County Planning Committee Date Tuesday 17 June 2014 Time 2.00
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.