Tarn Laithe
Linton
Skipton
North Yorkshire
BD23 5HJ
14th January 2020
(incorrect date, received 15.09.20)
Katherine Wood
Principal Planning Officer
Planning Service
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
Yoredale
Bainbridge
LEYBURN
North Yorkshire
DL8 3EL
Dear Madam, REF:C/50/46L – PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LINTON CAMP
I am writing to strongly object to the application made regarding the proposed development of this site.
Although there have been some changes to this original application the size of this development is still significant and can only damage what is peaceful rural area.
The lighting issues have been addressed in some way, however there is no mention of the pool lighting which I presume will be kept on late into the evenings. Also cars entering the area at all times, which is the nature of this type of business.
The development will surly hope to accommodate events such as weddings and such like which will therefore disturb what is essentially a quiet area. A reason I moved here with my family 9 years ago and is what current visitors seek to find in the dales.
I understand the need to provide jobs and revenue for this area and that tourism is a large part of that. However, I cannot see the residents of Linton seeking employment there and most staff, as with many other hospitality establishments will have to be found from outside the area or from abroad. The tourism industry is very fickle and as we allow the area to get busier we will destroy what our visitors come to experience and if this venture is not as lucrative as the investors hope what will happen to the development then.
The beautiful village green itself already hosts many visitors and we are quite used to the swell of visitors to Linton which causes many other problems such as traffic and parking.
The upkeep of the green and surrounding area falls on the ever-decreasing number of parishioners (an ever-declining number as many homes have become second homes here). If I had known about this development earlier, I would not have chosen to move here with my family.
I currently live alongside Lauradale Lane as you enter the village of Linton which already suffers from dangerous parking; inconsiderate parking across our driveway; people reversing onto our property to turn and cars being driven at 60mph which is currently the speed limit through the village, making it difficult leaving our own driveway at times. The infrastructure of the village cannot cope with the potential of more cars passing through.
Whilst living in Linton I have been a teacher at the local primary school for the past 4 years and I have seen first-hand the difficulty people have passing school on the narrow road during drop off and pick up times. The school parents and locals follow a one way in and out to alleviate this problem. Satnav directions to the development from the North will route visitors past the school potentially causing many problems. Children also walk home to Linton, Threshfield and Grassington along these roads that will be made even busier with guests heading to check in.
I naively always thought that by moving into a National Park the powers that be would be there to protect the area from developments such as this.
I realise my letter deviates from responding directly to the YDNP planning policy but do hope that these comments will be taken into consideration too.
Yours sincerely,
Clare Oakes Objection to Planning Ref C/50/46L
I would like to register an objection to Planning Ref: C/50/46L. The scale of the application proposal remains wholly excessive and inappropriate for this rural location within the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP).
The development is too large The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises at paragraph 172 that within statutorily protected landscapes such as National Parks ‘the scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. No such circumstances exist.
Planning legislation also defines major developments as providing more than 1000 m2 of floorspace. The total floor space of the proposed development is measured at 10,962m2. Nearly 11 times greater than the scale defining a major development. This proposal is too large and therefore must be rejected.
Local Plan Policy BE1, when read in conjunction with Appendix 3 of the Plan, sets out the development constraints for the Linton Camp site. Criterion 3 and 4 of Appendix 3 make it absolutely clear that a development of the scale that is currently proposed is not acceptable.
Criterion 3 explains that ‘the focus of development opportunity is upon the part of the site that already contains buildings. Any development of the remaining parts of the site not currently occupied by buildings will only be permitted where it can be shown to enhance or better reveal the significance of the Scheduled Monument and where it will conserve or enhance the particular landscape, wildlife and archaeological qualities of the area.’
It remains the case that the amended development proposals cover an area of land that is significantly greater than which is currently developed. Additional land to be developed to the south and east includes land for the new hotel building (both above and below ground), the outdoor swimming pool, and a network of landscaped areas with formal routes through them for use by hotel guests, see following images for easy comparison.
Comparison of existing building footprint vs the amended proposal.
Light pollution – a material, detrimental impact on the dark skies The lighting required to enable a development of this scale to operate will, unfortunately, have a materially detrimental impact on the precious dark skies of the YDNP.
Policy SP4 ‘Development quality’ from the Adopted Local Plan states that development must not give rise to any unacceptable, adverse impacts in terms of the darkness of the night sky. Paragraph 2.31 of the policy justification states that ‘One of the Special Qualities of the National Park is the extensive areas that benefit from tranquillity and access to a dark night sky. This is an increasingly scarce resource in England and is protected by national planning policy. Where these qualities are present, proposals for development should avoid harmful levels of noise or light emissions.’
The revised proposal comes with a significant amount of light emissions. In hours of darkness (3:45pm – 8:45am in winter) light emitted from the development would be prominent and have an unacceptable impact on the characteristics of the YDNP. In particular, when viewed from the higher land to the east and north east as well as from the nearby village of Linton.
The planned operating hours for the hotel and spa complex (07:00am – 11:00pm) would also present a substantial and unacceptable level of light, as well as sound, pollution to the area and Linton Village.
Furthermore, the normal operation of the hotel the applicant has confirmed that the venue will be marketed and used to host a variety of events such as weddings, hosted meetings and functions which will materially increase the level of light and noise pollution for the area and nearby villagers. This will be very disruptive to the quiet, peaceful environment of the Park and negatively impact its residents.
Uninterrupted view of the site from B6265 between Grassington and Hebden
Linton Camp development site.
Linton Camp buildings clearly visible from properties on eastern edge of Linton Village
Current buildings at the camp are clearly visible from properties in Linton village.
Linton Village is clearly visible from Linton Camp. Note lack of lighting in Linton Village.
Linton Village – clearly visible from Linton Camp
Criterion 4 specifically states that new structures on the site are ‘likely to be predominantly single storey’. This is not the case with the development proposal. Criterion 4 is breached as over 50% of the proposed hotel building is actually 3 stories of development.
In addition to this the height of the single story accommodation is typically around 6 metres, materially greater than a ‘normal’ single story building and not within the spirit of the definition of a single story building.
