LANEHEAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Minutes of committee meeting held at Newhouses, Monday 9 August, 7pm
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ross Anderson, Neil Astley, Pat Cooper, Rex Cooper, Preston Hoggan, John Holland and Pamela Robertson-Pearce.
Apologies: Jenny Swaile.
1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the previous committee meeting held on 27 July were read and approved by the committee as a true record of what was discussed and agreed.
2. FARM WATCH
Discussion was held with Bellingham Police regarding the Farm Watch scheme: individual households can obtain necessary forms from PC Nigel Daley.
3. SPEED LIMITS
Further to previous discussion: the highways department cannot act on speed limits unless they receive a request from the police.
4. LHRA COMMUNITY MEETING
Village hall to be booked for a meeting to inform the community about LHRA, including discussion of concerns over Greystones development and updating residents on the planning process and LHRA's work in opposing the scheme on their behalf.
5. GREYSTONES DEVELOPMENT
Rex Cooper had received a response from John Riddle to the letter publicised in the Hexham Courant was sent to him as county councillor for Bellingham and National Park Authority chairman expressing residents' objections and concerns over the Greystones development, and he has agreed to meet him with NNPA chief executive Tony Gates. The development was discussed in detail with particular reference to the changes in access arrangements (now to use a non-existent "existing" entrance on the Donkleywood road where there is a continuous drystone wall boundary), the size of the buildings (the proposed "bothy" constructions being 6.5 metres or 21 feet in height, therefore not single-storey in elevation), drainage and the use and undesirable appearance of stone gabion supports. The position of the proposed non-existent "existing" entrance on the revised plan was also dangerously close to the historic drover's road water trough between the road and the wall. In the light of these changes and other aspects of the development, it was agreed that LHRA would submit a revised letter of objection to the planning office, with LHRA committee members to circulate the document with suggested items for inclusion before the deadline of 13 August. Planning approval for the Long House (10NP0022) was still subject to highway department approval and other conditions yet to be confirmed.
The Hexham Courant article by Brian Tilley was published on 30 July and can be read online here:
http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/news/news-at-a-glance/holiday-plan-opposed-1.740670?referrerPath=
It included one factual error: the deadline of 20 August mentioned related to the Parish Council and not to residents, who had until 13 August to submit their objection.
Pamela Robertson-Pearce reported on her discussion with Julian Morrison-Bell regarding his development at Charlton: in his case NNPA priorities regarding tourism and economic development had overridden concerns from local residents, and his advice was that LHRA should commission a planning expert to produce a detailed survey of the Greystones development concentrating not on the kinds of objections raised by residents but on the developments planning defects and shortcomings, relating these in specific terms to the NNPA guidelines. She would follow up his suggestion and research possible planning experts who might be able to do this work in a short term.
6. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date and time to be agreed by the committee members after email consultation.
*
LANEHEAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Minutes of subcommittee meeting held at Newhouses, Thursday 12 August, 4pm
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Neil Astley, Pat Cooper, Rex Cooper and Preston Hoggan.
1. GREYSTONES DEVELOPMENT (continued from 9 August meeting above)
Robin Wood of RP Wood Planning Consultancy, Ponteland, was introduced, having been previously briefed and supplied with available information about the Greystones development by Pamela Robertson-Pearce and Neil Astley and given a tour around the outside of the site. After listening to his analysis and responding with further detail, the subcommittee agreed that Robin Wood should be appointed to produce a professional analysis of the Greystones development for submission to NNPA before he went on holiday on 18 August. LHRA would confirm acceptance of his terms and conditions by email.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Sunday, 19 September 2010
UPCOMING EVENT
A date for your diary - Saturday 9th October at 1130. Lanehead Open Day in aid of the Lanehead Residents Association. Details to follow but basic outline is:
Members are invited to help if they can by giving items for the Sale or Raffle, which can be left at the Old Chapel, Lanehead
- Community Forum - Aims of the Association, and Delivery. Exploring ideas and needs
- Lunch - bring and share
- Sale of work, produce, books and bric a brac etc
- Raffle
Members are invited to help if they can by giving items for the Sale or Raffle, which can be left at the Old Chapel, Lanehead
Friday, 20 August 2010
COMMITTEE MINUTES 27th JULY
LANEHEAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Minutes of committee meeting held at Newhouses, Tuesday 27 July, 7pm
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ross Anderson, Neil Astley, Pat Cooper, Rex Cooper, Preston Hoggan, John Holland and Jenny Swaile.
Apologies: Pamela Robertson-Pearce.
