Removal of four conditions at Former BAE System Site, Birtley

“The application relates to an irregular shaped plot of previously developed industrial land (some 27.58Ha) located along the western edge of Birtley, and to the east of the East Coast mainline railway. The site was formerly occupied by the BAE systems factory which was demolished sometime between 2012 and 2014.”

“The immediate site context is varied in nature. To the north west is the former ‘Venator Pigments UK’ plant. Vacating the site in late October 2025, Venator previously operated from a large 28 acre facility comprising a series of industrial units which produced a range of metals and additives for paints, coatings, inks and cosmetics industries. Whilst all buildings associated with this use remain in-situ, the site is currently vacant, with no activity taking place.”

“Outline planning permission was granted (subject to s106) in October 2012 for residential development of the former BAE systems site (planning ref: DC/11/00546/OUT). This included demolition of the existing buildings, site remediation, open space provision (including public realm, landscaping and play facilities), all related infrastructure (including roads, access, car and cycle parking, gas facilities, water supply, electricity, telecommunications, lighting and foul…”

“On 27 August 2025, permission was granted by the LPA, ref DC/22/00125/FUL (subject to s106) for the erection of 276no. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings (reduced from 298no.) and associated works. It is this consent to which the current s73 application relates.”

“In supporting documentation provided by the applicant, it is argued that should the Venator site ever come back into use, it would be unlikely that the site would be reused in exactly the same manner as it was previously by Venator as this was not a typical industrial use, and previous operations were bespoke to the Venator business.”

“In response to the current application to remove these conditions, officers concur that following the closure of the Venator plant, that the retention of conditions specific to aspects of Venator’s activity are no longer necessary or relevant to the development as permitted. It is reasonable for the applicant to apply to remove or vary a planning condition if it is impossible to comply with and planning law sets out that such conditions should not remain in force.”

“For the avoidance of doubt, these very narrowly focused conditions do not relate to mitigation measures within the application site itself, which are all still to be implemented and are controlled under separate conditions, nor were conditions 70-73 needed in order to reduce the impacts of Venator’s activities on existing residential properties in the area who had co-existed with this use for many years.”

“Specifically, any disturbance arising from site construction activity are to be managed and controlled under a separate Construction Management Plan (CMP) condition (conditions 5 and 6). Meanwhile, noise impact from site development is covered under a separate Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) condition (conditions 33 and 34). Finally, lighting impacts from site development are covered under a separate lighting management plan condition (conditions 40 and 41).”

“The conditions proposed for removal were imposed specifically to ensure the development would be acceptable in terms of noise impact and light pollution, and therefore to protect both future and existing residents as well as the wider environment. Removing these safeguards means there would be no requirement to demonstrate that mitigation works, nor to ensure it continues to function over time.”

“By asking to remove or bypass conditions, the developer is attempting to evade accountability for the acoustic impact of this massive site. Without independent verification and mandatory retention of these barriers, local residents face long-term, unmitigated noise disturbance from the construction and ongoing use of the site. This violates the council's obligation to protect existing residents from harmful noise pollution.”

“DC/26/00333/FUL Address: Former BAE System Site, Ravensworth Road, Birtley Applicant: Gleeson Regeneration Ltd. Proposal: Removal of conditions 70 (off-site noise mitigation verification), 71 (retention of off-site noise mitigation), 72 (off-site light spillage mitigation), and 73 (retention of off-site light spill mitigation) of planning permission DC/22/00125/FUL for the erection of 276no. 2, 3 and 4-bed dwellings (reduced from 298no.) and associated works.”

“That permission be GRANTED subject to the following condition(s) and that the Service Director of Climate Change, Compliance, Planning and Transport be authorised to add, vary and amend the planning conditions as necessary…”