sites in the Country, for the foreseeable future. Other countries have developed alternative technologies and as a result are able to export coal at competitive prices but this in itself raises concerns over security of supply. In addition there would be a greater generation of CO 2 emissions to transport the coal over great distances.

329 Recently published DECC figures illustrate the continuing demand for coal and demand for imports due to a short fall in domestic provision. Provisional 2013 figures by DECC (March 2014) show that coal production (including an estimated for slurry) was 25% down on 2012 at 12.8 million tonnes. Deep mined production was down 34% at 4.1 million tonnes, the lowest on record. Surface mine production was down by 15% (-1.6 million tonnes) due to the closure of a number of mines and companies in 2013 and geological conditions at some of the remaining mines. Imports of coal in 2013 up 10% up on levels in 2012 at 49.4 million tonnes, the highest level since 2006, reflecting the decline in UK production and high demand for electricity generation. 38% of total coal coming from Russia. Large quantities of coal were also imported from Colombia, USA and Australia with lesser amounts from other countries. The demand for coal by electricity generators in 2013 was 8.8% (- 4.8 million tonnes) lower than the demand in 2012, reflecting a fall in coal generation. Total stocks at the end of 2013 were 14.4 million tonnes, 11% higher than at the end of 2012 (13 million tonnes). The demand for coal remains at this present time.

330 The proposal would also have indirect effects on the local economy arising from the purchase of goods and services by the workforce and the Company. Although the proposal would not provide long term job opportunities it would make a contribution to the local economy for the life of the proposed development in a period of economic uncertainty and difficulty.

331 The payment of mineral rates, taxes, coal royalties and the contribution of the development to the balance of payments would also be economic benefits of the proposed development. These are matters that are common to all mineral developments, but are national benefits.

Page 87

332 It has been queried by those objecting to the application how much income (directly and indirectly) the Council would receive towards local development if the application were approved. Business rates would be payable and any other potential charges for services delivered such as trade refuse. It is only when the site is entered onto the rating list by the Valuation Office Agency that an indication as to what the rates liability could be calculated. Under the business rates retention arrangements introduced from 1 April 2013 the Council would now retain 50% of locally paid business rates which would, with other funding streams, be used to pay for services provided by the Council. There is also a statutory requirement for Councils to monitor mineral and waste sites and there is charge to a site operator associated with this.

Conclusion of the provision of national, local and community benefits

333 Should the Committee consider that the proposals are not environmentally acceptable, or cannot be made so by planning conditions or obligations then, officers consider that there are national, local and community benefits associated with the proposal which would outweigh the likely impacts (as set out above) to justify the grant of planning permission.

Other matters

334 The proposal has generated much public interest and comment. The views received have been documented and the planning related issues considered in the relevant sections of the report. Other matters raised are as follows.

Impact upon tourism and existing businesses

335 Some concerns have been raised regarding the detrimental impact of the development upon tourism in general and upon Ramside Hotel. There is little basis in the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance, MLP or emerging CDP to object to a proposal for opencast coal working on the basis of its impact upon tourism. Although mineral related development can have negative connotations when viewed from this perspective it is not considered that the proposal would affect the wider objective or specific initiatives to promote the tourist potential of the County. The application site is located alongside the A690, part of the strategic road network used by HGVs on a regular basis. Any road impacts including delays for people travelling this road are unlikely to be a deciding factor on most decisions of whether or not to visit the area or other parts of County Durham.

336 The NPPF seeks to support a prosperous rural economy and policies should support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. However, none of the emerging Local Plan policies provide protection to existing tourism development. The principal policy to determine surface mined coal planning applications is MLP Policy M7 and emerging Policy 57. There is little general support in the NPPF or development plan policy for arguments against proposed opencast coal working on the basis of the impact upon tourism. This is particularly true on the exposed coalfield in areas such as County Durham which has sustained significant levels of working over the last 60 years that have shaped its character. It is not considered that specific tourist assets would be prejudiced nor any designated landscape, heritage or nature interest designations that currently support tourism and need to be sustained in the future.

Page 88 337 Planning permission has been granted for a number of developments at Ramside Hall Hotel in recent years. These include an extension to the hotel and golf course and for associated enabling development. Measures are proposed to seek to ensure that any adverse impacts of the proposed development are mitigated, including noise and dust controls. These measures along with the distance from Ramside Hall and the temporary nature of operations it is not considered that the interests of Ramside Estates would be adversely affected by the proposed development. Likewise with other businesses closer to the site (the cattery and Homer Hill Farm Shop) the assessments that have been carried out that demonstrate that the development can be undertaken in an environmentally acceptable manner and it is not considered that local businesses would be adversely affected by the proposed development.

Impact upon the meteorological radar at High Moorsley

338 In response to the comments from the Ministry of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation), the applicant has confirmed that no structure on the site would be higher than 55m above ground level, and that any tree planted after the project has ended would not grow taller than 55m. In addition nothing on site would operate within the protected radar operating frequency so as not to adversely impact upon the meteorological radar at High Moorsley.

Monitoring of the site

339 Concerns have been raised regarding the resource ability of the County Council, Durham Constabulary and the Environment Agency to monitor the site should planning permission be granted. There is also a statutory requirement for Councils to monitor mineral and waste sites. If planning permission were granted then it would be regularly monitored for compliance with the requirements of the planning permission. The number of scheduled (chargeable) visits per year is agreed in advance with a site operator but other non-scheduled visits do also take place. If non-compliance is identified then the Council would consider appropriate action. The Environment Agency would visit the site to monitor permits and consents issued by the Agency and to a frequency it considered appropriate. Visits by Durham Constabulary would be made if it were considered appropriate. Visits would take place by the Inspector of Mines and Quarries in relation to its areas of control during the life of the site.

CO 2 emissions

340 Concerns have been raised by those making representations on the application regarding CO 2 emissions. Whilst there would be large amounts of CO 2 associated with both the production of the coal and then the burning of the coal, this has limited impact upon CO2 targets for the Local Authority. The main issue for the Council would be an increase in diesel use from both the mechanical machinery used and the road traffic increase. It is envisaged that the principal market for the coal from the site would involve the energy supply industry market based in Yorkshire and the Midlands. Power stations, such as the one at Ferrybridge, are ‘point source’ emitters and will have an impact upon the UK’s ability to meet CO 2 targets as a whole. The most up to date information shows that DCC is on target to meet its EU Covenant of Mayors, 20% reduction target by 2020 (currently at 17%).

Page 89 Odours

341 With the use of HGVs, plant and machinery there would be fumes from vehicle exhausts. However, given the distance from properties from areas of such use and the presence of the A690 it is not considered that odour would be an issue but measures can be taken to reduce any possible impacts.

Property Values and Human Rights

342 The overwhelming majority of public representations are opposed to the proposal. These views are well articulated and substantially made on material planning grounds. However, some matters such as the effect on property values are not relevant to the planning considerations. It is has also been stated that the proposal would be a breach of human rights. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be impacts associated with the development on residents living in the vicinity of the site, these have been considered and taken into account in the application of relevant development plan policies and Government guidance. It is for the Committee to decide whether the impacts on residents are acceptable or if the wider benefits of the proposed development outweigh any potential adverse impacts in the light of the officer assessment presented in this report.

CONCLUSION

343 Paragraph 149 of the NPPF provides the national planning framework for opencast coal. This states that permission should not be given for the extraction of coal unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so through conditions or obligations, or if not, it provided national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. This guidance is similar to MLP Policy M7 and Policy 57 of the Submitted County Durham Local Plan. To meet the first test of paragraph 149 of the NPPF and comply with MLP Policy M7(a) proposals are required to be either environmentally acceptable or in a position to be made so by planning conditions or obligations.

344 Having assessed the likely impacts of the proposed development it is not considered that the scheme would have significant environmental effects of an adverse nature sufficient to justify a recommendation of refusal having regard to the proposed planning conditions and legal agreements.

345 The site is not subject to landscape designations but is adjacent to AHLV, Green Belt and Historic Park and Garden with the World Heritage Site further distant. It is not considered that that the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon those designations. However, it is inevitable that there would be some visual intrusion from the engineered mounds and earth works throughout the life of the site but the operations would generally be localised and the impacts would be moderated and reduced by perimeter mounding and progressive reinstatement and screening works but with views from higher ground being panoramic.

346 The site is not subject to nature conservation designations and it is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on those designations close by, a view endorsed by the ecological consultees. Nor is it considered that there would be an adverse impact upon flora or fauna, including protected species. The site is mainly in high grade agricultural use and this would be lost for the duration of the development but would be reinstated to productive agricultural use. The restoration

Page 90 proposals would deliver a quality restoration and afteruse of the site with opportunities to increase biodiversity interests. Restoration of the site would be secured through condition and through the provision of a suitable guarantee secured through legal agreement. The applicant has agreed to enter into a Legal Agreement that would amongst other matters prevent the future working of land in its control, and provide an extended aftercare period and management of parts of the site in perpetuity.

347 There would inevitably be some disturbance and disruption from temporary operations for those living close by namely Greengables and Pittington Station Cottages and to a lesser extent Pitfield House and those properties on Pittington Lane. However, the site has been designed to be worked in a way that would limit the environmental effects on local communities and suitable mitigation measures would be secured through site design and condition.

348 Assessments have been made of the impact upon designated and non-designated heritage assets and it has been concluded that there would be no adverse impact including upon the ambience of the Hallgarth Conservation Area, with suitable mitigation. Although there are concerns from the Council’s Design and Historic Environment officer as to the adequacy of the submitted heritage assessment the actual physical development in terms of heritage impact would be limited and therefore considered to be acceptable.

349 Although concerns have been raised relating to access and traffic, the Highways Agency, Highways Authority and Sunderland City Council raise no objections subject to certain matters being secured through condition or legal agreement. Consideration has been given to the impacts of the development upon recreational amenity, hydrology and hydrogeology, contamination, stability, mine gas, cumulative impact and the impacts are considered to be acceptable with the imposition of conditions where appropriate.

350 National, local and community benefits have been considered within the report and are wide ranging including contribution to the local economy and UK markets for the coal and fireclay, employment, benefits upon restoration through an appropriate restoration scheme and a community fund. Should the Committee consider that the proposed development is not environmentally acceptable or cannot be made so through condition or obligations then consideration should be given as to whether or not those benefits outweigh the likely impacts to justify the grant of planning permission. Officer opinion is that they do.

351 On the balance of planning considerations it is considered that the proposed development meets the tests for acceptability of opencast proposals as set out in Policy M7, the NPPF and Policy 57 of the Submitted County Durham Local Plan and the proposed benefits of the scheme would outweigh the short term environmental damage and loss of amenity that would be caused.

352 The proposal has generated much public interest with representations reflecting the issues and concerns of local residents affected by the proposed development. Whilst there would be some impacts upon local amenity associated with noise, dust, visual impact and traffic at certain stages of the development these would be at acceptable levels and can be controlled through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and planning conditions. These representations have been weighed along with other responses including those of statutory consultees that have raised no overriding objections to the scheme based on the submitted details and assessments. Whilst mindful of the nature and weight of public concerns it is not Page 91 considered that these are sufficient to outweigh the planning judgement in favour of the proposed scheme.

353 The proposed development is considered to broadly accord with the relevant policies of the County Durham Minerals Local Plan, the City of Durham Local Plan, the direction of the Submitted County Durham Plan and relevant sections of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

354 That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions as set out below, and to the conclusion of appropriate Legal Agreements under Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as set out in this report and provision of a suitable financial guarantee in order to ensure full and proper restoration of the site and provision of all benefits as intended:

APPROVED DOCUMENTS

1. The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents and subject to matters subsequently agreed under Condition 3:

a. Application form dated 30 July 2013. b. Description of the working method as contained in the Field House Surface Coal and Fireclay Mine Scheme Environmental Statement Volume 1 Section 3.4 Method of Working. c. Mitigation measures as set out in the Field House Surface Coal and Fireclay Mine Scheme Environmental Statement Volume 1: Section 8.8 in relation to ecology and nature conservation; Section 9.5 in relation to hydrology and hydrogeology. d. Travel Plan Revised (2014) Field House Surface Mine Scheme dated 31 March 2014. e. Email from Signet Planning to Durham County Council dated 29 April 2014 sent at 11:15 relating to measures to be taken during the excavation of materials on the Field House Site associated with part of the former Lady Seaham Pit and Colliery Spoil, Rainton and Seaham Railway and shafts. f. Drawings: i. Drawing No. FH01 Existing Features ii. Drawing No. FH02 Site Layout iii. Drawing No. FH03 Site Sections iv. Drawing No. FH04 Restoration Proposals v. Drawing No. FH05 Restoration Proposals Illustrative Earthworks vi. Figure 3.1 Phasing Plan 1 (6 months) vii. Figure 3.2 Phasing Plan 2 (18 months) viii. Figure 3.3 Phasing Plan 3 (20 months) ix. Figure 3.4 Phasing Plan 4 (27 months)

(REASON 1 – See Schedule following conditions).

2. From the commencement of development to the completion of soils replacement, a copy of this permission, including all documents hereby approved and any other documents subsequently approved in accordance with this permission and legal agreements, shall always be on display in the site offices and subsequently, shall be Page 92 made available to all persons with responsibility for the site’s aftercare and management. (Reason 1)

MATTERS REQUIRING SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL MATTERS 3. The development hereby approved shall also only be carried out in accordance with a scheme or schemes to be agreed, in writing, with the Mineral Planning Authority, which shall, amongst other matters, include provision for the matters listed below. Those details required by Condition 3(a) through to Condition 3(n) shall be submitted to and agreed, in writing, with the Mineral Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development and before any of the operations specified in those conditions commence. Those details required by Condition 3(o) and Condition 3(p) shall be submitted no later than 12 months following the commencement of the development. (Reason 1)

(a) A definitive ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’, which shall clearly describe the proposed soil stripping, handling and replacement methods to be used at the site, appropriate to the grade of soil and intended after-use. The ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ shall also include details of the proposed soil depths upon restoration and plant and machinery to be used. The ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ shall be based on the following documents (or updated versions of these):

• Soil handling operations and the methodology detailed within the Field House Surface Coal and Fireclay Mine Scheme Environmental Statement Volume 1, notably Chapters 3 and 11 along with Appendix 11.2, and • Department of the Environment Guidance on Good Practice for the Reclamation of Mineral Working to Agriculture (1996). • Defra's Good Practice Guide for Handling Soil, Sheets 1–4 (handling soil using 360o excavators and dumptrucks) and sheet 15 if low ground pressure bulldozers are to be used during restoration. Available on the Defra website at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090306103114/http://www.defra.g ov.uk/farm/environment/land-use/soilguid/index.htm (3)

(b) A Noise Action Plan including the exact locations of noise monitoring points and proposed monitoring frequency. The locations of noise monitoring points should be chosen so as to ensure that the possibility of off-site noise affecting measurements is reduced to a minimum. (2, 5)

(c) A Dust Action Plan including the exact locations of monitoring points and proposed monitoring frequency and methodology to be used for assessing monitoring results. The Dust Action Plan shall utilise the baseline Real Time and Passive Dust Monitoring information.

(d) Details of an archaeological scheme of investigation which shall include the following: (12)

i) the proper identification and evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the Site by means of a targeted trial trench evaluation (Phase 1); ii) an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeological remains identified in the evaluation phase (item i) to inform the final mitigation strategy;

Page 93 iii) mitigation proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the excavation, recording and recovery of the archaeological remains and the analysis and publishing of the findings; iv) timing for the archaeological fieldwork in accordance with items i) and iii) above in the areas identified to be of archaeological interest; and v) monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.

(e) Details of a surface water drainage scheme for the Site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. The drainage strategy shall demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the critical storm shall not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped Site following a corresponding rainfall event (7, 8).

(f) Details of drainage arrangements during site preparation and working life of the site. (7, 8)

(g) Details of the water treatment systems to be installed in the ‘Water Treatment Areas’ shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing), including the positioning within the area and construction of them, their dimensions and of the pipes connecting and discharging from them, and facilities for the removal of suspended solids from surface water run-off and any other related information required by the Mineral Planning Authority. (7, 8)

(h) Details of the type and height of fencing to be provided around the site boundary, alongside public rights of way and within the site. (18)

(i) Details of the works within the ‘Early ecological enhancement area’ as shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’.

(j) Details of the design and construction of the access in the location as shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ and JN0639–Dwg-0002A Figure 3 Proposed Site Access Location Vertical Visibility Along Robin Lane as contained in the document entitled ‘Field House Surface Coal and Fireclay Mine Scheme Environmental Statement Appendices Volume 3 (or other subsequently approved drawing). (9)

(k) Details of the realignment of the bend at Robin Lane at the exit from the A690, measures for the protection of the highway verge along Robin Lane and the resurfacing of Robin Lane (as necessary identified by the Highways Authority) to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority and details of warning signs and their location along Robin Lane. (9)

(l) Details of wheel cleaning equipment to be installed at the access. (5, 9)

(m)Details of the design and location of the site compound including buildings, fixed plant and machinery to be used on the site and of the proposed coal processing and fireclay stocking area and plant yard as shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and details of the illumination to be used on site. (2, 5)

(n) Details of the notice boards required by Condition 8. (5, 9).

(o) Details of the restoration of the site, which shall include:

Page 94

i) the final contours for the site (at 2 metre intervals), indicating how such contours tie in with the existing contours on adjacent land; (3)

ii) the replacement of soils including depths, handling and replacement methods including identifying the origin and final locations for soils for use in the agricultural restoration as defined by soil units, together with details balancing the quantities, depths and areas involved; (3)

iii) the drainage of the restored site; (3, 7, 8)

iv) the erection of fences; (3)

v) the planting of trees and hedges; (3, 6)

a. the species to be planted, and the percentage of the total to be accounted for by each species; (3, 6)

b. the size of each plant and the spacing between them; (3)

c. the preparations to be made to the ground before planting; (3)

d. the fencing off of planted areas; (3)

e. a subsequent maintenance and management programme during the aftercare period once the hedgerow, tree, and shrub planting has been carried out, which shall include the weeding of the planted area, repairing of any damaged fencing, and the replacement of any plants which die or are seriously affected by disease and a detailed schedule as to when the aftercare period commences for each area. (3)

vi) the provision of appropriate site interpretation material based on the results of the archaeological works to be undertaken. (3, 12)

vii) measures to ensure that the risk of erosion is minimised and the use of agricultural machinery is not unduly restricted. (3)

(p) The aftercare of the land for five years, from the date of final topsoil replacement for the whole site (or smaller manageable blocks within the site) as confirmed by the Minerals Planning Authority. (19)

COMMENCEMENT

4. Works shall start on the site no later than three years from the date of this certificate. (20)

5. The Minerals Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, of the date of the date of the commencement of the development and of the following at least seven days prior to their commencement: (a) The commencement of site preparation works; (b) The commencement of the winning and working of coal or fireclay; (c) The commencement of the export of coal or fireclay from the site.

COMPLETION

Page 95 6. All mineral extraction shall cease by no later than 2 years 3 months (27 months) from the date of commencement of the winning and working of minerals, as notified to the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 5. (4)

7. The site shall be restored in terms of the replacement of all soils in accordance with the conditions hereinafter appearing:

(a) within 8 months of the cessation of mineral extraction; or

(b) if the period mentioned in (a) above extends beyond the end of September, by the end of July the following year. (4)

WORKS REQUIRED FOR SITE PREPARATION

8. Before substantive soil stripping (other than for preliminary works themselves) begins, the following works shall be carried out, where relevant in accordance with the relevant schemes agreed under Condition 3. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified, in writing, within two working days of each of the specified works being carried out.

a. the construction of the approved site drainage cut-off ditches, water treatment areas, and other drainage facilities appropriate to the area to be stripped, shall be completed; (8)

b. the formation of the site offices and compound with surface formed with tar- macadam, concrete, or consolidated clean stone, levelled to preclude ponding of water; (1, 2, 9)

c. the formation of the site access, with surface formed with tar-macadam or concrete levelled to preclude ponding of water; (1, 9)

d. perimeter fencing and fencing alongside definitive rights of way (1, 17)

e. protective fencing alongside hedgerows and outside the canopies of trees bounding the site and those to be retained within it; (1, 6)

f. the installation of wheel cleaning equipment to prevent the transfer of mud to the public highway; (5, 9)

g. the provision of notice boards of durable material and finish: (5)

i. to be placed at the site entrance, indicating the name, address, and telephone number of the company responsible for the operation of the site, and of an official who will be available to deal promptly with any complaints;

ii. to be placed so as to be clearly visible to all drivers of heavy goods vehicles exiting the site access, instructing them to use the approved traffic route;

h. the provision within the site of a water supply as appropriate for the agreed dust suppression measures and sufficient number of water bowsers and/or dust suppression equipment. (5) Page 96

i. the implementation of works to create scrapes and/or deepen existing scrapes within the early ecological enhancement area. (13)

WORKING PERIOD

9. Operations authorised by this consent shall be restricted to the following periods unless otherwise set out in Condition 10:

Site operations (mineral extraction and processing, overburden and soils handling) 07.00 hours to 19.00 hours Monday to Friday 07.00 hours to 13.00 hours Saturday

Coal haulage hours 07.00 hours to 19.00 hours Monday to Friday 07.00 hours to 13.00 hours Saturday

Maintenance 07.00 hours to 21:00 hours Monday to Friday 07.00 hours to 17.00 hours Saturday 08.00 hours to 16.00 hours Sunday

With the exception of pumping, no operations including the maintenance of vehicles and plant or working shall take place outside these hours or at any time on Bank, or other public holidays, save in cases of emergency. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practicable after the occurrence of any such operations or working. (5)

10. No soils stripping, handling and restoration operations shall take place within 100 metres of Greengables and Pittington Crossing/Station Houses prior to 08.00 hours and after 17.00 hours Monday to Friday and before 08.00 hours and after 12:00 on Saturdays or at any time on Bank, or other public holidays, save in cases of emergency. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is practicable after the occurrence of any such operations or working. (5)

ACCESS AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY

11. Vehicular access for all vehicles to and from the site shall be via the access as shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing). (9)

12. No development shall take place at the site until the following works have been undertaken in accordance with the details agreed under Condition 3: the realignment of the bend at Robin Lane at the exit from the A690, measures for the protection of the highway verge along Robin Lane and the resurfacing of Robin Lane (as necessary identified by the Highways Authority) to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority and the erection of warning signs along Robin Lane. (9)

13. No coal or fireclay shall be taken from the development site until the site access as shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) has been formed in accordance with the details agreed under Condition 3. (9)

14. The wheel cleaning equipment installed in accordance with the details agreed under Condition 3 shall be used to ensure all vehicles leaving the site access as indicated on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) are thoroughly cleaned of mud before entering the public highway. (9) Page 97

15. The total number of heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site shall not exceed 90 (45 in and 45 out) per operational day Monday to Friday and 46 (23 in and 23 out) on Saturdays. A record of all goods vehicles leaving the site shall be maintained by the operator and a certified copy of this record shall be afforded to the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 working days of such a request. (5, 9)

SOIL STRIPPING AND STORAGE

16. The loads of all laden coal and fireclay heavy goods vehicles leaving the site access as indicated on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) shall be fully covered by sheeting. (5, 9)D STORAGE

17. The method of soil stripping, handling and replacement within the site shall only be undertaken in accordance with the ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ approved under condition 3 and shall be appropriate to the quality of the soils and intended after-use. (3, 17)

18. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given at least two working days’ notice in writing (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays), of any intended individual phase of topsoil or subsoil stripping. (2)

19. All topsoil shall be stripped from any areas to be excavated, or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of subsoil and overburden, haul roads, and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery, and stored until required for restoration in accordance with the scheme submitted and approved under Condition 3. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to verify that the full depth of topsoil has been satisfactorily stripped prior to the commencement of subsoil stripping. (3)

20. No plant or vehicles shall cross any areas of unstripped topsoil except for the purpose of stripping operations. (3)

21. Sufficient subsoil or similar material agreed to by the Minerals Planning Authority (as identified by the definitive ‘Soil Handling and Management Manual’ approved under Condition 3) shall be stripped from any areas to be excavated or used for the stationing of plant and buildings, the storage of overburden, haul roads, and other areas to be traversed by heavy machinery to ensure that a minimum of 0.9 metres depth of such material is available for replacement over all areas intended for agricultural or other land-based afteruses. (3)

22. In each calendar year, soil stripping shall not commence on any phase until any standing crop or excess vegetation has been removed, and the Mineral Planning Authority has been given at least two days’ advance notice in writing (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays).

