Planning Services

COMMITTEE REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

APPLICATION NO: 2/2012/0151/FUL

FULL APPLICATION

DESCRIPTION:

Change of use of Blackdene Wood to paintballing (Sui Generis), including operational development of sundry structures

NAME OF APPLICANT: Mr M Nicolson

ADDRESS: Blackdene Wood, Mill Lane, Plawsworth, Chester-le-Street, Durham.

ELECTORAL DIVISION: Sacriston

CASE OFFICER:

Ann Rawlinson Senior Planning Officer 0191 387 2002 ann.rawlinson@durham.gov.uk

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSALS

The Site 1. The application site is located within a central area of Blackdene

Woods to the south east of Plawsworth Village and directly to the northern side of Mill Lane which is accessed off the A167 between Chester-le-Street and Durham City. The East Coast mainline bisects the middle of the site on a north-south axis on a viaduct high above the valley floor. The woods is linear in shape and the whole woods are approximately 13 hectares in size.

2. Blackdene Woods itself is classified as ancient woodland and lies in a

steep sided wooded valley straddling the Blackdene Burn. The site is part of a Durham County geological site known as the Sacriston sub glacial channel and the eastern part of the site (to the eastern side of the viaduct) is designated as part of an area of high landscape value. The woodland is predominantly native trees ranging from young mature trees to veteran trees. There are some dead/dying trees and woodland clearing and planting has taken place. There are occasional clearings.

3. The former residential property known as ‘Mill Cottage’ is located to the

south eastern side of the site, just outside of the wood. It appears as though this has been used by the previous paintball operators utilising

the site, to provide storage and toilet facilities. An informal path leads down into the woods from the rear of this property.

4. To the eastern side of the property is a gravelled car park area which is

separated from the adjacent agricultural field to the south east by large mature screen hedging. This was implemented as a requirement of the previous temporary planning permission for paintballing on the site. There is also an informal access to the site to the western side of the woods, from Mill Lane.

5. Abutting the northern boundary of the site is Southill Hall, a Grade II

listed building, owned by The Court Service (Ministry of Justice) and used by high court judges as a secure lodge house whilst serving on the north east circuit. There is accommodation available for four judges and their clerks, with the property normally occupied between Sunday and Friday evenings on a weekly basis.

6. Directly to the west of Southill Hall, also abutting the northern boundary

of the site is Garden Cottage, a residential property. Mill House and Watermill Cottage situated on Mill Lane to the south west of the site are the next closest residential properties to the site.

7. The application is being reported to planning committee because it

constitutes major development due to the size of the application site and the permanent nature of the proposed structures constitutes operational development.

The Proposal 8. Planning permission is sought for the permanent use of the woods as a

paintballing facility, including associated structures and ancillary development. At the present time the proposed operator would be Delta Force, a nationwide operating company.

9. A large operational site, of approximately 2 hectares, within the central

area of the wider wood would be defined for paintballing activities. Outside of this area there would be a permanent exclusion zone. The proposed site layout plan defines six different individual ‘battle zones’, straddling across the Burn extending in a linear layout. It is within each of the areas that the proposed paintball games sessions would take place. Within each ‘battle zone’ rustic timber structures provide various different contexts for play. A summarised list of the game zones and their intended structures is set out for ease below;

• Tank zone- tank, timber fence structures and two timber footbridges over burn with camouflage netting.

• Speedball zone- moveable drums, no fixed structures.

• Crypt zone- timber crypt, coffin and grave headstone structures (2.4m by 21.m maximum size)

• Village zone- timber fence structures and hut structures with camouflage net cover (2.6m by 3.8m). Footbridge.

• Castle zone-timber play castle of 22m in length and 5m in height (at longest and highest point) and two small timber huts. Two timber footbridges over burn.

• Watchtower zone-4m high watch tower surrounded by fencing and four timber huts of varying size, maximum 4m in height and 4.8m in length

• Base camp area-Two ex-military tents to be used as shelters. The largest being 14.6m in length, 5.6m in width and 3m in height. One to be used as a gun rack. A small timber framed building to be used as a score board. A black shipping container, 6m in length and 2.6m in height to be used for the sale of drinks and confectionary and additional paintball pellets.

10. Each paintball zone perimeter as well as the approaching footpath into

the site would be delineated by 3m high black mesh fencing. Exclusion zones outside of the battle zone area would be marked by timber posts (1.1m high) and high visibility rope. Participants would stay within the demarcated areas and would only fire guns within the meshed fencing areas of the game zones. Bark paths would link between the base camp and individual zones. Terram fabric would be used underneath the chippings in well used areas.

11. The applicant has advised that Delta Force paintball sites generally operate on a Saturday and Sunday between February and November, some weekends in December and January and an average of one additional day per week throughout the year. This additional day in reality is likely to be cumulatively during summer months and school holidays in particular. Participants attend in groups for the whole day, between 10am and 4pm with staff in attendance from 8:30-5.30m to prepare and clear-up. This would include safety briefings and brakes to include the delivery of pizzas for lunch (if required).

12. The applicants agent has advised that it would be intended that the

maximum number of people on site would be 150. The use of the battle zones would be rotated to allow the woodland floor to recover. Therefore the maximum capacity of the site at any one time would be 30 people (15 people in each team) in 5 zones.

13. All the game zones would be rested for a period of at least 3 months at

a time to encourage ground flora regeneration. Dead wood and fallen trees would be retained within the woodland.

14. The operators originally advised that they would be happy to limit

paintballing activities to a maximum of 150 days a year, approximately every Saturday and Sunday and one day per week). Subsequently the applicant, in response to concerns raised by officers would accept a further restriction of limiting activities to up to 75 days a year.