The development will visually harm the landscape In addition to the sheer scale of the development, its prime and highly visible location within the YDNP presents a number of material issues.
Planning policy recognised the unique and rare landscape of the YDNP and through policy states: • Policy SP1 requires development to conserve or enhance the landscape character of the National Park through use of high quality design, appropriate landscaping, and removal of unsightly development. • Policy SP2 explains that development will not be permitted that prejudices the National Park purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty. Policy SP4 indicates that development must not give rise to any unacceptable, adverse impacts in terms of important public views. Finally, the NPPF advises at paragraph 172 that ‘Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks’.
Uninterrupted view of Linton Camp site from B6160 between Burnsall and Grassington
Linton Camp development site.
Linton Camp occupies a central position in the visita taken from Snake Path. A regular postcard view taken to draw tourists into the unspolit national parks area.
Linton Camp development site.
The design of the building with its massive curving hotel and spa complex will stand out within the landscape. Its design looks nothing like other structures within the YDNP and will fundamentally change the character of the area from many vantage points.
To be clear, I do not see these differences in anyway enhancing the natural beauty of the area. It will also set a troubling precedent for other future developments / expansions. The application compares the visual impact of the proposal to that of the currently dilapidated structures that are on site. These structures cannot be restored and returned to use and should instead be removed from the site as they are a blot on the landscape.
To address this the YDNP could use the powers that it has under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Under these powers the YDNP can serve a notice and compel the landowner to remove these derelict structures as they are now beyond repair and their resulting appearance has an unacceptable impact on the local landscape.
In summary, due to its scale and design the development will be harmful to the special qualities of the YDNP.
Unacceptable burden on the road network The local road network is unsuitable to accommodate the additional vehicle movements, and the site is an unsustainable location for this development as realistically it is not accessible by means other than private motor vehicles. The application should be refused for reasons relating to Highways / Traffic / and Sustainability.
Once again, the massive scale of the development requires a significant level of services such as waste removal, food deliveries as well as the constant arrival and departure of guests to enable it to operate.
The plans afford well over 100 car parking spaces, an increase in car parking capacity of ~340% when compared to that of the original ‘Linton Camp’ development, as well as additional parking for shuttle buses, service vans and the incoming and outgoing deliveries.
Access to the site is very poor and, given inadequate public transport services, we anticipate that all of the visitors and the majority of staff will arrive by private vehicles, hence all the parking spaces.
Most visitors to the site are likely to arrive from either the A59 or A65 to the south. The vast majority of these visitors to the proposed hotel complex, including the numerous service vehicles required for a development of this scale, will then use the B6265 Grassington Road. However, they will then be directed to pass through the village of Linton via Lauradale Lane. After crossing the bridge in the heart of this conservation village they will fork right on a narrow single track road with no passing places. This is the direct route to the site and is indicated on most, if not all, satnav systems (Waze, Google maps and RAC routefinder all show this route), see following pictures.
Right turn in centre of Linton village to the unmarked single track road leading to Linton Camp
Narrow single track, tree lined road with no passing places leads to Linton Camp
Linton Camp Buildings.
This directly conflicts the developers previous statement that ‘The major traffic routes bypass the village [of Linton] and there is only one through road, the B6265, leaving the settlement itself peaceful.’ In actual fact we believe that the impact of the increased traffic through the peaceful settlement of Linton, which is without speed restrictions, referred to in the conservation area statement will have an unacceptable negative impact on the amenity of existing residents and highway safety. The village will be peaceful no more.
The unacceptable burden on the inadequate local highway network will also exacerbate the extreme traffic congestion that the Village of Linton already suffers, as demonstrated by the following photographs. On road parking (both sides of the road) often reduces the road to a single lane, not easily passable by larger vehicles. Increased traffic intensity will not only worsen this situation but will materially increase the chances of road traffic accidents.
Congestion in Linton village – winter 2018. Congestion is materially worse in summer.
Capacity of Lauradale Lane is often reduced to single vehicles although an unrestricted speed limit remains in place.
Congestion on B6106, Great Bank and Church Lane – a typical summer day in 2020.
Great Bank leading to Church Lane and Threshfield School.
Parking and congestion at Linton Falls has materially impacted local residents.
From Harrogate most vehicles accessing the site will travel along the B6265 through Grassington then via the narrow single carriageway Church Lane which passes directly by Threshfield Primary School. This route is already heavily congested at school drop off and pick up times. Increased traffic will exacerbate this situation.
In addition to increased congestion, more traffic will heighten the threat of road traffic accidents involving children walking to and from school. Many children walk or cycle from Linton Village, crossing the B6160, as well as children from Linton Falls and Threshfield all of which have to walk along the single car width Church Lane.
Severe congestion at Threshfield school results in multiple cars parked along Church Lane.
From Ilkley visitors may also drive to the site via the B6160 passing through Bolton Abbey. The B6160 is narrow and unsuitable to accommodate the amount of vehicular traffic that a proposal of this scale will generate. Visitors will add to the bottleneck at Bolton Abbey (caused by existing visitors and the existing stone arch that has height restrictions and reduces the carriageway width to a single lane). Service vehicles are unlikely to be able to access the site from the B6160 due to the restrictions imposed by the stone arch. As a result of the scale of development that is proposed, the increased vehicle movements are unacceptable.
Due to the nature of the development a large number of employees will be required to service the hotel development. Sufficient employees will not be available in the immediate local area and will inevitably be employed from out of the area adding to vehicle trips to the site.
A smaller scale development would not generate the same number of vehicle movements by either visitors or prospective employees. Such a development would not require the same number of employees to service hotel bedrooms, and staff the associated leisure uses. Similarly, due to the nature of the development that is proposed, the number of deliveries to the site is likely to be extensive.
Survey work to support the planning application was undertaken in 2016, but it is now out of date. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic there has been a significant change to the pattern of vehicle movements in the last 6 months. Whilst vehicle movements initially significantly decreased across the country, there has been a significant increase in vehicle trips into National Parks in more recent months. Restrictions on the types of leisure activities that can be undertaken, and restrictions on the ability to holiday abroad, has resulted in vehicle movements within this part of the National Park increasing substantially. This impact has significantly compounded previous concerns about the resulting highway impacts.