23. The stripping and movement of topsoil and subsoil shall only be carried out under sufficiently dry and friable conditions, to avoid soil smearing and compaction, and to ensure that all available soil resources are recovered. Appropriate methods of soil stripping shall be separately agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority for any permanently wet or waterlogged parts of the site. (17)

24. No stripping, movement, replacement or cultivation of topsoil or subsoil shall be carried out during the months of October, November, December, January, February

Page 98 and March inclusive without the prior written consent of, by methods and for a period agreed with, the Mineral Planning Authority. (17)

25. Topsoils and subsoils shall be stored according to their quality or any approved soils stripping plan, in separate heaps which do not overlap or unless a suitable separation layer is used involving geosynthetic material or a layer of sand. A minimum stand-off distance of 2 metres shall be maintained between soil storage mounds and the site boundary and/or site drainage ditches. (3)

26. Once formed all topsoil, subsoil, and soil making materials heaps shall be grass seeded in accordance with a scheme agreed in writing beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority, and kept free from weeds. (3, 6)

27. No topsoil, subsoil or soil making materials shall be removed from the site or imported to the site. (3)

28. Within 3 months of the commencement of soil stripping, and every 12 months thereafter, the Mineral Planning Authority shall be supplied with a plan indicating the area stripped of topsoil and subsoil, the location of each soil storage heap, and the quantity and nature of material within the mounds together with details of the type of plant used to strip/store those materials. A balance of the quantities of material stored with the proposed depth and texture of the soil profile to be replaced following restoration shall also be provided. (3)

29. An annual soils management audit report shall be submitted by 31 January each year detailing all soil movements for the previous 12 months and include calculations of soil volumes and outstanding restoration tasks. (3)

SITE WORKING

30. The development, including soil handling, storage and replacement, extraction and restoration, shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3. (4, 5, 6)

31. At all times works should be carried out on Site in line with an agreed method of working as shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ and Drawing No. FH03 ‘Restoration Proposals’ which takes into account the best available information and techniques in relation to protected species, including the protection of such species during working and the restoration of the area to benefit wildlife as works are completed in any area. This should include reinstatement and creation of habitats to encourage the biodiversity of the area. (13)

32. A strip of land at least 12 metres wide shall be maintained at existing ground levels (except in relation to the site access to Robin Lane and where the storage of topsoil and subsoil stripped from the surface of the site is approved in accordance with Condition 1) adjacent to any vehicular highway. (11)

33. Overburden and soils shall only be stockpiled in the areas shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing), to heights not exceeding those shown on the plan. (6)

34. Coal and fireclay shall only be stockpiled in the areas shown on Drawing No. FH02 ‘Site Layout’ (or other subsequently approved drawing), to heights not exceeding 4m in height. (6)

Page 99

35. No site clearance works or development affecting trees, scrub, ground vegetation or other semi-natural vegetation shall take place between March and August inclusive unless survey work immediately prior to the start of works confirms that breeding birds are absent. This is particularly relevant to the works to remove areas used by birds such as trees and scrub. If nesting birds are found then work in that area must be avoided until the birds have fledged. (15)

36. Potential bat roost trees shall be inspected immediately prior to felling and the results be given in writing to the Mineral Planning Authority within 2 working days of the inspection. (13)

37. Mitigation measures in relation to bats as contained in paragraph 8.8.2 and 8.8.3 of the document entitled ‘Field House Surface Coal and Fireclay Mine Scheme Environmental Statement, Volume 1’ shall be adhered to and details of the location and design of bat boxes and site directional lighting shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to their placement. (13)

38. Bird nest boxes as referred to in paragraphs 8.8.2 and 8.8.5 of the document ‘Field House Surface Coal and Fireclay Mine Scheme Environmental Statement Volume 1’ shall be provided and details of the location (within the site periphery and within retained habitat) and design submitted and agreed, in writing, by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. (15)

SITE MAINTENANCE 39. From the commencement of the development, until restoration of the site, the following site maintenance operations shall be carried out:

a. the maintenance of fences in a stockproof and secure condition, between any areas used for development, and adjoining agricultural land; (17, 18)

b. the retention of fencing around trees and hedgerows; (6)

c. the care and maintenance of trees and hedgerows to be retained within the site boundary and treatment of those affected by disease, in accordance with accepted principles of good woodland management and good arboricultural practice (including the provision of protective fencing); (6)

d. the maintenance of all the hard surfaced access roads within the site, over which licensed road vehicles operate, clean from mud; (5, 9)

e. the maintenance of drainage ditches, water treatment areas, and the clearance of mud and silt from water treatment areas to avoid reducing their capacity for intercepting sediment; (7, 8)

f. all areas of the site, including undisturbed areas and all topsoil, subsoil and overburden mounds, shall be managed to minimise erosion and shall be kept free from injurious weeds (as defined by The Weeds Act 1959). Cutting, grazing or spraying shall be undertaken, as necessary and appropriate to the approved after-use of the land where the materials in mound are to be replaced, to control plant growth and prevent the build-up of a seed bank of such weeds, or their dispersal onto adjoining land. (3, 6)

BUILDINGS, PLANT AND MACHINERY

Page 100 40. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 20 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no buildings, plant, or machinery, other than approved under Condition 3 above, shall be erected or placed on the site other than with the prior written approval of the Minerals Planning Authority. (*)

41. Plant and machinery on the site shall not be used to process, treat, or otherwise refine materials other than those extracted from the site. (5)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

NOISE

42. Except when short term operations (as identified in Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 22 these being activities such as soil-stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance) are taking place, the noise emitted from operations on the site shall not result in noise levels greater than those listed below at the properties/locations listed below and identified in the Noise Action Plan agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 3, between the hours set out in Conditions 9 and 10. (5)

Pitfield House 55dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) 1 Pittington Station House 55dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field) Greengables 55dB LAeq, 1Hr (free field)

43. Noise emitted as a result of short term operations (as identified in Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 22 these being activities such as soil-stripping, the construction and removal of baffle mounds, soil storage mounds and spoil heaps, construction of new permanent landforms and aspects of site road construction and maintenance)shall not exceed 70dB LAeq, 1Hr (freefield) as measured at Pitfield House, 1 Pittington Station House and Greengables as identified in the Noise Action Plan agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority under Condition 3, between the hours set out in Conditions 9 and 10, the duration of such activities shall not exceed 8 weeks in relation to each of the respective noise monitoring properties in any 12 month period. (5)

44. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given at least 2 working days notice in writing (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays), prior to the commencement of short term operations (soil stripping; soils handling; soil mound construction and removal; soil replacement and construction and removal of the outerfaces of the overburden mound). (1, 5)

45. Noise monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme approved under Condition 3. On request, the operator shall, within 2 working days furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded and the plant and equipment operating on the site at the time. (2, 5)

46. All plant and machinery used on site shall be fitted with an effective silencer and operate within the doors or cowls of its engine(s) in the closed position. Pumps or generators in position for more than one working week shall be screened by acoustic barriers where appropriate. (5)

Page 101 47. The details of reversing warning devices to be fitted to plant and machinery shall be agreed in advance with the Mineral Planning Authority and only the approved devices shall be used. (5)

48. Advance notification of changes in the agreed working programme shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority.(2)

BLASTING

49. No blasting shall take place at the site. (5)

DUST

50. The Dust Action Plan agreed in accordance with Condition 3 shall be reviewed at six- monthly intervals and the latest version adhered to at all times. (5)

51. The dust control equipment installed shall be used at all times to suppress dust on the site arising during the hours set out in Conditions 9 and 10 from all operations, including vehicular movements, excavation operations, mineral, soils and overburden stockpiling arrangements and soil spreading operations. At such times when the equipment provided and the provisions in the Dust Action Plan are not sufficient to suppress dust arising from the site, operations shall cease until additional equipment is provided and found to be adequate. (5,13)

Dust suppression measures employed may include:

i) the provision of mobile water bowsers;

ii) the use of dust filters on all fixed plant and machinery; iii) a speed limit of 15 mph on all internal haul roads, with no plant having exhausts pointing downwards;

iv) all haul roads and areas used for the storage of soils and overburden, in the absence of grassland sward, shall be watered during dry, windy weather conditions;

v) areas which will be untouched for more than three months shall be seeded with a quick growing cover crop. (5)

52. Monitoring of dust levels shall be carried out by the operator in accordance with the Dust Action Plan agreed in accordance with Condition 3. On written request the operator shall, within two working days, furnish the Mineral Planning Authority with the particulars of the measurements recorded. (2, 5)

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AND POLLUTION CONTROL

53. The surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details under Condition 3 during the development and all water from the operational part of the site shall be discharged into the approved water treatment area prior to discharge into any ditch, stream, watercourse, or culvert outside the site. (7, 8)

54. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank it contains plus

Page 102 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound shall be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks, plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. Associated pipework shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund. The bund shall be sealed with no drain for removal of contained liquids. Any bund contents shall be bailed or pumped out under manual control and disposed of safely. (7, 8)

55. There shall be no importation of waste to the site or burning at any time. (2, 5)

ITEMS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST

56. The archaeological scheme of investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details under Condition 3. (12)

57. A copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the scheme of investigation shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record within 36 months of the date of commencement of the development. (12)

AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINATED LAND

58. The Mineral Planning Authority will be provided with at least 2 days advance notice in writing of the commencement of excavation of materials associated with part of the former Lady Seaham Pit and Colliery Spoil, Rainton and Seaham Railway and shafts and any such excavated materials shall be placed in the dewatered exhausted workings as part of the progressive backfill operations at a depth of no less than 2 metres below the final restoration level as shown on the approved Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’. (18)

RESTORATION

59. Restoration of the site shall be in complete accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3.. (1)

60. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all areas of hardstanding, including site compounds, access road other than that part to be retained as shown on the approved Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or subsequently approved drawing), and haul roads, shall be broken up and removed from the site or buried at sufficient depth not to affect the final restoration of the site. (3)

61. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all water treatment areas shall, unless to be retained in accordance with the approved plans, be emptied of slurry, filled with dry inert material, and restored to levels shown on the approved restoration plan. (3)

62. In accordance with the restoration requirements, all fixed equipment, machinery, and buildings shall be removed from the site. (3)

REPLACEMENT OF OVERBURDEN

63. The final placement of overburden into the voids of completed workings shall be graded to prevent the material becoming saturated and waterlogged. (3)

Page 103

64. Overburden shall be replaced to such levels, and in such a way that, after the replacement of subsoil and topsoil, the contours of the restored land conform to the approved restoration contours. (3)

65. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified in writing when Condition 64 has been complied with, and shall be given an opportunity to inspect the surface before further restoration works are carried out. (3)

REPLACEMENT OF SOILS

66. All soils shall be moved and replaced in complete accordance with the approved documents in Condition 1 and schemes subsequently agreed in accordance with Condition 3.

67. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be notified in writing, with at least two working days notice (excluding Sundays and Bank or other public holidays) prior to each phase of soil replacement in accordance with the scheme agreed under Condition 3. (3)

68. The movement and replacement of soils shall only be carried out under sufficiently dry and friable conditions, to avoid soil smearing and compaction. The material stripped and stored in accordance with Condition 21 shall only be respread when the conditions referred to in the ‘scheme agreed under Condition 3 are met. (3)

69. No movement, replacement or cultivation of subsoil shall be carried out during the months of October, November, December, January, February and March inclusive, without the prior written consent of, by methods and for a period agreed with the Mineral Planning Authority. (3)

70. All stones and other materials in excess of 150 mm in any dimension which are likely to obstruct cultivation in the agricultural afteruse shall be picked and removed from the site.

71. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given the opportunity to inspect each stage of soil replacement prior to further restoration being carried out, and shall be kept informed as to the progress and stage of all works. A record plan of the progress of restoration shall be maintained at the site office. (2, 3)

Maintenance of Site Restoration Records

72. During the whole restoration period, the developer shall maintain on site separate plans for the purpose of recording successive areas of overburden, subsoil, and topsoil replacement approved by the Mineral Planning Authority in accordance with Conditions 65 and 71 above. (3)

73. Within 3 months of the restoration of the final topsoil layer, the developer shall make available to the Mineral Planning Authority a plan with contours at sufficient intervals to indicate the final restored landform of the site, together with a record of the depth and composition of the reinstated soil profiles. (3)

AFTERCARE

74. The Aftercare Period shall extend for a period of 5 years effective management from the date of final topsoil replacement for the whole site (or smaller manageable blocks

Page 104 within the site) (extend periods apply for those areas to be those areas to be restored as ecological management and habitat areas as identified on Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved drawing), refer to the Legal Agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 relating to this development) as confirmed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. (21)

75. Effective aftercare management, following on from the completion of soils replacements on the whole site or smaller manageable blocks within it, shall take place in accordance with the following Aftercare Conditions, the approved documents in Condition 1, and schemes subsequently agreed to in accordance with Condition 3. (21)

ANNUAL REVIEW

76. Before 30 September of every year, or such other date agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority, during the aftercare period not less than 4 weeks prior to the annual review meeting held in accordance with Condition 77, a report conforming to the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance (refer to paragraphs 50 – 58) shall be submitted by the developer to the Mineral Planning Authority and Natural England or successor), recording the operations carried out on the land since the date of soil replacement operations were completed, or previous aftercare meeting, and setting out the intended operations for the next 12 months (including works to rectify failures, and identified as necessary by the Mineral Planning Authority as a consequence of preceding site meeting, held in accordance with Condition 77). (19)

77. Every year during the aftercare period the developer shall arrange to attend a site meeting to be held before 30th November, to discuss the report prepared in accordance with Condition 76, to which the following parties shall be invited: (19)

a. the Mineral Planning Authority; b. Natural England (or successor); c. all owners of land within the site; d. all occupiers of land within the site; e. representatives of other statutory and non-statutory bodies as appropriate.

The developer shall arrange additional aftercare meetings as required in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority.

CULTIVATION AFTER REPLACEMENT OF TOPSOIL

78. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry following the satisfactory replacement of topsoil and compliance with Condition 71, the land shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tine subsoiler, operating at a depth and tine spacing agreed in writing beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority. (19)

79. At least seven days written notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 78 shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority, such works only to proceed subject to their approval. (19)

80. All stones and other materials in excess of 150mm in any dimesion which are likely to obstruct cultivation in the agricultural afteruse shall be picked and removed from the site. (19)

Page 105 81. Following compliance with Condition 78 the land shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seeds or other approved crop. (19)

82. As soon as practicable following compliance with Condition 81, and no later than the end of September, the land shall be sown with a short-term grass seed mixture or other approved crop, the details of which shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority prior to the commencement of topsoil replacement. (19)

83. Where adverse weather conditions or other delays prevent compliance with Condition 82, alternative treatment of the reinstated soils, to stabilise these over the winter period shall be agreed in writing beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority. (19)

PROVISION OF SURFACE FEATURES

84. Once the development authorised by this planning permission has commenced, the site shall thereafter be restored in complete accordance with the Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved drawing). From the date of commencement of the aftercare period in any part of the site: (19)

i) the installation of water supplies for any livestock shall be completed within 12 months;

ii) the erection of stock-proof fences and gates shall be completed within 24 months;

iii) access tracks shall be completed within 24 months (and prior to the commencement of any underdrainage installation or alternative time to be agreed in advance in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority);

iv) hedgerows shall be planted within the first available season following the completion of soils replacement (which runs between 1 November and 31 March); and

v) proposed woodland areas shall be sown with an agreed grass seed mix within the first available season. Trees shall then be planted in suitably prepared ground during the next available planting season (which runs between 1 November and 31 March). (19)

85. The works referred to in Condition 84 shall be carried out in accordance with details set out in the report prepared in accordance with Condition 76. The Mineral Planning Authority shall be given a minimum of 1 week’s written notice, prior to commencement of, and following completion of each of the above works. (19) DRAAND WATER SUPPLY DRAINAGE AND WATER SUPPLY

86. Following the completion of each phase of restoration, surface drainage works (including watercourses, field boundary ditches, and surface grips) shall be installed as soon as practicable following soils replacement, to intercept run-off, prevent soil erosion, and avoid flooding of the land. During each calendar year, such drainage works shall be completed prior to the end of September, and maintained or improved throughout the aftercare period. (19)

Page 106 87. A comprehensive agricultural field drainage system, conforming to the normal design criteria for restored land, and in accordance with a scheme to be approved beforehand by the Mineral Planning Authority, shall be installed in the proposed agricultural land shown on Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3 at a time to be agreed no earlier than the first annual aftercare meeting, and no later than 24 months from the commencement of the aftercare period. (19)

88. At least 7 days written notice of the intention to commence works to the installation of underdrainage approved in accordance with Condition 87 shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority; such works to proceed only subject to their approval. (19)

89. Within three months following the installation of the approved underdrainage, two copies of both the final drainage record plan and up-to-date site survey plan (showing final restoration contours at 2 metre intervals), shall be forwarded to the Mineral Planning Authority (one of each of which shall be passed to Natural England). (19)

CULTIVATION AFTER INSTALLATION OF FIELD DRAINAGE

90. As soon as the ground is sufficiently dry after compliance with Condition 87, the agricultural land shown on Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3(*) shall be subsoiled, using an agricultural winged tined subsoiler, operating at a depth, and tine spacing agreed beforehand with the Mineral Planning Authority. During the cultivation process, any exposed stones larger than 100mm in any dimension, together with other objects liable to obstruct future cultivation shall be removed from the site. (19)

91. At least seven days written notice of the intention to carry out the works required by Condition 90 shall be given to the Mineral Planning Authority, such works only to proceed subject to their approval. (19)

92. Following compliance with Condition 90, the agricultural land shown on the approved Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3 shall be worked to prepare a seedbed suitable for the sowing of grass seeds or other crop approved in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority prior to sowing. During the cultivation process any stones lying on the surface which would not pass through a wire mesh with a spacing of 100mm, together with other objects liable to obstruct future cultivation, shall be removed from the surface and not buried within the restored soil profile. (19)

93. By no later than the end of August following compliance with Condition 92, the agricultural land shall be sown with a long-term grass seeds mixture, the basis of which shall be perennial ryegrass and white clover. Details of the mixture including species and seed rate shall be agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority before sowing commences. (19)

ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF GRASS SWARD

94. During the aftercare period the following shall be carried out in respect of the agricultural land shown on the approved the approved Drawing No. FH04

Page 107 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3:

a. the soil shall be tested annually, and fertiliser and lime shall be applied in accordance with good agricultural practice, and a rate targeted to achieve the following nutrient levels under the Index System described in the latest version of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Leaflet RB209 "Fertiliser Recommendations" or equivalent:

Potash - Index 2 Phosphate - Index 2 pH - 6.0

b. re-seeding any areas where a grass sward fails to become well established with an approved species mixture;

c. the grass sward to be reduced to 50 – 100mm in length by cutting or grazing before the end of October;

d. the condition of the grass sward to be inspected annually, with appropriate measures taken to control weed infestation;

e. no vehicles, (with the exception of low ground pressure types required for approved agricultural work), machinery or livestock shall be permitted on the land during the months of November, December, January, February and March, without the prior consent of the Mineral Planning Authority. (19)

CONSERVATION AREAS

95. A detailed specification including a modified programme of soil respreading, cultivation, seeding, fertilising and cutting shall be separately agreed in writing with the Mineral Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of the aftercare period, for any approved conservation areas. (19)

MAINTENANCE OF HEDGES AND TREES

96. Hedges and trees planted in accordance with Condition 84 shall be maintained during the aftercare period in accordance with the schemes approved under Condition 3, in accordance with good woodland and/or agricultural practice, such maintenance to include the following:

a. the early replacement of all dead, damaged or diseased plants;

b. weeding early in each growing season, and as necessary thereafter to prevent the growth of plants being retarded;

c. maintaining any fences around planted areas in a stock proof condition;

d. appropriate measures to combat all pests and/or diseases which significantly reduce the viability of the planting scheme. (19)

COMPLETION AND AFTERCARE

97. No later than 6 months prior to the target date for the completion of aftercare on any part of the site, the developer shall prepare a report on the physical characteristics of Page 108 the restored land, and in respect of the agricultural land shown on Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved drawing) and land proposed for such after-use under the scheme subsequently agreed under Condition 3, incorporating proposals to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority, that by the end of the aftercare period, this will be restored, so far as it is practicable to do so. (19)

98. The period of aftercare shall be deemed to have been successfully completed following a period of 5 years effective management of those parts of the site to be restored to agriculture as identified on Drawing No. FH04 ‘Restoration Proposals’ (or other subsequently approved revised drawing), as confirmed in writing by the Mineral Planning Authority. (19)

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

1. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents. 2. To ensure the development is carried out in an orderly manner. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity). 3. To ensure the site is satisfactorily restored. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions). 4. To avoid unnecessary delay in the restoration of the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M46 Restoration Conditions). 5. In the interests of residential amenity. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting Local Amenity, M43 Minimising Traffic Impacts). 6. In the interests of visual amenity. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity). 7. To protect land outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting Local Amenity, M38 Water Resources). 8. To prevent adversely affecting watercourses passing through or outside the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M38 Water Resources). 9. In the interests of highway safety. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M43 Minimising Traffic Impacts). 10. In the interests of visitors to the countryside. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW , M36 Protecting Local Amenity). 11. To ensure the stability of the land concerned. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity). 12. In the interests of archaeology and the NPPF paragraph 141. ( Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M33 Recording of Archaeological Remains). 13. In the interests of nature conservation, and to ensure there is no adverse impact on Moorsley Banks, High Moorsley and High Pittington Sites of Special Scientific Interest, (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Conservation of Nature Conservation Value). 14. To conserve protected species and their habitat. (Requested by Natural England.) (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Conservation of Nature Conservation Value). 15. To avoid any impacts on nesting birds. (Requested by Natural England.) (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M29 Conservation of Nature Conservation Value). Page 109 16. To enable the local planning authority to consider the implications of any proposal to expand the activities which take place within the site. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policy M36 Protecting Local Amenity). 17. In the interests of agriculture. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M36 Protecting Local Amenity, M46 Restoration Conditions). 18. In the interests of public safety. (Adopted County Durham Minerals Local Plan (December 2000) Policies M35 Recreational areas and PROW, M36 Protecting Local Amenity). 19. To ensure that the land is satisfactorily treated for an appropriate period after the initial restoration to bring it to a satisfactory standard as required by Schedule 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 20. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which places a time limit on when any permitted development may start by as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to ensure that the development is carried out within a reasonable period of time.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

− Submitted application form, Environmental Statement, plans, associated documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant. − National Planning Policy Framework (2012) − National Planning Practice Guidance Notes − County Durham Minerals Local Plan (2000) − City of Durham Local Plan 2004 − Statutory, internal and public consultation responses.

Page 110

CMA/4/107 Field House surface mine scheme involving surface mining operations for the winning and working of 514,000 tonnes of coal and up to 83,000 tonnes of fireclay, ancillary site operations with progressive Planning Services restoration and aftercare to agriculture, broadleaved woodland, hedgerows, water bodies, wetland and low nutrient grassland over a 3 year period, on Land at Field House Farm to the south of Robin Lane, to the south east of West Rainton, north of Low Pittington and west of High Moorsley.

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014 1:10,000

Page 111 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112 Agenda Item 5b

+ Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: CMA/4/112

Residential development of up to 150 dwellings, small scale community hub comprising use classes A1 and/or A2, A3, A4 and A5 of up to 950sq.m. and FULL APPLICATION use class D1 of up to 950 sq.m. with open space, DESCRIPTION : hard and soft landscaping, associated infrastructure and off site highway improvements (outline, all matters reserved except access).

Tees Valley Housing NAME OF APPLICANT :

Land south west of Station Road, West Rainton ADDRESS :

Sherburn ELECTORAL DIVISION :

Ann Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 261393 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site comprises approximately 11.35 hectares of agricultural land bordered by hedgerows to the south western edge of West Rainton, abutting Station Road. To the north west of the site is the east coast mainline and the adjoining settlement of Leamside, to the south west is agricultural land and to the south east is the A690, leading to Durham and Sunderland. The site is triangular in shape extending from Rainton Gate/Lambton View to the east, down to Leamside to its western side, with the site sloping from east to west. The eastern/south eastern boundary is lower than the existing 3 storey properties at Rainton Gate which back onto the site. Off-site the ground slopes to the south allowing views towards Durham.

2. A public right of way extends through the centre of the site, along a raised field line from Station Road to the north into the agricultural fields and a wooded area to the south, connecting to a network of routes to the south and west. The existing landscape includes hedgerows to the south east corner.

Page 113 There are occasional small trees and bushes along the field line and also along the grass verge alongside Station Road.

3. West Rainton is located approximately 6.9km to the north east of Durham city centre and approximately 2.5km to the south east of Houghton-le-Spring. It is situated 1.5km to the southwest of the Sunderland City administrative boundary. The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural and residential, with supporting community facilities scattered through the village. As set out in the City of Durham Local Plan, the site is beyond the identified settlement boundary, which is defined by Station Road, and is situated directly to the north/east of the Durham Green Belt. The site is located to the north and east of an area of landscape value and to the northeast of a site of nature conservation importance. There are 4 designated heritage assets located within 1km of the site. The site itself contains no heritage assets, landscape or ecological designations.

The Proposal

4. The application is for outline planning permission with all matters, except access, reserved for consideration at a later date. An illustrative master plan has been submitted to support the application which sets out how the applicant intends to develop the design ethos of the scheme. The application seeks approval in principle for the following elements:

• Up to 150 residential dwellings comprising 3 (20%), 4, and 5 bedroomed detached and semi-detached houses; • 20% affordable housing (30no.) with 75% social rented and 25% intermediate housing comprising 15 no. bungalows suitable for older people; • 950sq.m of use classes A1 (shops) and/or A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (cafe/restaurant) A4 (pub), or A5 (hot food takeaway); • 950 sq.m. of use class D1 (non-residential uses, potentially a new or relocated doctors surgery and/or community facilities); • A ‘landscape-led’ design approach focusing on a core concept of ‘green fingers’ running throughout the scheme incorporating; open amenity green space, semi-natural green space, informal play space, perimeter landscaping belts, hedgerows and tree planting; • Pond features (SUDS); • Off-site highway improvements.

5. Vehicular access would be taken into the site in two locations off Station Road to the north of the site, approximately one third and two thirds down the site from east to west. Pedestrian access would be taken at these points also. The access point to the north west has been moved slightly southwest during the course of consideration of the application. An existing footpath through the centre of the site from Station Road would be retained.

6. The off-site highway works proposed are; improvements to the Chantry Place/Station Road junction: a signalised junction at the A691/ Chantry Way

Page 114 which would include a pedestrian facility and necessitate narrowing of the central reserve (east side) and potential widening of the High Street/ A691 Carrville junction (subject to further junction modelling outcome).

7. The application has been amended from 250 dwellings to 150 dwellings after concerns were raised by officers regarding the appropriateness of 250 additional houses to the role, function, scale and character of West Rainton as a settlement.

8. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee as it represents major development with a site area of more than 4 hectares.

PLANNING HISTORY

9. Planning permission was granted at appeal for residential development in 1991 and the permission renewed by the Durham City Council in 1994 and again in 1997 but was never implemented and so has lapsed. Permission was granted as Durham City did not have a favourable housing land supply at the time. In 2000 a detailed planning application for 193 dwellings was refused by the Durham City Council because of the greenfield nature of the site rather than it being a brownfield site and its incursion into the open countryside. A subsequent application for 308 dwellings in 2002 was withdrawn.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

10. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.

11. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:

12. NPPF Part 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy . The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon future.

Page 115 13. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

14. NPPF Part 2 – Ensuring the vitality of town centres. Town centres are recognised as being at the heart of communities, with the pursuit of their viability and vitality as being paramount. Planning applications for main town centre uses should be located in town centres firstly, then in edge of centre locations. Only when these are not available should out of centre locations be considered.

15. NPPF Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes . To boost significantly the supply of housing, applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Local Planning Authorities should seek to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create inclusive and mixed communities.

16. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

17. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities . The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Developments should be safe and accessible; Local Planning Authorities should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, local services and community facilities to enhance the sustainability of community and residential environments. An integrated approach to consider the location of housing, economic uses and services should be adopted.

18. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

19. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment . The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at

Page 116 unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.

20. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)

21. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

City of Durham Local Plan (2004) (CDLP)

22. Policy E3 – World Heritage Site Protection. Seeks to safeguard the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site and its setting, including within both local and long distance views.

23. Policy E7 – Development outside of Settlement Limits. Development outside of settlement boundaries will only be permitted when it accords with other policies in the plan.

24. Policy E10 – Areas of Landscape Value . The Council will protect the landscape value of the district by resisting development that would have an adverse impact on the landscape quality or appearance of an area of high landscape value and require that development respects the character of its landscape setting in terms of its siting, design, scale, materials, landscaping, protection of existing landscape features and relationship with nearby buildings.

25. Policy E14 – Protection of Existing Trees and Hedgerows . Views hedgerows and trees as a valuable resource to be protected when new development is being considered.

26. Policy E15 – New Trees and Hedgerows. Tree and hedgerow planting is encouraged.

27. Policy E16 – Nature Conservation – the Natural Environment . Is aimed at protecting and enhancing the nature conservation assets of the district. Development proposals outside specifically protected sites will be required to identify any significant nature conservation interests that may exist on or

Page 117 adjacent to the site by submitting surveys of wildlife habitats, protected species and features of ecological, geological and geomorphological interest. Unacceptable harm to nature conservation interests will be avoided, and mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts upon nature conservation interests should be identified.