15. Access to the site is from the existing access into the car park at Mill Cottage. Mill Cottage would be re-furbished in order to provide storage, toilet facilities and a registration office as well as incorporation of a registration counter area. A small timber extension would be rebuilt and extended as well as the opening up of blocked up windows. Participants would then walk down a path adjacent the house into the woods to the base camp.

16. The applicants agent advises that in the winter months, a limited

amount of external lighting would be required at the base camp at the end of the day to enable staff to clear up. The applicants agents advise that the paintball pellets are non-toxic and biodegradable. A regular litter pick up is proposed. The operator would also arrange for a refuse disposal company to empty commercial bins housed adjacent the property/car park area to be picked up once a week, in line with procedures already carried out at other Delta Force sites

17. The existing car park would be extended in an easterly direction into

the adjacent field and be enclosed by a new hawthorn, holly and beech hedge. This would be the only entrance into the site by participants. An existing entrance at the western side of the wood would provide for woodland maintenance.

18. The proposal relates to the use of the site for paintballing activities and

there would not be any use of motorised vehicles on the site, such as quad bikes or buggies.

19. The applicants agent originally advised that the proposals would

provide 10 part-time jobs. Very recently the applicants agent has now advised that 2 full-time and 20 part-time jobs would be created. Although it is unclear whether all these would be new.

PLANNING HISTORY

20. A previous operator applied for planning permission to operate paintballing at the site in 2002.Temporary planning permission for a period of 5 years was granted in March 2006 for the change of use from woodland/agriculture for paintballing activities for a maximum of 75 days per annum including ancillary car parking adjacent to Mill Cottage.

21. It is understood that the operator who gained this temporary planning

permission in 2006 operated limited use of the site from between 2000 and 2006 under their permitted development rights which allows such activities to take place for up to 28 days a year without the requirement for planning permission.

22. This temporary permission expired in March 2011. It is understood that the operator continued to carry out paintballing activities on the site under their permitted development rights until as recently as September 2012. However they have now found an alternative location within County Durham which better suits their requirements which incorporates the use of quad bikes and buggies.

23. It can be seen from the previous planning permission that a temporary

permission was considered appropriate to ‘allow these operations to be re-assessed, in order to ascertain the long term ecological and landscape impact of the proposed usage at this intensity’. Also attached to the temporary permission were a number of restrictive conditions, limiting numbers or people, number of days per year, time limits etc.

24. An almost identical application was withdrawn in June this year so that

the applicant could increase the red line boundary of the site to incorporate additional car parking.

PLANNING POLICY

NATIONAL POLICY

NATIONAL PLANNING FRAMEWORK 25. 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 dependant.

26. 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:

27. Paragraph 17- Core Planning Principles-seeks to (amongst other

things):

• Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver business. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet business and other

development needs of an area and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.

• Always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.

• Take account of the different roles and character of different areas, protecting the Green Belts and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

• Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

28. The NPPF outlines in paragraph 19 that significant weight should be

placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system. Paragraph 6 of the NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 7 goes on to set out the three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The economic role is to contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. NPPF Part 8 – Promoting Healthy Communities- Recognises the part

the planning system can play in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy and inclusive communities. This includes accessible

developments and active street frontages, and the development and modernisation of shops, facilities and services.

33. NPPF Part 9- Protecting Green Belt Land- The Government attaches

great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Green Belt land serves 5 purposes: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

34. 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.

35. 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 ecosystems, 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.

36. 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.

37. The Noise Policy Statement for England (DEFRA) - sets out the

technical guidance on assessing noise impacts and aims to: avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life, mitigate and minimise adverse impact on health and quality of life and where possible contribute to improvement of health and quality of life.

REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY 38. The North East of England Plan - Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021

(RSS) July 2008, sets out the broad spatial development strategy for the North East region for the period of 2004 to 2021. The RSS sets out the region's housing provision and the priorities in economic development, retail growth, transport investment, the environment, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. Some policies have an end

date of 2021 but the overall vision, strategy, and general policies will guide development over a longer timescale.

39. In July 2010 the Local Government Secretary signalled his intention to

revoke Regional Spatial Strategies with immediate effect, and that this was to be treated as a material consideration in subsequent planning decisions. This was successfully challenged in the High Court in November 2010, thus for the moment reinstating the RSS. However, it remains the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies when Orders have been made under section 109 of the Localism Act 2011, and weight can now be attached to this intention. For the time being, at least, the following policies are considered relevant.

40. Policy 1 – North East Renaissance – Developments should support a

renaissance throughout he north east by delivering sustainable economic growth and conserving, enhancing and capitalising on the regions natural and built environment, heritage and culture.

41. Policy 2 – Sustainable Development-Seeks to embed sustainable

criteria through out the development process and influence the way in which people take about where to live and work; how to travel; how to dispose of waste; and how to use energy and other natural resources efficiently.

42. Policy 4 – Sequential Approach to Development – Requires a

sequential approach to development giving priority to previously developed sites in sustainable locations.

43. Policy 7 – Connectivity and Accessibility – Requires the internal and external sustainable connectivity and accessibility of the North East of England, with focus upon the reduction in use of the private motor car and increase in green and sustainable infrastructure.

44. Policy 8 - Protecting and Enhancing the Environment- Requires new

development to maintain local distinctiveness. In particular protection should be given to existing woodlands of amenity and nature conservation value, particularly ancient woodlands.

45. Policy 11 - Rural Areas - Proposals should support development of a

vibrant rural economy whilst protecting the Region’s environmental assets from inappropriate development.