Indeed, the sustained influx of visitors to the YDNP and to Linton specifically has placed a number of unbearable burdens on the local community. The material increase in traffic, illegal parking (refer to photos above) as well as littering and antisocial behaviour have been formally raised and accepted as issues which must be proactively addressed by the Police, North Yorkshire Highways, Harrogate Borough Council, the YDNP as well as other local Parish Councils.
This proposal highlights that it will ‘improve public access to the Dales’ by providing additional accommodation. However, the local services, are already failing to cope with visitor numbers are not and, given the remit of the National Park, cannot be enhanced to cope with such significant numbers of tourists. It is, incomprehensible, that a scheme of this scale located at the centre of an area impacted so greatly would be considered for approval.
Final comment I would like to object to this proposed planning application. The key issue relates to its scale which far surpasses that required to be considered a major development. Indeed, it is this scale 11,000m2 that drives the associated issues with respect to: • Light and sound pollution • Visual impact on the national park • Road safety and congestion
Yours Sincerely
Joe Midgley Lindsey Lightowler
From: [email protected] Sent: 13 September 2020 22:05 To: Sarah Sayer Cc: Planning Subject: Opposition to planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for tourist accommodation (AMENDED) at Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton
The last few weeks have been very busy however I have at last found time to draft few notes on the above planning application.
As a member of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and the former Transport and Visitor Management Officer for the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority I believe I am well qualified to comment on the application.
The application makes reference to bus stops close by to the development, however the frequency of the service is infrequent and of little use for guests.
The plan of cycles routes shows routes that in my view would not meet the latest guidance of cycle routes adopted by Sustrans and therefore these should not be regarded as being suitable for family groups cycling with children.
The application states that “Electric shuttle buses are also to be provided for staff pick up and drop off, as well as to shuttle guests to and from nearby villages”. However there is now way this can be guaranteed to continue once the property is open to guests and its therefore likely this will be discontinued and there will extra traffic generated by the proposal.
We have already seen this summer the parking congestion caused by visitor parking both in Linton Village and at Linton Falls. This development is likely to exacerbate these problems and cause inconvenience and safety concerns for both local people and visitors to the National Park.
Reference is made to local footpaths to Grassington however these are nothing more than muddy tracks for most of the year and do not provide an attractive route for “hotel” guests to visit the local amenities in Grassington.
It my view that the proposal to ameliorate traffic problems generated by the development are not only ineffective very limited or are unlikely to be sustained for long after the establishment is open leaving local people and visitors to the Dales to suffer worse traffic and safety issues particularly on roads used by children to walk to Linton School from Linton Village and Linton Falls.
In light of this it my view the development should be refused and I oppose its approval
If the authority is minded to approve the application then its is essential that the application makes a significant payment to the YDNPA to:
• Enable the YDNPA to improve the surface of the local foot paths between the site and Grassington including the re flagging of the footpath between Linton Falls and Grassington National Park Authority Car Park. • The provision of secure cycle parking in Grassington Square enough for about twenty cycles. • Insists that there is secure covered cycle parking for an e-bike for each guest staying at the hotel and safe charging facilities for e bike batteries. • All parking bays to be provided with electrical charging points. • Enable to the Highway Authority to instigate traffic regulations orders to restrict parking on local roads which has been causing problems in recent months and will be exacerbated by this development. • Insists that the applicant provides free e bike hire for all guests staying at the property. This I believe will be encourage a significant model shift compared to the measures suggested by the applicant. 1
Your Sincerely
Andrew Ryland MILT 12 Linton Falls Linton in Craven Skipton BD23 6BQ
From: Sarah Sayer
Dear Sir/Madam
I have received amended details for this application. You can view these on our website via the link below. http://archive.yorkshiredales.org.uk/planning-application?appNo=C%2F50%2F46L
The additional reports are labelled as follows: C_50_46L_AMD1, AMD2, AMD3, AMD4, AMD5 (new plans) and DAS1, DAS2, ASS4, ASS5, ASS6, ASS7, ASS8, TREE1, ECO1 and HER1.
Further supporting details are anticipated next week and will be made available on our website. The reports will be added to the website as soon as we receive them and will be named C_50_46L_ASS9, ASS10 and DAS3, relating to External Lighting, Drainage Impact and Supporting Statement.
Any observations you may wish to make in connection with this application should be submitted in writing so that I receive them within 21 days from the date of this letter (additional day(s) should be added to this date if there are bank holidays which fall within this period). You may reply by e-mail if you wish, to [email protected]. If you think you may have difficulty meeting this deadline please contact me.
I should point out that under the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act, 1985, the National Park Authority is obliged to make available for inspection by any member of the public observations which have been received from consultees as well as other background documentation relevant to the determination of this application.
NB: Plans, drawings, and other material submitted to the Authority are protected by the law of copyright. You may only download or print material in order for you to inspect it at a more convenient time or place, rather than having to visit our offices. You may only use any material downloaded or printed for your personal use in connection with consultation purposes, to compare current applications with previous schemes, and to check whether developments have been completed in accordance with approved plans. These copies have been produced by or with the authority of the Head of Development Management, pursuant to s47 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright, copies must not be made without the prior permission of the owner.
Many thanks
2 Sarah Sayer Senior Planning Technician
Direct: 01969 652307 Switchboard: 0300 456 0030
www.yorkshiredales.org.uk
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale | Bainbridge | Leyburn | DL8 3EL
In line with current COVID-19 guidance, National Park Authority buildings are closed. You can contact me via email, or for other officers and departments you can email [email protected] For more information on how we are working and for the latest guidance on COVID-19 please visit https://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/category/covid-19/ Thank you
Warning
This email and any attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. They are intended solely for the named recipient(s), and must not be used by, or copied or disclosed to, any other persons. If you are not an intended recipient please accept our apologies, contact us to let us know the email has gone astray, and then delete it. Unauthorised copying, distribution or disclosure is prohibited and may be unlawful. Unless otherwise indicated, copyright in the email and all attachments belong to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defects that might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received, no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising out of any malicious software, virus or other defect
Scanned by VIPRE.