28. Policy E18 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. The Council will seek to safeguard sites of nature conservation importance and development which would be detrimental to their nature conservation interests would not be permitted unless it meets certain criteria.

29. Policy E21 – Historic Environment . Requires the Council to preserve and enhance the historic environment by requiring development proposals to minimise impact upon features of historic interest, and encourage the retention, repair and reuse of visual of local interest.

30. Policy E23 – Listed Buildings. The Council will seek to safeguard listed buildings by not permitting development which detracts from its setting.

31. Policy E24 – Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Remains. Ancient monuments and other nationally significant archaeological remains and their settings will be preserved in situ and damage would not be permitted. Archaeological remains of regional and local importance will be protected in situ and where preservation in situ is not justified by, ensuring that in areas where there is evidence that significant archaeological remains exist, or reasons to pre-suppose they exist, pre-application evaluation or archaeological assessment will be required and requiring as a condition of planning permission, that a programme of archaeological investigation, recording and publication has been made.

32. Policy H3 – New Housing Development in the Villages. New housing development comprising windfall development of previously developed land will be permitted with settlement boundaries.

33. Policy H5 – New Housing in the Countryside. In the countryside new housing development will be permitted only when it is; required by persons employed in agriculture or forestry where there is a functional need and the enterprise in financially viable, the size is commensurate with the established functional need; adequate provision cannot be made within the settlement/existing buildings and it respects the character of its landscape setting.

34. Policy H12 – Affordable Housing . Requires residential schemes of 25 units or more, of 1 ha or more, to provide a proportion of affordable housing where a local need exists.

35. Policy H12A – Type and Size of Housing. States that the type and size of dwellings will be monitored with where appropriate negotiation with developers to provide the right housing types and sizes to ensure balance.

Page 118 36. Policy H13 - Residential Areas – Impact upon Character and Amenity. States that planning permission will not be granted for new development or changes of use which have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance of residential areas, or the amenities of residents within them.

37. Policy Q1 – General Principles Designing for People. Requires the layouts of developments to take into account the requirements of users including: personal safety and security; the access needs of people with disabilities and the elderly; and the provision of toilets and seating where appropriate.

38. Policy Q2 – General Principles Designing for Accessibility. The layout and design of all new development should take into account the requirements of users and embody the principle of sustainability.

39. Policy Q4 – Pedestrian Areas. Requires that pedestrian area should be laid out and designed with good quality materials in a manner which reflect the street scene.

40. Policy Q5 – Landscaping General Provision. Sets out that any development which has an impact on the visual amenity of an area will be required to incorporate a high standard of landscaping.

41. Policy Q6 – Structural Landscaping. Development located on the edge of settlements or in exposed sites will be required to use peripheral structural landscaping in order to minimise.

42. Policy Q8 – Layout and Design Residential Development. Sets out the Council's standards for the layout of new residential development. Amongst other things, new dwellings must be appropriate in scale, form, density and materials to the character of their surroundings. The impact on the occupants of existing nearby properties should be minimised.

43. Policy Q15 – Art in Design . Encourages the provision of artistic elements within new developments.

44. Policy R2 – Recreational and Amenity Space in New Residential Developments. Seeks to ensure that the provision of open space for outdoor recreation is evenly distributed and is maintained at a level that meets the needs of its population. A minimum overall standard of 2.4 hectares of outdoor sports and play space per 1,000 population will be sought.

45. Policy R11 – Public Rights of Way and other Paths. Public access to the countryside will be safeguarded by protecting the existing network of PROW’s and other paths from development which would result in their destruction.

46. Policy T1 – Traffic – General. States that the Council will not grant planning permission for development that would generate traffic likely to be detrimental to highway safety and/or have a significant effect on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring property.

Page 119 47. Policy T5 – Public Transport. States that the Council will encourage improvements to assist public transport services within the district by a combination of measures.

48. Policy T8 – Traffic Management. The Council will support traffic management measures which seek to improve highway safety; amenity and ease congestion. Priority will be given to measures which specifically reduce congestion and delays.

49. Policy T10 – Parking – General Provision. States that vehicle parking should be limited in amount, so as to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce the land-take of development.

50. Policy T19 – Cycle Facilities. The Council will seek to ensure the development of a safe, attractive and convenient network of cycle routes.

51. Policy T20 – Cycle Facilities. Sets out a requirement to encourage the provision of facilities for parking cycles in the city centre and at other appropriate locations.

52. Policy T21 – Walker’s Needs. The Council will seek to safeguard the needs of walkers by ensuring that: existing footpaths are protected; new footpaths are provided; and footpaths are appropriately signed.

53. Policy S6 –Village Shops. Within West Rainton shops of less than a 1000m2 will be permitted provided that it would not adversely affect the vitality/viability of any other village/local centre; it would not affect amenity and road safety and is situated close to and is well related to other shops.

54. Policy S7 – Individual Shops. Permits individual small shops within settlement boundaries provided that it will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of any other local centre or village, it will not adversely affect the character and amenity of the surrounding area more the interests of road safety.

55. Policy S10 – Food and Drink. Within settlement boundaries development for A3 (food and drink) will be permitted provided that there are no adverse effects on amenity, there is adequate parking, it is in scale and character with its surroundings.

56. Policy C2 – Health Centres, Surgeries and Clinics. Planning permission will be granted provided that the proposal is well related to residential areas, would not have a detrimental impact on amenity or highway safety, is well located to public transport and accessible by a choice of means of transport and allows level access for pedestrians.

57. Policy C8 –Provision of New Community Facilities. Planning permission will be granted provided that the proposal is within a settlement, well related to residential areas/facilities, is of a flexible design, would not have a detrimental impact on amenity or highway safety, is well located to public transport and

Page 120 accessible by a choice of means of transport and allows level access for pedestrians.

58. Policy U8a – Disposal of Foul and Surface Water. Requires developments to provide satisfactory arrangements for disposing of foul and surface water discharge. Where satisfactory arrangements are not available, then proposals may be approved subject to the submission of a satisfactory scheme and its implementation before the development is brought into use.

59. Policy U11 – Development on Contaminated Land. Development will only be permitted where the nature and extent of contamination is established, the development would not add to the level of contamination, proposals include remedial measures and that there is no detrimental effect on the environment.

60. Policy U13 –Development on Unstable Land. Development will be permitted provided that there is no risk to the intended occupiers from stability or that satisfactory remedial measures can be undertaken.

61. Policy U14 – Energy Conservation . General states that the energy efficient materials and construction techniques will be encouraged.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

62. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. Further, the Planning Practice Guidance explains that in limited circumstances permission can be justifiably refused on prematurity grounds: when considering substantial developments that may prejudice the plan-making process and when the plan is at an advanced stage of preparation (i.e. it has been submitted). The following policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application.

63. Policy 3 – Quantity of new Development. In order to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future residents at least 31,4000 new homes of mixed type, size and tenure are required in the County.

64. Policy 4 – Distribution of Development. To reflect the spatial approach the Plan allocates sufficient sites to provide for housing. In Central Durham the Plan allocates 8010 dwellings with 5220 in Durham City and 520 required in the smaller towns and larger villages.

65. Policy 15 – Development of Unallocated sites. Development on sites not allocated will be permitted provided that certain criteria are met including; that it would not involve development in the countryside and is appropriate in scale, design and location to the character and function of the settlement.

Page 121 66. Policy 30 – Housing Land allocations. In order to meet the housing requirement and distribution set out in Policy 3 and 4 a number of sites are allocated for housing development. No sites are allocated for housing in West Rainton.

67. Policy 31 – Addressing Housing Need. Requires all qualifying new housing to provide a percentage of Affordable Housing which is accessible, affordable and meets the needs of those residents unable to access the open housing market.

68. Policy 35 – Development in the Countryside. Planning permission for development in the countryside will only be permitted where it meets certain exceptions such as housing for countryside workers.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications can be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (City of Durham Local Plan) http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

69. West Rainton and Leamside Parish Council – Advise that it objects to the proposed development and has concerns regarding the following issues; the site is close to green belt land and it is not allocated for housing in the emerging CDP. There is no need for additional houses in the area. The new estate would be a separate community and would impact on the character of West Rainton. Concern is raised regarding a potential loss of view of the Cathedral, detrimental impact of the development on a public footpath, wildlife and the potential for flooding. Additional housing, compounded by the potential opencast would increase traffic and congestion and detrimentally affect highway safety, amenity and the Leamside Bridge, including for cyclists and horse riders. Other issues raised relate to concerns that a further cemetery is required which could be on this land as well as the potential for archaeological remains and underground mines. The proposed development would put pressure on the local school and amenities and would bring no benefit or employment to the village.

70. City of Sunderland Council – Has advised that the proposals are unlikely to prejudice the interests of the City of Sunderland.

71. Highways Authority – Raise no objection noting that the impact of the increased trips at various junctions has been considered through a transport assessment. Officers advise that the predicted traffic growth and trip generation for the development is acceptable and this has been used to model junction operation. It is considered that the site access junctions would operate well within capacity. It is noted that the A1M/A690 junction is the subject of a mitigation scheme associated with the Belmont Industrial Estate and the applicant is to contribute £25,000 towards the costs of the mitigation

Page 122 scheme/infrastructure improvement works to accommodate the additional impact of generated traffic at this junction.

72. The existing High Street/ Park and Ride junction has been modelled with additional generated traffic from the development. A timing adjustment strategy was proposed, however, this is not accepted as being a suitable and acceptable solution by officers to mitigate for additional traffic. Officers are of the opinion that there is a requirement to balance demands and delay which can be achieved through increase in junction capacity at the High Street junction which would allow adjustment to signal cycle times. A new traffic signal junction is proposed at the A690/ Lambton View junction. This has been subject to detailed modelling to demonstrate its deliverability in an amended junction layout. The principle of the delivery of an appropriate junction layout and signal strategy is acceptable and the technical detail of the scheme could be agreed via planning condition.

73. It is highlighted that Station Road is a 40mph carriageway in keeping with the Council’s Speed management strategy. Following discussions with Durham Constabulary, officers consider this would remain appropriate given the nature and layout of highways approaching Station Road. Speed surveys have confirmed that the present speed limit is appropriate for the measured speeds. Officers recognise that there is a need to make some provision to accommodate pedestrians along Station Road and thus a detailed pedestrian refuge scheme on Station Road can be conditioned. Advice is also provided regarding bus stops, the submitted travel plan and the required upgrade of a nearby footpath.

74. Highways Agency – The Highways Agency placed a TR110 Direction on the application to run until the 16 th June 2014, stating that development should not proceed until the Highways Agency are satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the strategic highway network. However the Highways Agency have now advised that they would accept a contribution of £25,000 towards the cost of the A1 (M) Carville Interchange (Junction 62) strategic road improvement measures. They advise that the direction would be removed and planning permission allowed to be granted upon completion of the Section 106 agreement including this requirement.

75. Environment Agency – Having considered a revised flood risk assessment (FRA) the Agency advises that it has no objections subject to compliance with the submitted FRA and the imposition of a condition limiting surface water drainage rates from the site to greenfield rates as set out in the FRA.

76. Northumbrian Water – Has raised no objections subject to specific foul water discharge rates being adhered to as set out in the submitted utilities assessment.

77. Coal Authority – Advises that the application site falls within a risk area and that within the site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered as the site has been subject to past

Page 123 coal mining activity. The Coal Authority is satisfied with the recommendations for intrusive investigation works prior to development in order to establish the situation regarding ground conditions and to enable remedial measures to be identified, if necessary. It is considered that this should give due regard to the potential for mine gas. The Coal Authority has no objections subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring site investigation works and that in the event that remedial works are required, that these are undertaken prior to development.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

78. Spatial Policy – Officers advise that the scheme does not accord with either the existing or emerging development plan, although it does not undermine the delivery of the strategy of the emerging plan and accords with many of the aspirations of the NPPF. In light of this development plan policy conflict officers advise that there would need to be other material considerations to justify any planning permission. It is considered that the proposal broadly accords with the Council’s approved ‘Assessing Development Proposals in a Changing National Planning System’ report (approved by Cabinet May 2012). In this regard officers consider that the scheme would assist in meeting housing needs within County Durham, including provision for affordable housing. Officers highlight that the scheme would deliver other benefits, including greatly improved community facilities. The highway improvements required, notably to the junction on the A690 would serve to benefit the whole community of West Rainton and users of the A690. Officers are of the opinion that the number of houses now proposed is considered to be of a scale commensurate with the role and function of the settlement of West Rainton.

79. On balance, officers feel that the rigid approach of the adopted Local Plan has been overtaken by a more pragmatic approach in the NPPF, and that whilst the proposal does not accord with the emerging strategy of the County Durham Plan, approval would not undermine this Plan going forward. When the NPPF and the community benefits are taken into account, officers consider these to materially weigh in support of the proposal.

80. Design and Historic Environment – Officers have made a number of comments in response to the illustrative layout that accompanies the outline application. Officers originally raised concerns regarding the original density and lack of open space and location of play space. Officers advise that a large area of open space could be provided adjacent the existing PROW which runs through the site to retain the character of this path. It is considered that the core concept of six fingers of green space through the development is promising, however, this could have a much stronger relationship with the orientation of the dwellings and framed by the building groups and is undermined by the hard surfaced accessed roads through the green fingers. Concerns were also expressed that the dwellings appeared cramped. It was advised that the provision of a community hub is desirable. However, it could be better located within the development and designed to resemble an attractive commercial centre rather than a small retail park. Officers advised that this should also be located away from the open space to avoid anti-social

Page 124 behaviour. Officers feel that until these concerns are addressed they are unable to support the application.

81. It is noted that the railway bridge to the north east of the site is a Grade 2 listed structure. Officers consider that it has a confined setting within the settlement and is unlikely to be adversely affected by the development. Officers are satisfied that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the setting of any designated heritage assets within the immediate radius of the site. Officers do not consider that there are any notable views of the Durham Cathedral and Castle World Heritage Site which would be compromised by the proposed development.

82. Landscape – Officers consider that the proposals would have some significant effects on the character of the local landscape but that these would be relatively localised. They consider that the proposals would bring a substantial change to the visual environment of the southern edge of the village however these would not in themselves be unattractive. Advice is offered regarding the required structural landscaping and its timing to incorporate all perimeter areas as well as all the major green “corridors” which are proposed to cross the site. Officers consider that the boundary planting should be a minimum of 15m in depth to provide a reasonable level of screening of the development from surrounding areas in medium and short distance views. Officers consider that the perimeter planting can contain walkways for recreational purposes. Officers consider that a five year management/maintenance plan is required for all ‘in advance’ planting areas and all phases. A landscape and construction phasing plan is also required and all planting in each phase (except the initially completed structure planting) should be carried out in conjunction with the construction of dwellings and associated infrastructure.

83. Archaeology – Officers consider that the applicant has provided a comprehensive and well researched archaeological assessment which advises that further evaluation work is required to determine if currently unrecorded and significant buried heritage assets survive within the site. The results of the geophysical survey do not appear to show any hugely significant features which would inhibit development. Therefore officers advise that they have no objections subject to suitable archaeological conditions. This would allow for trial trench evaluation to be undertaken prior to the determination of any reserved matters application and any mitigation works would be a condition of this. By undertaking trial trenching post determination of this outline application, but in advance of any reserved matters application, the results of the archaeological works would inform the design of the development if required.

84. Ecology – Following submission of additional information officers confirm that all previous concerns have been addressed. It is recommended that the enhancement measures contained in the original report and the recommendations concerning breeding birds, wildlife species and planting mix detailed in the additional information are conditioned as part of any planning consent.

Page 125 85. Environmental Health (Noise) – No objections are raised. It is recommended that conditions should be attached to any planning permission to reduce and mitigate dust and noise, operation hours should be restricted, the burning of material in site should be prohibited and all noisy plant, vehicles, equipment and machinery should be properly operated and maintained.

86. Environmental Health (Ccontaminated land) – Officers consider that although the site is not considered likely to have significant contamination present, the potential for made ground cannot be discounted. Reports submitted with the application identify the potential for shallow mining works at the site and it is noted that there is a mining shaft on the site and the potential for further entries. As a result there is a potential for mining gas at the site. There is also the potential for asbestos containing material to be present on the site. A Phase 2 site investigation is therefore recommended as a result, and due to the fact that the proposed development constitutes a change of use to a more sensitive receptor.

87. Environmental Health (Air quality) – Officers advise that the location of the proposed development is not within or in close proximity to the declared Air Quality Management Areas. Officers consider that the proposed development would not create additional traffic levels that would impact on local air quality.

88. Sustainability and Climate Change – Officers consider the site is sustainable in terms of accessibility to community services and facilities. It is noted that the site not within a short walking distance of a secondary school / 6th form, post 18 education providers, or the facilities and employment opportunities associated with a main town, retail park, industrial park or large employer. However, this is not considered to be a significant issue given the level of bus service. It is noted that additional investment to bus services may be required to maintain the existing level of service to an increased population. Given the large size of the site there may be the opportunity to address existing open space deficiencies.

89. Officers advise that the proposals would result in the loss of greenfield agricultural land. Landscape impact and noise should be considered as well as impacts on habitats and archeology. Consideration should be given to green infrastructure. An energy statement should be submitted and the development should commit to subsequent increases in Part L of the building regulations and consider renewable/low carbon technologies. Officers advise that until this is done support cannot be given to the application.

90. Access and Public Rights of Way – Officers advise that Public Footpath No. 8 West Rainton Parish passes through the centre of the site. Officers advise that this is highly valued and extremely well used by local residents. It provides the only immediate pedestrian access to open countryside from the established residential south edge of West Rainton without the need to cross the A690 dual carriageway. It also forms part of a promoted walking route. Although the footpath would be retained on its current definitive line, officers consider that there would be some loss of the present amenity value and rural character of the path. To mitigate this, officers advise that the open, rural

Page 126 aspect of the path should be retained within the development and properties should face onto the path. The footpath within the site should also be resurfaced with a suitable material.

91. Sustainable Transport and Travel – Officers consider that from a general public transport accessibility angle, the site is excellent as West Rainton is served by a frequent service 20 (6 per hour weekday daytimes, with 2 per hour in evening and 3 per hour Sunday daytime). However, the current bus stops on service 20 adjacent to the site are either at the south end of Station Rd, and about 225m along School Avenue. This would mean that walks to the outer limit of the site are probably over the preferred 400m distance, especially as there is a slope involved. To ameliorate this, officers consider that a new bus stop south east bound on Station Road, south east of the School Avenue junction should be provided. Older people’s dwellings should also be located nearer the bus stops.

92. Travel Planning Team – It is considered that the submitted travel plan contains most of the required components at this stage of the planning process. However, further clarification of developer commitment to fund the travel plan and commitment to other elements are required to ensure that the travel plan meet the Council’s requirements.

93. Culture and Sport Team – A commuted is requested in order to improve existing facilities within the village. This would be likely to be directed at the Adventure Lane play site, through potentially providing a MUGA or improvements to existing equipment.

94. School Places Manager – Advises that no contributions towards additional classrooms are required on the basis of 150 new dwellings.

95. Housing Development and Delivery Manager – Advises that the breakdown of the different types of affordable housing proposed is acceptable and thus officers are supportive of the proposal.

96. Employability Team – Consider that there is an opportunity to explore employment and skills opportunities that would assist the local community by improving job prospects and employability. Advise that during the construction phase it is estimated that between 468 and 936 person weeks could be attributed to a scheme of this size/duration which equates to between 9-18 FTE job opportunities/apprenticeships.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

97. The application was advertised in the press, on site and in the locality. Letters were sent to neighbouring residents. A large number of letters of objection have been received. The main concerns and comments received from local residents are summarised as follows:

Page 127 Objection

98. 111 bespoke letters and 189 standard letters of objection have been received in respect of the plans as originally submitted (250 houses). Additionally, since the submission of amended plans, a further 79 bespoke letters and 165 standard letters of objection have been received.

99. Concerns raised within these letters relate to the impact of the development upon the character, nature and size of the village, the fact that the site is greenfield agricultural land and potential landscape and visual impacts, including loss of view into Durham and of the World Heritage Site. It is highlighted that the site is not allocated for housing with the emerging CDP and there is no need for additional dwellings. Further comments are made with regards to the level of traffic that the development will generate and how this would impact upon traffic flows both within the village, at the junction with A690 and using the railway bridge at Leamside and Station Road. Concerns are raised in terms of congestion, vehicular and pedestrian safety, as well as for cyclists and horse riders, noise and emissions. It is considered by some that the proposed traffic lights would compound this impact. Additionally, there is some criticism of the submitted Travel Plan and potential parking issues.

100. Other significant issues for objectors include the impact of the development upon local services including West Rainton Primary School, the GP Surgery and the village cemetery, whether the development is needed as there are houses for sale within the area, the stability of the site due to former coal mining activity, potential land contamination at the site, archaeological remains, flood risk and whether the proposed SUDS scheme is appropriate and likely to be adequately managed .Impacts on local public rights of way and local biodiversity are also cited as reasons for concern, as is the potential for crime to increase, whether the proposed development would integrate well the village itself and the level of local objection. Loss of property value, social housing and loss of residential amenity and outlook was also cited. There would also be no benefit to the village and the impact would be compounded by the proposed surface mine.

101. With specific regards to the amended plans, objectors note that the site itself has not reduced in size and that there is the potential for the dwellings which have been removed from the proposal to come forward at a later date as part of a phased development.

102. West Rainton, Rainton Gate and Leamside Village Action Group 2013 has submitted the results of a survey which it carried out that indicates that 210 respondents are against the proposal, 7 have concerns, 5 indicate no concerns, 7 are in support and 6 made no comment. Comments are made as part of the survey as to the reason that residents are for or against the proposals which largely reflect the matters raised above and below.

Page 128 103. West Rainton, Rainton Gate and Leamside Village Residents Action Group 2013 – Object to the proposed development on the grounds that the increase in dwellings would put additional pressure on infrastructure and public services, including the school, medical facilities and concerns are raised with the potential for a new facility to be constructed on the site. Concern is raised regarding the need to find a new site for a cemetery in the village and the impact on policing due to an increased population. Concerns regarding the change in character and charm of the village are raised as are issues of loss of agricultural land and archaeology and the impact on the nearby listed bridge, church and views towards Durham Cathedral. It is considered that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the density and layout of the village. The additional traffic would be exacerbated by new traffic lights and additional junction problems and would result in an increase in congestion, damage, noise, fumes and highway safety concerns and issues including impacts on Station Road, Chantry Place and parking problems. The proposed new commercial centre could impact on existing businesses. Existing drainage and flooding problems would be exacerbated and the proposed development would impact on existing PROW and nature conservation.

104. County Councillor Stephen Guy (Electoral Division member for Sherburn) – Advises that he objects to the proposals on the grounds that the site is not allocated for development within the emerging CDP, the proposed amenities would be inadequate to meet the demand and the existing GP would not be able to cope. He considers that there is already a lack of burial space in the village. Concerns are also raised regarding increased traffic, congestion and highway safety which would be compounded by new traffic lights as well as the safety of the existing railway bridge. Other issues raised relate to the change in character and nature of the village, impact on wildlife, loss of visual amenity, mining and contamination risks and well as flooding.

Support

105. A single letter of support has been received, noting that the proposed development would bring in extra facilities and life to the village. The support also considers that West Rainton Primary School could accommodate the additional pupils, and that traffic light controlled junctions on the A690 would improve the current situation.

Non-statutory Representations

106. Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison) – Advises that the ‘crime risk’ assessment for the proposal is low however it is important to ensure that the layout does not include crime generators such as unnecessary footpaths to the rear of properties. Advice is provided in respect of the site layout, landscaping, footpaths vehicle access, boundaries, lighting, and garages.

107. Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) – Advise that it objects to the proposed development. The site is not proposed for housing in the CDP and is amber within the Strategic Land Availability Assessment which means

Page 129 that the site is considered unsuitable for housing. The proposed development would not be in accordance with Policy 15 of the CDP as the development is not considered to be appropriate in scale, design, and location to the character and location of the settlement. There are insufficient facilities in West Rainton to support the influx of residents. The site is within the countryside and does not meet any of the exceptions in Policy 35 or Policy 17 (exception sites) of the CDP. The proposal would result in loss of public view, including that of the Cathedral and the Durham Plain, diminished enjoyment of a public footpath nor is provision made for cycling. It is also not located where people can walk or cycle to work given the traffic on the A690. The anticipated housing requirement in the CDP is over exaggerated and it would be premature to approve this application before the CDP is adopted. The development would not provide for a self-sustaining new community with local jobs and facilities as it would be low density dormitory town development. The reduction in the number of houses and provision of a SUDS system has not altered the view of CPRE.

108. Durham Wildlife Trust – Advises that it disagrees with the assumption that Brown Hare, a BAP species, are not present at the site as they are present at Rainton Meadows Nature Reserve. The Trust considers that inadequate survey work has been undertaken and the timing of the site survey is not ideal. Given the lack of information presented and the generic mitigation proposals put forward the Trust questions whether insufficient information has been provided.

109. The Ramblers Association – Has no objection to the proposals providing that the route of West Rainton footpath 8 is maintained through a green area of the site, as proposed.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

Promoting community focused and high quality development, which meets genuine local and county-wide needs, is an ethos which has driven the approach to this planning application from the outset. Thirteen Group, of which Tees Valley Housing is a member, are the largest housing provider in the region and have been recognised nationally for their work on similar schemes. The package of local benefits that accompany this application reflects Tees Valley’s vision of delivering and enhancing sustainable mixed communities where people want to live, while actively responding to community input and concerns.

110. The benefits that would sit alongside this scheme are extensive, and have been developed following on-going community and stakeholder engagement. These benefits include the following: significant investment into a fully signalised junction on the A690 at the entrance to the village, the benefits of which extend beyond that which would be required to mitigate the impact of the proposals; commitment to further off-site highways works along Station Road, including the relocation of a bus stop and road widening at the Chantry Place junction; a £50,000 contribution towards local community initiatives, with community stakeholders; delivery of local commercial and community

Page 130 facilities including potentially a new doctors surgery. This would create opportunities for the relocation of existing and new facilities for the wider village; 20% on-site affordable housing provision of which 25% would be intermediate tenure and 75% social rented, including 2 and 3 bed homes and bungalows for the elderly; and the delivery of further 3, 4 and 5 bed market homes which would make a significant contribution towards delivering the identified housing requirements in the area and boosting the 5-year-supply.

111. The scheme would be designed to follow a ‘landscaped’ concept which would deliver a green and attractive scheme. The economic benefits that the development would generate are likely to include New Homes Bonus payments of approximately £1.5m, and an uplift in Council Tax revenues of around £260,000 per annum alongside increased spending and employment in the local community.