46. Policy 24 - Delivering Sustainable Communities - All development within the Region should be designed and located to deliver sustainable communities. Proposals should assess the suitability of land for development and the contribution that can be made by design in relation to 16 detailed criteria, including concentrating development

in urban locations, reducing need to travel, proximity to infrastructure, health and well-being, biodiversity and crime prevention/community safety.

47. Policy 31 - Landscape Character -Planning proposals should sustain

nationally, regionally and locally valued landscapes. 48. Policy 33 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity -Proposals should ensure that

the Region’s resources are protected and enhanced to return key resources to viable levels.

49. Policy 36-Trees, Woodlands and Forests- Seeks to identify and ensure

strong protection of areas of ancient woodland.

LOCAL PLAN POLICY: Chester-le Street Local Plan (CLSLP)

50. NE3- Implementation of the North Durham Greenbelt- Seeks to

implement and maintain the North Durham Green Belt to i) Check the unrestricted sprawl of the Tyne and Wear conurbation ii) Prevent Chester-le-Street town and its surrounding villages from merging into each other, and prevent the merging of Chester-le-Street town, Chester Moor, Plawsworth, Nettlesworth, Kimblesworth and Great Lumley with Durham City iii) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and iv) Assist in regeneration of built up areas by recycling brownfield sites and other urban land.

51. NE4- Appropriate Development in the Green belt- Within the Green

Belt planning permission will only be granted for the construction of new buildings for (amongst other things) essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation and other uses of land that protect the openness of the greenbelt, the re-use or conversion of existing buildings which does not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

52. NE6-Development affecting the Visual Amenity of the Green Belt-

Development within, or conspicuous from, the Green Belt will not be granted where the proposal by virtue of its scale, siting, materials or design is detrimental to the visual amenity of the Green Belt.

53. NE8-Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and Local Nature

Reserves- SNCIs of County importance in geological terms including land adjacent to the A167 through to Blackdene Wood will be protected according to their significance to nature conservation. Planning permission will only be granted for development which: i) enhance the designated site ii) do not harm the nature conservation interest of the site or iii) minimise damage to the designated site and compensate fully for the damage by habitat creation or enhancement elsewhere

within the site or local area. Where necessary compensatory measures will be sought through the use of planning conditions and/or Section 106 obligations.

54. NE15-Areas of High Landscape Value- Special attention will be given

to maintaining and enhancing the landscape character and quality of AHLV. Proposals for development within AHLV will only be permitted where the: i) are of a high standard of design ii) reflect the scale and character of buildings in the area iii) do not detract from the high landscape quality.

55. RL9- Recreation in Open Countryside- Development related to the

quiet enjoyment of the open countryside for informal recreation, or for sports activities which require countryside location must not: i) damage the character and appearance of the countryside or the the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, ii) cause damage or disturbance of PROW and other recreation facilities, ii) damage flora, fauna, geological or geomorphologic features and wildlife corridors protected under the Natural Environment Polices. Associated improvements to the wider infrastructure of the countryside will be sought to accommodate ant pressures generated from development.

56. RL10- Recreation Provision in the Green Belt- Within the Green Belt

permission for outdoor participatory sports and recreation uses will be granted provided that the uses are predominantly participatory and outdoor; i) ancillary facilities (clubhouses, bars, car parking etc) are small in scale, and essential in that they not exceed what is necessary for users iii) the development would not harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt.

57. T8- Car Parking Provision- The design and layout of new development

should seek to minimise the level of parking provision. 58. T15-Access and Safety Considerations in Design-Sets out criteria

which is required to be fulfilled, relating to, safe access, highway safety, public transport, pedestrians, cyclists, service and emergency vehicles.

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.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=494

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY RESPONSES

STATUTORY RESPONSES: 59. Northumbrian Water - No comment to make.

60. The Environment Agency- No objection but advises that any equipment/ infrastructure located next to the river should be secured in order to prevent them from washing away during flooding and potential risk off-site. They also advised that the sewerage undertaker should be requested to demonstrate that the sewerage and sewage disposal systems serving the development have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional flows, generated as a result of the development, without causing pollution. Finally they request that car parking areas draining to soakaway should be passed through an oil interceptor before discharging to ground.

61. Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison officer) - No comments to

make. 62. The Woodland Trust-No response received to date. 63. County Highways Authority- The application incorporates additional

parking than is the existing situation. Therefore no highway objection is made.

INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES: 64. Spatial Policy Team- In principle, the increased use of the site for

recreational purposes, and the construction of appropriate buildings, is unobjectionable. Such activities are acceptable in the Green Belt. The use is compatible with the desire to support rural economies and enterprise.

65. Design and Historic Environment Team- Does not consider that the

proposed use, within the wooded valley would affect the setting of the listed Southill Hall, due to the existing topography and screening.

66. Landscape Team- The Landscape Architect has make lengthy and

detailed representation regarding his concerns in relation to the impact of the past, current and proposed future use of the woodland on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area having regard to its woodland status, and the perceived impact of intensification of use.

67. The Landscape Architect advises of the woodland mix and tree status

within the woodland and the designations within the site in the context of the County Durham Landscape Character Assessment, the Local Plan and NPPF. He advises that he does not consider that the visual impact of the proposed structures and ancillary equipment proposed within the wood and the extended car park would have a significant adverse impact due to the screening of the site from public vantage points.

68. However the Landscape Architect raises significant concerns regarding

the damage that has been caused to the ancient woodland landscape by past and current activities which he sets out in detail. This includes

significant damage to the woodland plant structure and landscape, cutting of tree roots, damage and loss of ground flora and water course bank erosion. He identifies significant misgivings regarding the accuracy, extent and detail of the information submitted. He advises that no attempt has been made to manage or contain problems or create exclusion zones and that activity has extended into previously agreed exclusion zones. He also highlights the poor quality and standard of the submitted woodland management plan including whether the site can accommodate the proposals without significant damage, surveying, monitoring, potential mitigation or management.