3 Lindsey Lightowler
From: [email protected] Sent: 12 September 2020 12:22 To: Planning Subject: LINTON CAMP - C/50/46L
Dear Sir,
We are against Commercial Development of the site as it is not in keeping with the surrounding area, will cause massive disruption to the environment and traffic will increase dramatically on our small country roads.
This development will impact considerably on our existing local hospitality businesses.
Alison Pybus
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
Our Ref: Linton Camp, Linton York House Your Ref: C/50/46L AMENDED 9 York Place Knaresborough North Yorkshire HG5 0AD T: 01423 799954 E: [email protected]
11th September, 2020 Katherine Wood Principal Planning Officer (South Team) Planning Service Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale Bainbridge LEYBURN North Yorkshire DL8 3EL
Sent By Email: [email protected]
FTAO Katherine Wood
Dear Katherine,
Representation on Planning Application Ref: C/50/46L AMENDED, Proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for tourist accommodation at the Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton, BD23 5HQ
As you may be aware, we have been appointed by Mrs Victoria Heuck to object to the above amended scheme.
After reviewing the new Application material, the Development Plan1 and National planning policy/practice guidance, we would like to make the following observations:
Classification of Development and Fit with National and Local Policy
We have noted in our previous objection to the original scheme the following:
• The site is allocated for business development in the Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2015 – 2030, Adopted Dec, 2016 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Local Plan’)2
1 Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2015-2030, Adopted December 2016 2 B1, C1, C2 and ‘visitor accommodation’.
Page | 1
• There has been a negative Screening Opinion for Environmental Impact Assessment3 regarding the proposal
We now understand that there has been additional and ongoing consultation with the National Park by the Applicant to identify ‘challenges’ and ‘opportunities’4, as well as attempts to undertake formal consultation with Linton and Grassington Parish Councils.
Although we note the slight reduction in scale, building heights and size/ number of buildings, we remain unconvinced that the proposed development on this site, with its particular characteristics and effects, can necessarily be judged not to be major. We are disappointed that the Applicant has not taken the opportunity to address this issue within their amended Application documentation. There is no explanation in the Applicant’s amended Planning Statement as to why the proposed development is considered to be of a non-major nature.
We would uphold our previous suggestion for your Authority to properly assess (and evidence) whether this specific proposal is major or not, bearing in mind the criteria in Footnote 55 to paragraph 172 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the associated National Planning Practice Guidance5 (NPPG). We consider this to be critically important in terms of decision-making given the location of the site within a highly sensitive and designated area. National guidance is clear that planning permission should be refused for major developments other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.
If your Authority assess it to be major, it will fall to be determined against the ‘Major Development Test’ within the NPPF and Policy SP5 of the Development Plan6.
Site Setting and Nature/Magnitude of the Proposals
The site area remains extensive, occupying a prominent positions alongside the B6160.
Post-development, the site will include the erection of a substantial new hotel structure, which will together with associated hardstanding continue to occupy some previously undeveloped green field land. The Planning Report notes that this eastern extension will encroach beyond the ‘existing area of influence’ by 2569m2. This is despite the prevailing fact that the Local Plan requires that the focus of redevelopment of the site should be upon the part of the site that already contains buildings and, makes it perfectly clear that, any development of the remaining parts of the site will only be permitted where it can be shown
3 Reference: EIA/0171 18th June 2018 4 Reference: C/50/46/DAS3 5 Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 8-005-20140306 Revision date: 06 03 2014 6 Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2015-2030, Adopted December 2016.
Page | 2
to ‘enhance or better reveal the significance of the scheduled monument and where it will conserve or enhance the particular landscape, wildlife and archaeological qualities of the area’ (page 143).
Furthermore, and as we have stated in our previous objection, the copy of the pre- application response provided at Appendix B of the Applicant’s original Planning Statement, clearly advises at paragraph 4.3 that the development should avoid new buildings or structures other than the reception Hub within the undeveloped parts of the site. The amended Proposed Site Plan shows significant development of a Spa and Gym area, Brasserie and Formal Restaurant as well as Plant Services extending into the undeveloped eastern section of the site, which does not conform with pre-application advice nor Local Plan requirements.
Ecological Effects
In terms of Ecological matters, it is recognised that the ‘Update Ecological Assessment’ prepared by Ecus Environmental Consultants updates the previous report by Cameron.S.Crook and Associates.
However, once again the new report does not explain in detail the significance of the proposal on the nearby Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI): Cracoe Reef Knolls (located closest to the site), Far Mains and Far Limekiln Close Meadows. Additionally, as mentioned in the previous objection, the ecological assessments fail to mention that the site lies within SSSI Impact Risk Zone7. Natural England’s User Guidance for Impact Risk Zones for SSSI’s states that Natural England should be consulted (by the applicant and/or the Local Planning Authority) on applications in such areas for large rural non-residential proposals outside existing settlements/urban areas where footprint exceeds 1ha. Once again, no information has been provided to indicate whether Natural England has been consulted on the Proposals either by the Applicant in the form of a pre-application enquiry or indeed by the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
In terms of bats, the new ecology report confirms at paragraph 3.3.8 that the site continues to provide a moderate to high value for foraging and commuting bats. As such, the recommendations detailed at Table 1 in the report state that sensitive lighting should be developed, which includes the retention of dark areas in habitats to the south and east of the Site (away from the development footprint). Whist it is appreciated that proposed external lighting layout detailed in the External Lighting Assessment focuses primarily on the built development towards the centre and west of the site, lighting does extend eastwards around the pathway to the front of the proposed hotel. We would question whether this is appropriate given the recommendations made in the ecology report.
7 See: https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx
Page | 3
In addition to lighting matters, the ecological update report recommends the construction of a bespoke bat roosting barn in the south east of the site and the installation of bat and bird boxes on the new buildings in the site. This point is reiterated in sections 9 of the Landscape Strategy Report8. Whilst the proposed bat and owl barn to the south east of the site is recognised, it is unclear from the elevational plans for the proposed hotel and self- catering units if/where the bat and bird boxes have been provided.