112. Tees Valley Housing is a charitable, socially responsible owner and developer of sustainable homes and residential led schemes. Tees Valley is not a developer who develops schemes, sells all the homes and then has no further interest in a project. Tees Valley retains ownership of housing in its developments and therefore has a strong incentive to ensure that they provide great places, enhancing local communities in the long term. It is our intention that the proposed development at West Rainton and the valuable suite of benefits to both West Rainton and County Durham that would result from it would enhance the area over and above the “minimum required” for this type of development to protect the long term sustainability of the community and our investment in it.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://spatial.durham.gov.uk/dcs/DetailMain.asp?appid=2877&AppRef=CMA%2F1%2F93&Category= All&Status=All&Appeal=All&District=All&Month=All&Year=All

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

113. Having regard to the requirements of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to: the principle of the development, affordable housing, access, traffic and highway safety, landscape and visual impact, design and layout, affect upon residential amenity, ecology and nature conservation, public rights of way, flooding and drainage and other matters.

Principle of Development

114. The main issues relating the principle of the acceptability of the proposed development are: the extent to which the proposed development accords with the existing development plan for the area; the extent to which the proposed development accords with the emerging development plan; and, the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government guidance in

Page 131 relation to planning for housing and other policy objectives set out in the NPPF. With particular regard towards delivering a wide choice of high quality homes that widens opportunities for home ownership and helps create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

115. The site is situated outside of the existing defined settlement boundary for West Rainton, as defined by Policy H3 of the CDLP. Policy H3 defines a series of ‘settlement boundaries’ for main towns and villages to indicate where new development is permissible. The implication is that housing development would normally be approved where it lies inside of the boundary, to help to contain settlements and prevent sprawl into the surrounding countryside. As the application site falls outside of the designated boundary, this proposal draws no support from this Policy.

116. Sites located outside of settlement boundaries should be assessed against ‘countryside’ policies and objectives (set out within CDLP Policies E7 and H5). There is a general presumption against allowing housing development beyond a settlement boundary unless it is required to fulfil an employment role. In view of this, it is considered that this proposal is in conflict with this element of the development plan.

117. Whilst the CDLP remains a statutory component of the development plan and a tool for determining applications, for determining applications, Government advice is only to afford it material weight where it accords with the NPPF. In this context, settlement limits are not fully supported by the NPPF, which instead takes a more flexible approach to settlement growth and development. Paragraphs 47- 55 of the NPPF seek to boost significantly the supply of housing to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. To accord with the NPPF new housing development should be located to provide improved access for all to jobs, health, education, shops, leisure and community facilities, open space and recreation, by ensuring that new development is located where everyone can access services or facilities on foot, bicycle or public transport rather than having to rely on access by car. The key matter in applying the NPPF relates to directing development to sustainable locations.

118. Contained within the submission CDP is the raft of housing sites which are earmarked as housing allocations for the next 16 years. There are no allocations proposed for the West Rainton settlement. In light of this, the proposal draws no support from Policy 30 (Housing Land Allocations). To ensure that the CDP is flexible over its intended timeframe and resilient to changes which take place within that period, the CDP contains policies to enable proposed development on unallocated sites to be assessed on their merits and individual circumstances (Policies 15 and 35). These are criteria based policies which are permissive of development provided that it is appropriate in scale, design and location to the character and function of the settlement; and it would not involve development in the countryside.

Page 132 119. The site cannot be classified as forming part of the built up area of West Rainton. This is on account that development would extend the built form of the settlement into the countryside. The development is therefore in conflict with Policies of the emerging CDP overall. Notwithstanding this, legal advice to the Council suggests that whether a site is or is not allocated in the CDP is of limited weight in determining planning applications at the current time. This advice has been corroborated by recent appeal decisions which confirmed that only limited weight may be attributed to the CDP at this point in time.

120. As set out at section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, if regard is to be had to the development plan in determining the application, such a determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, having established that this proposal is in conflict with the development plan, the success or otherwise, of the proposals would be dependent upon the existence of material considerations. One such material consideration which is relevant is the NPPF. Paragraph 6 explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to sustainable development. Paragraph 7 explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The social dimension includes ‘supporting strong, vibrant healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of the present and future generation’. In instances where it is accepted that the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, the NPPF stipulates that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Specifically in relation to housing applications, paragraph 49 of the NPPF sets out that they should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

121. West Rainton is defined as a local service centre (3rd tier) within the Council's ‘Settlement Study’. Despite this, the settlement contains limited services and has no specific employment opportunities, and as such, residents of the settlement are likely to be reliant upon accessing employment and main shopping requirements in higher order settlements such as Durham City (and the Belmont area, in particular). Furthermore, these trips are more likely to be made using cars, although West Rainton is close to Durham and has good strategic links on the A690 so these trips will be relatively short distances. Regular public transport provision is also available through the village. It is therefore considered that the settlement itself is situated in a sustainable location, but that it does not benefit from a range of facilities and services that such a settlement would ordinarily be expected to have. Therefore, it is considered that this represents the evidence that this site needs to be developed as a sustainable mixed community with associated new community facilities, as are proposed, to improve the sustainability of the village. To develop the site would assist in making the settlement more sustainable and thus meet the aspirations set out within Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

122. A key matter concerns the scale of development proposed. The proposal was originally for 250 dwellings and this generated concerns by officers that the scale of development was not consistent with the role and function of

Page 133 West Rainton, as well as concerns raised by local residents that this was too much additional housing. There are presently approximately 1,032 houses in the settlement. Consequently the scheme for an additional 250 units would have represented a 24 % increase in the number of houses. This was considered to be excessive and too large for the existing scale and character of the settlement. The revised scheme for 150 units constitutes an increase of below 15%. It is officer’s view that this level of growth is consistent with the role, function and existing scale of the settlement. It is considered physically appropriate for the village without it expanding to such an extent that its current character would be both adversely and significantly affected, as required by CDLP Policy H13.

123. Paragraph 70 of the NPPF states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural services the community needs, planning decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments.

124. Ahead of adoption of the new CDP the Council has sought, in line with the NPPF, and in recognition of the need to stimulate the local economy, to allow appropriate sites to come forward now through the determination of planning applications. Notably, the scheme proposes a community hub, including retail and a potentially a relocated surgery. The village does have some retail provision, but this is quite spread out and there is no obvious village centre. This proposal brings the opportunity for such a facility to develop, to complement the existing facilities in the village as encouraged by Paragraph 70 of the NPPF. Furthermore, in order to address the increased traffic generated by the new houses, major highway improvements are required for the western village junction with the A690. This junction has been traffic calmed in recent years, but a traffic light controlled junction would create a much improved and safer access to the A690 for the benefit of all residents of the village. The proposal also proposes 30 affordable housing units, meeting the NPPF aspiration of achieving sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. It also contributes to the stock in an area of affordable housing need. It is considered that the scheme provides for a varied and appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes as required by paragraph 50 of the NPPF and CDLP Policies H12 and H12A.

125. It is considered that the scale of development proposed would not actually undermine the CDP (150 new homes equates to less than 0.5% of the 31,400 earmarked for the County by 2030). Furthermore, the CDP proposes green belt deletions for strategic sites of 3,700 units adjacent to Durham City. This site represents just 4% of this amount so would have no impact on the delivery of those key sites and would not undermine the strategy relating to the City.

126. Whilst it is accepted that the land is not contained within the main body of the settlement, and consequently cannot be described as forming part of the built- up area, it is not considered that the level of encroachment would result in a significant adverse landscape or townscape impact in the context of the

Page 134 NPPF. This is discussed in more detail below. The site has benefited from residential approval in the past, although these permissions have lapsed. Consequently, the site is not within the Durham City Green Belt and this proposal would not undermine the purpose of the adjacent green belt in this area, which is intended to prevent coalescence between Durham City and the surrounding villages. The western extent of the development site would bring the built up area of the village no closer to Durham City than the existing development that runs in a ribbon along the A690. There are no housing allocations within the settlement which would be undermined by the proposed development, and the scheme would deliver highway improvements and investment in community facilities.

127. The NPPF requires LPAs to maintain a five-year supply of deliverable sites to ensure choice and competition in the market. The 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment concluded that a five-year supply could be demonstrated in County Durham, so there are no deficiencies which need to be addressed by the release of more housing land. However, it is not the intention to resist schemes solely on oversupply grounds, but instead recognise that it enables the Local Planning Authority to be more selective over which sites it does release, to ensure that the most sustainable and appropriate sites are brought forward for development.

128. Paragraph 173 of the NPPF states that pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision- taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, design standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable. The applicant has submitted a viability assessment to demonstrate that scheme is viable, and that the added benefits of the scheme are deliverable. This appraisal has been verified by Spatial Policy and Assets Officers and it accepted that the scheme is a viable one.

129. The site lies in a sustainable and accessible location within easy access, via a choice of transport modes to community services, shops and facilities in West Rainton, Belmont and Durham. It is considered that the proposal would support the vitality and viability of services and facilities in West Rainton as encouraged by Paragraph 55 of the NPPF. It also enjoys easy access to services, facilities and to a variety of employment opportunities in the wider Durham and Sunderland area. Existing bus infrastructure would be improved. These are served by bus services that operate regularly linking the site to the wider area enabling access to a broader range of services, facilities and employment and educational opportunities.

130. The proposed housing development would also be supported by a commercial development which could potentially be occupied by two or more of a range of

Page 135 different uses such as, a shop, financial and professional services, restaurant/café, pub and potentially a new/relocated GP surgery and/or community facilities, enhancing social infrastructure. In principle, it is considered that the incorporation of a small commercial development of the size proposed would be ancillary to the main residential development of the site and thus would not undermine the vitality and viability of the existing services within the village or other local centres as set out at Part 2 of the NPPF. It is recognised that the siting of this, outside the existing settlement boundary is locationally not in accordance with Policies C2, C8, S6, S7 and S10 of the CDLP, albeit it is considered that should the principle of development be accepted, then given that it would potentially be situated close to the existing shops, the residential area and public transport routes. It is considered that it would not significantly adversely affect the character and amenity of the surrounding area and would be of an appropriate scale enhancing the sustainability of the settlement. It is not considered that additional facilities would be of a scale that would negatively impact on the existing businesses in the village.

131. The development, if approved would not result in the loss of the ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land as required by Paragraph 112 of the NPPF.

132. In principle, and whilst a departure from the development plan currently in force for the area, this proposal is in accordance with the NPPF’s key aspiration at Paragraph 47 of boosting significantly the supply of housing in sustainable locations and the provision of additional supporting community facilities and services as well as required highway infrastructure. It is on this basis that, having regard to the proposed benefits of the development, the principle of development is considered acceptable in this instance, subject to these benefits being secured by way of legal agreement and conditions.

Affordable Housing

133. In order to widen the choice of high quality homes and widen opportunities for home ownership, paragraph 50 of the NPPF encourages the provision of affordable housing based on evidenced need. The County Durham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) update report was completed in July 2013 and supplies the evidence base for 20% affordable housing across the Central Delivery Area in which the site falls. The requirement reflects an up to date needs assessment and identifies a significant requirement of approximately 189 net affordable units per annum throughout the Central Delivery Area up to 2016/17. This shortfall is greatest for one and two bedroom properties (68 net per annum). On the basis of the SHMA evidence base, Policy 31 of the submitted Local Plan identifies housing schemes of 15 dwellings or 0.5 ha or more where such an affordable housing provision should apply and that 10% of housing should be appropriate for older people.

134. In this particular case, the application proposes that on the basis of 150 dwellings being constructed, 20% would be affordable or 30 units overall. This would be spread across each phase of development. The proposal would

Page 136 assist in the delivery of a wide choice of homes based on current and future demographics as set out at paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

135. This level of housing development provides an opportunity to deliver major benefits by way of meeting the affordable housing needs of the City and its surrounds. In view of the cuts in Government support to fund affordable housing delivery, a contribution of this scale that would enable the 30 affordable units required by Policy to be provided, is a major benefit at a time when housing development is struggling to deliver enough value from many sites to make affordable housing viable.

136. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposals reflect the level of affordable housing recommended in the SHMA and as a consequence is consistent in Policy 31 of the emerging CDP and CDLP Policies H12 and H12A. The affordable housing provision would be secured in perpetuity by way of a S106 legal agreement.

Access, Traffic and Highway Safety

137. A transport assessment has been submitted in support of the proposals due to the potential amount of traffic generated by the proposed development. It is noted that this is an area of concern amongst local residents. In assessing such impacts, paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe. In this case the anticipated number of vehicle trips a day can be safely accommodated within the improved highway network as required by CDLP Policy T1, and would not therefore amount to severe impacts in the context of paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

138. The proposal is estimated to generate 93 two way trips at the busiest peak hour which would distribute onto Station Road via two access points. The impact of these trips at various junctions has been assessed as acceptable. The existing speed limit would be retained on Station Road to the front of the site, and it has been demonstrated that the appropriate junction design could be achieved given surveyed speeds. Predicted traffic growth and trip generation for the proposed development is considered acceptable and this has been used to model junction operation. The site access junctions would operate well within capacity. Three junctions have been modelled; the existing A1M/ A690 junction, the existing A690/ High Street Park and Ride junction and a new A690 / Lambton View junction.

139. The Highways Agency has considered the impacts of the proposed development in the context of mitigation required for the A1M/ A690 junction. The junction is the subject of an agreed mitigation scheme associated with the Belmont Industrial Estate. The applicant is to make a financial contribution of £25,000 towards the costs of the mitigation scheme to accommodate the additional impact of generated traffic at this junction. The Highways Agency has confirmed that subject to this being secured through a Section 106 agreement to contribute to the infrastructure improvement works it has no objections to the proposed development and withdraws its previous objection.

Page 137

140. The existing High Street/ Park and Ride junction has been modelled with additional generated traffic from the proposed development. Highway Officers advise that there is a requirement to balance demands and delay. This can be achieved through increase in junction capacity at the High Street junction which would allow adjustment to signal cycle times. This requirement would therefore be conditioned to comply with CDLP Policies T1, T2 and T8. A new traffic signal junction is proposed at the A690/ Lambton View junction. This has been subject to detailed modelling to demonstrate its deliverability in an amended junction layout. The Highways Authority is satisfied that the principle of delivery of an appropriate junction layout and signal strategy is appropriate. The specific details of the junction layout, and signal strategy at the A690/ Lambton View junction can be conditioned in line with CDLP Policies T1 and T8.

141. Station Road is a 40mph carriageway in keeping with the Council’s Speed Management Strategy. Following discussions with Durham Constabulary it is considered this would remain appropriate given the nature and layout of highways approaching Station Road. Speed surveys have confirmed that the present speed limit is appropriate for the measured speeds. It was originally proposed to realign and designate parking space at the ends of Station Road to accommodate existing parking demand and install a traffic calming raised table feature. However, this has been removed from the proposals because the latter is not supported by officers. It is though recognised there is a need to make some provision to accommodate pedestrians along Station Road, therefore a requirement for pedestrian refuge facilities on Station Road would be subject of a planning condition in line with CDLP Policies T1, T8 and Q2.

142. Two access points off Station road are proposed. It is considered that the proposed development would comply with CDLP Policies T1 and Q2 and paragraph 32 of the NPPF which requires satisfactory access onto the adopted road network and safe vehicle entrance, exit and manoeuvring as well as effective access for emergency vehicles. The location of the site is considered to accord with paragraph 34 of the NPPF which requires that development that may be a significant traffic generator should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable modes can be maximised. The proposed detailed layout, siting and number of parking spaces, as well as roads, turning areas and footpaths would be considered at reserved matters stage. There is sufficient space within the site for these to be adequately accommodated in line with CDLP Policies S7, S10, C2, T10, Q2 and Q4.

143. A condition requiring the submission of details of the bus stop provision, incorporating relocation of an existing bus stop and provision of a new bus stop, would be imposed on any planning permission. A bus stop within Lambton View off the A690 East bound would be required to be relocated as the access from the A690 east bound would be closed. The proposals would thus comply with CDLP Policies T5 and Q2. The proposed new bus stop would be required to be sited outside of the visibility splay of the site entrance. The proposed enhanced bus provision on Station Road would ensure that all

Page 138 the development was within 400m of a bus stop. Such matters would be secured through condition.

144. The applicant has submitted a travel plan as part of the proposals which seeks to support the sustainable transport and travel agenda. This has been considered by the Council’s Travel Planning Team who has made suggestions for its improvements. Therefore, in order to secure appropriate requirements it is recommended that a condition is imposed which seeks agreement and implementation of a final travel plan. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

Visual and Landscape Impact

145. The landscape is for the most part visually open, but there are more heavily wooded areas in the south and in the north. The site itself is made up of open arable farmland with few surface features. The site is not covered by any national or local designations. It lies close to areas of land identified as Area of Landscape Value in the CDLP. The landscape of the site itself is in relatively poor condition as the field boundary network has been lost. It is of moderate scenic quality being rather bland in itself but affording attractive views towards more wooded countryside to the south and panoramic views across the Wear Lowlands to the west. It has little recreational value in itself as arable farmland but is crossed by a footpath which gives access to attractive countryside around Moorhouse and National Trust land at Mallygill and Raintonpark woods for residents of West Rainton. The site is in a relatively prominent location and is visible in distant and middle-distance views from the west and north-west, and in close views from the southern edge of West Rainton. It is not generally visible east of the A690 or north/north-east of West Rainton.

146. The proposals would have no significant effect on landscape features as the site lacks mature features of any note. A hedge bordering the site in the south-east would be retained. It is acknowledged that residential development would change the character of the site itself. This would be appreciated most in views of the immediate locality, from the southern edge of West Rainton and the footpath which crosses the site. The character of the existing settlement edge of the village would undergo a substantial change and Station Road would become an enclosed urban street. The effect on the character of the local landscape would be substantial, however this would be relatively localised.

147. In more distant views across the Wear Lowlands the site forms part of a settled landscape made up of a mosaic of farmland, woodland, built development and infrastructure. The upper slopes towards Rainton Gate are prominent in some views, with the town houses of Lambton View conspicuous on the ridgeline. The site is more typically seen in relatively shallow views where it is screened in varying degrees by intervening vegetation. Development in that location would be visible as an extension of the urban form of West Rainton. While it would lead to an increase in the amount of built

Page 139 development visible in some views it would not affect the general character of the landscape to a substantial degree.

148. Structural landscaping within and around the site would assist in assimilating the built development in middle and long distance views in the medium term, provided it was sufficiently robust, which would progressively reduce the level of impact in wider views as required by CDLP Policies Q5, Q6 and E15. The proposals would be visible in some views from land within the AHLV. For the most part this is heavily wooded and views of the site would be restricted. The effect would not be significant and would not bring the proposals into conflict with CDLP Policy E10.

149. The change in character of the land south of Station Road would be notable in views from private properties and public vantage points which currently enjoy open views to the south and west. These would be replaced by views of housing across an urban road and associated open space and landscaping. This would not be unattractive in itself, but would be of a different character. The loss of views to individual private properties cannot be given weight. The change in views from public vantage points is of greater importance as it affects the wider community and the character of the settlement. The settlement edge here is not well defined, being a rather abrupt transition to open arable farmland, but it is long established and public.

150. The proposal provides for robust areas of structure planting and amenity open space running along Station Road and at various points through the proposed housing to a perimeter belt of structure planting in the south in accordance with CDLP Policies Q5, Q6 and E15. This would be followed by a footpath which would have attractive views out across the Wear valley similar to those that would be lost on the existing settlement edge. As an urban extension the proposed development is positively designed although would clearly bring a considerable change to the character of the existing edge of the settlement.

151. The proposals would have some significant effects on the character of the local landscape however, these would be relatively localised. The proposals would bring a substantial change to the visual environment of the southern edge of the village but would not in themselves be necessarily unattractive. Whether this degree of change is acceptable is a matter on which judgments will quite reasonably vary and is ultimately a matter for the wider balance of material planning considerations and the judgements of decision makers.

Design and Layout

152. The design approach has been to formulate a ‘landscape led’ master plan whereby a framework of green infrastructure would shape the pattern of development. The core concept incorporates six ‘green routes’ and landscaped/open space areas around which the development would be structured. It is envisaged that these would entail a series of strong, horizontal landscaped ‘green fingers’ located in key strategic visual zones, comprising of trees and hedgerows. This would result in low density development allowing for a spacious layout, now that the scheme has been reduced to 150

Page 140 dwellings from the originally proposed 250 dwellings. The proposed large open areas, wide routes and the proposed buffer landscaping would allow the built form to be screened in long distance views and from public routes. It is intended that the proposed village extension should deliver a ‘sequence of spaces’; areas of containment, openness and an authentic street space created. It is envisaged that the introduction of a number of landscape zones would break the development up into a series of distinct character areas as opposed to one homogeneous roof scape.

153. It is considered that the proposals as they stand in outline form, recognising that the detailed design of the scheme would be developed at reserved matters stage, are appropriate in scale, form, density and character having regard to the local and wider area. They could contribute positively to the areas townscape and landscape, incorporating substantial investment to the public realm, strong green avenue infrastructure to delineate routes and spaces, a structural hierarchy of landscaping, routes and spaces as well as pedestrian and cycle linkages to the wider area. The design would respond to local typologies, vernacular and materials and legibility would be promoted through focal points, vistas, feature buildings etc. A range of parking and boundary treatment solutions would be used. It is intended that the scheme would meet secured by design principles. Any concerns regarding the design and specific location of the proposed community hub on the site can be resolved at reserved matters stage as the current application is in outline.

154. The proposed ‘landscape led’ master plan vision and concept layout demonstrates that the proposals have the potential to meet the aspirations set out within CDLP Policies S6, S7, S10, (in terms of scale and character) Q1, Q2 , Q4 and Q8. Officers note that the ‘green fingers’ concept could be improved by a stronger relationship with the orientation of the dwellings and framed by the building groups and is undermined at present by the hard surfaced accessed roads through the green fingers. However, the master plan can be evolved at reserved matters stage with the input of Council’s Design Officers and at this early stage the principle of the master plan vision is supported.

155. The Open Space Needs Assessment (OSNA) undertaken as part of the evidence base for the emerging CDP provides the most up-to-date evidence base to calculate the site’s open space requirements. The OSNA suggests there are deficits in terms of the amount of parks/gardens and semi-natural green space within the Sherburn Ward. The proposed development includes provision of a variety of open space on site and a financial contribution of £75,000 towards the improvement/provision of outdoor sports space, play space and/or parks/gardens within the electoral division. This would again be secured by way of legal agreement.

156. It is considered that the provision of informal play space, amenity open space and semi-natural green space on the site, comprising of approximately 2 hectares, assists in compensating for the aforementioned deficiencies in the area generally. These types of spaces would be secured as part of a S106 legal agreement. The siting of the various areas of open space would be

Page 141 controlled at reserved matters stage to ensure concerns any regarding anti- social behaviour were adequately resolved. It is considered that the provisions to be made on site and those to be secured off-site are such that the proposals would fully comply with the requirements of CDLP Policies R2 and Q8. A condition would ensure that the provision would be made for artistic elements in the design as required by Q15 of the CDLP.

Residential Amenity

157. The nearest properties to the site are situated across Station Road, to the north, at Rainton Gate adjoining the eastern side of the side and at Leamside adjoining the western side of the site. Notwithstanding the recognised loss of private view, into the countryside and Durham beyond, the development of the site for housing generally is unlikely to substantially diminish levels of residential amenity that those living nearby can reasonably expect to enjoy in their homes and gardens, in terms of loss of outlook, light and privacy as required by CDLP Policies H13 and Q8. It is not considered that the anticipated additional traffic associated with the proposed development would result in diminished air quality. It is accepted that there would be increased traffic, comings and goings and noise associated with a new housing development, albeit additional housing close to existing residential properties would rarely be deemed unacceptable from a residential amenity perspective. Dwellings would be located into the site at appropriate separation distances, be of an appropriate scale and be screened by landscaping to some degree.

158. Given the number of dwellings proposed development would result in a potential lengthy build-out period (25 – 35 dwellings per year would be a 5-6 year build out period) in order to ensure an appropriate level of amenity for existing residents and those who occupy dwellings in the earlier phases of development it is considered appropriate to require a construction management plan be developed and be implemented to ensure appropriate management of such issues as operations, deliveries, noise, dust, mud, vibration and light so that the construction of the dwellings would not adversely affect the amenity of residents.

159. It is considered that the commercial element of the scheme, which would be considered in the context of a subsequent reserved matters submission also, is sited in its current illustrative position at an appropriate distance away from nearby residential properties, adjacent other commercial properties, so as not to lead to a significant loss of privacy, outlook and general residential amenity, as required by CDLP Policies H13, C2, S6, S7 and S10.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

160. There are no designated sites on or within the immediate locality of the site, with the vast majority of the site comprising arable land. The application has been supported by an ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecology Report and various surveys or protected species and birds undertaken. The site was found to be of low ecological value. The existing hedgerow to the south east corner is a species rich hedgerow. This and a mature oak are the only

Page 142 features on the site of significant ecological value and these would be retained. The hedge is likely to support nesting birds and small mammals and is considered a priority habitat of local importance. Two trees to be retained are also considered to have bat potential. No plant species of conservation significance or protected species were recorded. Additional surveys would be required to be undertaken prior to the commencement of any development as well as checking surveys for nesting birds.

161. The proposed landscaping scheme would enhance the ecological value of the site and it is recommended that a linear parkway, grassland and pond features are incorporated into the detailed design of the scheme. Other ecological enhancements set out in the submitted ecological report include the installation of bat and bird boxes, planting of and improvements to hedgerows, native and wildflower planting and native woodland planting. The SUDs design should also use an open water design to benefit amphibians.

162. The County Ecologist accepts the submitted survey results, methodology and mitigation strategy designed to protect wildlife and their habitats. It is considered that the landscape and biodiversity enhancements on the application site meet the requirements of CDLP Policies E14, E16 and E18 and paragraphs 109 and118 of the NPPF, in that it is considered there would not be significant impact on wildlife, protected species and natural habitats and that the proposals contribute positively to connectivity and the creation and enhancements of habitats.

Heritage Assets and Archaeology

163. The applicant has provided a comprehensive and well researched archaeological assessment. It advised that further intrusive archaeological evaluation is required to determine if currently unrecorded and significant buried heritage assets survive within the proposed development site. The results of the submitted geophysical survey do not appear to show any hugely significant features which would inhibit development of the site. In principle the County Archaeologist has advised that she has no objections to the proposed development subject to suitable archaeological conditions. This would allow for trial trench evaluation to be undertaken prior to the determination of reserved matters and any mitigation works would be a condition of a reserved matters approval. By undertaking the trial trenching post determination of the outline but in advance of the reserved matters application, the results of the archaeological works could still inform the design of the development if required (i.e. if features are then revealed to be more significant than currently appear to be, they could be designed around to preserve in situ if needed) in line with CDLP Policies E21 and E24 and paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

164. The railway bridge, 420m to the northwest of the site is a Grade 2 listed structure and is the nearest heritage asset to the site. Officers consider that this has a confined setting within the settlement and its setting is unlikely to be adversely affected by the development. The presence of the bridge as a local landmark, its function as a road bridge, its interrelationship with the railway

Page 143 line and position within the surrounding settlement and topography would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The Grade II listed former Ebeneezer Chapel approximately 625m to the northeast, the Grade II listed former Londonderry School approximately 700m to the northeast both have an insular and immediate setting within the settlement. There is no interrelationship or indivisibility between the former school and chapel and the site, and therefore the setting of these assets would not be adversely affected by the development.

