Planning Committee

25 July 2001

Application to be determined by
the County Council

Report of John Suckling, Head of Planning.

Purpose of the Report: To enable the Committee to determine an application for

planning permission which has been received in accordance with the
requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Easington District: Proposed land raising by deposition of inert material and
associated off-site drainage works at Hospital Farm, Haswell for Mrs M Surtees
and Mrs N Mills

Background

1 The site of this proposal to import inert material to raise the level of a pasture
field at Hospital Farm, lies close to and south of Haswell, adjacent to road
B1280. A site location plan and key facts of the proposal are attached to this
report.

2 The western part of the application site is low lying and historically has been
prone to flooding. The applicant, who is also the landowner, believes that several
factors exacerbate the flooding:- surface water runs off former colliery heaps
(reclaimed by Easington District Council in 1977) into a ditch to the west of the
site, which periodically overflows onto the application site; a pipe carrying water
from a road drain on the B1280 across the site to the same ditch is damaged;
and water from the B1283 some 550m away is gravitating to the site and
contributing to the flooding problem. The applicant considers that conventional
drainage methods will not overcome the flooding, and reports several past
attempts to remedy the problem without success.

3 In liaison with the applicant, Easington District Council and the Director of
Environment and Technical Services, I have sought to find a solution other than
tipping. This involves deepening and regrading the ditch and diverting highway
water. Some works have taken place during summer 2000, but further works,
including deepening the ditch, are dependent on ground conditions and may not
be feasible before the end of winter. It could then be some time before the
effectiveness, or otherwise of the measures is evident. The Committee accepted
the applicant's request to defer consideration of the report put to the November
meeting, and the period for consideration was extended by agreement with the
applicant to the end of February 2001. The applicant has now requested that the
Committee visit the site before determining the application. No further
information has been submitted and the deepening works remain outstanding.

Proposal

4 The proposal is for the importation of 20,500m of waste clays and soils arising
from construction works in the locality, to be tipped over an area of 3.6ha.
Crushed bricks and concrete will also be imported to assist drainage and provide
temporary areas of hardstanding. It is proposed that the site will be stripped of
existing soils and over-tipped progressively, in two phases in a north to south
direction, over a twelve month period. The depth of fill will be between 1m and
2m across the site. Stripped top and subsoils will be stored in separate heaps to
a maximum height of 4m along the northern edge of the site for use in
reinstatement at the end of tipping.

5 The imported waste material will be placed such that the ground level will be
raised in the low lying area to the west which is flooding, and a small
embankment formed to contain surface water run-off in the adjoining ditch. The
applicant proposes that this ditch will also be cleaned out and widened to
improve its flow, but a small wetland area will be retained. Any works to the ditch
will require the District Councils agreement, since it lies outside the application
area and is in the Districts ownership. Off-site works to the north of the site are
proposed which involve the re-alignment of the same ditch.
6 Following completion of tipping, an under drainage system would need to be
installed and the drain presently discharging from the highway would be
connected into the new system. Once reinstated and grassed over, the land
would be returned to pasture.

7 The Environment Agency has indicated that the application does not meet the
criteria required to allow the proposal to be considered exempt from waste
licensing, which will need to be obtained prior to implementation. The applicant
has been informed of the Agencys requirement and in accordance with Planning
Policy Guidance Note 10: Planning and Waste Management (PPG10), would
normally be expected to make the licence application, which could then be
assessed in parallel with the planning application. The applicant, however, is
unwilling to apply for a licence until the planning application is determined.

Planning considerations

8 The site is not allocated in the County Council's adopted Waste Disposal Local
Plan. The proposals must therefore be assessed against the relevant general
policies of the Plan. Policy WD2 states that the tipping of inert material will be
allowed on unproductive agricultural land only if it improves agricultural quality
and accords with Policies WD3 to WD10. Policies WD3 to WD10 deal with
environmental issues, including nature conservation and transport, which are
considered below.

9 Since 1984, when the Waste Disposal Local Plan was adopted there has been a
significant change in approach to waste management policy, reflected in recently
published Government guidance [the National Waste Strategy 2000] issued in
May 2000, in the recently issued PPG10, and with the introduction of a waste
disposal hierarchy, wherein tipping is regarded as the least preferable disposal
route, not least for inert material.

10 The Structure Plan adopted in 1999 and more up to date than the Waste
Disposal Local Plan, contains waste policies reflecting current Government
policy. Policy 83 adopts the waste hierarchy, which encourages reduction, re-
use and recovery of waste as a resource, before consideration is given to
disposal as landfill. The material which is to be deposited at the Hospital Farm
site is inert material which could be readily recycled or used in the reclamation
and improvement of existing degraded sites rather than being used for
landraising on agricultural land. The proposed development does not accord
with Policy 83.