69. He is concerned that the use of the site would damage the woodland

structure with the loss of significant areas and have a resultant negative impact on the landscape character and amenity particularly in the overuse of games areas, so that it no longer merits its ancient woodland status. In particular some zones would result in the loss of trees, vegetation and the erosion of steep slopes as well as loss of trees to widen tracks to gain vehicular access onto the site to position new structures.

70. Ecology Team- The Councils Ecologist advises in order for the LPA to

have confidence that the ancient woodland will not be adversely affected a woodland management plan is required that provides suitable mitigation and controls for the paintballing and restores and enhances the entire woodland including those sections of the woodland previously impacted. He advises that this is required for the site as a pre-requisite of any planning permission in order to ensure that the ancient woodland is protected and enhanced.

71. The Ecologist considers that the management plan provided within the

application is wholly inadequate. He advises that there is no attempt within the management plan to establish the current state of the woodland and to ensure restoration or enhancement of the entire woodland over time. The management plan must include restoration and enhancement of the entire woodland as the negative impacts of paintballing will be enough to lead to significant deterioration of the ancient woodland where the activity occurs. The Ecologist sets out the elements that the woodland management plan would need to provide.

72. The Ecologist feels that, in its current state the information provided is

not of a sufficient standard to allow the LPA to have any confidence that the ancient woodland will not be significantly impacted upon as a result of the proposed operations.

73. Public Rights of Way Team- Confirm that there are no registered public

rights of way within or abutting the site. Public rights may still exist if the land has been used by the public freely and as of right for 20 years or more, although the PROW Officer is unaware of any disputes of this kind affecting this land.

74. Pollution Control Team- The Pollution Control Officer advises that it is

evident that the scale of the proposed paintball activities is extensive. 75. There are a number of sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of

Blackdene Wood who potentially may be impacted from the use of this site for paintballing activities. It can be expected that this is a location that has a relatively quiet background with the noise from traffic using the A167 and the intermittent noise from trains using the main East Coast line being the principal contributing sources.

76. The identified sources of noise from the paintball activities that may

potentially give rise to complaints of statutory nuisance are from the firing of guns, the noise of participants shouting and from vehicles accessing the site together with the closing of doors. It is recognised the noise from the operation of the guns used for paintball activities will have different noise characteristics to normal shot guns used, for example, for clay pigeon shooting.

77. The Pollution Control Officer has obtained information concerning

noise from the compressed gas-operated markers that has been measured at approximately 72dB(A) at 1m from the source. Other than proposed times of operation and restriction covering specified days when the activities may take place there are no other measures detailed for the control of noise.

78. Notwithstanding the problems of assessing this type of activity the

Pollution Control Officer considers that it would be of value to assess the impact of the paintballing activity by determining the prevailing background noise without any activities taking place and then measuring noise levels when the activities are being carried out on the site. This would provide a means of basing a decision upon an objective assessment rather than being subjective.

79. Therefore in conclusion the Environmental Health Officer has concerns

that the carrying out of paintball activities in this location having regard to the noise sources described will potentially give rise to complaints of noise that subsequently will be difficult to resolve under Environmental Protection legislation, particularly where the extent of the activity brings participants into closer proximity to the nearest sensitive receptors to the site. For the reasons the Pollution Control Officer would recommend the application be refused.

80. However the Pollution Control Officer advises that, if the application is

to be permitted then careful consideration should be given to reducing and minimising the impact on the nearest sensitive receptors to the site by placing appropriate conditions on any consent regarding number of activities a year, limiting activities to specified times during the day, demarcating the perimeter boundary of gaming zones’ and restriction of weaponry solely to the use of paintballing guns.

PUBLIC RESPONSES: 81. Kibblesworth and Plawsworth Parish Council- raise the following

concerns which are summarised below:

• Increase in usage

• Site in operation without planning permission

• Increase in traffic and parking on Mill Lane creating a public hazard.

• No increase in parking facilities

• Increase of war zones from 2 to 6 with structures that are permanent

• Impact on ancient woodland

• Impact on wildlife

• Noise nuisance (generators, filing of compressed air canisters, shouting etc)

• Quad bike racing that has not been approved. 82. The application was advertised in the press and adjacent the site as a

major development and letters were sent to neighbouring residents and site notices were placed in the locality. Nine letters of objection have been received which are summarised below:

• Horse riding dangerous from spooking of horses, firing of guns, shouting, and movement of people.

• Reduction in use of outdoor riding school/training of horses especially at times of year when access to the estate for hacking is reduced due to pheasant shooting.

• In the interests of horse rider safety paintballing should be not be within the first 100m of the wood (when accessed from Holmhill Lane) and there should be no access from Holmhill Lane as there is a blind corner.

• Rubbish on the lane

• Loss of wildlife, natural beauty and habitat

• No bat survey has been carried out.

• Could be adapted to a brownfield site

• More than enough paintballing sites within surrounding areas therefore, development not necessary.

• Would stop people from using area for cycling, walking, and horse riding.

• Impact upon openness of greenbelt/countryside due to substantial structures.

• Structures would be clearly visible from public vantage points within green belt

• Structures incongruous and screen planting does not sufficiently mitigate against impact.

• 10 part time staff is not sufficient justification

• Site in operation and exceeds limits of existing restrictions

• Intensification of use- 100% increase in use is inappropriate scale

• Ecological Impact

• Security issues due to closeness of the Judges Lodgings.