165. The Grade II* listed St Mary’s Church approximately 800m to the northeast does have a stronger landmark presence within West Rainton and features in views from the A690 and from the corner of Station Road/Chantry Place, however this role would not be affected by the development of the site and it should be noted that the church is already surrounded by housing development. It is considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the setting of any designated heritage assets within the immediate radius of the site as required by Policies E21 and E23 of the CDLP.

166. The concerns of local residents regarding views of the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage site are noted. However, the Council’s Conservation Officer does not consider that the proposed development would compromise any notable long distance views of the World Heritage site or its setting, which is located 6km to the southwest of the site, given the distances involved and the low level residential nature of the development as required by CDLP Policy E3. There would be no identifiable impact on the outstanding universal values or significance of the World Heritage Site.

Public Rights of Way

167. Public Footpath No. 8 (West Rainton Parish) passes through the centre of the site. It provides the only immediate pedestrian access to open countryside from the established residential south edge of West Rainton without the need to cross the A690 dual carriageway. It also forms part of a promoted walking route. It is understood that the path is highly valued and well used by local residents. The footpath would be retained on its current definitive line. However, there would be some loss of the present amenity value and rural character of the path given that part of the path would extend through the proposed residential development. To mitigate this officer’s advice that the open, rural aspect of the path should be retained within the development and properties should face onto the path. A large area of open space could be provided adjacent the existing footpath that runs through the site to retain the character of this path and thus could be required as part of the detailed layout and landscape scheme. The surface of the footpath should be resurfaced with a suitable material. These measures can be achieved by planning conditions and through the reserved matters process, and ensure compliance with CDP Policies R11 and T21.

Page 144 Flooding and Drainage

168. The site lies within flood zone one where residential development is considered appropriate. The main consideration is the prevention of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment’s findings and recommendations, as well as surface and foul water drainage proposals, are accepted by Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) and the Environment Agency. This is subject to appropriate planning conditions which restrict the amount and location of foul water discharge and prevent surface water discharging into the public sewer as well limiting surface water run-off to agreed greenfield run-off rates.

169. NWL has advised that its existing foul water drainage system has available capacity to accommodate a restricted discharge from the development via a manhole to the north west of the site. Given that there would be an increase in impermeable area, attenuation storage tanks and SUDS ponds would drain the surface water from the site and restrict it to greenfield run off rates i.e. the run-off generated would not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site, so that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. The objectives of CDLP Policy U8a and Part 10 of the NPPF are therefore considered to have been met. The concerns regarding this matter are noted, however it is the case that development of a site enables a positive drainage strategy to be implemented.

Other Matters

170. The site presents a good opportunity for innovative sustainable design. At this stage the details of sustainable design are not finalised because the proposal is at the outline application stage. Opportunities for solar thermal, ground source heat pumps, and photo voltaic cells to roofs, energy efficient design features and the fabric first approach would all be appropriate to consider at the detailed design stage.

171. The combination of these technologies has the capability to meet and exceed the target of 10% renewable energy generation on site and thereby meet the requirements of CDLP Policy U14 and the core principle of the NPPF of achieving sustainable development. The imposition of a condition to meet this requirement would address concerns raised by the Sustainability and Climate Change Officer regarding improving the sustainability of the design and construction of the dwellings and the consideration of renewable or low carbon energy generation on the site.

172. Environmental Health Officers advise that although the site is not considered likely to have significant contamination present, the potential for made ground cannot be discounted. Reports submitted with the application identify the potential for shallow mining works at the site and there is a mining shaft on the site and the potential for further entries. As a result there is a potential for mining gas at the site. There is also the potential for asbestos containing material to be present on the site. Therefore it is recommended that a Phase

Page 145 2 site investigation is undertaken in order to identify, and if necessary, deal with any contamination in order to ensure that the site is suitable for the proposed use, as required by Policy U12 of the CDLP.

173. The School Places Manager considers that there are sufficient surplus primary and secondary school places within the locality to accommodate the projected additional pupils as a result of this particular proposed development.

174. The consultation response of the Coal Authority is noted. The requested condition requiring intrusive site investigation works to be undertaken in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site is recommended in respect of the outline area of the site. Remedial works to treat the areas of shallow mine workings to ensure the safety and stability would then be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development within the outline area. This would ensure that the site is safe and stable for the approved development, as required by CDLP Policy U13 and paragraph 121 of the NPPF.

175. Concern has been raised regarding a potential cumulative impact of the proposed development with the implementation of the proposed open cast, also to be determined, however it is considered that the proposed housing and opencast proposals are essentially different in character. The construction phase of the housing development would involve some engineering operations such as soil stripping and storage that would be similar in nature to works involved in the opencast operation, although the visual effects of these would generally fall on different parts of the village.

176. From the upper storeys of town houses at Lambton View there would be some visibility from south-facing windows of surface activity and storage mounds in the proposed opencast site at distances of around 400m to the southwest. There would be visibility from north-facing windows of construction activities associated with the proposed housing. Whilst there would be potential for some cumulative effects should the two proposals overlap or closely follow each other, both would be temporary and short term operations and the overall effect on residential amenity would not be significant. Furthermore the traffic generation from the proposed opencast would be limited to 45 movements per day. This level of trip generation would not have any significant impact on the junction at the A690/ Chantry Place.

177. It is not considered that concerns relating to a perceived lack of burial space in a particular village would be a sustainable reason to reject additional housing development. It is considered that loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.

CONCLUSION

178. The proposed scheme does not accord with either the existing or emerging development plan, although it does not undermine the delivery of the strategy of the emerging plan going forward and accords with many of the aspirations

Page 146 of the NPPF. In light of the conflict with development plan policy there would need to be other material considerations to justify granting planning permission.

179. The scheme would provide clear benefits to the local area. It would assist in meeting housing needs, including the provision of 30 affordable houses some of which would be bungalows for older people. The scheme would deliver other benefits including improved community facilities and community investment as well as investment in sports and play provision in the locality. The highway improvements proposed, notably to the junction on the A690 would serve to benefit the whole community of West Rainton and users of the A690. The number of houses is considered to be of a scale commensurate with the role and function of the settlement of West Rainton. When the NPPF and the community benefits are taken into account, these are considered to materially weigh in favour of the proposal.

180. The proposals would have some significant effects on the character of the local landscape but these would be relatively localised. They would bring a substantial change to the visual environment of the southern edge of the village but would not in themselves be necessarily unattractive. It is considered that structural hedge and tree planting and incorporation of various types of open green space would assist in assimilating the development into its surroundings over time. The scheme has the ability to be developed into a high quality ‘landscape led’ scheme, with extensive onsite open space, landscaping, high levels of sustainability and the use of sustainable urban drainage.

181. The development is considered acceptable in highway safety, access, parking and traffic terms, subject to proposed mitigation. Investment and highway improvements would be made to surrounding road junctions, footpaths/cycle ways and bus infrastructure. It is not considered that the residential amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties would be significantly adversely affected. The proposed development is not considered to negatively affect protected species or nature conservation and proposals have been put forward which would improve the ecological value of the site. It is not considered that any heritage assets would be significantly affected. Adequate drainage to the public sewer would be provided and flood risk would not be increased elsewhere, subject to conditions. Conditions would also ensure that the site is safe for development and that archaeological investigations are carried out to ensure that any archaeological remains would not be affected by the development.

182. Careful and thorough consideration was given to the objections and concerns raised by local residents and these have been taken into account and addressed within the body of the report. On balance the concerns raised were not felt to be of sufficient weight to justify refusal of this application, in the light of the benefits of the scheme and the ability to impose conditions and legal agreement.

Page 147 183. Although the proposed development would represent a departure from CDLP Policies E7, H3 and H5, it is considered that such Policies are of diminished weight in the context of the NPPF. The conflict with these policies that housing development on the site would bring, would be outweighed by the proposed benefits of the scheme in the context of the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and the key objective of boosting significantly the supply of a mix and type of new housing thus enabling the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes as well as community benefits.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:

• Commencement of construction of the community hub before occupation of the 25 th dwelling and completion before the occupation of the 75 th dwelling. • A financial contribution of £25000 towards the cost of A1 (M) Carville Interchange highway improvement measures. • A 20% affordable housing provision across the site, incorporating 75% affordable rent and 25% shared ownership (provision of 30 dwellings, out of 150) comprising of 15 bungalows suitable for older people and 15 two and three bedroomed houses; • £500 per dwelling financial contribution towards additional and/or improved sports provision, equipped play provision, and parks/gardens provision/improvement in the Sherburn electoral division totalling £75,000 for 150 dwellings; • £50,000 financial contribution towards community schemes and initiatives; • Targeted skills and employment opportunities; • Open space provision on site comprising a minimum of 2.0 hectares incorporating of 1 hectare of semi-natural green space, 0.9 hectares of amenity open space and 0.1 hectares of children’s play space (or a combination thereof, totalling 2.0 hectares minimum) which is then maintained in perpetuity.

And subject to the following conditions:

1. Application (s) for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Page 148 2. Approval of the details of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications:

Plans:

Site Location Plan. SL02. 21 st October 2013 Illustrative Master Plan- Indicative Cells and Frontages. IM-05. 18.3.2014.

Documents:

Design and Access Statement. October 2013. Design and Access Statement. Addendum April 2014. Transport Assessment. Land at West Rainton. Aecom Transportation. Rev. 05. 1 st April 2014. Flood Risk Assessment. Ref: 130601.R.003. Version 3. Roberts Environmental Ltd. March 2014. Utility Study. WSP. October 2013. Archaeological Assessment. The Archaeological Practice Ltd. September 2013.

Pre-development Tree Condition Survey (Tree Constraints Assessment). August 2013. E3 Ecology. MacArthur Green. Extended phase 1 Habitat Survey. Ecological Report. Final. October 2013. MacArthur Green. 4 th March 2014. Response to comments from DCC. McArthur Green. 17 th March 2014. Clarifications following phone call between Gary Shears, DCC and Rachael Iveson, Mcarthus Green. Geo-Environmental Desk Study and Coal Mining Assessment. WSP. October 2013.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies E3, E10, E14, E15, E16, E18, E21, E23, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q8, T1, T5, T7, T8, T10, T19, T20, T21, S6, S7, S10, C2, C8, H12, H12A, H13, R2, R11, U8a, U13, U14 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

4. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application samples of the external walling and roofing materials of the dwellings should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the relevant phase of the development to which the material relates. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Page 149

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regards to Policies Q8, E10 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 7 of the NPPF.

5. Notwithstanding any details of all surface treatments, boundary treatments, street furniture, informal play areas and lighting scheme submitted with the application, full details of these should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before substantial completion of the 1 st dwelling. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regards to Policies Q8, R2 and H13 of the City of Durham of the Local Plan.

6. Development shall not commence until a construction working practices strategy that includes (but not exclusively) dust, noise, and light mitigation; compound location and traffic management shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter construction will take place in full accordance with that agreement.

Reason: In the interests of public health, highway safety and amenity, in accordance with the objectives of Policies T1, Q8 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

7. The development shall not commence until a detailed landscaping scheme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any additional tree felling to that approved should be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any submitted scheme must be shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. The landscape scheme shall include accurate plan based details of the following: Retention of the mature oak tree and species rich hedgerow to the south of the site Perimeter (boundary) structure planting to all boundaries which shall be at least 15m in depth; Structure planting to all the major green ‘corridors’. Surfacing of the section of Public footpath no. 8 West Rainton Parish that is within the site boundary Open rural grass corridor/open space on either side of of Public footpath no. 8 that is within the site boundary Hedge enclosures to the front boundaries of properties. Avenues of street trees and structure planting along access roads and footpaths Perimeter walkways Trees, hedges and shrubs scheduled for retention. Details of hard and soft landscaping including planting species, sizes, layout, densities, numbers.

Page 150 Details of planting procedures or specification. Finished topsoil levels and depths. Details of temporary topsoil and subsoil storage provision. Seeded or turf areas, habitat creation areas and details etc. Details of land and surface drainage. A management plan for all planting extending from initial planting until 5 years after final completion of the development which should establish a maintenance regime, including watering, rabbit protection, tree stakes, guards etc. Trees, hedges and shrubs shall not be removed without agreement.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies E15, E16, Q5 and Q6 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

8. All tree and hedge planting, seeding or turfing and habitat creation in the approved details of the landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with an agreed timetable of works. This shall incorporate advance planting of all perimeter structure planting before construction of any dwelling commences and thereafter landscaping associated with each phase should be planted during construction of the relevant phase to which it relates and be wholly completed before completion of the final dwelling on each phase. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the removal/felling is shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. Any approved replacement tree or hedge planting shall be carried out within 12 months of felling and removals of existing trees and hedges.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies E15, Q5 and Q6 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

9. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until all trees and hedges to be retained are protected by the erection of fencing, comprising a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, well braced to resist impacts, and supporting temporary welded mesh fencing panels or similar approved in accordance with BS.5837:2005. No operations whatsoever, no alterations of ground levels, and no storage of any materials are to take place inside the fences, and no work is to be done such as to affect any tree. No removal of limbs of trees or other tree work shall be carried out. No underground services trenches or service runs shall be laid out in root protection areas.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policy E14 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

10. Details and locations of bin/recycling stores and cycle stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the construction of the 1 st dwelling. The bin/recycling and cycle stores shall be constructed and available for use before the occupation of the dwelling to which they relate.

Page 151 Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the area, to reduce reliance on the car and to comply with Policies Q8 and T20 of Durham City Local Plan.

11. Before the occupation of the 1 st dwelling a Travel Plan Coordinator shall be appointed and contact details for this person shall be provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of improving the sustainability of the site having regard to Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport of the NPPF.

12. Within 6 months of the occupation of the first dwelling, a final Travel Plan, conforming to the ethos of the National Specification for Workplace Travel Plans, PAS 500:2008, bronze level, indicating programmes and funding commitment, shall be submitted in writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interest of improving the sustainability of the site having regard to Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport of the NPPF.

13. No operations and deliveries associated with the construction phase of the development hereby approved shall be carried out outside the hours of: Monday to Friday – 08:00 – 18:00 hours Saturdays – 08:00 – 12:00 hours Sundays – None Public and Bank Holidays – None

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policies Q8 and H13 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.

14. Plans showing full engineering details of the proposed estate roads shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the construction of the 1 st dwelling commences. These shall be constructed as approved and made available for use before the first occupation of the relevant phase of the development to which the estate road relates.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policy T10 of the Durham City Local Plan.

15. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide for:

i) The proper identification and evaluation of the extent, character and significance of archaeological remains within the site, in accordance with a brief issued by the County Durham Archaeology Section and completed to inform the first reserved matters application;

Page 152 ii) An assessment of the impact of the proposed development on any archaeological remains identified in the evaluation phase; iii) proposals for the preservation in situ, or for the investigation, recording and recovery of archaeological remains and the publishing of the findings, it being understood that there shall be a presumption in favour of their preservation in situ wherever feasible. A new updated written scheme of investigation for the final mitigation strategy (if needed) must be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority before the 1st reserved matters application. iv) Sufficient notification and allowance of time to archaeological contractors to ensure that archaeological fieldwork as proposed in pursuance of (i) and (iii) above is completed before the commencement of the approved development in the area of archaeological interest; and v), notification in writing to the County Durham Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.

The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Policies E21 and E24 of the City of Durham Local Plan and paragraphs 135 and 141 of the NPPF.

16. The development shall not be occupied until a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy is deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication.

Reason: To comply with Policy E24 of the City of Durham Local Plan and paragraph 141 of NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible.

17. Foul water must be restricted to 11.5 litres per second and discharge into the public sewer at manhole 4601 and no surface water from the approved development may discharge into the public sewer.

Reason: To comply with Policy U8A of the City of Durham Local Plan.

18. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing details of the junction layout and signal strategy for the A690/ Lambton View junction, together with a timetable for their implementation. The junction improvements shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T2 and T8 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

19. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a full scheme of improvements to

Page 153 the highway infrastructure at the A690/ High Street junction, including timings for their implementation. The approved works shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved timings.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T2 and T8 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

20. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a full scheme of improvements to the bus infrastructure, including the location and detail of all new and relocated bus infrastructure and timings for their implementation. The approved works shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved timings.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety having regard to Policies T1, T2 and T5 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

21. The development authorised by the permission shall not begin until the Local Planning Authority has approved in writing a full scheme of re-surfacing works to the part of the Public Footpath no. 8 West Rainton Parish which lies within the site. The approved works shall be implemented and completed in accordance with the approved timings.

Reason: To safeguard the needs of walkers and protect the existing network of PROW’s as required by R11 and T21 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

22. Development shall not commence until a scheme for the incorporation of artistic elements within the scheme’s buildings, spaces and landscapes, and a timetable for their implementation, has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the agreed scheme shall be carried out and implemented as approved.

Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy Q15 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

23. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment 130601.R.003 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the report; limiting the surface water generated by the site so that it would not exceed the run-off from the un-developed site and not increase the risk of flooding on-site. The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented before any of the development is occupied and subsequently in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied in the scheme.

Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy U8a of the City of Durham Local Plan to prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.

24. Development shall not commence until a scheme to minimise energy consumption shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall consist of energy from renewable or low carbon sources provided on-site, to a minimum level of at least 10% of the

Page 154 total energy demand from the development, or an equivalent scheme that minimises carbon emissions to an equal level through energy efficiency measures. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved scheme prior to first occupation and retained so in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable construction and energy generation in accordance with the aims of Policy U14 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

25. The development shall only take place in full accordance with the recommendations set out in section 6 of the Macarthur Green West Rainton Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Ecological Report Final dated 24 th October 2013 and Addendums dated 4 th March and 17 th March 2014.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of Part 11 of the NPPF and Policy E14 and E16 of the City of Durham Local Plan.

26. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the 1 st occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site in accordance with Policy U8A of the City of Durham Local Plan.

27. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme to deal with contamination has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following, unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed use and dispenses of any such requirements, in writing:

(a) A Phase 2 Site Investigation and Risk Assessment is required and shall be carried out by competent person(s) to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications.

(b) If the Phase 2 identifies any unacceptable risks, remediation is required and a Phase 3 Remediation Strategy detailing the proposed remediation and verification works shall be carried out by competent person(s). No alterations to the remediation proposals shall be carried out without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. If during the remediation or development works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Phase 3, then remediation proposals for this material shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works.

(c) Upon completion of the remedial works (if required), a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Phase 3 Remediation

Page 155 Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risk to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy U11 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF.

28. The approved development should consist of a minimum of 20% 3 bedroomed properties.

Reason: In order to provide an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes as required by Paragraph 50 of the NPPF.

29. The approved community hub shall be restricted to 950 sq. of class A1 and/or A2, A3, A4 and A5 use and 950sq.m. of class D1 use.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies S6 and S7 of the City of Durham Local Plan and Part 2 of the NPPF.

30. Development shall not commence until a scheme to market the community hub has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall be carried out approved.

Reason: To ensure the provision of local services and facilities as required by Paragraph 70 of the NPPF.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• Submitted application forms, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant • The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)National Planning Practice Guidance Notes • City of Durham Local Plan 2004 • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft)

Page 156 • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Page 157

CMA/4/112 Residential development of 150 dwellings, small scale community hub within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 of up to 950 sq. m and within use class D1 of up to 950 sq. m with open space, Planning Services hard and soft landscaping and associated infrastructure (outline, all matters reserved except access) including off site highway improvements (Revised proposals) at Land to the South West of Station Road, West Rainton, County Durham

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey Comments on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014

Page 158 Agenda Item 5c

Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

DM/14/00920/FPA APPLICATION NO:

Proposed extension to the Wolsingham lower school building, part demolition of existing classroom block to FULL APPLICATION DESCRIPTION : the rear, and associated landscaping.

Durham County Council NAME OF APPLICANT :

Wolsingham School and Community College, Leazes ADDRESS : Lane, Wolsingham, Durham, DL13 3DN

Weardale ELECTORAL DIVISION :

Peter Herbert, Senior Planning Officer, CASE OFFICER : [email protected] , 03000 261391

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. Wolsingham School and Community College lies at the western edge of Wolsingham village and is split over two sites to the east and west of Leazes Lane. To the west is the lower school based at the former Wolsingham Grammar School built in 1911. To the east is located the upper school campus built in the 1970s comprising a classroom block, leisure centre, swimming pool, playing fields and car and bus park.

2. The application site lies within the Wolsingham Conservation Area and is currently occupied by the school courtyard and outbuildings used as classrooms which would be demolished. To the north lie a staff car park and grassed grounds, with a prefabricated building beyond. To the south stands the former grammar school building with the A689 and Leazes View terraced housing beyond. To the east runs Leazes Lane with housing beyond, whilst to the west lie classroom outbuildings, playground and a stand of trees planted in memorial to those from Wolsingham who fell in the First World War. This enjoys War Memorial status.

The Proposals

3. It is proposed that all 900 pupils, ranging from 11 to 19 years of age, be educated at the lower school site, and the deteriorating upper school classrooms eventually demolished. To facilitate this, a three storey extension is proposed to the rear of the former Grammar School building on its northern side. Approximately 3500 sq. m of floorspace would be created to provide classrooms, science laboratories, a sixth

Page 159 form centre, technical workshops, performing arts hall, music rooms and recording studios.

4. The three storey extension is of a highly contemporary design and would run approximately 55 m from the rear of the existing school building and stand approximately 9 m in height. The extension centres on a triple height atrium which acts as a lightweight connection between the existing and new buildings. This is flanked by two solid blocks of teaching space. These three elements will interact internally with each other both vertically and horizontally at all three levels, and with the existing school building at the lower two.

5. Externally, the flat extension roofline would join the existing building just below ridge level. Solar photovoltaic panels would be positioned centrally on the roof. The extension’s northern and southern extremities are narrower than its main body and are treated differently architecturally. Each incorporate curtain wall glazing and timber panelling, with blue coloured render added to the north elevation to emphasise the main student access point. The visitor entrance would be within the eastern elevation of the extension where it joins the existing school.

6. The east and west elevations of the main extension body would comprise an asymmetrical pattern of vertical windows to reflect the rhythm of those on the existing school, linked by vertical timber panelling and surrounded by white render to reflect the range of white and cream render found within Wolsingham. A dark plinth at the foot of the extension is designed to enhance the juxtaposition of the heavy and old (the existing stone school building) and the light and new (the extension).

7. Formal and informal play space plus an outdoor classroom would be located to the west of the extension. To the north a circular stone wall, paving and seating would form a student entrance focal point. The school bell would also be relocated here. To the east a staff and visitor car park would be established together with screened refuse and recycling storage. An existing electricity substation would be relocated to the east of the new building.

8. The existing Leazes Lane vehicular entrance would be widened to form the proposed car park entrance, with a second access point to the north retained to serve grounds maintenance and the kitchen garden. Disused prefabricated buildings in this location would be replaced by a sports storage container. An existing pedestrian access to the Leazes Lane raised table pedestrian crossing point would be retained. A new pedestrian and cycle access would be created from the A689 at Leazes View, with existing access points to the east and west locked for occasional use only.

9. Landscaping would take the form of a crescent of tree planting from west to north at the northern end of the site, and hedge planting along the eastern Leazes Lane boundary along the outer edge of the car park.

10. Overall staff and pupil levels would remain as before, but with 360 pupils relocated from the upper site.

11. The application is being reported to the Planning Committee as it represents a major County Council school development.

PLANNING HISTORY

12. There is no relevant history.

Page 160 PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY:

13. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), although the majority of supporting Annexes to the planning policy statements are retained. The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social, and environmental, each mutually dependent.

14. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:

15. NPPF Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion

16. NPPF Part 7 – Requiring Good Design – The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

17. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change . Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.

18. NPPF Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment – The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.

19. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment – In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (National Planning Policy Framework) Page 161

20. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

Wear Valley District Council Local Plan (1997)

21. Policy GD1 – General Development Criteria – requires all new development and redevelopment to be designed to a high standard to contribute to the quality of the built environment of the surrounding area by fulfilling a list of design criteria.

22. Policy BE1 – Protection of Historic Heritage – seeks to conserve the historic heritage by the maintenance, protection and enhancement of features and areas of particular historic, architectural or archaeological interest.

23. Policy BE5 – Conservation Areas – identifies Wolsingham as a Conservation Area, the character of which should be protected from inappropriate development.

24. Policy BE6 – New Development and Alterations – permits new development and alterations within Conservation areas provided that the character of the area is preserved or enhanced, materials are appropriate, and the General Development criteria required by Policy GD1 is satisfied.

25. Policy T1 – General Policy – requires all development that generates additional traffic to comply with Policy GD1 of the local plan and provide adequate access, not exceed the capacity of the local road network, and be capable of access by public transport networks. Where highway works are considered necessary these will normally be met at the developer’s expense

EMERGING POLICY:

26. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision- takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. There are no policies contained in the Submission Draft are considered relevant to the determination of the application.

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

27. Highway Authority – offers no objection to the proposal. It is noted that most parking will remain at the upper school site with limited provision at the lower site, and that overall student, staff, and parking provision numbers will remain as before. The applicant’s assurance that pupils moving between the two sites across Leazes Lane will continue to be supervised by staff members, particularly at school start and finish times, is also acknowledged.

Page 162 28. However, it is noted that a new pedestrian access point from the A689 is proposed within the southern lower school boundary. While the applicant states this to be for staff, visitors and over 16 pupils only, there remains a need to safeguard pupils using this access. A pedestrian guard rail and School Keep Clear markings, with associated traffic order, will therefore be necessary to ensure the A689 is kept clear of waiting vehicles and to channel pedestrians away from this principal traffic route. There will also be a requirement for a section of Leazes Lane, between existing school “keep clear” markings, to be subject to a “no waiting” restriction.

29. Environment Agency – offers no objection to this proposal and refers the applicant to standing advice on the agency’s website that advocates sustainable drainage methods.

30. Northumbrian Water – offers no objection to the proposal. This is based on an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the Water Authority’s assets, and its network’s capacity to accommodate and treat anticipated flows.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

31. Design and Historic Environment – Officers raise no objection to this proposal. Officers not that the former 1911 grammar school building is considered to be a non- designated asset, and the site lies within a conservation area. By reason of the proposed extension’s scale, massing and challenging design it is considered that the proposal would cause harm to the significance of the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. The loss of ancillary buildings would cause similar harm. However, the counterbalance is the retention of the original school building in its existing use, and this is a significant benefit. Furthermore, the wider public benefits of an enhanced educational provision within the village are considered to outweigh any harm to the original school building and conservation area that is less than significant. It is considered that no harm would result to nearby memorials, and harm to the conservation area resulting from the demolition of ancillary buildings could be partially mitigated by their recording, the results of which to be put on the Historic Environment Record.