11 Structure Plan Policy 84 provides guidance on the provision of opportunities for

waste treatment and disposal, indicating that proposals should not detract
significantly from the environment, either on their own or cumulatively. Account
will also be taken of whether a proposal improves a degraded landscape, or
secures timely restoration of mineral workings. There are several large landfill
sites, mainly former mineral workings, within a radius of five miles of the proposal
which are licensed to accept inert waste materials used for positive reclamation
purposes. The diversion of clays and soils away from permitted landfill sites
which require similar materials to achieve approved landforms and afteruses
would impede and delay their timely and proper restoration.

Residential amenity

12 The nearest group of residential dwellings is at Windsor Terrace and Pesspool

Avenue in Haswell to the north, approximately 40m north of the proposed site
access and some160m from the area to be tipped. Measures to control noise
 include the erection of soil bunds between the site and the houses. Measures to
control dust include provision of a water bowser. At such close distances,
however, it is likely that there will be some temporary disruption of residential
amenity for the relatively short life of operations.

Landscape and conservation

13 The application site is open to views from the B1280, lies in a pleasant
undulating landscape, but has itself no special features apart from a roadside
hedge which is unaffected by the proposal. The site is currently used as
agricultural pasture. The low-lying wet area is currently fenced off to prevent
access by grazing horses. A full botanical survey has not been provided, but a
superficial inspection indicates several different species of rush, together with a
number of broad-leaved species of minor conservation interest. The existence of
these species may reflect the fact that the site has long been marshy.

Access

14 The proposed access is via an existing field gate off the B1280. The
construction of an internal access road is proposed as well as a trough for wheel
washing purposes. The proposed layout of the access from the B1280 has been
designed to restrict vehicles to entering and leaving southwards, thus
discouraging vehicles from passing through Haswell. The Director of
Environment and Technical Services considers the proposal acceptable in
highway terms. Nevertheless, nearby residential properties are likely to be
subject to some noise disturbance caused by heavy vehicles visiting the tip for
the relatively short duration of operations on site, although the number of
proposed vehicle movements is relatively low.

Consultations and views received

15 Easington District Council offers no objection to the proposal subject to

clarification of final contours, the nature of material to be used on site and an
agreed diversion of the route of a public footpath, which crosses the site.

Comment: Details of acceptable final contours of the site and the nature of
waste material were submitted with the application. No application has yet been
made for either a temporary or permanent diversion of Footpath No.14, which is
subject to separate procedures.

16 Haswell Parish Council has no objection to the proposal for tipping, but is
concerned about the access to the site. The Council requests that adequate
warning signs be erected on the B1280.

Comment: The concerns of the Parish Council could be addressed through

conditions should planning permission be granted.

17 The proposal has been advertised on site and in the press. One representation
from a local resident has been received. The comments raised have been
considered and would be adequately covered by condition should planning
permission be granted.

Conclusion
18 The applicant seeks to justify the application on agricultural improvement
grounds, to address the occurrences of flooding on the site which restrict present
use of the field for grazing horses. To this end, the proposed scheme would
result in a landform which would allow the field to be better drained, as
permanent pasture. It is however apparent that the lower parts of the field have
been marshy for many years, to the extent that it is debatable whether tipping
would provide necessary agricultural improvement.

19 Further ditch cleaning works, which will include regrading part of the ditch, are
intended. The impact of such works on the flooding will take time to assess.
Because of prolonged wet weather in 2000 the effectiveness of works which
have been carried out to date, are not yet apparent. The carrying out of any
further works would be dependent upon appropriate drier conditions, not now
likely to occur before Spring/Summer 2000/2001.

20 The Director of Environment and Technical Services has examined the drainage
arrangements for the adjacent highway. It was found that less than 10% of total
water flowing across the site is run-off from the highway and that the drain across
the site also carries water from Hospital Farm itself. The Director considers that
any new or reconstructed outfall at the site is in any case dependent upon further
deepening and regrading of the ditch by the District Council and a financial
contribution from the applicant. Alternative drainage outfalls, away from Hospital
Farm, are also being investigated. However a preferred option has not yet been
selected, and then implementation might ultimately depend on availability of and
responsibility for funding, which have yet to be agreed. It is not certain whether or
not these works will address any fundamental flooding problem.

21 The material which is to be deposited for landraising at the site can be recycled
and is in demand for use in restoration of mineral and waste sites or in
reclamation schemes. The restoration of other sites may be unnecessarily
delayed if suitable material is diverted to inessential tipping sites.

Recommendation

22 The application site is naturally marshy and flooding appears to have been a
regular occurrence over many years. The proposal is intended to allow the
applicant to use the land more intensively for grazing horses; landraising is one
means to that end. I have sought to pursue with the applicant alternatives to
raising the level of the field by landfill tipping, but any agreed actions will take
time both to take effect and then to assess the effectiveness of any of the
options.

