Agenda item

This item is to:

(a)    Receive any new petitions: to receive any new petitions. The lead petitioner is  entitled to briefly introduce their petition by providing a statement in writing, and a response to any petitions received will then be organised for a future meeting;

(b)  Consider reports on petitions previously received:

-       Petition Against On-Going Planning Issues And Environmental Destruction On Land To The South Of St Mary’s Park, Stannington - Report Attached

(c) Receive any updates on petitions for which a report was previously   considered: any updates will be verbally reported at the meeting.

(a) Receive New Petitions – no new petitions had been received.

(b) Petitions Previously Received – Report provided on the petition against on-going planning issues and environmental destruction on land to the south of St Mary’s Park, Stannington.

The report acknowledged the petition received from residents of St Mary’s Park in respect of on-going planning issues and requested Members to agree the Council’s response.   An introduction to the report was provided by R Campbell, Senior Planning Officer who advised that since the planning permission had been granted in 2007 there had been a series of subsequent planning applications had been received and determined in response to alterations of house-types, layout and other material changes.   Slides were also shown as part of the introduction.

She stated in response to the petition, that the Council fully accepted the residents’ upset and dissatisfaction at Bellway’s lack of compliance with these conditions and advised that the planning department had been working with Bellway for around 3 years now to resolve all of the outstanding matters. This had been a very complex and lengthy process due to the number of applications and variations of plans to consider. Paragraph 11 of the report detailed a change in circumstances since planning permission was granted with regards to the pavilion, which had resulted in Bellway being unable to meet the requirements of condition no. 10. This had impacted on the future development of the landscape and recreational areas of the site.

With regards to the SuDS area, the Lead Local Flood Authority had looked closely at the submitted plans and what was on site. They were satisfied that the expected requirements had been met with a small number of changes around some overgrown earth/grass being removed, which has been relayed to Bellway.

To address the matters of landscaping and the pavilion, planning officers and enforcement officers had continued discussions with Bellway and it had been agreed that they would submit two further applications,  one to vary the wording of condition no. 10 to allow for a restoration scheme and/or the provision of playing fields; and two, a new application for the provision of a playing field, including pitch drainage and landscaping viewing mounds. Since compiling the report, those two applications had been received and validated and were open to public consultation.  The planning department were working closely with the Council’s Ecologist to ensure the residents’ views were considered and the right outcome of these proposals by Bellway would be achieved. Both applications would be brought before Members in due course.

D Flounders, the lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee.  His comments included the following:-

·       He clarified that he lived in the village and did not live in a Bellway home.

·       The playing field area had been superseded by planning application 22/02923/FUL about which some residents had received letters.  The new application negated the requirement for Bellway to reconstruct  the pavilion it demolished, as well as install sports-grade drainage. It also removed the requirement to dispose of the construction spoil surrounding the perimeter which they refer to as viewing mounds, which were in fact just piles of rubble, plastic and clay soil, and as such should be subject to the relevant rules and regulations concerning construction waste.  The area also formed part of a Grade II listed park and garden.

·       In relation to the Suds scheme, and his main area of concern, this was supposed to alleviate the environmental disturbance from across the development and provide an area of open access to residents, however it had been closed off and used to illegally dump thousands of tonnes of construction waste both from this site and others and allowed to grow over.  A discharge had now been submitted to effectively remove the proper footpaths and gated access available to the public.  This had first been reported to the Environment Agency in 2019 and Bellway had subsequently received a S59 Enforcement Notice and were due to be prosecuted on 8 December 2022 related to waste imported from Five Mile Park.

·       The issue had first been reported to NCC in May 2019 and had escalated through complaint stages 1 and 2 due to poor and conflicting information being received and had escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman and had been upheld due to poor communication, and nothing had changed.

·       Multiple overlapping planning applications, confusion at NCC and the sheer timescale had led to a significant loss of amenity to the wider community and destruction to local environment.

·       Construction waste as high as neighbouring properties rooflines remained across the area, which was not detailed on any plans and was not managed in line with any Waste Management Plan.  The area was barren, inaccessible and unsuitable for walking, wildlife and plants and trees. This was an environmental crime and was clearly defined as waste in all industry guidance.

·       Emails from NCC detailed the removal of this waste benefitting from permitted development when the development was finished and this had not happened.  It was another complete breakdown of the planning system, planning enforcement process and waste management enforcement at both NCC and the Environment Agency letting down local residents and paving the way for developers to do what they wanted. 

·       The area needed to be landscaped properly, including top soil and levelling, and if the waste remained then it should be subject to proper planning consent and landfill tax.

Councillor Darwin, as the local Ward Councillor thanked Mr Flounders for raising the residents’ concerns stating that Bellway had dumped a lot of waste on the land and questioned what mitigation had been taken to get back to what was there previously.  He advised that plans had been downgraded to those previously agreed and that play facilities should be accessible to all and also questioned what officers were going to do about the Suds issue.

L Sinnamon, Development Services Manager advised that as this was an open enforcement action case then many details could not be provided in open session.  There was a long history and complicated web of applications and lots of changing iterations of applications, however the applicant was entitled to make applications to change consents and the current applications, one for the variation of conditions in relation to the provision of the pavilion and drainage and the other to provide funds rather than the pavilion need to go through the process and be brought to Committee for Members to debate and make a decision on.   In relation to the Suds feature, the applicant had the opportunity to discharge conditions and was now aware of what these should look like and how they would work and planning officers were currently tracking this.  The landscaping continued to fall short and work was ongoing with the applicant to see if it would be delivered.  The Ecology Officer had inspected the site and did not want anything to be done to the detriment of the area and wished to be able to ensure the best environmental benefit for the area.  It was preferred to try to resolve the issue rather than take enforcement action and deliver the type of landscaping the residents envisaged.

Members were mindful of the procedures which needed to be undertaken but developers needed to deliver on the promises they made and not to continuously submit requests for changes to conditions which eroded their original promises.  Officers and the local Ward Councillor needed to ensure that the current applications came to Committee in order to see that developers could be held to account.   Pressure must be put on the developer to expedite proceedings and to that end a further update report be provided to this Committee in March, after the planting season, on the progress made.  The Ecologist would also be asked to attend this meeting.

RESOLVED that a further update report be provided to this Committee in March 2023.

(c) Updates on Petitions previously received – no updates were provided.