32. In conclusion, it is advised that the determination of this application rests upon the advice contained within paragraph 134 of the NPPF. This states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (the conservation area) this harm should be weighed against the public benefits, including its optimum viable use. In this case the harm is judged to be less than substantial, therefore the benefits to Wolsingham are considered to outweigh that harm. The architect’s brief was to create a functional and contemporary design, maintaining the primacy of the 1911 school building, and this brief has been broadly been met. The choice of materials results from this contemporary approach, and whilst there are some misgivings concerning the metal framed windows, timber and render that will dominate, final agreement to the finishing colours should secure integration with their surroundings. The fenestration pattern appears to have no relevance to that on the “host” building at first glance, but on closer inspection is well considered and offers a good balance between natural light and random form yet still arranged in a formal vertical manner. The proposal will be highly visible, but offers a well detailed proposal that, through careful detailing, has the ability to deliver quality educational facilities for future generations.

33. Spatial Policy – Officers raise no objection to this proposal, being satisfied that the scheme complies with the objectives of planning policy concerning land use, conservation, ecology, highway safety and residential amenity. The three key policy issues raised by the development are suitability of location and associated Page 163 intensification of use, impact on character and setting of the conservation area, and effect upon nature conservation interests. In this regard, it is considered that although the site is not designated within the Local Plan for any specific purpose there is no policy obstacle to its continuing use for educational purposes. Wolsingham is one of the county’s secondary settlements which acts as a main hub for the provision of services and facilities to its rural hinterland. This proposal would serve to reinforce this role in the future.

34. The retention of the former grammar school building is welcomed, and provided the Council’s Conservation Officer is satisfied with the design and scale of the proposed extension, and that it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area, Policies BE1, BE5 and BE6 of the Local Plan and Part 12 of the NPPF would be considered to have been complied with. Furthermore, it is highlighted that the objectives of the emerging County Durham Plan policy would be met but at present little weight can be attached.

35. It is recognised that there will be an impact on nature conservation interests in terms of bats. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF recognises the need to minimise impacts upon biodiversity where possible. Paragraph 118 recognises that significant harm resulting from a development must be mitigated for a proposal to be supported. However, provided any potential harm is fully considered and addressed to the satisfaction of the County Ecologist no policy objection is raised.

36. Ecology – Officers offer no objection. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been carried out that concludes no priority or protected habitats would be lost as a result of the proposed development, but there is the possibility of impact upon nesting birds, and a bat roost of common pipistrelle will be lost. The roost is located at the point where the extension would meet the existing school building. In mitigation, demolition works and the felling of trees should be timed to take place outside the bird nesting season, but if this were not possible a search for nests must be carried out by a suitably qualified person prior to work commencing and suitable avoidance action formulated. A development licence for the destruction of a bat roost will be required from Natural England before any work begins, and should planning permission be granted it must be conditional upon no work affecting a bat roost beginning until a development license has been acquired and thereafter complied with.

37. Archaeology – Officers offer no objection. The initially submitted Heritage Statement was considered to be inadequate. However, a revised document has addressed the inadequacies of the first. This includes an amended Historic Environment Desk- based Assessment which has fully assessed the historic environment within a 1 km radius of the application site. The report concludes that there is low potential for early prehistoric, Anglo-Saxon, medieval and post medieval remains, and moderate potential for later prehistoric, Roman, medieval and post-medieval agricultural remains. There is a high potential for later post-medieval and early modern remains relating to the construction of the original Wolsingham Grammar School. Such remains would be categorised as non-designated heritage assets but of low importance and no more than local interest.

38. These conclusions are accepted. Previous development on the site together with local agricultural and landscaping activity is likely to have impacted on the potential for fully intact archaeological deposits, and it is reasonable to assume that the proposed development can proceed without significant harm to any non-designated buried archaeology. However, as there remains the potential for deposits to have survived in pockets, planning conditions are requested to address such an eventuality.

Page 164

39. Landscape – Officers offer no objection to this proposal in principle. However, further information is required concerning tree root protection and exact species to be planted. These can be the subject of a planning condition.

40. Access and Rights of Way – Officers offer no objection. There are no recorded Public Rights of Way through the application site. Although there are public footpaths adjoining the site boundaries, it is assumed these would not be affected by this application.

41. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection – Officers raise no objection subject to planning conditions being applied to any consent to address potential construction phase disturbance. Consideration has also been given the potential effects of noise and light resulting from the proposed development on neighbouring properties. Noise impact on the former schoolhouse has been examined in particular. It has been concluded that the additional number of pupils at the lower school site will not unduly impact on this property as the main pupil entrances are well away from the house, and those entrances close by will be locked and only used occasionally. However, acoustic fencing is recommended. A submitted lighting spillage plan satisfactorily demonstrates that neighbouring properties will not be affected. However, to ensure that construction work does not impact on neighbouring residential properties, planning conditions addressing noise, dust, the burning of materials, the operation of plant and working hours are requested.

42. Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Contamination) – Officers offer no objection, although they note that top soils to be removed should be isolated and managed and that the appropriate contaminated validation report should be completed and submitted following the implementation remediation measures on the site.

43. Travel Planning – Officers offer no objection. Should planning permission be granted it is requested this be conditional upon a revised Travel Plan being submitted for agreement to replace an existing plan which is now out of date.

44. Sustainability – Officers state that ensuring sustainable development is the key consideration of the NPPF. From a sustainability standpoint it is not considered that the applicants go far enough to minimise emissions. While the scheme meets most of the requirements of Part L of the 2010 Building Regulations, and the use of solar panels is acknowledged, it does not make consequential improvements to the original grammar school building. These would involve improvements to the fabric of that building. Unless this is carried out the application cannot [be] supported.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

45. A letter of objection has been received from the resident of the former school caretaker’s house located immediately to the west of the original school building on the A689. He is concerned that, despite having been required to build extensions to his home in stone in 1992 and 2002, different materials are proposed for the school extension. These are considered to be inappropriate to a Conservation Area, as are the flat roof, window styles, and use of white render. It is also considered to be potentially dangerous that pupils will now be required to cross Leazes Lane when leaving and joining school buses parked in the upper school car park, and moving between the lower and upper schools when required to attend sports facilities. By more children potentially using the lower school playing fields there is said to be more likelihood of balls kicked onto the A689 over the low wooded boundary site.

Page 165 Finally, the neighbour considers it likely that his home will be devalued as a result of the proposed development.

46. Two other Wolsingham residents have objected on the grounds of the extension being out of keeping with its surroundings. Their concerns centre upon the white colour chosen and window arrangements. Comment has also been made regarding the undesirability of the continued use of a split site and the continuing need for pupils to cross Leazes Lane when moving between the lower school and sports facilities on the upper site. There is also concern about pupils being dropped off and collected in Leazes Lane.

47. A fourth letter has been received expressing concern regarding the position of the substation which would be directly opposite her home at Ladley Burn Cottage. This is a single aspect property with all windows looking towards the application site. This, it is suggested, would diminish the resident’s enjoyment of her home in terms of both outlook and noise. It is requested that an alternative site be seriously considered.

APPLICANT ’S STATEMENT :

48. The purpose of this development is to bring the majority of the school’s accommodation onto a single site and within a single building. This removes the disruption and lost teaching time resulting from the need to transfer between the two existing sites between lessons. It also reduces the safety, security and safeguarding risks for students during transfer. The development also brings new accommodation to the lower school site that when combined with the existing building will significantly improve the quality and organisation of the school environment.

49. A further benefit of the consolidation of the school onto the lower school site is the continued use of the existing 1900s grammar school building, which is viewed as a significant asset in the local built environment.

50. The retention of the sports hall and bus stop / car park on the upper school site is a deliberate decision to ensure continued community access, and to make best use of the existing infrastructure. This does result in the need for students to transfer between the two school sites for PE lessons, but this is considered a reasonable compromise given the broader benefits offered by the proposed development. This arrangement results in little change to the existing access provisions, which in turn limits any impact on local residents and the community .

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

51. Having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development, impact on residential amenity, its design and scale, effect upon the Wolsingham Conservation Area, effects on ecology and the existing trees, access and highway safety, sustainability and other matters.

Principle of Development

52. Wolsingham is identified within the Council’s Settlement Study as being a Smaller Town/Larger Village which hosts a number of facilities and services which serve an area beyond the settlement itself. Indeed, along with Crook (6 miles to the east) and Stanhope (6 miles to the west), Wolsingham has traditionally acted as a service

Page 166 centre for several smaller settlements, farms and isolated dwellings within Weardale, and continues to operate in this role.

53. A school has operated on the application site since 1911 when it was built as Wolsingham Grammar School. Subsequently it has operated on split sites, with classrooms located on both lower and upper sites, with sports facilities, and car and bus parking on the upper site. Wolsingham School has traditionally provided secondary education provision for children throughout Weardale, with no secondary school provision at Stanhope, and Crook being served by Parkside Academy at Willington. The school is therefore of significant importance to a much wider local community.

54. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF attaches great weight to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meets the needs of new and existing communities and that local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education. Furthermore, it states that they should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools.

55. Paragraph 70 states that planning decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and other local services to enhance sustainability of communities and residential environments. Decisions should also guard against the loss of valued facilities and services, and to ensure that facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable and retained for the benefit of the community.

56. The proposed extension to the school is intended to consolidate the existing teaching arrangements at Wolsingham School, which currently, being split across both sites is unusual and far from ideal. As a result of this development, the school’s sports facilities would remain on the upper site, with all other teaching being delivered at the lower site. This would be both more efficient and offer greater cohesion. It is considered therefore, that the principle of the application site’s education use is well established, and this proposal represents a consolidation and improvement of an important existing facility which serves the wider local community, in accordance with paragraphs 70 and 72 of the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

57. In terms of residential amenity impact, the increased number of pupils and staff transferring to the lower school site would inevitably increase the level of activity at that site during school hour and there are residential properties in close proximity to the school site, both on Leazes Lane and on the southern side of A689. However, this must be balanced against the enhanced educational opportunities that will result from the proposed development, and the fact that the nearest dwellings already stand next to a well established school and experience the foot and vehicular traffic associated with both school sites already.

58. The Council’s Environmental Health and Consumer Protection officer has assessed the application, particulary with regards to potential noise disturbance to the occupiers of the Schoolhouse, the private residence closest to the school. It is considered that the propsoed access arrangements would minimise the chance of disturbance to the occupier of this property and it is unlikely that an unreasonable impact upon residential amenity would occur, particularly as pupils would most likely be using entrances to the east of the Lower Site.

Page 167 59. Having regards to potential for light pollution, a lighting spillage assessment has been undertaken which acceptably demonstrates that lighting will not be a nuisance for nearby local residents. During the construction phase of the development there is potential for disturbance in terms of noise, dust and smoke. Accordingly conditions can be attached in order to control these matters and preserve residential amenity. The application is therefore considered to accord with Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan in this regard.

Design, Appearance and Impact upon Wolsingham Conservation Area.

60. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any conservation area within which development is proposed.

61. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that in determining planning applications, that local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation, the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contibution to local character and distinctiveness.

62. The scale and design of the building is highly contemporary and challenging, and it will have an impact upon the significance of the original grammar school building and the conservation area, as would the demolition of ancillary buildings.

63. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

64. Paragraph 135 states that effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

65. In this instance, the proposed development would potentially impact upon both a non-designated heritage asset - the original school building itself and a designated heritage asset – the contribution that the original school building makes to the character of Wolsingham Conservation Area.

66. In the formulation of the proposed development, a number of alternative options were considered, with the primary aim being the consolidation of classroom teaching on to one site, in order to reduce the amount of movement between the Upper School and Lower School and to provide a more effective teaching environment. This presented two main options; the improvement of the 1970s building on the Upper School site, or the extension to the grammar school building on the Lower School site.

67. The improvement of the more modern building at the Upper School was considered not to be cost effective, insofar as the end result would be a refurbished but still far from optimal building. Furthermore, this would potentially lead to activity at the Lower School reducing significantly and the historic grammar school building becoming peripheral to the operation of the school as a whole. Whilst the non designated Page 168 heritage asset would not necessarily be at immediate risk if this were to happen and it is accorded a certain amount of protection from demolition due to its location with Wolsingham Conservation Area, retaining the building for the use it was originally intended, its optimal viable use, would assist its longevity and maintainenance, and thus the long term wider positive contribution that it makes to Wolsingham Conservation Area in accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

68. Consequently, it is considered that in terms of principle, that the relocation of the main operation of the school to the Lower School is preferable as it would secure the ongoing future of the non designated heritage asset. Furthermore, a new build extension to the existing building affords the opportunity to provide optimal teaching accommodation cost effectively.

69. Clearly, the design challenges presented by extending the existing grammar school building are significant, however the architect has taken a considered approach to developing the proposed scheme, with the key aims being to maintain the dominance and primacy of the original building as well as maintaining the contribution that it makes to the streetscape. A more traditional approach than that currently proposed was explored, however it was apparent that a formal design utlising traditional materials would result in an extension that appeared monolithic, would detract from the detailing of the original building, and furthermore, would compete with the original building for dominance on the site.

70. As a result, the architect has chosen to formulate a more lgihtweight approach using a modern palette of materials, whilst reflecting the architectural language of the host building. The materials proposed include a contemporary palette of metal frame and timber, as well as the use of painted render which is very much contextual to Wolsingham Conservation Area, where it is a prevalent traditional walling material. The incorporation of a partially glazed and recessed link between the extension and host building provides a visual break, allows the grammar school building its own space, and allows the extension to be read as an obvious addition to the original building, thus preserving the character of the grammar school to a large extent.

71. Crucially, the extension would not be excessively prominent in the main streetscene of the A689, being set behind the host building and would allow the original building to maintain its dominance and setting as a primary building within Wolsingham. In views from Leazes Lane, the extension would be prominent. However given the legibility of the scheme and interaction of the extension and the existing building, this is considered to not necessarily be a matter of substantial harm.

72. Having regards to the above therefore, it is considered that any harm that results to either the non designated asset or Wolsingham Conservation Area is considered to not be substantial. Consequently, the provisions of paragraph134 of the NPPF are relevant and the public benefits of the proposal and securing the building in its optimum viable use are matters that should be weighed against any harm.

73. As discussed above, Wolsingham is a settlement that serves a role in providing services to a wider area and consequently, any improvements to the school accommodation, operation and therefore teaching delivery would be of significant public benefit, not only to residents of Wolsingham, but residents of Weardale as a whole. Furthermore, in delivering these improvements, the non-designated heritage asset would be retained in its optimum viable use. These benefits are considered to be significant and to outweigh the less than substantial harm that would result to the non-designated asset, as well as the wider Wolsingham Conservation Area.

Page 169 74. The proposal would lead to the loss of small number of ancillary buildings with the lower school site. Some of these are more prefabricated buildings of limited merit and some are contemporary to the original grammar school building. However, these buildings are considered not to be heritage assets in their own right, and their loss, although perhaps regrettable, is accepted in order to deliver the wider public benefits that this proposal would bring. It is therefore considered that the objectives of Policies GD1, BE1, BE5 and BE6, and Part 12 of the NPPF have been met.

75. With regard to the objection raised by local residents in relation to the proposed materials, it is considered that to construct the extension in stone as suggested would give it an overbearing appearance, and therefore a timber and render approach is considered to be more appropriate. This issue is discussed in greater detail above.

Ecology and Trees

76. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey has detected a common pipistrelle bat roost within the fabric of the existing school building at the point where the proposed extension would be joined to it. This would lead to the destruction of the roost. Bats are a species protected by law, and accordingly, a European Protected Species license would be required. In accordance with Regulation 53 of the Habitat Regulations, three derogation tests need to be applied in this regard. These are that whether there is an imperative reason of overriding public interest, that there is no satisfactory alternative, and whether the favourable conservation status of the species is maintained. It is the view of the Council’s Ecologist that, in the case of this important education facility, these tests can be met. There is significant public benefit in the improvements proposed to Wolsingham School and having regards to wider issues, including the efficient operation of the school that there is no satisfactory alternative to erecting an extension to the existing school building. It is particularly unlikely that an extension of acceptable function and design could be erected which would enable the bat roost to retained. Given that it would appear that the roost relates to only a single pipistrelle bat, it is considered that the loss of this of this roost and the provision of mitigation within the proposed extension would result in a situation that would maintain the favourable conservation status of the species. Subject therefore to conditions requiring the applicant to gain a Natural England Licence and to provide mitigation, the application is considered to accord with Part 11 of the NPPF in this regard.

77. No priority protected habitats would be lost or adversely affected by the proposed development, the nearest protected site being 137 m to the south at Wolsingham River gravels. There is the possibility of nesting birds being affected by the proposed demolitions, and these should ideally be carried out outside the nesting season between August and the end of February. Should this not be possible a search for nests must be carried out by a suitably qualified person and suitable avoidance action formulated.This would be a planning condition. The objectives of Part 11 of the NPPF are therefore considered to have been met.

78. Tree impact is considerable to be acceptable, with important trees maintained, particularly those planted as a form of memorial and new planting taking place. However, additional information is required prior to implementation, and this can be dealt with by planning condition.

79. Accordingly the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan and Part 11 of the NPPF are considered to have been met.

Page 170 Access and Highway Safety

80. Based upon pupil and staff levels remaining as before, no additional traffic generation issues are raised by the Highway Authority, although an updated Travel Plan has been requested by the Council’s Travel Planning Team and can secured by planning condition. The increased use of the school’s lower site and revised pedestrian access arrangements have been deemed to necessitate additional safeguards in the form of a pedestrian barrier and waiting restriction, and again these can be addressed by planning condition. Furthermore, the consolidation of classroom teaching accommodation onto the Lower School site should result in fewer pupil crossings of the Leazes Lane when moving between Upper and Lower School sites, an improvement on the existing situation. Accordingly the objectives of Local Plan Policies GD1 and T1 and Part 4 of the NPPF are considered to have been met.

81. The concerns raised by local residents regarding highway safety are noted, but are not considered to be significant and certainly no worse than the existing arrangement. The operation of any school across a split site is not an ideal situation, however these proposals are considered to not represent a situation which would result in significant impact upon highway safety.

Sustainability

82. Sustainable development is a key consideration of the NPPF, although no explicit standards are set out. Indeed, the only standards contained within planning policy are those within the emerging County Durham Plan, which require developments to address the energy hierarchy and at the present time these can be affordable little weight. Nevertheless, the applicant has indicated that the development will include the appropriate use of glazing to maximise daylong, passive solar control, enhance U-values in order to minimise heat loss, high thermal performance, air tight construction and natural ventilation. Furthermore, a number of in use efficiency technologies are proposed, including low energy lighting, energy efficient boilers. Solar PV panels are also proposed.

83. The Council’s Sustainability Officer has raised concerns that these measures are not sufficient and only meet Part L of the Building Regulations 2010, that Buildings Regulations 2013 should be the standard used and that the development includes no consequential improvements to the existing building.

84. Whilst it would be beneficial to secure consequential improvements to the existing building, there is no planning policy basis for doing so, nor in planning terms is there any requirement to meet a particular standard with regards to Building Regulations. Therefore, in the consideration of this proposal, such standards are only aspirational.

85. The issue of whether or not the proposed development accords with the appropriate version of the Building Regulations and whether or not consequential improvements to the existing building should be sought is therefore a matter to be considered through the Building Control process. If, in the future, it is considered that external alterations to the existing building, or amendments to the proposed extension are required in accord to accommodate Building Regulations requirements, these can be considered through the submission of separate applications, if required. Accordingly, it is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily considered the issue of sustainability in this instance.

Page 171 Other Matters

86. The advice from the Contamination Land Officer is noted and a condition attached requiring that a validation report is submitted to confirm that the required remedial work set out in the submitted geo-environmental report has been successfully undertaken. Again, this would ensure that the site is safe for the approved development, as required by paragraphs 120 and 121 of the NPPF.

87. The would be no flooding or drainage implications as set out within the submitted flood risk assessment. The site is located in flood zone 1 and there would be no increase in foul or surface water from the proposed development. Existing foul and surface water connections would be retained which are considered appropriate by Northumbrian Water.

88. The Archaeology Section has raised no particular concerns with the regards to this proposal, although it is acknowledge that there is the potential for pockets of previoulsy unknown archaeological deposits to exist. Consequently a condition is suggested in order to address the handling of such deposits, if indeed any are found.

89. Due consideration has been given to the location of the new substation within the eastern boundary of the proposed car park and its exact location, in response to concerns raised by a local resident, however, this can only be varied slightly due to logistical constraints. It is considered doubtful that a slightly amended position would offer much, if any, advantage to the concerned resident and in any event, it is considered that there would not be an unreasonable impact on residential amenity as a result of its currently proposed position.

90. Representations have been received regarding the impact upon property values, however, this is not a material planning consideration to which weight can be afforded.

CONCLUSION

91. The proposed development represents a significant investment in an existing school to the benefit of the education of its 900 pupils. The scheme would bring the majority of its accomodation onto a single site while retaining the original grammar school building which makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

92. Although the sports hall and bus stop/car park will remain on the upper site, necessitating pupils to transfer between the two sites for sport activities, this is considered to be a reasonable compromise given the wider benefits of the proposed development, while making best use of the existing infrastructure and ensuring continued community access to sports facilities.

93. The contemporary design is challenging and wouild impact on both the original grammar school and the conservation area. However, any harm is considered to be less than substantial, and would be outweighed by the educational benefits of the overall development.

94. In terms of highway safety, access, parking and traffic generation the development is considered to be acceptible. Subject to the acquisition of a bat licence, no material harm to matters of ecological interest are considered likely. The required derogation test has been applied. No issues have been raised regarding increased flood risk or sewerage disposal.

Page 172

95. Sustainability issues that have been raised are fully acknowledged and must be balanced against the wider benefits of the scheme. Furthermore, with little planning policy basis, this is considered to be a matter that can primarily be addressed through Building Regulations.

96. Concerns raised by local residents have been fully assessed, however, it is considered that such concerns would not outweigh the broader benefits of the proposed development.

97. The development is accordingly, and on balance, considered to be sustainable and compliant with relevant Local Plan policies and the objectives of the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications:

Plans:

Location Plan AL (9) 10 Rev A Open Space Assessment 1003_WOL_02 Rev C Level 1 Demolition plan AL (D) 100 Rev A Level 1 Proposed Floor Plan AL (0) 100 Rev D Level 2 Proposed Floor Plan AL (0) 200 Rev C Level 3 Proposed Floor Plans AL (0) 300 Rev C Proposed Roof Plan AL (0) 400 Rev C Landscape Masterplan 1003_WOL_01 Rev B Proposed Long Sections AL (0) 51 Rev A Proposed Short Sections AL (0) 52 Rev A

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies GD1, BE1, BE5, and BE6 of the Wear Valley District Council Local Plan and Parts 7 and 12 of the NPPF.

3. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application samples of the external walling and roofing materials should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the relevant phase of the development to which the material relates. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with the objectives of Policies GD1, BE1, BE5, and BE6 of the Wear Valley District Council Local Plan and Parts 7 and 12 of the NPPF

Page 173 4. A Construction and Demolition Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and implemented as approved throughout the whole of the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

5. All planting, seeding or turfing and habitat creation in the approved details of the landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first available planting season following the practical completion of each phase. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the removal/felling is shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. Any approved replacement tree or hedge planting shall be carried out within 12 months of felling and removals of existing trees and hedges. Any trees or plants which die, fail to flourish or are removed within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Replacements will be subject to the same conditions.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

6. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until all trees and hedges to be retained are protected by the erection of fencing, comprising a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, well braced to resist impacts, and supporting temporary welded mesh fencing panels or similar approved in accordance with BS.5837:2005. No operations whatsoever, no alterations of ground levels, and no storage of any materials are to take place inside the fences, and no work is to be done such as to affect any tree. No removal of limbs of trees or other tree work shall be carried out. No underground services trenches or service runs shall be laid out in root protection areas, as defined on the Tree Constraints Plan.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

7. No operations and deliveries associated with the construction phase of the development hereby approved shall be carried out outside the hours of:

Monday to Friday – 08:00 – 18:00 hours Saturdays – 08:.00 – 12:00 hours Sundays – None Public and Bank Holidays – None

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley district Local Plan.

8. No development shall take place until details of the proposed A689 footway treatment and pedestrian guardrail have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented prior to the extended school being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the objectives of Policy T1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

Page 174 9. No development shall take place until details of a scheme of waiting restrictions adjacent to the lower school have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented prior to the extended school being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the objectives of Policy T1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

10. All parking spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be installed and available for use prior to the extended school being brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with the objectives of Policy T1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

11. The best practicable means shall be used to prevent noise/dust nuisance or disturbance to local residents resulting from any site activities, including all demolition works, building works and deliveries. The contractor shall have regard to the relevant parts of the current edition of BS 5228 “Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites” during the planning and implementation of site activities and operations. The local planning authority expects that the best practical means available in accordance with the current edition of BS 5228 Parts 1 to 4 shall be employed at all times to minimise the emission of noise from the site.

If the burning of combustible material on site takes place, the best practicable means shall be used to minimise the volume of materials burnt and to prevent nuisance and disturbance caused by the emissions of smoke from the site. The burning of materials likely to cause the emission of dark or black smoke e.g. rubber, oil etc. shall be prohibited at all times. Note: burning should not normally occur unless it is not practicable to remove the materials from the site for disposal.

Reason: in accordance with the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

12. All plant, vehicles, equipment and machinery used in connection with any site activities shall be properly operated, used and maintained so as to control and minimise the propagation and emission of dust suppression e.g. screens, water sprays, enclosures etc.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with the objectives of policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

13. No construction/demolition activities, including the use of plant, equipment and deliveries, which are likely to give rise to disturbance to local residents shall take place before 0800 hours and continue after 1800 hours Monday to Friday, or commence before 0800 hours and continue after 1300 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on a Sunday or Bank Holiday. The contractor shall have regard to the relevant parts of the current edition of BS 5228 “Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites” during the planning and implementation of site activities and operations.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with the objectives of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

14. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme to deal with contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following, unless the Local Planning Page 175 Authority is satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed use and dispenses of any such requirements, in writing:

A Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment (Desk Top Study) shall be carried out by competent person(s), to identify and evaluate all potential sources and impacts on land and/or groundwater contamination relevant to the site.

(a) If the Phase 1 identifies the potential for contamination, a Phase 2 Site Investigation and Risk Assessment is required and shall be carried out by competent person(s) to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications.

(b) If the Phase 2 identifies any unacceptable risks, remediation is required and a Phase 3 Remediation Strategy detailing the proposed remediation and verification works shall be carried out by competent person(s). No alterations to the remediation proposals shall be carried out without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority. If during the remediation or development works any contamination is identified that has not been considered in the Phase 3, then remediation proposals for this material shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the development completed in accordance with any amended specification of works.

(c) Upon completion of the remedial works (if required), a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Phase 3 Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development.

Reason : To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with NPPF Part 11.

15. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a mitigation strategy document that has been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the following:

(a) Measures to ensure the preservation in situ, or the preservation by record, of archaeological features of identified importance.

(b) Methodologies for the recording and recovery of archaeological remains including artefacts and ecofacts.

(c) Post fieldwork methodologies for assessment and analyses.

(d) Report content and arrangements for dissemination, and publication proposals.

(e) Archive preparation and deposition with recognised repositories.

