PLANNING OBJECTIONS

LANEHEAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (LHRA)

An un-registered charity promoting the interests and well-being of the residents of Lanehead

PROPOSAL TO BUILD THE LONG HOUSE AT GREYSTONES

We refer to Planning Application number 10NP0022 relating to the construction of a single dwelling house at Greystones, Lanehead. The Committee of the LHRA have studied the drawings and submissions and accept that in-fill of this type accords with policies for development set out in the Framework Plan. Criteria for need appear to be uncertain as although the developer states that the building is for his family the plan clearly shows the possibility of four separate units within the structure and suggests a new build for holiday let purposes. We would expect the new building to be restricted in perpetuity to prevent re-sale to those without defined local need, or re-sale as a second home. We do have several substantial reservations about the design, materials and placing of the building and would like to make the following comments:

· The buildings clustered at the centre of Lanehead are predominantly Victorian and of stone and slate construction, with later addition of the classic rural village hall, and one modern bungalow which is substantially screened. We feel the Long House is far too modern in terms of design, appearance and materials, and in no way conforms with guidance in the New Build Design Guide and is completely out of kilter with present structure of Lanehead. The selected site is clearly visible to visitors descending the final slope from the Bellingham direction (this can be verified using Google Street map) and will be especially out of harmony with the view from the west. The two storey nature of the build will make it especially so and the overall visual impact of such a large modern building will be striking and intrusive in terms of the nature of the settlement.

· The position of the new building at the extreme edge of Greystone land immediately adjacent to the boundary with Sundown, and its orientation at right angles to the highway, mean that Sundown is overshadowed by a building twice its height with attendant loss of privacy and visual amenity. It will also require the removal of a substantial number of trees number of trees to the south. Any build on this land should reflect the scale and nature of those structures in the present settlement and also be sympathetic to any immediate neighbours.

The Committee, Lanehead Residents Association

LANEHEAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

An un-registered charity promoting the interests and well-being of the residents of Lanehead

DEVELOPMENT AT GREYSTONES REF 10NP0023

We refer to the proposal to develop land at Greystones for holiday accommodation as set out in the documents and drawings available on the NNP web site. Residents have had some weeks to consider this matter since the developer was kind enough to consult neighbouring householders in March, and later invited responses from a wider community beyond the settlement. Subsequently residents have continued to exchange views with the developer and with the Lanehead Residents' Association, which was formed on 12th April this year. The Committee of the LHRA has now met to discuss all the plans and documents, and, taking into account all the views received from the developer and residents, feel able to comment fully on this proposal.

This is the biggest development ever contemplated in this dispersed settlement of C18 and C19 farms and cottages, with the later addition of four bungalows in C20. Although it appears there is limited resonance with some Park objectives and policies it would greatly alter the character of Lanehead physically and socially - indeed in this setting the proposal might be seen as Major Development. If carried out these proposals would substantially change the size and population of the settlement and greatly increase traffic, cars, parking and effluent etc and create light, noise and air pollution. Some residents feel that all this, and a substantial visiting population, may make this a less safe and clean place to bring up a young family than hitherto, while there would be damaging impact upon the natural environment, plant and wildlife. There is also considerable doubt that Lanehead is a suitable holiday resort on the grounds of limited facilities, infrastructure, attractions and no public transport.

Specific Comments

1. We do not believe the proposal delivers on LDF Policy 1 on most counts and therefore is not Sustainable Development while also failing to comply with the criteria for Sustainable Tourism (Policy 15). On General Development Principles (LDF Policy 3) we suggest the proposal fails on all counts in that

The special qualities of the National Park will not be conserved or enhanced
The buildings do not enhance local character or integrate with the existing building forms - indeed they appear to be wholly unsympathetic and designed without reference to the New Build Design Guide.
Open space which contributes to the amenity, character and setting of the settlement is degraded
The field forms part of the valley side and its steepness presents considerable development difficulties requiring substantial earthworks and the use of some gabions to provide both stability and levels for roads and buildings. We believe this is wholly inappropriate treatment of the upland landscape, and taken with any loss of cover or trees will change the way in which the lands drains, with possibly unforeseen consequences
The well-being of the community will be adversely affected by visual impact, pollution, noise and waste. Highway safety will be affected and infrastructure and community facilities will be stretched
2. Biodiversity and Tranquillity. The proposal would cause loss of natural habitat and disturbance to red squirrels, which are seen regularly in the settlement, and barn owls. The local barn owl population regularly hunt the development field and the adjoining meadow to the north. The scheme cannot possibly contribute to tranquillity (Policy 19) because of the level of noise, traffic and light likely to be generated by the development, and the loss of openness and enjoyment of the landscape. The developer continues to plan for wind power which we believe is not suitable in this situation on account of added noise and the potential to damage property and wild life, as well as visual amenity.