Further to the above, landscaping enhancements are recommended in the form of the remodelling/extension of the existing pond (identified by Target Note 9 in the report) to the south east of the site to ensure standing water is present for the majority of the time and planting of native aquatic/marginal vegetation typical of the local area. This corresponds to Appendix 3 of the YDNP Local Plan which outlines that the development of the site provides scope to enhance existing pond habitats The Local Plan also states that the development of the site should not disturb the small area of core ecological network (ponds).
However, the Landscape Strategy Masterplan proposes to remove the existing pond altogether and instead create a new pond further to the eastern edge of the site (area 10). This is contrary to that recommended in the ecological report and in the Local Plan.
Transport Effects
Appendix 3 of the Local Plan and notes the following in respect of the site:
‘Careful consideration is needed of how to manage traffic impacts and incorporate sustainable transport choices, including linkages with and enhancements to the rights of way and public transport networks.’ (page. 143)
The Application is now accompanied by a Transport Statement, which is intended to comprehensively consider access to and within the site (of all modes) along with the impact of the development on local highways, in particular the B6160 running north and adjacent to the site. Following review of this Statement we note an omission at Appendix H – the Road Access Drawing (No. 11170-5002-M2-C-001 Rev 7) is not included within the document uploaded to Yorkshire Dales National Parks planning application page online. We are there unable to verify the critical site lines and visibility splay sightlines for the proposed access point and would respectfully request sight of this plan.
We note the removal of a proposed footpath, originally planned to connect the site with PROW no. 05.68/11/1, which is disappointing especially given the lack of any footpath along the B6160. This PROW is also the nearest and most direct pedestrian access to Linton Falls, a popular tourist spot that will no doubt attract numbers of visitors from the proposed hotel/self-catering complex. An increase in numbers of walkers utilising this section of road
8 Ecus Environmental Consultants, July 2020
Page | 4
without provision of a footpath, and particularly with poor visibility in the direction of the PROW, causes safety concerns for pedestrians.
Whilst we welcome confirmation of a low emission shuttle service providing guests with a car free alternative, we also note that the intention to service Threshfield as well as Grassington and Linton Village has now been dropped (as confirmed in the amended Design and Access Statement), which is disappointing. We consider a planning condition relating to the provision of such service would be appropriate if permission was forthcoming.
With respect to the vehicular movement information presented in the Transport Statement, we note the interpretative difficulties when comparing trip rate impacts of the amended scheme with the original scheme. This is due to differences in the land use categories used between the two assessments (the original one identifying the proposal as ’07 – LEISURE’ and ‘M – COUNTRY PARKS’ and the amended Statement using ’03 – RESIDENTIAL’ and ‘J – HOLIDAY ACCOMODATION’. The result of this has confirmed a predicted increase in peak hour flow of 25 vehicular per hour on the B6160 – compared to the original assessment claim of 60 movements per day. Whilst we have not been privy to pre-application discussions, we find it disappointing that Highways did not pick up on this significant inaccuracy previously in their original consultee response and would also question the conclusion of the amended Statement that the increased flow to capacity ratio on the B.6160 would ‘still provide ample residual capacity to accommodate the additional traffic’.
Both the NPPF and the relevant PPG confirm the need for Transport Statements to follow a ‘comprehensive’ process setting out transport issues relating to a proposed development9. There is no consideration in the amended Statement of the types of vehicles likely to be making journeys to/from the complex, in particular during the construction phase of the proposed development. As we noted in our original objection, the proposed development will not merely have an impact on vehicular movements from visitors/staff, but will also involve new traffic heavy goods lorries and large vans making deliveries, which has not been acknowledged at all within the Statement. We would, again, question the current capacity of the B6160 to safely accommodate a heavier traffic flow of such larger vehicles and would request further details from the Applicant in this regard. Although the Statement states that the average road width is 5.5m, in reality it is reduced down to just 4.8m width in some sections.
There continues to be no consideration of traffic impacts beyond the small stretch of the B6160 directly servicing the Park, which totally disregards the wider context of the site within the National Park. As we have already noted in our original objection, the cumulative effect of increased in road congestion coupled with a rise in the number of HGV and/or
9 Paragraph: 015 Reference ID: 42-015-20140306, Revision date: 06 03 2014
Page | 5
large delivery vehicle traffic movements could have an unacceptable impact on the ambience and tranquillity of the local area as well as amenity levels for local residents and users of the public rights of way and cyclists. We also note the designation of nearby Thresfield Quarry for business use in the Local Plan and, as detailed in the relevant PPG, the cumulative impacts of multiple developments within a particular area should also be considered within a Transport Statement.
We maintain our view that the impacts from the development on the transport network have not been considered adequately in terms of capacity and congestion (or highway safety) in line with paragraph 108(c) of the NPPF and PPG. There should also be a related appraisal of the environmental effects of the predicted traffic using a recognised methodology10.
Noise Impacts
We are dismayed that a comprehensive Noise Assessment has still not been produced given the scale of development proposed and significant increase in traffic and human activity at the site. Yorkshire Dales National Park’s Local Validation Requirements (June, 2017) states that when a proposed development ‘is likely to give rise to noise that could disturb residents or the tranquillity of the area around the site’ a Noise Assessment would be required. We consider this especially pertinent given that the site has not been in use since 1986, coupled with the close proximity of residential receptors less than 300m away, as well as users of the local network of public rights of way. Whilst we note that the complex arrangement has been re-designed to limit noise and light pollution, we would expect the developer to give full cognisance of the potential noise impact and proposed mitigation methods in the form of a report undertaken by a qualified acoustician.
As we have already noted, a comprehensive Noise Assessment including consideration of any required mitigation methods would be particularly relevant if the hotel were minded to host wedding and other late-night function events. The Local Plan identifies one of the special qualities of the national park as the ‘extensive areas that benefit from tranquillity’ (p. 20). Local Plan Policy SP4 states that new development proposals must not give rise to unacceptable, adverse impacts in terms of ‘the level of noise’ (page 19). Without full consideration of the impacts of such functions, we would expect to see a planning condition relating to the use of the complex as well as opening hours of the facilities on offer if the application was approved.