23 Before determining the application, the Committee will wish to consider the
applicants request that it visits the site. There is, however, at this stage, no
clearly demonstrated essential need to resort to land raising by tipping to secure
the improvement of agricultural land in this location. The proposal conflicts with
Development Plan policy on tipping and the thrust of Government waste policy
and guidance, and would set an undesirable precedent. I therefore recommend
that planning permission be refused accordingly.

Significant departure

Background Information: Planning application and supporting statement; Sketch No.1, 2, 3 and Drawing
Nos. HAS/1, 1/A, 2/C, 3/C, 4. Letters dated 01/10/99, 13/10/99 and accompanying plan 01/11/99.
Contact: Richard Hird Tel: 0191 383 3397
Easington District: Proposed land raising by deposition of inert material and associated
off-site drainage works, at Hospital Farm, Haswell for Mrs M Surtees and Mrs N Mills.

Key Facts

Site area: 3.6 ha.

Existing land use: Pasture, used for grazing horses.

Proposed land use: Better drained pasture.

Type of waste to be deposited: Inert sub-soil and rubble from

construction sites.

Amount of material to be 20,500m to a maximum depth of 2m.

deposited:

Duration of operations: 12 months

Hours of operation: 08:00 - 17.30 Mon. - Fri.

08:00 - 12.00 Sat

Lorry movements: 18 (9 in / 9 out) per day

Lorry routeing: A19, B1283 from Easington, then onto

the B1280 to Haswell.

Employment: 2
REPRESENTATIONS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE
Tel:0191 5261458 Hospital Farm,
Haswell,
Co. Durham.
DH6 2AW

Thank you for listening to me. I have brought 5 sets of maps, photographs and
videos which I hope you will look at before coming to a decision.
My family bought Hospital Farm in 1966. The only water problem was a small pond
shown on Map 1 Easington District Council and ourselves shared the cost to have
ditching work done and to have this drained. From then on it was fine. We used
tocut grass and make hay with tractors here. I enclose an aerial photograph to
prove this to you.
It was over 12 years ago that we realised that our land was becoming wetter and it
has grown worse.
Some eight years ago I saw an article in Farmers Weekly which said that this type
of problem could be dealt with on a much more relaxed planning application when
it was for small areas and for the improvement of agricultural land. I approached a
contractor who surveyed the site and submitted plans. These were treated with
open hostility and branded a waste disposal application. I have been forced to
pay for noise level surveys and all sorts but to no avail. I asked the Agricultural
Development Advisory Service to do an independent survey. This stated that there
was no other way to solve the problem other than the way we had asked to do it.
The Planning Dept have always told me that they are recommending that you, the
committee, fail this application. I have delayed the application for 18 months so
that the council could try to find a different solution. They have cleaned out some
of the ditch and nothing more. The problem is much much worse than Mr
Sucklings report and I only hope that if you will watch the video and visit the site
that you will feel differently.
The water on our land is coming from 3 different sources.
The first is a council manhole, marked A on map No2, on the south side of the B
1283. this was constructed during a road improvement scheme over 20 years ago.
At that time Durham County Council wrote to us and asked permission to come on
to our land to extend and upgrade the existing small ditch to take the extra volume
of water. This was never done. The Council now says this was at there discretion
and they decided it was not necessary at that time. Now as a flooded out land
owner ff1 want to stop all this water being discharged onto my field it is my
responsibility. This water finds its way, like a flowing river, down two fields, over
our drive and down to where it meets water from source No2.
Source No2 is again from a Council manhole constructed again during another
road improvement scheme over 20 years ago. The manhole couples with water
from a roadside ditch and is supposed to be piped underground to the main ditch.
The pipe doesnt work, it cannot run up hill and the water therefore runs over land.
The third source is where the ditch itself simply overflows at point No3. this is a
permanent state of affairs not a periodic one as Mr Suckling is maintaining. All
three sources of water collect in this area.
If we could raise the level of the lowest lying land with selected, screened, brick
hardcore- not skipfuls of rubbish- this would stop the water running out of the then
deeper ditch at point C. the ditch would be extended and improved right to the B
1283 and would then take all of the water from point A. New drainage pipes would
be installed within the hardcore to take the water from the manhole and ditch at
point B.
This should solve all of the problems. It should not take a long time, letters have
been given to Durham County Council to guarantee the supply of clean screened
hardcore.
This is not a waste disposal operation but a drainage correction plan.
Please look at my statement, the maps, photograph and video. Please come and
visit the site and see our dreadful problem for yourselves.
I only hope that you would then realise how desperately this work needs doing.
Without it I will soon have no dry land left.
 667
6
6-88

7s
3 29

534
6

11
12
13