(f) A timetable of works in relation to the proposed development, including sufficient notification and allowance of time to ensure that the site work is undertaken and completed in accordance with the strategy. Page 176

(g) Monitoring arrangements, including the notification in writing to the County Durham Principal Archaeologist of the commencement of archaeological works and the opportunity to monitor such works.

(h) A list of all staff involved in the implementation of the strategy, including subcontractors and specialists, their responsibilities and qualifications.

The development shall then be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy BE1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan and paragraphs 135 and 141 of the NPPF.

16. Prior to the hereby approved development being beneficially occupied, a copy of any analysis, reporting, publication or archiving required as part of the mitigation strategy shall be deposited at the County Durham Historic Environment Record. This may include full analysis and final publication.

Reason: To comply with paragraph 141 of the NPPF to ensure that the developer records and advances understanding of the significance of the heritage asset to be lost, wholly or in part, in a manner proportionate to its importance and the impact, and to make this evidence, and any archive generated, publicly accessible.

17. Prior to their demolition, all buildings to be lost shall be fully recorded and the findings deposited with the local planning authority for inclusion in the Historic Environment Record.

Reason: In accordance with the objectives of BE1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan and Part 12 of the NPPF.

18. No development shall take place prior to a development licence application for the destruction of a bat roost being issued by Natural England.

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the objectives of Part 11 of the NPPF.

19. All demolition work shall take place between the end of August and end of February unless a search for nests within the buildings to be demolished has been carried out by a suitably qualified person and avoidance action formulated. The terms of that action shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the objectives of Part 11 of the NPPF.

20. Prior to the commencement of development, alternative suitable bat roost provision shall be installed on site and shall be retained throughout the duration of construction.

Reason: In order to ensure the continuity of bat roost provision in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the objectives of Part 11 of the NPPF.

Page 177 21. Prior to the commencement of development, details of a suitable alternate bat roost to be provided within the extension hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved bat roost shall thereafter be installed and made available for use prior to the beneficial occupation of the building.

Reason: In order to ensure the continuity of bat roost provision in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the objectives of Part 11 of the NPPF.

22. Prior to the hereby approved development being beneficially occupied a revised Travel Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter the terms of that agreement shall be fully complied with.

Reason: In the interests of highway traffic reduction, in accordance with the objectives of Policies GD1 and T1 of the Wear Valley District Council Local Plan and Part 4 of the NPPF.

23. No development shall commence until a detailed hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the landscape scheme, including any replacement tree and hedge planting, is approved. Any submitted scheme must be shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. The landscape scheme shall include accurate plan based details of the following:

Trees, hedges and shrubs scheduled for retention. Planting species, sizes, layout, densities, numbers. Details of planting procedures or specification. Finished topsoil levels and depths. Details of temporary topsoil and subsoil storage provision. Seeded or turf areas, habitat creation areas and details etc. Details of land and surface drainage. Details of all utility services installations and alignments. Post-construction remedial works The establishment maintenance regime, including watering, rabbit protection, tree stakes, guards etc.

The local planning authority shall be notified in advance of the start on site date and the completion date of all external works.

Trees, hedges and shrubs shall not be removed without agreement within five years.

Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

24. All planting, seeding or turfing and habitat creation in the approved details of the landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first available planting season following the practical completion of the development.

No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the removal/felling is shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats.

Any approved replacement tree or hedge planting shall be carried out within 12 months of felling and removals of existing trees and hedges.

Page 178 Any trees or plants which die, fail to flourish or are removed within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Replacements will be subject to the same conditions.

Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

25. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until a dimensioned tree protection plan showing the location of protective fencing has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local authority. None of the above mentioned works shall take place until all trees and hedges, indicated on the approved dimensioned tree protection plan as to be retained, are protected by the erection of fencing, placed as indicated on the plan, inspected by the local authority and agreed in writing as satisfactory. Fencing shall comprise of a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, well braced to resist impacts, and supporting temporary welded mesh fencing panels or similar approved in accordance with BS.5837:2012 unless otherwise agreed by written consent of the local planning authority

No operations whatsoever, no alterations of ground levels, and no storage of any materials are to take place inside the fences, and no work is to be done such as to affect any tree, without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority.

A schedule of works to retained trees and hedges, a detailed arboricultural method statement, and where required, a tree monitoring schedule shall be submitted. No removal of limbs of trees or other tree and hedge work shall be carried out unless approval has been granted by the local planning authority.

No underground services trenches or service runs shall be laid out in root protection areas, as defined on the Tree Constraints Plan, without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Any methods of installation must be considered following guidance in BS 5837:2012 'Trees in Relation to Construction' and carried out in accordance with the National Joint Utilities Group ('Guidelines for planning, installation and maintenance of utility services in proximity to trees).

Any construction within the Root Protection Area (RPA) must be the subject of a site specific arboricultural method statement (AMS) submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method Statement must include, but is not confined to, site levels before and after construction, product details and specifications, a plan of works and porous surface details for any construction within the RPA.

Reason: In accordance with the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Wear Valley District Local Plan.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF.

Page 179 (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant • The National Planning Policy Framework • National Planning Practice Guidance Notes • Wear Valley District Local Plan 1997 • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Page 180

DM/14/00920/FPA Proposed extension to the Wolsingham lower school building, part demolition of existing classroom block to the rear and associated landscaping at Wolsingham Planning Services School And Community College Leazes Lane Wolsingham Durham This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014 Scale Not to scale

Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 182 Agenda Item 5d

+ Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00761/FPA

FULL APPLICATION Erection of school extension, associated external DESCRIPTION : works, and demolition of demountable classrooms.

NAME OF APPLICANT : Durham County Council

The Meadows School, ADDRESS : Whitworth Road, Spennymoor.

ELECTORAL DIVISION : Spennymoor.

Ann Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 261393 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site is the Meadows Special Education Needs School on Whitworth Road in Spennymoor. The school currently has 65 students aged between 11 and 18 year old pupils with emotional, social and behavioural difficulties. The school was formally a large isolated stone and slate two storey residential property known as Whitworth House, and later Whitworth House School. The main building fronts onto the main road with car parking and a turning area to the south and south west of the site. There are two accesses into the site, both taken off Whitworth Lane to the south. There is a fenced hard surfaced games area to the west of the site and a play area directly behind the main building. To the north western side of the main building there are a range of detached stone outbuildings associated with the property with two demountable classrooms to the western and northern side of the rear playground. There is a playing field and grassed scrubland to the east of the site, further playing fields and Whitworth Park Secondary School to the north east of the site. The site is enclosed by woodland to the north, south and west. A footpath runs adjacent the western boundary of the site into new

Page 183 residential development to the west. There is a private residential property located to the south east of the site.

2. The site and immediate surroundings are not subject to any ecological or landscape designations. The school building however, is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset given that it is a ‘notable stone built Victorian Villa’. The building is shown on the 1898 OS map and retains key architectural features and historical interest.

The Proposal

3. Planning permission is sought to reconfigure and re-model the existing building and construct an extension to the rear which would provide a sports hall and gym with changing rooms, store rooms and enterprise zone for the provision of arts, music and technology. This would add approximately 694 sq.m. of space to the school. The proposed extension would replace two demountable classrooms and a modern outbuilding which are presently situated to the rear of the school.

4. The new extension would plug into the north western corner of the existing building and its stone outbuildings to the west via a glazed link. The proposed extension would bring the outbuildings into the main school. It would extend out to the rear of the building and be single storey extending to double storey at the end. It would extend away telescopically from the building, in three parts, which would get wider as the building extends away. The whole extension would be approximately 46.2m in length, with the three parts being approximately 8m, 13m and 18m in width respectively and rising up from approximately 4.1m to 8.4m in height. The proposed extension has been reduced in height by 2m and length by 3.5m during the application process.

5. The proposed extension is of a contemporary, modern design. The main body of the extension would be constructed of brick and block work of which the colour would be graduated from dark to light towards the existing building. There would be long vertical windows to the eastern and western side, extending along the building and steel doors. The rear northern elevation would be constructed from standing seam metal cladding.

6. Access would be taken internally and from the western side adjacent the MUGA and from the northern side. To the rear of the extension the playground would be extended out and football pitch markings would be introduced to the hard standing which would be fenced to the western side. The existing bin store and plant store would be enclosed by fencing.

7. Visitor and staff parking would be kept to the front of the building as is the existing situation and 18 spaces for drop off and collection would be marked out on the rear playground. Students would enter from the rear of the building as existing. The existing MUGA to the west would be retained and fenced. Staff and visitors would enter through a new entrance plaza to the front entrance.

Page 184 8. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee as it represents a major County Council school development.

PLANNING HISTORY

Planning permission has been granted for a number of developments at the school since 1998. These being: two demountable classrooms (1998); construction of a synthetic sports area (2000); an extension to the existing classroom (2003); the widening of the access road to provide extra parking (2005); a single storey extension to the dining room (2006); demolition of outbuildings and construction of new music and expressive arts block and minibus parking area (2008), and fencing (2011).

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY 9. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant.The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:

10. Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

11. Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

Page 185 12. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities and planning policies and decisions should achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments. This includes the development and modernisation of facilities and services.

13. NPPF Part 10 – Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change . Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy.

14. Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment . The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.

15. NPPF Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. In determining applications LPAs should take account of; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, the positive contribution conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities and economic viability, and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)

16. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (1996) (SLP)

17. Policy D1 – General Principle for the Layout and Design of New Developments . Sets out the principles to be applied to the layout and design of new developments. This includes, amongst other things; a comprehensive approach that takes account of the sites natural and built features and its relationship to adjacent land uses and activities, satisfactory landscaping and boundary treatment, satisfactory and safe provision for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, cars and other vehicles; accommodating the needs of users of the development and attention to design.

Page 186 18. Policy D3 – Design for Access . Developments should make satisfactory provision for pedestrian’s cyclists, public transport and other vehicles.

19. Policy E15 – Safeguarding of Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows. The Council will expect proposals affecting trees to retain important groups of trees and hedgerows wherever possible and replace trees that are lost.

20. Policy L11– New or Improved Leisure/Community Buildings. Improvements to community buildings are encouraged provided that they do not harm the living conditions of nearby residents, are appropriate in location to the scale and character of the area and make provision for parking and access.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

21. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. There are no policies contained in the Submission Draft which are considered relevant to the determination of the application.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications can be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (Sedgefield Borough Local Plan) http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

22. Highway Authority – Officers advise that there would be an improved drop off facility with 18 car parking spaces to the rear of the school building. They consider that in view of the vulnerable status of the students they would not object to such a facility. The access and on-site car parking arrangements are acceptable. There would be no additional enclosures in the vicinity of Whitworth Lane and hence the junction visibility associated with the existing egress point would not be affected. The proposals are acceptable from a highways point of view.

23. Environment Agency – No comments are made as the application has been assessed as having low environmental risk.

24. Northumbrian Water – Has advised that they do not wish to comment as there would be no increase in foul or surface water from the proposed development.

25. Coal Authority (CA) – Advises that the application site falls within a risk area and that within the site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered as the site has been subject to past

Page 187 coal mining activity. The CA advise that the submitted report concludes that based on the findings of the intrusive site investigations the site is considered to be stable from impacts of coal mining. However, it is recommended that once the demountable buildings have been removed a borehole should be drilled below each footprint to confirm ground conditions. The gas monitoring is still on-going and the findings of this monitoring would inform any required mitigation measures. The CA has no objections subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring that these additional site investigation works are undertaken and that in the event that remedial works are required, that these are undertaken.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

26. Design and Historic Environment – Officers originally advised that support could not be given to the scale and colour of materials proposed for the development as officers considered that the proposed extension would have had a detrimental impact on the non-designated heritage asset. However the proposed reduction in height and length of the extension is now welcomed and this would reduce the bulk of the building. The substitution of the proposed grey cladding with a buff type brick and dark render panels around the window openings is also a positive improvement to the scheme and would contrast better with the host building. Conditions would be required to agree the exact material selection for the brick and render and also to secure some positive design changes such as parapet capping and additional glazing. The perception of the size of the proposed extension also could be reduced by a graduation in colour of the materials.

27. Landscape – Officers advise that they are concerned regarding the loss of the surfaced playground space and netball court. They consider that trees should be protected by fencing during construction.

28. Environmental Health (noise) – Officers advise that conditions should be applied to control construction and demolition noise, burning waste on site, dust control measures through a construction management plan in the interests of residential amenity.

29. Environmental Health (Contamination) – Officers advise that they have assessed the submitted contamination reports and they consider that they adequately set out appropriate remediation proposals. They advise that after the remediation measures are implemented, a final validation statement shall be submitted in accordance with the remediation recommendations

30. Ecology – Officers advise that there are no protected habitats on the site, although there is a mature broadleaved woodland immediately adjacent. Officers advise that the development would not impact on the woodland and there would be no impact on protected or priority habitats. The bat survey found the roost of a single common pipistrelle bat in the apex of the northern gable of the existing school building. However the proposed development does not impact on this section of the existing school and is single storey so would not impede the flight line of any bat accessing the roost. Officers

Page 188 highlight that there is a great crested newt pond within 100m of the site. However there is considered to be a negligible risk of impacts on great crested newts due to the busy Whitworth Lane and the main school building being between the pond and the development site and acting as an effective barrier to newts. In conclusion officers consider that there are no ecological constraints to the development, although advise that any proposed new lighting scheme should not illuminate the bat roost.

31. Public Rights of Way – There are no rights of way affected by the proposals.

32. Archaeology – Officers advise that there are no archaeological issues associated with the proposal.

33. Drainage Officer – Officers advise that the proposed discharge rate appears high and not in accordance with the Councils Surface Water Management Plan. The re-development should take the opportunity to manage surface water run-off with sustainability in mind. The flow from the development should be restricted to at least brownfield runoff for those areas already connected to the drainage infrastructure and greenfield for any other. Officers advise that discharging unrestricted flow to a public sewer is unacceptable and the design should take the sustainable drainage hierarchy into account.

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

34. The application has been advertised in the press and by site notices, and letters sent to those living closest. One letter of representation has been received from a local resident who would be concerned if there are to be additional pupils at the school.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

35. The proposed extension brings much needs investment to the school and provides new facilities which the school doesn’t currently have. The sports hall, gym and changing spaces will allow the school to deliver a full curriculum on site. The new building would also replace the two demountable classroom blocks which would be demolished. The music, art, catering and design facilities would then be re-provided within the new building. This long awaited investment would provide a range of modern accommodation that is fit for purpose and will support the teaching and learning at the school in general. The design has been developed with the full involvement and support from the school. The new build extension would enable to the school to fulfil their ambitions to provide appropriate facilities for the students and staff. The scheme would also expand the school’s ability to offer resources to the wider community providing facilities into which they can invite community to use. The proposal would provide significant benefits to the school community and offer the opportunity for the school to engage with the wider community.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://spatial.durham.gov.uk/dcs/DetailMain.asp?appid=2877&AppRef=CMA%2F1%2F93&Category= All&Status=All&Appeal=All&District=All&Month=All&Year=All

Page 189 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

36. Having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development, impact upon residential amenity, access and highway safety, design and impact on the heritage assett, impact on ecology and trees, flooding and drainage and other issues.

Principle of Development

37. The application site is not allocated for any particular use within the SLP and the Meadows School exists presently on the site. The use of the site as a school has been long established. The surrounding area is of mixed use in character comprising an adjacent school, residential properties and open countryside. The site would utilise previously developed land in a sustainable, accessible location within Spennymoor. The proposal is an appropriate use in the area that it would be situated.

38. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF attaches great weight to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meets the needs of new and existing communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education. They should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools.

39. Given the weight to be attached to the need to provide, expand or alter schools, it is considered that given the need for the school extension and problems and issues associated with the existing demountable school buildings, the provision of a new extension and the resultant expansion would accord with the aspirations set out within paragraph 72 of the NPPF. The school lacks suitable indoor sports facilities, has inadequate specialist teaching areas and relies on a number of demountable classroom blocks that are in a poor state of repair.

40. The provision of much improved educational facilities for the students on land that is currently in use for educational and community based purposes, firmly aligns with the core principles of the NPPF.

Impact on Residential Amenity

41. There is a residential property directly adjoining the southwest side of the site in private use (Whitworth House Bungalow) and a new residential estate located to the west of the site (Burton Woods). Given the siting and reduced height of the proposed extension and given that it is replaceing existing buildings it is considered that the proposals would result in no additional significant impact on local residents over that which presently exists. The nearest residential property (Whitworth House Bungalow) is sited at a

Page 190 distance of approximately 51m from the smallest part of the extension, which is approximately 4m in height and 80m from the largest part which is approximately 8m in height. The extension is sitauted behind the main buidling and would be viewed in context of the existing outbuildings and main school.

42. Given that there would no additional pupils or staff resulting from the proposed extension, it is considered that there would be no further impact in terms of vehicular and pedestrian comings and goings. There would be a lighting scheme asscoiated with the outdoor areas of the school which is neccassary to fulfill health and safety requirments. However there are no proposals to floodlight the existing retained MUGA.

43. It is acknowleged that the proposals include demolition and construction works which would no doubt cause a degree of noise and disturbance. However, this would only be temporary through the demolition and construction process, lasting approximately a year, and can be minimised by a suitable construction and demolition plan which can be controlled by planning condition.

44. Overall it is considered that the details of the scheme comply with SLP Policy L11 in that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers would not be significantly affected.

Access and Highway Safety

45. There are no additional pupils or staff associated with the proposed extension therefore there would be no additional vehicular traffic impact given that there would be no additional students or teachers associated with the proposed development. The proposed internal waiting/drop of area for busses and taxis’s would ensure vehicles are brought into the site rather than park on surrounding residential streets or the main roads, allivetiateing congestion and safety risks. It is considered that this measure would benefit highway safety, amenity and congestion in accordance with Policies D1 and D3 of the SLP. This would also segregate pedestrians from the main staff and visitor car park.

46. The existing two accesses to the front of the site off Whitworth Lane would be retained. This is considered acceptable to the Highway Authority and in accordance with Policies D1 and D3 of the SLP. Satisfactory manoeuvring and turning provision is made within the site as required by Policy D3 of the DLP.

47. Car parking levels and locations are considered to be satisfactory, in line with Policiy D3 of the SLP. Staff and visitor parking would be retained to the south west of the site. Satisfactory access would be maintained for emergency vehicles as required by Policy D3 of the SLP.

Page 191 48. It is considered by the Highway Authority that the proposed development would comply with paragraph 32 of the NPPF which requires satisfactory access onto the adopted road network and safe vehicle entrance and exit. In line with paragraph 35 of the NPPF it is intended that a safe and secure layout which minimises conflict between traffic, cyclists and pedestrians would be secured.

Design and Impact on the Heritage Assett

49. The extension is a contemporary bold, simple geometric form articulated to reference the scale of the school building. The extension is situated to the rear of the school, in the position of the existing demountable classrooms. It is therefore considered that visibility from the road is minimal which is assited by the retained tree cover to the west and south of the site.

50. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF requires that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

51. It is considered that the the proposed extension is relatively large and would not neccassarily be subserviant to the scale and character of the existing building. However, the size is due to the aspiration for a two court sports hall to be able to be provided at the school, which lacks appropriate indoor sports provision. Furthermore the plans have been amended during the course of consideration of the application to reduce the height and length of the proposed extension from that originally submitted.

52. It is considered that the siting of the proposed extension, extending out from the rear of the building through a glazed link is an appropriate relationship with the host building. Its use of materials and graduation in size and width from the main school and also the intended graduation in brick colour and elongated windows surrounded by dark render panels, would enable it to sit comfortably and sympatheticallly in the context of the host building having regard to its heritage status. The colour of the materials has also been amended during the consideration of the application to earth tones to reduce the bulk of the building and reference the stone building whilst maintaining a contemporary style. The intended 3 tone colour of the materials can be approved by condition as required by the Council’s Design Officer. It is considered that the proposed extension would not significantly harm the setting and significance of the setting having regard Paragraph 135 of the NPPF.

53. The straight forward organsation of the site allows for separate routes ino the buidling to distinguish between staff, visitors and students. The intended routes into the building and around the site would keep the inetraction of pedestrian and vehicular movement to a minimum.

Page 192 54. It is considered that the standard of design, layout and use of materials is compliant with the requirements set out in Policies D1 and L11 of the SLP as well as having regard to the aspirations set out in Parts 7 and 12 of the NPPF.

Ecology and Trees

55. Protected species and Habitats Surveys have been carried out, including a Phase 1 Habitat Assessment, a Great Crested Newt Risk Assessment and a Bat Survey, The Phase 1 Survey showed that there are no protected habitats on the site but there is some mature broadleaved woodland immediately adjacent. However the development would not impact on the woodland and would be confined to hard standing and amenity grassland. There would therefore be no impact on protected or priority habitats. There is a recorded great crested newt pond within 100m of the site, however, the risk assessment showed a negligible risk of impacts on great crested newts due to the busy Whitworth Road and the main school building being between the pond and the development site and acting as an effective barrier to newts accessing the development. The bat survey found the roost of a single common pipistrelle bat in the apex of the northern gable of the existing school building, however the proposed development does not impact on this section of the existing school and is single storey so would not impede the flight line of any bat accessing the roost.

56. It is considered that there are no ecological constraints to the proposed development, subject to any new lighting scheme avoiding illumination of the bat roost. This would be ensured by the imposition of a planning condition requiring approval of any lighting scheme. As such it is considered that the development would meet the requirements set out in Part 11 of the NPPF.

57. The site benefits from extensive mature tree cover to its boundaries. There would be no loss of trees to accommodate the proposed extension, although in the interests of good tree management is is proposed to remove a number of trees from around the periphery of site. None of those scheduled for removal are considered of such individual value that they should be retained.

58. Retained trees would be protected by barriers, in accordance with the required British Standard during the construction period as required by the Landscape team. It is considered the proposals would conform to the requirements of SLP Policy E15.

Flooding and Drainage

59. The site is located in flood zone 1 whereby the proposed developemnt would be an appropriate use and the site is not at risk of flooding. It is proposed to drain foul water via a new connection to the existing public combined sewer. Surface water would be drained via a new connection to the existing public surface water sewer. Northumbian Water consider that there would be no increase in foul water or surface water from the proposed development. However, the Councils Drainage Officer has expressed concerns that the proposed discharge rate appears high and that the re-development should

Page 193 take the opportunity to manage surface water run-off with sustainability in mind and thus the surface water flow should be restricted. This requirement is noted and in order for the development to comply with the Council’s Surface Water Drainage Plan it is advised that a condition should be attached requireing the approval of the surface water drainage scheme.

Other Matters

60. The consultation response of the Coal Authority is noted and the requested condition requiring additional site investigation works under the demountable structures is recommended. Remedial works to treat any areas of mine workings or mine entries to ensure the safety and stability would then be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development. This would ensure that the site is safe and stable for the approved development, as required by paragraphs 120 and 121 of the NPPF.

61. The advice from the Contamination Land Officer is noted. Any contaminated soils would be removed from the site. This would be overseen and validated by an environmental engineer. Any asbestos would be dealt with by covering all landscaped areas with a 150mm no dig layer of stones topped with 600mm of clean certified top soil. A condition would be attached requiring that a validation report is submitted to confirm that the required remedial work set out in the submitted geo-environmental report has been successfully undertaken. This would ensure that the site is safe for the approved development, as required by paragraphs 120 and 121 of the NPPF.

CONCLUSION

62. The site is located within Spennymoor, a sustainable location, on the site of the existing school. The proposal would effectively re-use a previously developed site. The proposal is considered to improve the provision of education facilities for the benefit of children within County Durham with Special Educational Needs.

63. The layout, siting, height, massing and proposed materials for the building as well as the siting of associated open space and infrastructure is considered acceptable, in terms of appropriately safeguarding the residential and visual amenity of nearby properties.

64. The development is considered to be an appropriate form of contemporary development which would not have a significant adverse impact on the overall quality of the area, having regard to the heritage status of the host building, its setting and significance, having regard to the significant educational benefits that the scheme would bring.

65. The development is considered acceptable in highway safety, access, parking and traffic terms.

Page 194 66. High value trees would be retained. Subject to approval of any lighting scheme, the development is not considered to detrimentally affect the general population of bat species or negatively affect any other protected species or wildlife and their habitats.

67. Impacts on the flood risk, drainage and risk to human health have been assessed and considered to be acceptable, subject to the imposition of conditions.

68. The proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan and the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications:

Plans: Landscape master plan. 100_MEA_01 Rev C. MAR/14 Level 01 Demolition. AL (D) 100. 31/03/2014 FB.SK.3060.LS.040614.005 playground 3d. 5 th June 2014 FB.SK.3060.LS.040614.003 plan. 5 th June 2004 FB.SK.3060.LS.040614.004 lobby 3d. 5 th June 2014 FB.SK.3060.LS.040614.001 elevations 1.5th June 2014 FB.SK.3060.LS.040614.002 elevations 2 5th June 2014

Documents:

Flood Risk Assessment. The Meadows School. 06.03.20.14. Phase I Geo- Environmental Assessment. 13762. 12/12/13. Phase II Geo-Environmental Assessment. 13762. 04.04.2014. Tree Report. Amr Geomatics.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies D1, D3, L11 and E15 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

3. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application samples of all external walling and roofing materials and colours should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the relevant phase of the development to which the

Page 195 material relates. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regards to Policy L11 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

4. A Construction and Demolition Management Plan should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and implemented as agreed throughout the whole of the demolition and construction period.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Policy L11 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

5. All planting, seeding or turfing and habitat creation in the approved details of the landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first available planting season following the practical completion of each phase. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the removal/felling is shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. Any approved replacement tree or hedge planting shall be carried out within 12 months of felling and removals of existing trees and hedges. Any trees or plants which die, fail to flourish or are removed within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Replacements will be subject to the same conditions.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies D1 and E15 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan

6. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until all trees and hedges to be retained are protected by the erection of fencing, comprising a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, well braced to resist impacts, and supporting temporary welded mesh fencing panels or similar approved in accordance with BS.5837:2005. No operations whatsoever, no alterations of ground levels, and no storage of any materials are to take place inside the fences, and no work is to be done such as to affect any tree. No removal of limbs of trees or other tree work shall be carried out. No underground services trenches or service runs shall be laid out in root protection areas, as defined on the Tree Constraints Plan.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies D1 and E15 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

7. Construction of the approved extension shall not be commenced on the site until intrusive site investigation works are undertaken underneath the demountable buildings in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal

Page 196 mining legacy issues in this location. In the event that site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat any areas of mine workings to ensure the safety and stability, these shall be undertook prior to the commencement of the construction of the extension.

Reason: To ensure that the application site is safe and stable for the approved development, as required by paragraph 121 of the NPPF.

8. Upon completion of the remedial works a Phase 4 Verification Report (Validation Report) confirming the objectives, methods, results and effectiveness of all remediation works detailed in the Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority within 2 months of completion of the development.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with NPPF Part 11.