• Detrimental Impact upon residential amenity of surrounding residents due to noise and disturbance arising from screaming and shouting, firing of guns and the charging of guns with compressed air.

• Activities carried out at weekends when at home severely disrupts lives.

• Could expect in excess of 200 people

• Access is already hazardous due to narrow twisting lane

• Parking on Mill Lane

• All participants arriving at peak time (9am).

• Public transport over one mile away

• Impact upon ancient woodland

• Non-compliance with previous planning permission

• Enforcement of conditions

• How can changing ancient woodland into a permanent battle zone be an improvement?

• Short term monetary gain only to a national company and brings no benefits to the local community

• Only a number of properties have been consulted.

• Public notice was not displayed in a prominent position

• It is concerning that the Council have indicated that continued use is acceptable.

• There is no mention of picnic tables and seats in the application.

• Safety announcements being delivered by PA systems would increase noise levels.

• Smell from any cooking or increased traffic if food is brought in.

• Concern over how many ‘at the discretion of the site manager’ there are within the management plan and how they will understand which zones need to be rested.

83. Concern is raised on behalf of the Ministry of Justice regarding

peaceful residential amenity associated with the use of Southhill Hall as secure accommodation for high court judges whilst they are serving on the north east court circuit

APPLICANTS STATEMENT 84. The applicants planning consultant has submitted a number of

documents in support of the application and makes the following statement:

• Planning Design and Access Statement

• Management Plan

• Breeding Bird Survey

• Badger Survey

• Heads of terms for section 106 agreement which sets out notification procedures for paintballing actives to the police and the nearby Judges Lodgings,

85. Paintballing has taken place on this site (under formal planning consent

and permitted development rights) since October 2010. The current application is to establish a permanent consent allowing the activities to continue in a viable way.

86. There is noise emitted from the operation. The Council intended to

measure that noise but did not do so in any scientific way. Noise is difficult to assess, because its impact on amenity can be affected by a number of factors – in this instance the level of background noise (the railway line close by, for example), the mitigation offered by the woodland and the topography, and so on.

87. This is not necessarily a tranquil location and I argue that just because

you can hear the activities, does not mean that they are harmful. During the operation on the site, over the last 12 years there have been no complaints in relation to noise. The only other complaint related to parking on the road and this was resolved.

88. The applicant only proposes to use the site at weekends (mostly

Saturdays and very few Sundays) and 1 day during the week. It is a purely day time activity when background noise levels are at their highest.

89. Harm to the woodland has also been raised as an issue. Ironically, as

before. The applicant could carry out activities under permitted development rights, and there would be no requirement to manage the woodland. The rutted tracks are the result of previous timber felling operations and, to a lesser extent, unauthorised use of the site by motorised vehicles by a previous operator. The current application is for paintballing only and there will be no use by motorised vehicles.

90. The grant of planning permission would enable closer scrutiny over the

effects of the use on the woodland – there is no reason why this cannot be dealt with by condition of planning approval and seen as an opportunity to improve the environment. The Applicant has always been prepared to commission environmental studies and assessments as may be required, and to comply with all environmental requirements. He did so on the last occasion planning permission was granted. A bird survey has been carried out, although further studies have been put on hold following discussions with the planning officer, during which it because clear that the application was to be

recommended for refusal on grounds of noise (regardless of whether or not the environmental studies had been undertaken).

91. It should be noted that paintballing only takes place on a small area,

leaving the great majority of the woodland undisturbed. The previous planning consent contained many conditions relating to environmental issues (tree planting for instance) all of which have been complied with.

92. The latest bird survey indicated that there had been no reduction in the

number of birds on the site. Paintballing is a recognised and legitimate countryside activity. It is very popular in the area, and provides an important recreational activity in the countryside. By its nature, it needs to be located in woodland areas.

93. However, the use of land is not intensive, and can not take place

during anti-social hours due to lighting constraints. In this location there are a number of noise emitting sources, trains being the most noticeable. The use creates employment and provides for outdoor recreation consistent with demand from the community. The new operator, Delta Force, has indicated that two full-time and 20 part-time jobs will be created.

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 Chester-le-Street

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

94. 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 relates to the principle of development, impact upon residential amenity, visual impact and affect on the character and appearance of the area, impact on woodland and ecology, access and highway safety, and other site specific matters.

Principle of Development 95. Paragraph 81 of the NPPF advises Local Planning Authorities to plan

positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access and to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation.

96. In this respect it is accepted that the proposed use, falling into the

category of ‘sport and recreation would be an appropriate use, in principle to carry out in the green belt.

97. It is not considered that the proposals would conflict with the five

purposes set out within paragraph 80, Part 9- Protecting Green Belt

Land of the NPPF. It is considered that the openness and permanence of the greenbelt would not be compromised.

98. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF sets out the circumstances in which the

construction of new buildings would be appropriate. One of these exceptions is the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including the land within it. The extension or alteration of a building would also be allowable provided as long as it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

99. It is considered that the purpose, nature and extent of the proposed

games structures and associated ancillary features as well as the alterations to the existing building would be considered appropriate and would comply with the principles set out in paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

100. The proposal is considered to comply with policy NE3 of the CLSLP in

that the nature of the proposed use, being for recreational and leisure purposes would not result in unrestricted sprawl, the condalensence of settlements nor encroachment into the countryside.

101. The proposed re-use of the building at the site for storage, registration

and toilet facilities would be compliance with policy NE4 of the CLSLP in that its use would not materially impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

102. The proposal, being an outdoor participatory sports and recreation use

is considered to comply with policy RL10 of the CLSLP in that the use is participatory and outdoor. It is considered that the proposed ancillary facilities (existing building, car parking, and game zone structures) are relatively small in scale within their context, are of a rustic nature and are considered essential in that they not exceed what is necessary for users to fully participate in the activities and are not sufficient to harm the Green Belt.