3. Residents have identified and advised us of a number of individual planning objections or comments relating to loss of privacy, flooding, parking, effluent disposal, design, light pollution, waste and noise etc and we understand these households will be writing individually on these matters to the Planning Department.

4. The site is to serviced by a new road connecting with the existing lane from Drovers House and Greenhaugh Telephone Exchange to Sheep Cottage. This narrow lane is privately owned and maintained and the householders concerned have not been asked nor given permission for this change of use. In addition the lane is totally unsuited to the initial construction traffic and levels of holiday traffic that would arise.

5. The site plan appears to show the new road connecting to the lane via the Greenhaugh Telephone Exchange site, specifically the van/car park. The whole site is owned by BT and Telereal Trillium who have covenanted to maintain the fences around the site forever. The plan apparently shows the existing gates and BT car/van park being taken into use as the entrance to the holiday site, with business signage erected. BT/Telereal Trillium have not been consulted about this change of use to their property. We would suggest that if they were to lose the use of the van park this could only lead to parking problems on the adjacent highway (Donkeywood Road).

In Conclusion. We believe this proposal has little or nothing to offer this community, the National Park or the local economy and we and our members have identified a number of objections, as set out above and in separate submissions. We regret the Lanehead Residents Association must object to this development which can only harm the environment, tranquillity and the special qualities of the National Park.


The Committee, Lanehead Residents Association

Tarset Burn

Committee Minutes 21st April

LANEHEAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Minutes of committee meeting held at Newhouses, Wednesday 21 April, 7.00pm

MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ross Anderson, Neil Astley, Pat Cooper, Rex Cooper, Preston Hoggan, John Holland, Pamela Robertson-Pearce and Jenny Swaile.

1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The previous meeting was the inaugural meeting of the Lanehead Residents Association held on 12 April at which the committee members were appointed by those present. The minutes were taken by Neil Astley and approved by the appointed committee as a true record of what was discussed and agreed.

2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairman: Rex Cooper (proposed by Neil Astley, seconded by Jenny Swaile.
Secretary: Neil Astley (proposed by John Holland, seconded by Preston Hoggan).
Treasurer: Preston Hoggan (proposed by Ross Anderson, seconded by John Holland).

3. BANK ACCOUNT
(3.1) Preston Hoggan agreed to ask Lloyds TSB to open a bank account for LHRA at Lloyds TSB in Bellingham. Signatories needed to be Lloyds TSB account holders: Preston Hoggan, Ross Anderson, Neil Astley and Rex Cooper.
(3.2) Preston Hoggan will prepare a budget to cover the cost of hiring Tarset Village Hall for LHRA community meetings and other activities such as coffee mornings. Thanks to a start-up donation LHRA currently holds £50 in cash.

4. PUBLICISING LHRA
(4.1) As noted in the previous minutes, LHRA now has a responsibility to inform all members of the Lanehead community of its initiatives, activities and meetings using whatever means is appropriate, and this could be a mixture of emails to people with computers, hand-delivered notices, notices on the Village Hall notice board and announcements in the Tarset News or on the Tarset website. Advertising in the Hexham Courant will not be necessary for a residents association covering just under 40 households, but the North Tyne stringers should be notified of events and meetings. Future communications could be more manageable if email addresses and opt out requests were collected the first time LHRA tries to circulate everyone in the community.
(4.2) Rex Cooper has compiled a list of around 40 properties in the LHRA area using the Post Office online database, but this does not include the name of residents. The Parish Council should have this information: Ande Jameson to be asked to provide names to complete the list. LHRA will then add emails where there are known, and a circulation list can be drawn up and households notified by email or hand-delivery.
(4.3) Information about the formation and nature of the LHRA to be sent to the Tarset website and Tarset News, including the web address of the Lanehead Residents Blog: http://laneheadresidents.blogspot.com. The constitution has been posted on the Blog.
(4.4) First mailout to Lanehead to establish which members of the community wish to opt out of membership of LHRA, and which issues people would most like LHRA to address in line with the purposes agreed under section 4 of the constitution.

5. CO-OPTING NEW MEMBERS
The committee elected has eight members, which means there are currently two vacant places which other members of the Lanehead community can be invited to take up. It was agreed that the Tarset Village Hall trust and/or committee should be asked if one of their members is willing to serve on the LHRA committee, and that the second place be left vacant for someone with special knowledge of or expertise in particular issues which may be raised over the next 12 months.

6. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date and time to be agreed by the committee members after email consultation