The Application does not demonstrate adequately that possible noise pollution can be managed effectively in order to prevent disturbance to and safeguard the amenity of nearby residents and the continued satisfactory enjoyment of the local PROW network by the
10 For example, IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, 1993
Page | 6
public. We do not consider that the Applicant has demonstrated how any significant noise impacts will be properly mitigated to avoid giving rise to significant health and quality of life impacts in line with paragraph 180 of the NPPF.
Flood Risk and Drainage
It is understood that the Flood Risk Assessment previously submitted in 2019 and undertaken by Michael Lambert Associates remains valid, apart from section 7 which has been superseded by the Drainage Impact Assessment provided by Cameron + Ross in July 2020.
Based on this understanding, it is important that we reiterate concerns previously outlined. The 2019 flood risk report repeatedly states that there is no risk from surface water flooding (section 4, page. 4 and again at section 8, page. 6). Whilst we are unable to view the Jflow/LIDAR surface water mapping data referred to at section 4, we are able to view the government’s surface water flood map. This map clearly shows that there is a high risk of surface water flooding along the undeveloped northern part of the site (see Appendix A), in the general location of the proposed hotel building. Indeed, this risk is recognised at Appendix 3 of the Local Plan which, in turn, confirms that there is a policy requirement to secure a 30% reduction in surface water run-off rates.
As stated previously, whilst recognising that the site is allocated and may well accommodate some form of appropriate development in due course, it is imperative that any scheme addresses the site specific flood risks that exist and provides effective mitigation/management measures in line with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy CC2. Table 8 (flood risk vulnerability matrix) of the Local Plan states that ‘more vulnerable’ development proposed in areas of high surface water flood risk should be subject to the exceptions test ‘where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that ground or surface water risks are considered to have the potential to affect vulnerable parts of the development’.
It is disappointing to see that the flood risk report has not been updated to address the issues raised by the surface water flooding risk on the site. No reference has been made to such issues in the new Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy either.
In addition the surface water flood risk on the site, Appendix 3 of the Local Plan together with Policy CC2 confirms that there is a requirement to secure at least a 30% reduction in surface water run-off rates for developments proposed on previously developed land. Whilst the proposed drainage strategy for the site is described in the Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy Report, this is only at a high level and no detailed information or calculations have been provided confirming the existing surface water run off rate/level and the proposed run off rate/level (which should be 30% less). We would expect such details to be provided with an application of this nature in a location at risk of surface water flooding.
Page | 7
Other Matters
In addition to the matters discussed in detail above, we note the following omissions/irregularities in the Application package which ought to be clarified ahead of the determination of the Application.
• Whilst we welcome the revised design of the scheme, including reduction in building heights, we note there remain inconsistencies/ errors in the amended Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) as outlined in our previous objection. We respectfully request that our original comments are still taken into consideration. • The submission does not seem to consider the impact of construction (e.g. noise, air quality and traffic) in detail on local receptors. A proposed development of such magnitude as Linton Camp within its existing protected and tranquil setting would certainly give rise to significant impacts during the construction phase and we would expect the construction phase of the development to have been given further consideration within the submission reports.
We trust that the contents of this letter will be taken into account in the determination of the Application and information omitted from the Application will be sought from the Applicant in order for the Authority to be able to make a properly informed assessment of the planning merits of the scheme.
Yours sincerely,
Amy Naylor MRTPI
Northern Planners
Page | 8
Appendix A. Government’s Flood risk from surface water map.
Source: https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/
Page | 9
Gail Dent
From: Robert Fort
Dear Sirs
I appreciate that the consultation window has now closed but would like to express support for the application to redevelop the Linton Camp site.
I have been disturbed by recent expressions of hostility to the plan by people in the valley and believe that the opposition is misguided. The design behind the proposals is extremely attractive and will vastly improve the appearance of the site which is now an eyesore. I believe that talk of affordable housing on this site is misguided – apart from the zoning issues, this is an unsuitable site for housing given the visual impact that above ground two- storey houses would have and the impact on traffic of a new residential development outwith any village curtilage.
The proposal will add much needed up-market hotel accommodation which will attract visitors willing to spend in our shops and pubs/cafes/restaurants. Such visitors will add far more to the area than the hordes of day-trippers who clog up our roads and damage our environment. Critically, the developers have a track record of generating good quality employment opportunities with a view to career development, which will really help put local youngsters on a career path – not just using youngsters as cheap labour as some of our local pubs do.
Leaving the site undeveloped for a further period will invite further degradation and it seems to me that this high- quality proposal should be encouraged. I do hope the committee will support it.
With best wishes
Robert Fort H: 01756 720680 M: 07769 920636
1 Gill Allinson
From: Sandra Elliott
Dear sir/ madam
the size and scale of the proposed development is excessive and detrimental to the setting. Increased traffic accessing and leaving the new development will Have a huge and negative impact on the existing Narrow country lanes And Daily lives of local residents . To make the lanes wider to accommodate increased traffic to the development would be a serious detriment to the existing character of the Quiet rural setting. If the hotel facilities are open the public and not restricted to Its residents/ guests this will bring With it further traffic concerns for local residents of Linton and Thorpe. Late night noise would be disturbing and access / flood lighting around the facility would be detrimental to the dark skies of Yorkshire Dales National Park. This is not a suitable proposal for the development of the site , which should be considering the huge local impact. An agricultural use Of some kind would Be far more suitable with far less impact on local life and traffic.