Residential Amenity 103. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires that the planning system should

contributes to and enhance the local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution.

104. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF advises that decisions should avoid noise

from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on quality of life as a result of new development.

105. RL9 of the CLS LP requires that development of sports activities which require a countryside location must not: i) damage the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

106. There are a number of sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of

Blackdene Wood who potentially may be impacted from the use of this site for paintballing activities and it can be seen from the objection letters received that neighbours evidently have been affected by existing operations. The closest residential property is Garden Cottage which adjoins the northern side of the site. The garden of this property is sited approximately 55m from the edge of the nearest gaming zone with the property itself being sited approximately 100m from the nearest gaming zone The property is also very close to the base camp where instructions and demonstration on how to operate the guns are given.

107. The identified sources of noise from the paintball activities that may

potentially affect the residential amenity are largely from the firing of guns and the noise of participants shouting and screaming as well as the giving of instructions. At present noise is also emitted from the use of generators, although it is understood that the proposed operator would not require to use these.

108. The Pollution Control Officer has obtained information concerning

noise from the compressed gas-operated guns that has been measured at approximately 72dB (A) at 1m from the source. Other than proposed times of operation and restriction covering specified days when the activities may take place there are no other measures detailed within the submission for the control of noise.

109. Notwithstanding the problems of assessing this type of activity the

Environment Health Officer considers that it would be of value to assess the impact of the paintballing activity by determining the prevailing background noise without any activities taking place and then measuring noise levels when the activities are being carried out on the site. This would provide a means of basing a decision upon an objective assessment rather than being subjective.

110. The applicants have been requested to provide a noise assessment,

however this information has not been forthcoming. The applicants have not submitted this as the operators that have been undertaking recent activities are not the same as the applicants that would intend to operate and that the previous operators have recently moved from the site. They consider a noise assessment of any other paintballing site would not be a true representation of the noise levels likely to be found on this particular site, given the topography of the land and the wooded slope between the site and residential properties.

111. Therefore officers have undertaken site visits to the nearest residential

property (Garden Cottage), who have objected to the proposal, when

paintballing activities were and were not being carried out on site. It was found, from noise monitoring that the garden of this property has a low/quiet ambient background noise level of 34.5dBA.

112. It was known that during the period officers were present within the

garden area of Garden Cottage, 35 people were present on the application site undertaking paintballing activities. It was also known that no paintballing gaming activity was being undertaken on this occasion in the location directly below the objectors property. When at the base camp staff could be distinctly heard giving out instructions and demonstrations. Furthermore loud repeater gun shots from the demonstration or testing of the guns, and on occasions extending into one long sound, could be heard emanating from the base camp location, which is directly below Garden Cottage

113. When the short spells of gun shot firing were taking place there was a

clear audible difference to be heard within the garden area with a rise in noise levels of 1dBA in the LAeq and a LMax of 65.3dba which raises noise levels significantly above the background noise levels. It is the view of officers that if this was carried out over a sustained period of time there would be a significant difference upon the low ambient level which suggests that a sustained paintballing period in the same location would potentially reach a level that could lead to a significant affect upon the amenity of the property.

114. Although not heard by officers due to games not taking place directly to

the south of Garden Cottage, residents advise of screaming and shouting during games sessions and raise concerns regarding noise and disturbance from the existing paintball use that has taken place. Residents advise that they have found the level and tonal nature of this noise to be intrusive. The indications are that the noise resulting from the paintball use is markedly different to that which might be expected in a rural area and at weekends when residents might reasonably expect a degree of peaceful enjoyment of their gardens.

115. The issue of particular concern relates to the use of the land and the

carrying out of activities on the eastern side of the railway viaduct, directly below the garden area of Garden Cottage, where is it proposed to operate three paintballing zones and the base camp area. It is evident that the scale of the proposed paintball activities would be extensive, in terms of number of people (up to 90 in three zones and 150 over the whole site) all day Saturday and Sunday most weekends of the year and some weekday/school holidays especially within the summer months (although the applicants agent has recently advised that activity may not take place on a Sunday).

116. It is considered that without any information submitted to the contrary

and in the absence of any evidence to demonstrate how noise and disturbance from the activities could be adequately mitigated, It cannot be considered that the proposed extent and intensification of activities

in this area to the east of the viaduct would not adversely affect the living conditions of the residents of Garden Cottage.

117. This view is taken by officers in the knowledge that gunfire shots, and

people talking and giving instructions can be heard in the area where extensive and intensive paintballing activity is proposed to take place during periods whereby local residents can be expected to be able to enjoy their gardens, particularly during the summer months,

118. In this respect it is considered that the proposals are considered

contrary to paragraphs 109 and 123 of the NPPF and policy RL9 of the CLS LP.

119. The use of restrictive conditions to limit number participants, number of

days and times of use has been explored. However it is difficult to justify the use of specific restrictive conditions without knowing whether specific limitations would result in acceptable levels of amenity for neighbouring residents and whether specific restrictions are therefore reasonable and justified. In other words until the noise impact is properly quantified, it is impossible to decide whether such impacts can be adequately mitigated.

120. Furthermore such conditions, specifically relating to numbers of people

and times of day are practically very difficult to monitor and enforce, especially on a weekly basis over an annual period and across the weekend. Therefore it is considered in the context of this specific proposal the use of restrictive conditions would not meet the tests set out within Circular 11/95: The Use of Planning Conditions..