9. No operations and deliveries associated with the construction phase of the development hereby approved shall be carried out outside the hours of: Monday to Friday – 08.00 – 1800hours Saturdays – 08.00 – 1200hours Sundays – None Public and Bank Holidays – None

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy L11 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

10. Details of any proposed temporary construction lighting should be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and implemented as agreed. Details of any permanent lighting scheme should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before it is implemented on site.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Policy L11 of the Sedgefield Borough Local Plan.

11. The construction of the approved extension shall not take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure adequate drainage of the site in accordance with Paragraphs 99-103 of the NPPF.

Page 197 12. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing a dark grey parapet capping along the edge of the extension and glazing to the lobby. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To meet the aspirations set out in Part 7 and 12 of the NPPF.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant • The National Planning Policy Framework • National Planning Practice Guidance Notes • Sedgefield Borough Local Plan (1996) • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Page 198

DM/14/00761/FPA Erection of school extension, associated external works and demolition of Planning Services demountable classroom. The Meadows School, Whitworth Road Spennymoor Co. Durham This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014 Scale Not to scale

Page 199

Page 200 Agenda Item 5e

+ Planning Services COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: DM/14/00762/FPA

Reuse of Greencroft Community School to provide a new school facility for Harelaw Special School. FULL APPLICATION Partial demolition of existing building, erection of roof DESCRIPTION : infill to existing courtyard area, external alterations and associated landscaping.

NAME OF APPLICANT : Durham County Council

North Durham Academy (West Campus), Blackett ADDRESS : School, Annfield Plain.

ELECTORAL DIVISION : Annfield Plain.

Ann Rawlinson, Senior Planning Officer CASE OFFICER : 03000 261393 [email protected]

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site

1. The application site is the former Greencroft Secondary School site to the western side of Annfield Plain, Stanley, located between Blackett Street (to the west) and Derwent Terrace (to the south) in a mainly residential area. The school is currently vacant and has not been in use since pupils were moved to North Durham Academy in July 2013. Greencroft School was constructed during the 1970's and comprises a series of blocks ranging from single storey height to three storeys, which have been constructed in several phases. The existing buildings are in poor condition, are of little aesthetic merit and lack cohesion.

2. The site is surrounded by a pleasant green edge, incorporating hedges and mature trees with an expanse of playing fields to the east of the buildings and tennis courts and a playground to the north. The site is secured by various

Page 201 forms of galvanised fencing. The site is not within or adjacent to any landscape or ecological designation nor there any public rights of way or heritage assets within the vicinity of the site.

The Proposal

3. The application seeks approval to use the existing secondary school as Harelaw Special Education Needs School for 135 pupils, to provide classrooms for key stage 1 pupils through to post 16 as well as specialist teaching spaces for the provision of art and design, technology, catering, sports and play areas. Harelaw is a SEN school currently catering for children from aged 5 to 19 with Moderate Learning Difficulties, Severe Learning Difficulties and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).

4. It is proposed to demolish the existing multi-storey aspect of the school to the western side, which is approximately half of the existing school, and re-model and re-furbish the remaining building (both internally and externally). This would leave a split-level single storey building that cascades across the site towards fields to the east. This would reduce the school to a size which is appropriate for its proposed new purpose (2500 sq.m of space in the main building and 850 sq.m. in the sports hall).

5. The main entrance would be re-sited to the southern elevation and a new glass façade incorporated. Access would also be taken into the building from the western side. New render, doors and windows, metal cladding as well as timber screens are proposed. A new roof would also be incorporated over an area that is presently open courtyard. The existing chimney would be demolished. The existing sports hall, a separate double storey building to the north of the block, would be retained and updated for dining and sports use. This, as well as the MUGA’s, would also be available for community use, outside of school hours. In term time this would be for use between 4pm and 9pm, Saturday between 9am and 3pm and Sunday between 9am and 6pm. In the school holidays this would be on a Monday to Friday between 9am and 9pm, Saturday between 9am and 3pm and Sunday between 9am and 6pm. There would be provision of 9 parking spaces specifically available for users.

6. There would be two access points from Blackett Street to the west of the site. The northern access from Blackett Street would be for kitchen deliveries and community access to the sports hall only. The southern access from Blackett Street would only be used for morning drop off and afternoon pick up with the majority of students arriving in mini-buses and taxis. The access point would extend round from the eastern side of the site to the main building frontage, to the southern side, with areas of car parking off the route at various points. The access from West Road would be the main operational access and exit from the site for staff and visitors. Pedestrian access points would also be provided from both roads.

7. Provision is made for 33 staff parking spaces and six visitor/taxi drop off spaces to the south and west of the site. A mini bus drop of area and waiting area is also proposed adjacent to the main access route. A covered cycle rack

Page 202 for the provision of 10 bikes would be provided adjacent the main entrance. The existing MUGA and hard surfaced games court to the north of the site would be retained. The grassed playing pitches to the eastern side of the site would be retained and also made available for community use.

8. A comprehensive landscaping scheme would be incorporated comprising elements such as an outdoor classroom, kitchen garden, orchard, habitat area and memorial garden. New tree and shrub planting, picnic tables, benches, planters, canopy’s, tarmac and grassed areas would also be incorporated. Lighting would be provided in the car parks, on the access road and around the building.

9. The application is reported to the County Planning Committee as it represents a major County Council school development.

PLANNING HISTORY

10. Planning permission was granted in 1999 for temporary demountable classrooms.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

11. The Government has consolidated all planning policy statements, guidance notes and many circulars into a single policy statement, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The overriding message is that new development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay. It defines the role of planning in achieving sustainable development under three topic headings – economic, social and environmental, each mutually dependant. The presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF requires local planning authorities to approach development management decisions positively, utilising twelve ‘core planning principles’.

12. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the weight to be attached to relevant saved local plan policy will depend upon the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the consistency, the greater the weight. The relevance of this issue is discussed, where appropriate, in the assessment section of the report. The following elements of the NPPF are considered relevant to this proposal:

13. Part 4 – Promoting Sustainable Transport. Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Smarter use of technologies can reduce the need to travel. The transport system should be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion.

Page 203 14. Part 7 – Requiring Good Design . The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment, with good design a key aspect of sustainable development, indivisible from good planning. Planning policies and decisions must aim to ensure developments; function well and add to the overall quality of an area over the lifetime of the development, establish a strong sense of place, create and sustain an appropriate mix of uses, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive.

15. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities. Recognises the part the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities and planning policies and decisions should achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments. This includes the development and modernisation of facilities and services.

16. Part 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment . The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains where possible. Preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated/unstable land.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf (NPPF)

17. The Government has consolidated a number of planning practice guidance notes, circulars and other guidance documents into a single Planning Practice Guidance Suite. This document provides planning guidance on a wide range of matters.

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/

LOCAL PLAN POLICY :

Derwentside District Local Plan (1997) (DLP)

18. Policy GDP1 – General Development Principles. Aims to ensure that all developments incorporate a high standard of design are energy efficient, protect landscape, natural and historic features, protect and manage ecology, protect valuable open land, provide adequate landscaping, incorporate crime prevention measures and improve personal safety, protect amenity and provide adequate drainage.

19. Policy TR2 – Development and Highways Safety. Requires developments to make satisfactory and safe provision for access to the site, road and public transport network and parking provision in compliance with car parking standards.

Page 204

20. Policy TR3 – Cycling. When considering proposals for new developments, the Council will ensure that the needs of cyclists are taken into account.

21. Policy EN11 – Trees and Development . States that throughout the area existing trees should be retained where possible.

22. Policy EN24 – Proposals for the Reclamation and Re-use of Derelict Si tes. Proposals should deal comprehensively with the environmental needs of the site and associated proposals for the sites after use.

23. Policy EN27 – Development on or close to Landfill and Contaminated Sites. Permission will be granted within 250m of mine workings, or on / adjacent to contaminated sites if investigation takes place to detect/monitor the presence and effects of gases, leachates, corrosive materials, groundwater areas of permeable sub strata and subsidence; and remediation to resolve known / potential problems to make the site, development and surrounding area safe and stable is undertaken.

RELEVANT EMERGING POLICY :

24. The emerging County Durham Plan was submitted in April 2014 ahead of Examination in Public. In accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: the stage of the emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; and, the degree of consistency of the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the NPPF. There are no policies contained in the Submission Draft which are considered relevant to the determination of the application.

The above represents a summary of those policies considered relevant. The full text, criteria, and justifications can be accessed at: http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494 (Derwentside District Local Plan) http://www.durham.gov.uk/pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=856 (County Durham Plan)

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES :

25. Highway Authority – Officers are satisfied that the submitted layout is acceptable. They advise that the applicant may wish to advise drivers of the point where the two-way road through the car park meets the one-way road for buses. However this is an internal matter which will have no direct impact on the highway and it may be that such signs are only provided if any problems occur.

26. Northumbrian Water – Advises that they have no comments to make as there will be no increase in impermeable area.

Page 205 27. Environment Agency (EA) – Has no objections to the proposed development given that the surface water drainage from the site would be directed to private drains which ultimately discharge into Northumbrian Water sewers . The EA advises that the sewerage and sewage disposal systems serving the development should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows. It is also stated that there could be great crested newts in the area.

28. Coal Authority (CA) – Advises that the application site falls within a high risk area and that within the site and surrounding area, there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered as the site has been subject to past coal mining activity. The CA advise that intrusive investigation works prior to development in order to establish the situation regarding ground conditions and to enable remedial measures to be identified, if necessary. This should give due regard to the potential for mine gas. The CA has no objections subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring site investigation works and that in the event that remedial works are required, that these are undertaken prior to development.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES :

29. Design and Historic Environment – Advise that the reuse of the existing school would represent a significant improvement in terms of facilities for this institution and is a very positive step in terms of bringing the site back into use. The aesthetics and appearance of the Greencroft buildings and wider site would also be improved as a result.

30. Landscape – Officers advise that they have no objections to the scheme and that the proposed replacement tree planting next to the access road would compensate for the loss of existing trees over time.

31. Ecology – Officers advise that no priority or protected habitats would be lost as a result of the proposed development and that no priority or protected species would be impacted on by the proposed development with the exception of a possible impact upon nesting birds. Therefore to mitigate against this officers advise that demolition works and felling of trees should be timed outside of the bird nesting season and carried out between the end of August and the end of February. If this is not possible then a search for nests should be carried out by a suitably qualified person before any demolition work commences and suitable avoidance action formulated.

32. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection (Contamination) – Having assessed the available information and historical maps with respect to land contamination officers have no adverse comments to make and consider that there is no requirement for a contaminated land condition.

33. Environment, Health & Consumer Protection – Advise that they are satisfied that the submitted lighting scheme would not have an unacceptable environmental impact.

34. Public Rights of Way – There are no rights of way affected by the proposals.

Page 206

PUBLIC RESPONSES :

35. The application has been advertised in the press and by site notices, and letters sent to those living closest. Two letters of representation have been received from local residents. Although the residents do not object to the school plans as they consider that they look great, they are concerned regarding any increase in traffic, access to their property, noise and pollution. It is recommended that better traffic calming measures are introduced for access and egress as there has been one fatality in recent years in the immediate vicinity.

APPLICANTS STATEMENT :

36. The proposed remodelling brings much needs investment to the school and provides new facilities. The School will also benefit from access to the existing 4 court sports hall and MUGA’s. The existing Greencroft building is currently vacant and in need of renovation. This long awaited investment and relocation will provide a range of modern accommodation that is fit for purpose and will support the teaching and learning at the School in general. The designs have been developed with the full involvement and support from the school. The building remodelling will enable to the school to fulfil their ambitions to provide appropriate facilities for the students and staff.

37. The scheme will also expand the school’s ability to offer resources to the wider community providing facilities into which they can invite community to use. The four court hall and MUGA’s are of particular merit to this. The proposal will provide significant benefits to the school community and offer the opportunity for the school to engage with the wider community.

The above represents a summary of the comments received on this application. The full written text is available for inspection on the application file which can be viewed at http://spatial.durham.gov.uk/dcs/DetailMain.asp?appid=2877&AppRef=CMA%2F1%2F93&Category= All&Status=All&Appeal=All&District=All&Month=All&Year=All

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

38. Having regard to the requirements of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the relevant Development Plan policies, relevant guidance and all other material planning considerations, including representations received, it is considered that the main planning issues in this instance relate to the principle of the development, impact upon residential amenity, access and highway safety, design, appearance and layout, impact on ecology and trees and other matters.

Principle of Development

39. The application site is not allocated for any particular use within the DLP and Greencroft School exists presently on the site. The school is located within the built up area of Annfield plain. The use of the site as a school has been

Page 207 long established and thus the re-use of the schhol itself for educational purposes would not require the benefit of planning permission. The site is located in north Durham centrally within its catchment area. The school is being re-located from neighbouring Catchgate where the school currently operates at present. The surrounding area is of mixed used in character comprising of mainly residential properties. The site would utilise previously developed land in a sustainable, accessible location within Annfield Plain. The proposal is an appropriate use in the area that it would be situated.

40. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF attaches great weight to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meets the needs of new and existing communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement and to development that will widen choice in education. They should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools.

41. Given the weight to be attached to the need to provide, expand or alter schools and the fact that a school already exists on the site, the provision of the new Harelaw School within its catchment area and the resultant expansion would accord with the aspirations set out within paragraph 72 of the NPPF. The school is currently in undersized premises in Harelaw with no accommodation for delivering physical education curriculum on site and limited specialist teaching accommodation. The existing facilities are not appropriate for secondary school age needs and some pupils are taught in demountable accommodation isolated from the rest of the school.

42. The NPPF sets out guidance relating to promoting healthy communities. Paragraph 70 states that planning decisions should plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities and other local services to enhance sustainability of communities and residential environments. Decisions should also guard against the loss of valued facilities and services, and to ensure that facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable and retained for the benefit of the community.

43. The proposal by promoting healthy communities and improving the choice of school places, and by the provision of education and community facilities on land currently in use for educational and community based purposes, firmly align with the core principles of the NPPF.

Impact on Residential Amenity

44. Residential properties surround the site. The nearest residential properties are located to the west across the road on Blackett Street, to the north west on Hampton Close, to the north at Oakwood Court and Oakwood. To the south across the road is Derwent Terrace and to the east adjoining the playing field is Greenfield Terrace. Given the nature of the proposed changes, the proposals would result in no additional significant impact on local residents over that which would have existed when the school was previously in use.

Page 208 45. Indeed given that there would be fewer pupils and staff it is considered that the impact would be less in respect of vehicular (specifically school buses) and pedestrian comings and goings, particulary at lunch time. Pupils would travel to and from the school largely by car/taxi or mini bus and as a result there is likely to be some vehicular impact at the beginning and end of the school day. However, this is still considered to have no more impact than living adjacent to a secondary school as vehicles would enter into the site rather than congretate on the main road or surrounding residential streets.

46. It is recognised that the layout of the site may well bring vehicular activity closer to a number of residential properties on West Road and Blackett Street through cars and mini-buses accessing the site and parking within it. However it is considered no individual elements of the scheme, taking into account the existing situation, nature of the area and existing mixed land uses would result in any one individual property being significantly adversely affected by any particular element of the scheme.

47. The proposed enhancements to the elevations and landscaping works would result in a more visually pleasing outlook than the current school for local residents. There would be a lighting scheme associated with the outdoor areas of the school which is neccassary to fulfill health and safety requirements. The Council’s Environment, Health & Consumer Protection Team have advised that the implementation of this, as submitted, would not lead to an unacceptable environmental impact.

48. The proposals include the use of the school facilities by the community outside school hours, notably the outdoor sports provision, in the evenings, at the weekend and school holidays. This would be of benefit to the wider community. The control of the hours of the use of the facilities to social hours, would ensure that the use of these would not lead to a significant loss of amenity to local residents that would outweigh the benefits. Furthermore, the outside sports facilities to the north and east of the site would not be floodlit and the nearest residential properties from the outdoor sports facilities, located at Oakwood are set at a lower level, are not directly overlooking the sports areas and are screened by tree cover.

49. It is acknowleged that the proposals include significant demolition works which would no doubt have have a degree of noise and disturbance associated with it. However, these would be temporary and can be minimised by a suitable construction and demolition plan which can be controlled by planning condition.

50. Overall, it is considered that the scheme complies with DLP Policy GDP1 in that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and land owners would not be significantly affected.

Page 209 Access and Highway Safety

51. It is considered that the anticipated number of vehicle trips a day can be accommodated within the existing highway network. This is in line with paragraph 32 of the NPPF, which also states that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts on development are severe. It is considered that the amount of traffic generated would not be detrimental to highway safety as required by Policy TR2 of the DLP. It is considered that the reduction in the number of pupils and staff from when the site previously operated would mean that the impact of vehicluar movement around the site is no worse than before, and no traffic should require to use surrounding streets to park, drop-off or pick-up.

52. The existing accesses off Blackett Street and West Road would be retained. This is considered acceptable to the Highway Authority and in accordance with the requirements of Policy TR2 of the DLP. The proposed internal waiting/drop off area for buses and taxis would ensure vehicles are brought into the site rather than park on surrounding residential streets or the main roads, allieviating congestion and safety risks. It is considered that this measure would benefit highway safety, amenity and congestion in accordance with TR2 of the DLP. Satisfactory manoeuvring and turning provision is made within the site as required by Policy TR2 of the DLP, with a separate access and turning area proposed for deliveries.

53. Car and cycle parking levels and locations are considered to be satisfactory, in line with Policies TR2 and TR3 of the DLP. Satisfactory access would be maintained for emergency vehicles and segregation of pedestrian footpaths and vehicles would minimise conflict as required by PolicyTR2 of the DLP.

54. It is considered, having regard to the Highway Authorty’s views, that the proposed development would comply with paragraph 32 of the NPPF which requires satisfactory access onto the adopted road network and safe vehicle entrance and exit. In line with paragraph 35 of the NPPF it is intended that a safe and secure layout which minimises conflict between traffic, cyclists and pedestrians would be secured.

Design, Appearance and Layout

55. The siting of the building remains the same as the existing position. The built form would be halved in size and thus presents an appropriate scale. By demolishing the western portion of the existing building the school is pulled back from the building line from Blackett Street. The proposed through road where the building was situated, from the western side to the southern eastern side of the side, created within a landscaped setting would present a positive and attractive arrangement. The straightforward organisation of the site allows for separate routes into the building to distinguish between staff, visitors and students. The intended routes into the building and around the site keeps the interaction of pedestrian and vehicular movement to a minimum.

Page 210 56. The building itself would be fronted by an entrance plaza flanked with breakout space which softens the building, as does its extensive landscaped setting incorporating a whole range of different types greenspace. The retained building encompasses a plethora of existing materials, junctions between the range of buildings and conditions. The proposed design would tie the buildings together with a continuous language of white render, profile metal cladding and timber panelling. This would enable the dated building to appear refreshed and modern without the need to rebuild it. Glazing of the main entrance would distinguish it from other elements of the school.

57. The Design and Historic Environment section welcome the proposals as they would bring the site back into use and the aesthetics and appearance of the buildings and wider site would be improved. It is considered that the standard of design, layout and materials is fully compliant with the requirements set out in Policy GDP1 of the DLP and Part 7 of the NPPF.

Ecology and Trees

The submitted Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Protected Species Assessment show that no priority, or protected habitats, would be lost as a result of the proposed development and no priority or protected species would be impacted on by the development. There may be some impact on nesting birds, however, it would be ensured that demolition works and the felling of trees would be timed outside of the bird nesting season or a search for nests carried out before any demolition work commences and suitable avoidance action formulated. This proposed mitigation is set out within the submitted Protected Species Assessment and would be a condition of any planning permission. As such it is considered that the proposed development would comply with the requirements of Policy GDP1 and Part 11 of the NPPF.

58. The site benefits from extensive mature tree cover to its boundaries, in particular. An arboricultural implications report assisted in informing the quality and value of the trees and subsequently assisted in guiding the layout of the proposed scheme in order to retain the key individual and groups of trees and generally retain as many as practically possible. The landscape scheme provides organised external space within the context of the existing mature tree belt that surrounds the site. None of those scheduled for removal are considered of such individual value that they should be retained, and any trees lost would be replaced by new tree and shrub planting. The protection of the retained trees by barriers would be undertaken, in accordance with the required British Standard.

59. It is therefore considered the proposals would conform to the requirements of DLP Policies GDP1 and EN11 which requires the retention of trees where possible in the development of new layouts and satisfactory landscaping of new developments.

Page 211 Other Matters

60. The Coal Authority consultation response is noted and the requested condition requiring intrusive site investigation works to be undertaken in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site is recommended. Remedial works to treat the areas of shallow mine workings and mine entries to ensure the safety and stability would then be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development. It would be expected that development would not take place over mine entries. This would ensure that the site is safe and stable for the approved development, as required by paragraphs 120 and 121 of the NPPF.

61. There would be no flooding or drainage implications as there is no increase in impermable area. Existing foul and surface water connections would be retained which is considered appropriate by Northumbrian Water. The submitted flood risk assesment concludes that the site is within flood zone one and is at low risk of flooding. No conflict with Policy GDP1 of the DLP is envisaged.

62. The Council’s Contaimnation Land Officer advises from the submitted geo- environmental assessment that the site is not contaminated, nor would the use lead to any pollution as required by Policies EN24 and EN27 of the DLP.

CONCLUSION

63. The site is located within the built up area of Annfield Plain, a sustainable location, on the site of the existing school. The proposal would effectively re- use a previously developed site, enhancing its setting within its surroundings.

64. The proposal is considered to improve the choice of school places and the provision of education facilities for the benefit of children within County Durham with Special Educational Needs. This would benefit not only pupils but also the local community for whom some of those improved facilities would also be available for use.

65. The layout, siting, height and massing of the building as well as the siting of associated open space and infrastructure is considered acceptable, in terms of appropriately safeguarding the residential and visual amenity of nearby properties.

66. The development is considered an appropriate form of development which would not have a significant adverse impact on the overall quality of the area, having regard to the varying styles and uses within the locality and the significant educational benefits that the scheme would bring.

67. The development is considered acceptable in highway safety, access, parking and traffic terms.

Page 212 68. High value trees would be retained and landscaping would be provided which would assist in blending the scheme into its surroundings. Subject to the proposed mitigation, the development is not considered to detrimentally affect the general population of bat species or negatively affect any other protected species or wildlife and their habitats.

69. Impacts on the flood risk, drainage and risk to human health have been assessed and considered to be acceptable.

70. The proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant policies of the Derwentside District Local Plan and the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications:

Plans:

Location Plan. AL (9) 100. 21/03/2014. Landscape Master plan. 1003_HAR_01. Rev B. March 2014. Proposed Elevations. AL (0) 12. 20/3/14. Proposed short elevation. AL (0 11. External Lighting. Rev1. Spill light. March 22 nd 2014. Topographical and Arboricultural Survey. P2258/amr/20. 28 th January 2014. Proposed Street Sections. AL (0) 51. Rev B. 10/2/14. Level 1 Demolition Plan. AL (D) 100. Rev: B. 13/2/2014 Proposed Floor Plans. AL (O) Rev. F.

Documents:

Flood Risk Assessment. Harelaw School. 27.03.20.14. Phase I Geo- Environmental Assessment. 13762. 16/12/13/ Phase II Geo-Environmental Assessment. 13762. 07.04.2014. Tree Report. Amr Geomatics.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development is obtained in accordance with Policies GDP1, TR2, TR3 and EN11 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

Page 213 3. Notwithstanding any details of materials submitted with the application samples of the external walling and roofing materials should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the relevant phase of the development to which the material relates. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regards to Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

4. A Construction and Demolition Management Plan should be submitted and agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and implemented as agreed throughout the whole of the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regards to Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

5. All planting, seeding or turfing and habitat creation in the approved details of the landscaping scheme shall be carried out in the first available planting season following the practical completion of each phase. No tree shall be felled or hedge removed until the removal/felling is shown to comply with legislation protecting nesting birds and roosting bats. Any approved replacement tree or hedge planting shall be carried out within 12 months of felling and removals of existing trees and hedges. Any trees or plants which die, fail to flourish or are removed within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Replacements will be subject to the same conditions.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies GDP1 and EN11 of the Derwentside District Local Plan

6. No construction work shall take place, nor any site cabins, materials or machinery be brought on site until all trees and hedges to be retained are protected by the erection of fencing, comprising a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, well braced to resist impacts, and supporting temporary welded mesh fencing panels or similar approved in accordance with BS.5837:2005. No operations whatsoever, no alterations of ground levels, and no storage of any materials are to take place inside the fences, and no work is to be done such as to affect any tree. No removal of limbs of trees or other tree work shall be carried out. No underground services trenches or service runs shall be laid out in root protection areas, as defined on the Tree Constraints Plan.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area and to comply with Policies GDP1 and EN11 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

Page 214 7. Development shall not be commenced on the site until intrusive site investigation works are undertaken in order to establish the exact situation regarding coal mining legacy issues on the site. In the event that site investigations confirm the need for remedial works to treat the areas of shallow mine workings to ensure the safety and stability, these shall be undertook prior to the commencement of development.

Reason: To ensure that the application site is safe and stable for the approved development, as required by paragraph 121 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies EN24 and EN27 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

8. No operations and deliveries associated with the demolition and construction phase of the development hereby approved shall be carried out outside the hours of: Monday to Friday – 08:00 – 18:00 hours Saturdays – 08:00 – 12:00 hours Sundays – None Public and Bank Holidays – None

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

9. Community use of the facilities hereby approved shall not take place outside of the following hours:

Term time; Monday to Friday – 16:00 – 21:00 hours Saturday – 09:00 – 15:00 hours Sunday – 09:00 – 18:00 hours

School holidays: Monday to Friday – 09:00 – 21:00 hours Saturday – 09:00 –15:00 hours Sunday – 09:00 – 18:00 hours

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

10. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation set out in Section 7 of the North Durham Academy, Greencroft 2014, Phase 1 Habitat Survey Protected Species Assessment.

Reason: In the interests of protected species ecology and wildlife habitats as required by Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside Local Plan.

11. No external lighting shall be provided to the outdoor sports areas, including MUGA’s, hard surfaced courts and playing fields.

Page 215 Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Derwentside District Local Plan.

STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

The Local Planning Authority in arriving at its decision to support this application has, without prejudice to a fair and objective assessment of the proposals, issues raised, and representations received, sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of delivering high quality sustainable development to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area in accordance with the NPPF. (Statement in accordance with Article 31(1) (CC) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

• Submitted application form, plans supporting documents and subsequent information provided by the applicant • The National Planning Policy Framework • National Planning Practice Guidance Notes • Derwentside District Local Plan 1997 • The County Durham Plan (Submission Draft) • Statutory, internal and public consultation responses

Page 216

DM/14/00762/FPA Reuse of Greencroft Community School to provide a new school facility for Harelaw Special School. Partial demolition of existing building, erection of roof infill to an existing Planning Services courtyard area, external alterations and associated landscaping at North Durham Academy (West Campus) Blackett Street Annfield Plain Durham. This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the Comments permission o Ordnance Survey on behalf of Her majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceeding. Durham County Council Licence No. 100022202 2005 Date June 2014 Scale Not to scale

Page 217

Page 218