Kind regards
Resident of Thorpe
Sent from my iPhone
1 Gill Allinson
From: Info Sent: 04 September 2020 11:40 To: Planning Subject: FW: Proposed Linton Camp development C/50/46L
From: Pam Whatley-Holmes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 September 2020 11:35 AM To: Info Subject: Proposed Linton Camp development C/50/46L
Dear Sir/Madam I, and many other residents of Threshfield, Linton, Linton Falls & Grassington, feel certain that Linton Camp should be recreated as a place to give underprivileged children/adults short breaks & sanctuary. Please don't allow this amazing resource to be a playground for rich folk who already have other luxurious options. This locality cannot cope with the increased traffic to & from the Camp site & whilst the new hotel may offer electric vehicles to take their guests out, we think many people will prefer to use their own cars for flexibility. Whilst there will be jobs created there is no certainty that they will go to local people, nor are there sufficient locals available. Also the drainage proposals appear to be to share the drains on Church Road that service the housing at Linton Falls. These drains currently have to be cleared annually by Yorkshire Water, so are not a satisfactory solution. Please do not allow the current proposal to go ahead or you risk changing the character & rural nature of this beautiful area. Yours faithfully Pam Whatley-Holmes Resident of Piece Fields in Threshfield
1
L.M.Spilsbury Troutbeck Linton Skipton North Yorkshire Planning Service BD23 5HH Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale 31 August 2020 Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL
Dear Sirs
REF: C/50/46L (amended July 2020) - PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LINTON CAMP
Further to our letter dated 13th January 2019 we are writing again to strongly object to the application made regarding the proposed development of the Linton Camp site. We listed a number of objections in our previous letter which are all still relevant as the amended proposal is only marginally different to the original, so whilst we consider our original letter still stands as an objection to this proposed development we reiterate our objections below. Other than a presentation of the proposal at the site there has been no consultation or engagement with the local community which we find staggering as this development is right on our doorstep. As residents of Linton with our house having views over to Linton Camp we still feel that if progressed it would have a massive negative impact to our village, community and environment. There are many reasons why a development of this type and scale is totally inappropriate but our main objections are:
1. PRINCIPLE - this site was originally set up during the 2nd world war for the benefit of underprivileged children from the City of Bradford. The huts were built in a way that gave a temporary and low impact feel to the site, and the effect of vehicles to and from the site would have been minimal due to the nature and scale of its use. The proposed development talks about providing a facility for the more privileged tourist, this totally contravenes the original principle as to why this piece of historic agricultural land had a change of use.
2. SCALE / DESIGN - the proposed development massively increases the floor space compared to the original timber huts that were built on the site. The impact of this new development within the YDNP will be totally inappropriate to this picturesque and historic landscape nestled between the historic villages of Linton and Thorpe. Looking at the Local Plan Policy appendix 3 reference to Linton Camp the proposed development goes against many of the criteria listed e.g. the hotel is more than single storey (in places 3 storeys), the main hotel building impinges on areas that did not contain any of the existing huts etc.
3. LOCAL IMPACT - Linton is a small, very historic village with a large proportion of listed buildings. The village and pub are already a very popular tourist destination and as neither the village or the pub have a car park the few roads are often full to capacity with parked cars. This then makes exiting our lane onto Lauradale Lane extremely difficult. The thought of having a massive increase in traffic through the village due to the new development, and its proposed number of cars and service vehicles, would not only exacerbate this problem but also have a seriously detrimental impact on this unspoilt and unique village. Since the last letter there has been a significant increase in traffic and parking to Linton and Linton Falls, with speeding cars through the village even into the late evening and extensive parking on the narrow roads. All roads are narrow country lanes with no footpaths and minimal verges so whilst popular with walkers and cyclists, increased traffic and parking makes the local roads excessively busy and dangerous, the proposed development will only exacerbate the problem.
4. LANDSCAPE - the proposed development would have a negative impact on a number of key issues regarding the natural environment. In walking around this area we regularly see a wide range of wildlife such as Hares, Hedgehogs, Polecats, Barn and Tawny Owls, Curlews, Oystercatchers, Lapwings and recently Red Kites to name but a few. Most of these animals shy away from areas inhabited by man. Also, the development and it's necessary lighting needed for the site to function safely would have a very negative impact on the dark skies which we are fortunate to have here in the YDNP.
5. FACTS - having looked at the application there seem to be a number of key 'facts' that are grossly inaccurate e.g. • The camp is one kilometer away from Linton village - wrong, it is about a quarter of this distance, there are a couple of small fields separating them. So whilst sitting outside the village perimeter the camp is very close therefore any development potentially has a significant impact on the village. • The camp cannot be seen from Linton village - wrong, the camp is clearly visible from houses on the east side of the village, we can clearly see the camp from our house. • The existing huts are 6 meters high - wrong, the huts are single story pitched roof structures that are probably only about 4 meters high to the apex of the pitched roofs. Of course the eaves are much lower still. • These are significant factual errors that then cast doubt on other 'facts' contained within the application
The National Park Authority states key aims are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park, and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public. This development does neither!
We live here in a protected historic landscape understanding that to maintain this unique environment you choose to live with a reduced number of facilities. The tourist to the YDNP is well provided for with many B & B's, holiday cottages, bunk barns, hotels, camp sites, caravan parks, pubs with rooms etc. all providing accommodation from the affordable to the expensive. We do not feel that it is right for a development of this scale, with the additional facilities it will offer its visitors, should be imposed on the local residents who choose to live here. We therefore hope that our feelings about the proposed development and the negative impact it will have on us, and the village of Linton, will be seriously taken into account and this proposal will be rejected.
Yours faithfully
Louise & Robert Spilsbury Gail Dent
From: Jess Giles REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 28 August 2020 11:29 To: Planning Subject: C/50/46L
To whom it may concern
I’m writing to strongly object to the plans submitted under C/50/46L. I strongly object to the scale of the development in the National Park. A 60 bedroom hotel spa and holiday complex is out of character in the landscape and would adversely impact the current rural views. Light pollution, massive increase in traffic, noise pollution, and significant development on parts of the site that are undeveloped.
Regards Jessica Giles
Sent from my iPhone
1 Gail Dent
From: Heather Throup REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 27 August 2020 22:11 To: Planning Subject: Major development Linton camp
Lane End Farm, Bradley
For the attention of Miss Katherine Wood
Having been born at Hebden with many of our family still living in the area, with family ancestry tracing back to the 1700's and no way against progress we feel this development is contrary to everything our family past and present has worked for in forming the Dales as they are today which are surely for all to enjoy not just the elite minority attracted by someone making a quick buck.