1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the previous committee meeting held on 11 June were read and approved by the appointed committee as a true record of what was discussed and agreed.
2. FARM WATCH
A Neighbourhood Watch scheme cannot be pursued for Lanehead according to the police, but we can proceed with plans to set up a Farm Watch scheme.
3. SPEED LIMITS
Discussion with police held over speed limit concerns, but no action likely.
4. LHRA COMMUNITY MEETING
Sunday afternoon tea to be arranged on date TBC in the village hall.
5. GREYSTONES DEVELOPMENT
Ross Anderson reported on the planning committee meeting on 21 July at which permission for the Long House was approved (10NP0022) subject to various conditions, the holiday village application (10NP0023) having been withdrawn and replaced by a revised application (10NP0041) with different access arrangements (to be considered separately in September). The committee were directed by planning officer D Coverdale who recommended approval on the basis that the Long House was a stone and slate construction in keeping with the National Park. The Parish Council's letter of objection had been lost and was read out, but no reference was made to the 13 specific objections made to the development by members of the local community apart from a general comment about local unease. The site plan was projected but could not be viewed in detail. The artist's impression picture of the house was not shown, and so its actual construction from other materials (including stone and slate) was not made clear, nor was its enormous size and scale. The planning office had not received any reports from the highways department about access, but the committee were advised that this should not be a problem.
A discussion followed in which the LHRA committee agreed that the planning committee had acted incorrectly. The local community had not been properly consulted. National Park policy 3 (NP design guide for new build) had not been adhered to. There was a question over whether Rob Cocker had been receiving advice from the planning department since October 2009.
In order both to challenge the validity of planning permission for the Long House and to prevent permission being given for the holiday village without due process, it was agreed that Rex Cooper would write on behalf of LHRA to John Riddle as county councillor for Bellingham and National Park Authority chairman stating our objections and concerns. The Hexham Courant would be informed as press publicity was needed to draw the attention of the public and the planning committee to the strength of local opposition to the Greystones development.
Local residents and the LHRA can submit revised objections to the holiday village proposal (10NP0041) by 13 August or ask the planning office to treat their previous letters of objection to 10NP0023 as applicable to 10NP0041. The Parish Council would meet to consider these developments and had until 20 August to make its own revised objections. In the light of the ineffectiveness of local objections to the Long House development, it was agreed that LHRA should add further elements to its objections to the holiday village. Both the first and the revised planning applications for the holiday village included false statements about "existing access" and the planning committee should be made aware of this. The land on which the holiday village was to be sited is glacial clay unsuitable for building because of drainage problems and flood risk, and the geological aspects should be included in the revised letter of objection.
6. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date and time to be agreed by the committee members after email consultation.
Minutes of committee meeting held at Newhouses, Tuesday 27 July, 7pm
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ross Anderson, Neil Astley, Pat Cooper, Rex Cooper, Preston Hoggan, John Holland and Jenny Swaile.
Apologies: Pamela Robertson-Pearce.
1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the previous committee meeting held on 11 June were read and approved by the appointed committee as a true record of what was discussed and agreed.
2. FARM WATCH
A Neighbourhood Watch scheme cannot be pursued for Lanehead according to the police, but we can proceed with plans to set up a Farm Watch scheme.
3. SPEED LIMITS
Discussion with police held over speed limit concerns, but no action likely.
4. LHRA COMMUNITY MEETING
Sunday afternoon tea to be arranged on date TBC in the village hall.
5. GREYSTONES DEVELOPMENT
Ross Anderson reported on the planning committee meeting on 21 July at which permission for the Long House was approved (10NP0022) subject to various conditions, the holiday village application (10NP0023) having been withdrawn and replaced by a revised application (10NP0041) with different access arrangements (to be considered separately in September). The committee were directed by planning officer D Coverdale who recommended approval on the basis that the Long House was a stone and slate construction in keeping with the National Park. The Parish Council's letter of objection had been lost and was read out, but no reference was made to the 13 specific objections made to the development by members of the local community apart from a general comment about local unease. The site plan was projected but could not be viewed in detail. The artist's impression picture of the house was not shown, and so its actual construction from other materials (including stone and slate) was not made clear, nor was its enormous size and scale. The planning office had not received any reports from the highways department about access, but the committee were advised that this should not be a problem.
A discussion followed in which the LHRA committee agreed that the planning committee had acted incorrectly. The local community had not been properly consulted. National Park policy 3 (NP design guide for new build) had not been adhered to. There was a question over whether Rob Cocker had been receiving advice from the planning department since October 2009.