121. There are a number of other residential properties sited in close

proximity to the application site. The ‘Judges Lodge’ is situated directly to the north of the woods at a distance of approximately 100m from the nearest proposed ‘battle zone’, with the garden being located at a distance of approximately 65m. Again although close, the residential amenity of this property is considered to be of less concern to officers given the transient nature of occupiers being in resident for shorter periods of time and it not being the permanent home of its occupiers.

122. The residential properties of Watermill Cottage and Mill House, also

objecting to the proposals are located to the south west of the site accessed directly off Mill lane, at a distance of approximately 280m (from house) and 220m from garden to the nearest ‘battle zone’. As such the current layout of the zones is considered to be of less concern at the present time for these properties.

123. It was noted from the noise monitoring site visit undertaken by officers

that when participants moved to the western side of the viaduct gun shots could not be heard by officers during this visit to Garden Cottage. As such, consideration has been given, by officers, to the resiteing of battle zones and the base camp entirely to the western side of the

railway viaduct, however the movement of all zones and the base camp further west, to the edge of the wood towards these properties, away from Garden Cottage would potentially lead to increased adverse impact on the two closest properties mentioned above located on Mill Lane. Relocating zones to the western side of the wood may also result in greater significant visual impact when viewed from Mill Lane.

124. Finally the reduction of the gaming area into a small area of the site to

the western side of the site extending to the existing application site boundary is considered to be to small an area to accommodate any purposeful or viable option, only being large enough for approximately one or two game zones. Furthermore pedestrian access would still be required to be taken from the eastern side of the woods adjacent ‘Mill Cottage’ given the siting of the existing car parking, as there is no further car parking available.

125. Essentially it is considered that there is insufficient information to

assess whether it would be possible to manage noise and disturbance, to sufficiently protect the reasonable living conditions of the residents of Garden Cottage.

Visual Impact and Affect on the Character and Appearance of the Area 126. The eastern side of the site is within an area of high landscape value

(AHLV) within the CLSLP with the whole site being in the Green Belt. Policy NE15 relating to AHLV states that the river wear valley has been identified as a landscape of countywide importance within which the maintenance and enhancement of the landscape and nature conservation character must be the primary objective.

127. It can be seen that the site is generally well screened from Mill Lane

and Howlhill Lane, to the south by mature dense tree cover, and by the steep valley. When walking along Mill Lane there are glimpses of existing structures from the road and it is recognised that the proposed structures would be larger and more numerous and extensive than those present but it is considered that the they would be generally constructed of a rustic timber, located on the valley floor and that the site is relatively well screened from public vantage points located beyond it whereby there would not be significant impact on visual amenity.

128. Furthermore though ‘Mill Cottage’ car park is visible from the road, it is

well screened by the countryside by a maturing hedgerow. It is also proposed to screen the intended car park extension.

129. The proposal is not considered to be detrimental to the visual amenity

of the greenbelt as required by policy NE6 of the CLSLP

Impact on Woodland and Ecology 130. The County Durham Landscape Spatial Strategy describes the

woodland as a location whereby the ancient woodland should be conserved. As a result, the site is located within a landscape Conservation Priority Area. The County Durham Landscape Character Area Objectives for the area seek to conserve, enhance and restore characteristic features of the Oak/birch woodlands.

131. Policy NE15 of the CLSLP requires that special attention will be given

to maintaining and enhancing the landscape character and quality of AHLV. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires that the planning system protect and enhance valued landscapes and geological interests. RL9 of the CLSLP requires that proposals should not damage flora and fauna. RL9 of the CLSLP requires that development of sports activities which require a countryside location must not damage the character and appearance of the countryside or flora and fauna.

132. Paragraph 118 of the NPPF advises that planning permission should

be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration or irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, unless the need for and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.

133. The main ecological issue for consideration is the impact of future use

of the site for paintball games and the degradation of the ancient woodland and thus the landscape character of the area.

134. The Councils Landscape Architect has undertaken an extensive site

visit and has noted serious concerns regarding the past and current activities on the site. These include the intensive use of tracks and footpaths through the woods, including use by vehicles, especially to the east of the viaduct and in the lower valley. This has resulted in tree roots being cut and no attempt has been made to contain this problem. Where the paintball activity has occurred and on the river terraces there is a total lack of ground or shrub flora. There has been no attempt at creating exclusions within the paintball areas to allow natural regeneration and there is no active woodland management at present.

135. The Councils Landscape Architect and Ecologist consider that the

management plan provided within the application is wholly inadequate. There is no attempt within it to establish the current state of the woodland and to ensure restoration or enhancement of the entire woodland over time. In order to ensure that the ancient woodland would not be further adversely affected, suitable mitigation and controls for the paintballing are required to ensure against further deterioration of the ancient woodland over time.

136. The Landscape Architect and Ecologist feel that, in its current state the

information provided is not of a sufficient standard to allow the LPA to

have any confidence that the ancient woodland will not be significantly impacted upon as a result of the proposed operations. In such situations, it is necessary to carry out a balancing exercise between the harm identified and the benefits and need for the proposal, as required by paragraph 118 of the NPPF. The applicant has not put forward any particular need for the proposed use on the site but in terms of benefits, 2 full time and 20 part time jobs are proposed to be created. It is not considered that the limited job creation benefits outweigh the potential harm to the ancient woodland in this particular case.

137. Therefore it is considered that the proposals are contrary to RSS

policies 8 and 36 of the RSS, which seek to protect Ancient Woodland, policies NE15 and RL9 of the CLSLP and paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF.

Access and Highway Safety 138. The applicant proposes an extension to the existing car park which

would be screened by hedging .It is noted that highway, parking and access concerns have been raised by local residents. In support of the application the applicants agent outlines traffic and travel patterns associated with this type of development, in that it is envisaged that the majority of participants would travel to site in groups, either by car sharing or by mini-bus such is the nature of the group participation.

