County Planning Committee Date Tuesday 2 September 2014 Time
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
County Planning Committee Date Tuesday 2 September 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 meetings held on 17 June, 1 and 29 July 2014 (Pages 1 - 48) 5. Applications to be determined a) CMA/7/102 & 2) DM/14/00170/VOC - Bishop Middleham Quarry, Bishop Middleham, Ferryhill, Durham (Pages 49 - 106) 1) Proposed western extension for the extraction of 5.5 million tonnes of magnesian limestone over a 14 year period with restoration to agriculture through landfilling of clay and soils over a 20 year period. 2) Variation to Conditions 1 and 7 of Planning Permission T/APP/H1345/A/96/267255 as amended by Planning Permission No’s. 7/98/58CM and 7/2003/0045CM in order to extend the date for completion of mineral extraction, revise the method of mineral extraction and revise phasing of inert landfill operations. 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 Items during which it is consid ered the meeting will not be open to the public (consideration of exempt or confidential information) 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 25 August 2014 To: The Members of the County Planni ng 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 17 June 2014 at 2.00 pm Present : Councillor K Davidson (Chairman) Members of the Committee: Councillors B Armstrong, D Boyes, M Dixon, A Laing, R Lumsdon, C Marshall, N Martin, B Moir (Vice-Chairman), H Nicholson, G Richardson, A Shield, P Taylor and R Young 1 Apologies for Absence Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hall and Holland. 2 Substitute Members Councillor Martin substitute for Councillor Holland. 3 Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest. 4 Minutes The minutes of the meeting held 1 April 2014 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 5 Applications to be determined 5a 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 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for a surface mine working 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 (for copy see file of Minutes). C Teasdale, Strategic Principal Planning Officer, provided the Committee with a detailed presentation which included photographs of the site and a plan of the proposed layout. Members had visited the site the previous day and were familiar with the location and setting. Page 1 The Strategic Principal Planning Officer advised that since the publication of the report a further 41 letters of objection and a petition containing 147 names had been received. In addition a letter had been received from Roberta Blackman- Woods stating that a huge number of her constituents and local Councillors had contacted her and it is clear there is a great deal of anxiety within the area. Noting concerns relating to increases in traffic, and safety issues associated, potential health impacts, effect on the natural environment especially local wildlife, flooding, destruction of farmland, noise. She hopes that the objections of residents are taken into account and given serious consideration by the Committee. Councillor Guy, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. The NPPF at paragraph 149 stated that permission should not be granted unless environmentally acceptable or provided significant community benefits which could outweigh the likely impacts. While the planning report accepted that damage would be caused on a temporary basis, this was subjective. Many residents who lived near this site were in advanced years and the site may well for them be permanent. The Councillor considered that there was no market for coal within County Durham however the report advised that coal still had a significant energy force within the UK. This was contrary to reports and data which had been collected which suggested that unabated coal generation was reduced and eventually eliminated in the UK. Furthermore the price of coal per tonne was currently £47 however the coal would need to be sold on at £60 per tonne in order to break even. The site would not produce a huge tonnage of coal and would therefore it would not alter the need or requirement for imported coal. In addition the site would have a disruptive impact upon not only residents for a 3 year period but also on visitors to the County and the World Heritage site/Ramside Hall and those using the A690, A19 and A1. The application proposed that fireclay would be extracted from the site, however the quality of such is unknown. If the quality was found to be inadequate then it would be returned as backfill, therefore to claim that jobs would be available was purely speculative. The applicant was offering 20p per tonne to a community fund equating to £9 per day, which was an insult to the community given the disruption and irreparable damage to the community. Mention was made to the creation of 40 jobs in the mining industry in Scotland when more had originally been stated. The economy in County Durham had been successfully rebuilt on tourism and the service sector and this proposed opencast site lies on the gateway to Durham. This proposed site would damage the tourism and service sector economy and visitors would not visit if greeted by open cast mine workings. City of Durham Local Plan Policy E3 refers to the protection of the World Heritage site, including the need to safeguard the local and long distance views to and from the Cathedral. Breath-taking views could be currently seen from Pittington or Page 2 Moorsley Hill even from the affected residents’ homes however this would be significantly altered if this application was approved. In addition to the Cathedral other assets to County Durham, such as Ramside Hall could be at risk, given its proximity to the site. Other smaller local businesses would be impacted upon and many permanent local jobs may be at risk. The application therefore also contradicted NPPF Part 1 (Building a Strong, Competitive Economy) and 3 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy) as there were no economic benefits to the County. Councillor Guy further referred to several paragraphs and Policies within the County Durham Minerals Local Plan 2000 and added that the application directly conflicted with those Policies. The protection of agricultural land was a concern and reference was made to Policy E9 of the 2004 Local Plan. In addition the opencast site would lead to an increase in traffic with 74-90 Heavy Goods Vehicles accessing the site onto Robin Lane, which was a small narrow country lane and then joining the busy A690. Robin Lane was very narrow and the new proposed access road very close to a bend which would cause danger. In conclusion Councillor Guy commented that the interests of the community, their health, enjoyment and livelihoods should be given priority over the pursuit of profit. Councillor Hall, local Member, addressed the Committee to object to the application. He commented that he was disappointed with the recommendations of the report and feared that if approved the opencast site would decimate local businesses, ruin the character of the landscape and a highly residential area. Significant investments had been made within Ramside Estates in order to provide world class golf facilities and this application caused great uncertainty regarding its future success. Furthermore uncertainty and distrust may prevent other business from investing in the area. Open cast mines create huge grotesque holes in the grounds and the huge risks and impacts posed by this proposal are unbalanced against only a meagre amount of cheap and widely available coal that the report states is of lessening use and demand due to developing Government and C0 2. In addition no prior testing has been carried out on the quality of the brick clay. Therefore the objections were based upon environmental acceptability and economic benefit. The site was visible from many areas within Durham City not only to residents but to the many thousands of visitors, business people and commuters. The land is currently agricultural and with such conflicts with Policy 20 relating to green infrastructure of the emerging County Durham Plan as no compensatory amount or alternative can be offered in its place. In addition the restoration of the land would take some time before it would outweigh the substantial short term harm. Furthermore great crested newts could also be at risk of harm and these should be protected in line with policy. Page 3 The site would also bring with it health concerns from dust and noise pollution.