In order both to challenge the validity of planning permission for the Long House and to prevent permission being given for the holiday village without due process, it was agreed that Rex Cooper would write on behalf of LHRA to John Riddle as county councillor for Bellingham and National Park Authority chairman stating our objections and concerns. The Hexham Courant would be informed as press publicity was needed to draw the attention of the public and the planning committee to the strength of local opposition to the Greystones development.
Local residents and the LHRA can submit revised objections to the holiday village proposal (10NP0041) by 13 August or ask the planning office to treat their previous letters of objection to 10NP0023 as applicable to 10NP0041. The Parish Council would meet to consider these developments and had until 20 August to make its own revised objections. In the light of the ineffectiveness of local objections to the Long House development, it was agreed that LHRA should add further elements to its objections to the holiday village. Both the first and the revised planning applications for the holiday village included false statements about "existing access" and the planning committee should be made aware of this. The land on which the holiday village was to be sited is glacial clay unsuitable for building because of drainage problems and flood risk, and the geological aspects should be included in the revised letter of objection.
6. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date and time to be agreed by the committee members after email consultation.
Monday, 9 August 2010
Minutes of Committee Meeting 11th June
LANEHEAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Minutes of committee meeting held at Newhouses, Friday 11 June, 6.30pm
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ross Anderson, Neil Astley, Pat Cooper, Rex Cooper, Preston Hoggan, John Holland and Pamela Robertson-Pearce.
Apologies: Jenny Swaile.
1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the previous committe meeting held on 21 April were read and approved by the appointed committee as a true record of what was discussed and agreed.
2. BANK ACCOUNT
Bank account arrangements in motion with Lloyds TSB in Bellingham.
3. PUBLICISING LHRA
Still awaiting list of LHRA area households and residents from Ande Jackson.
4. NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH
PC Neil Grubbins at Bellingham Police has been contacted regarding a possible Neighbourhood Watch scheme for Lanehead. Ross Anderson suggested amalgamating this with the Farm Watch Scheme run by Northumbria Police which has been rolled out in other parts of Northumberland: George Knight at Hexham police station is the contact for this.
5. SPEED LIMITS
Action to be taken to raise the issue of motorbikes speeding through Lanehead, involving the police and Hexham Courant. This issue has been raised by all LHRA committee members as well as other Lanehead residents including Rob Cocker. Ross Anderson said Ridsdale residents had succeeded in getting a 40mph limit imposed on the A696 through their village, but Preston Hoggan stated that it had taken over two years to get the 30mph signpost moved back down the road from Bellingham Middle School to keep pace with the extension of housing along that road. Neil Astley argued that as well as the road safety issue in Lanehead itself, the problem of noise pollution (as well as road safety) related to the C200 road from Charlton to Lanehead and from Lanehead to Falstone: speed limits needed to be observed not just at the dogleg junction but for miles on either side; some Greystead residents had been forced to move or put their houses on the market because of the noise and danger of motorbikes.
6. OTHER INITIATIVES
Ross Anderson listed several other possible issues or initiatives for LHRA, including a labour free day to help the community, a winter rescue team, a rubbish removal service, the state of the Village Hall and Lanehead in bloom. Rex Cooper proposed a coffee morning to bring together members of the community and as a means of finding out what issues most concerned residents. Pamela Robertson-Pearce cautioned against taking on too many ideas at once with limited resources and manpower: we needed to concentrate on no more than one or two at a time.
7. HEADS DEVELOPMENT
Full application has now been made by Robert Cocker for the Heads development in two parts:
http://planning.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/application.asp?NNPA_ref=10NP0023
http://planning.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/application.asp?NNPA_ref=10NP0022
The deadline for submissions was 29 June. Both parts of the development were discussed. It was agreed that LHRA would submit an objection to the Long House on the grounds that it was too large and out of place and doesn't appear to respect various planning policies, but accepting that a smaller house built from traditional materials would be acceptable. A second letter objecting to the holiday village would cover aspects such as inadequate parking provision, excess traffic, construction traffic, access to the private road without permission from residents or British Telecom/Telereal Trillium (joint owners of the telephone exchange through which access was planned), drainage, light pollution, and that this was an inappropriate site for such a development in a residential area with no amenities. Individual residents had been raising their own concerns in relation to other issues affecting their households in particular, and they would lodge separate letters of objection with the National Park as would the Village Hall and the Parish Council.
8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date and time to be agreed by the committe members after email consultation.
Attached:
LHRA letters to National Park objecting to Rob Cocker planning applications.