139. The Highways Officer is satisfied that an acceptable level of parking

would now be provided, given a proposed extension of the existing car park as required by policy T8 of the CLSLP.

140. The Highways Officer has no further concerns regarding other highway

safety considerations and as such the proposals can be considered to comply with the requirements of policy T15 of the CLSLP

141. It is noted that 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 perceived vehicle trips generated can be accommodated within the existing highway network.

Other Site Specific Considerations 142. Concern is raised on behalf of the Ministry of Justice regarding

residential amenity associated with the use of Southhill Hall as secure accommodation for high court judges whilst they are serving on the north east court circuit. This issue has already been discussed within paragraph 106 above. However it is noted at this point that they have raised no concerns regarding security of this property and thus no resultant restrictions would be required.

143. It is not considered that the proposed use, within the wooded valley would affect the setting of the listed Southill Hall, due to the existing topography and screening as required by part 12 of the NPPF-Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment.

144. Concern has been raised regarding the safety and enjoyment of horse

riding. However in the context of the wider countryside pursuits and activities and associated noise and disturbance that riders could be subjected to and the weight already given to highway concerns raised, it is not considered that sufficient weight can be given to these concerns raised whereby refusal on this basis could be reasonably justified.

145. The site is part of a Durham County geological site known as the

Sacriston sub glacial channel which is protected under policy NE8 of the CLSLP and paragraph 109 of the NPPF. Due to the over land nature of the proposals it is considered that there would be no impact on the geological structure of the site.

146. The application site straddles the Blackdene Burn and incorporates the

construction of structures close to and over the Burn as well as activities being undertaken by participants in the vicinity of the Burn. The Environment Agency have advised that they have no objection to the proposals although advise should planning permission be granted, that any equipment/ infrastructure located next to the river should be secured in order to prevent them from washing away during flooding and potential risk off-site. Therefore the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements of paragraph 100 of the NPPF which should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant.

147. Although there are informal paths through the application site there are

no registered public rights of way within or abutting the site.

CONCLUSION

148. It has been established that the principle of the proposed development,

within the green belt and its potential visual impacts are considered acceptable within its setting.

149. It is also noted that the NPPF requires planning decisions to proactively

drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver business and that every effort should be made objectively to meet business and other development needs of an area and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. In particular paragraph 28 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. It is acknowledged that

approval of these proposals would potentially provide jobs within the local area.

150. It is also recognised that in this case there is a potential fall back

position in that this type of use benefits from permitted development rights, whereby the use could potentially operate for up to 28 days a year without restrictions being able to be imposed. Albeit the structures as proposed in this case would require the benefit of planning permission to be erected. However it is the case that this could potentially be prevented through the withdrawal of permitted development rights on this land by the LPA through an Article 4 Direction, where appropriate to do so.

151. However, notwithstanding the positive aspects and general support in

principle to leisure activities within the countryside this needs to be balanced against the principle of ensuring that development benefits economic activity whilst maintaining or enhancing the rural environment and quality of life in rural areas.

152. Indeed safeguarding the amenity of existing residential occupiers, is a

core principle of the NPPF in that planning decisions should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. This requirement, to safeguard the amenity of residents, specifically in relation to noise is set out within paragraphs 109 and 123 of the NPPF and generally within policy RL9 of the CLSLP.

153. After careful consideration it cannot be concluded, whether it would be

possible to manage noise and disturbance to sufficiently protect the reasonable living conditions of the residents of Garden Cottage, in particular, However, refusing the application on the grounds that the applicant has submitted insufficient information to demonstrate that the activities would not adversely affect the amenity that residents of Garden Cottage could reasonably expect to enjoy is considered to be justifiable.

154. In respect of the ancient woodland, Paragraph 118 of the NPPF

advises that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration or irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, unless the need for and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Paragraph 109 requires that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Local policy requires the maintenance of valued landscapes and that the character and appearance of the countryside should not be damaged.

155. It is recognised that the LPA would be able to require positive

woodland management as a pre-requite of any planning permission. However at present on the basis of the information and woodland

management plan submitted, the LPA are not satisfied that the proposed use would protect and enhance the character of the woodland as required by NE15 and RL9 of the CLSLP and paragraph 109 of the NPPF.

156. It is recognised that the development would provide some job creation,

however it is considered at present that this does not clearly outweigh the potential deterioration of the ancient woodland as required by paragraph 118 of the NPPF

RECOMMENDATION

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is considered contrary to policy RL9 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan and Paragraphs 109 and 123 of the NPPF in that insufficient information has been submitted for consideration by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the proposed use would not damage the amenity of neighbouring residential properties or avoid noise from significantly adversely impacting on the quality of life of local residents. 2. The proposed development is considered contrary to paragraphs 109 and 188 of the NPPF, policies RL9 and NE15 of the Chester-le-Street Local Plan and policies 8 and 36 of the North East of England Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 in that insufficient information has been submitted for consideration by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the proposed use would protect and enhance the character of the ancient woodland and not result in its deterioration.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

− Submitted Application Forms and Plans − National Planning Policy Framework − The Noise Policy Statement for England − North East Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021 (RSS) July 2008. − Chester-le-Street Local Plan − Responses from Northumbrian Water, Durham Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer), Environment Agency, County Highways, Design and Conservation Officer, Landscape Officer, Public Rights of Way Officer, Environmental Health Officer, Planning Policy Officer, Ecology Officer,

− Public Consultation Responses

Planning Services

Change of use of Blackdene Wood to paintballing (Sui Generis), including operational development of sundry structures

This map is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the 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

Comments

Date Scale 1:5000