Sunday 25 July 2010

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

1 comment:

  1. These comments were sent to the Planning Department on 24th June. Proposal 0022 was approved at a meeting on 21st July and 0023 was re-submitted becoming 0043. Comments on 0043 need to be made to the National Park by 13th August

    ReplyDelete