Agreed as a true record, Committee Meeting 27th July 2010
Minutes of committee meeting held at Newhouses, Friday 11 June, 6.30pm
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ross Anderson, Neil Astley, Pat Cooper, Rex Cooper, Preston Hoggan, John Holland and Pamela Robertson-Pearce.
Apologies: Jenny Swaile.
1. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The minutes of the previous committe meeting held on 21 April were read and approved by the appointed committee as a true record of what was discussed and agreed.
2. BANK ACCOUNT
Bank account arrangements in motion with Lloyds TSB in Bellingham.
3. PUBLICISING LHRA
Still awaiting list of LHRA area households and residents from Ande Jackson.
4. NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH
PC Neil Grubbins at Bellingham Police has been contacted regarding a possible Neighbourhood Watch scheme for Lanehead. Ross Anderson suggested amalgamating this with the Farm Watch Scheme run by Northumbria Police which has been rolled out in other parts of Northumberland: George Knight at Hexham police station is the contact for this.
5. SPEED LIMITS
Action to be taken to raise the issue of motorbikes speeding through Lanehead, involving the police and Hexham Courant. This issue has been raised by all LHRA committee members as well as other Lanehead residents including Rob Cocker. Ross Anderson said Ridsdale residents had succeeded in getting a 40mph limit imposed on the A696 through their village, but Preston Hoggan stated that it had taken over two years to get the 30mph signpost moved back down the road from Bellingham Middle School to keep pace with the extension of housing along that road. Neil Astley argued that as well as the road safety issue in Lanehead itself, the problem of noise pollution (as well as road safety) related to the C200 road from Charlton to Lanehead and from Lanehead to Falstone: speed limits needed to be observed not just at the dogleg junction but for miles on either side; some Greystead residents had been forced to move or put their houses on the market because of the noise and danger of motorbikes.
6. OTHER INITIATIVES
Ross Anderson listed several other possible issues or initiatives for LHRA, including a labour free day to help the community, a winter rescue team, a rubbish removal service, the state of the Village Hall and Lanehead in bloom. Rex Cooper proposed a coffee morning to bring together members of the community and as a means of finding out what issues most concerned residents. Pamela Robertson-Pearce cautioned against taking on too many ideas at once with limited resources and manpower: we needed to concentrate on no more than one or two at a time.
7. HEADS DEVELOPMENT
Full application has now been made by Robert Cocker for the Heads development in two parts:
http://planning.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/application.asp?NNPA_ref=10NP0023
http://planning.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk/application.asp?NNPA_ref=10NP0022
The deadline for submissions was 29 June. Both parts of the development were discussed. It was agreed that LHRA would submit an objection to the Long House on the grounds that it was too large and out of place and doesn't appear to respect various planning policies, but accepting that a smaller house built from traditional materials would be acceptable. A second letter objecting to the holiday village would cover aspects such as inadequate parking provision, excess traffic, construction traffic, access to the private road without permission from residents or British Telecom/Telereal Trillium (joint owners of the telephone exchange through which access was planned), drainage, light pollution, and that this was an inappropriate site for such a development in a residential area with no amenities. Individual residents had been raising their own concerns in relation to other issues affecting their households in particular, and they would lodge separate letters of objection with the National Park as would the Village Hall and the Parish Council.
8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Date and time to be agreed by the committe members after email consultation.
Attached:
LHRA letters to National Park objecting to Rob Cocker planning applications.
Agreed as a true record, Committee Meeting 27th July 2010
Thursday, 5 August 2010
FARM WATCH
The Committee is developing a programme of relevant projects for the Association and we hope to have a Sunday gathering in the Village Hall soon to discuss ideas and exchange information (and have a social tea). To start with we have explored the possibility of Neighbourhood Watch and have had discussions with our Beat Manager at Bellingham. The outcome is that we are now able to enrol households in FARM WATCH, and the first are signed up. If you would like to join or receive more information please contact Rex (240002) or by e-mail.
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
PLANNING APPLICATION 0041
Some confusion has arisen over the end date for commenting on this proposal. It was originally stated as 13th August but the the Parish Council (PC) were given until 20th August, and this was quoted in last Friday's Courant. I have sought clarification from the planning officer on this (without result) but now a member of our committee has been told by Lucy Butler that is definitely the 13th and the later date applies to the PC only. If you wish to comment, or carry over previous comments on the earlier submission (0023) then it would be wise to make those arrangements ASAP and certainly no later than 13th August. If commenting by e-mail make sure your message is received either by requesting a "read receipt" or telephoning (or both !).
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)