There are two very large hotels within this catchment area with all the facilities and more offered by this scheme one at Bolton Abbey and one at Coniston Cold both with excellent main road access. Long Ashes offer many facilities including a pool, gym and exercise hall for yoga and pilates etc There are also facilities at Upper Wharfedale School including a pool open to all age groupa and also facilities at the Rugby Club all these within sight of the proposed development. Should anyone wish to look a little further there are world beating facilities at Crow Wood, Burnley with everything on offer that anyone would need again excellent access less than three quarters of an hour away.
The roads around Linton , Grassington, Burnsell down to Bolton Abbey were virtually blocked with cars indiscriminately parked on both sides of the narrow roads by inconsiderate visitors once there was some lifting of the Covid regulations. Now they have found this area, are they going to stop coming? Their presence has made life difficult for the local population with the farmers struggling to get through with tractors, trailers and silage equipment and delivery drivers to business of all persuasions. There have even been instances where the emergency services have been needed and really struggled to reach their destinations. Also created a danger to school children who could not walk anywhere near the side of the road and consequently had to be driven to school instead of walking. This included my grandchildren. This is the 2020 traffic problem not the 2016 one in all the Dales now. Well documented in Malhamdale just as big and maybe an even bigger problem in Wharfedale especially near the river Wharfe.
Generation after generation of hard working people have created the Dales as they are today and the beauty of this should not be destroyed by someone with an unattractive money making scheme which will be larger than the local village of Linton without remotely adding to the beauty of one of the best kept villages for miles around.
The impact of these visitors have resulted in many locals abandoning their regular walks as they have no wish to put their feet in something that has been left behind and not just from the dogs. Will the targeted older clients wish to get their feet dirty or will they stay in place and contribute nothing to the locality. The local businesses including the cafes, bistros, public houses and restaurants struggle to attract staff and rely on secondary school pupils trying to earn some pocket money most of them walking to their part time jobs. So where is this pool of local labour coming from if they are going to take staff away from the local businesses to fulfil this commitment then surely the small local businesses are going to suffer and possibly go under for the lack of an available workforce.
The Upper Dales have always been a supportive local community not relying on great wealth and image the claim that this development will be for the older wealthier clientele smacks of arrogant 1 elitism and would definitely create a them and us breach between the locals and Mr Riley's wealthy clientele. The claim that they will want to view the locals in their surroundings leaves the impression that maybe they should go to a zoo instead although even caged animals do have feelings.
Generation after generation of hard working people have formed the Dales as they are today. This should not be destroyed by a money making scheme that is alien to the area. Surely the priority is to provide affordable accommodation for young people in the area, it has been well documented by many well meaning committees that they struggle to afford to stay in their own locality really with no obvious solution put in place yet. Is not the National Parks aim to foster economic and social well being within the National Park as such economic justification for this site is ill founded.
We would hope you would refuse this application which appears to be that of a rich man's playground without any consideration for the local community. This area of development would be better suited to provide something for the young of the Dale rather than someone with a big wallet.
Yours faithfully,
William and Heather Throup
2 Gail Dent
From: Don REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 27 August 2020 22:03 To: Planning Subject: C/50/46L objections
Good evening,
I am writing to raise my objections to the development plans submitted in the Yorkshire Dale's under C/50/46L.
I do not believe the scale and type of development is appropriate for the area and will be damaging to the local community and surrounding area for a number of reasons including:
Disruption during the process of development Increased volume of traffic to the accommodation Increased noise and light pollution from the development Discrepancies between the proposed plans and what is allowed by planning regulations for the area
In essence, while I believe people should be able to access and enjoy this beautiful area alongside those who live locally, I believe this must be done in a way that is in keeping with the character of existing villages and communities that make the place special in the first place. This 60 bed hotel does not sound like the best way to meet these needs and could have a detrimental impact on the dales and local residents.
Best regards, Donald Steel
1 Gail Dent
From: Tabitha Wilkins REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 27 August 2020 21:29 To: Planning Subject: C/50/46L
Dear sir/madam
I am writing to object to the plans submitted under C/50/46L.
The scale and type of development is inappropriate for the surrounding area, it is out of character with the local landscape and would bring a significant and overwhelming level of traffic to roads that are already easily congested and back logged at peak times of the year. The noise and light pollution associated with the development would be detrimental to rural life and runs the risk of ruining a very special location which we should be proud of and protect. Alongside this, having examined the plans, there are large areas of building and development on parts of the site that are not developed, and I understand that this would fall outside of planning regulations.
Finally, as custodians of the Yorkshire Dales we all have a responsibility to protect its beautiful landscape, villages and communities. Of course, we have to balance this against improving access for more diverse groups to enjoy the area. However, I struggle to understand how a 60 bed luxury spa hotel will do any of these things and find the decision making around this planning application unsatisfactory and out of touch with the needs and long term well being of the local area and it's residents.
Best wishes
Tabitha Wilkins
1
10 East View Settle North Yorkshire BD24 9AU
Dear Ms. Wood, 27th August 2020
Re: Planning Application Ref: C/50/46L, Proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for tourist accommodation at the Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton, BD23 5HQ
I am writing to strongly object to the above proposal on the following grounds:
Impacts on residents The roads around Linton are narrow, in some cases only passable by a single car and are already struggling to cope with the number of visitors to the area (all year round). Increased traffic from visitors and staff will do nothing but increase the traffic problem making it less safe for cyclists, walkers, children walking to school. In addition, residents will be subject to increased noise and traffic pollution. The traffic assessment accompanying this proposal is completely out of date, 27/09/16 to 03/10/16 and therefore should be repeated.
Impacts on local businesses A development of 60 bedrooms constitutes a major development and has the distinct potential to impact on local hotels, BnB’s, pubs and local shops if visitors decide to stay somewhere with the potential to be all-inclusive. Give the close proximity of this development to other spa hotel complexes in the Yorkshire Dales; The Coniston Hall on the A65, Devonshire Arms at Bolton Abbey and Grantly Hall in Nidderdale, there is a valid question to be raised as to whether a development of this size is needed in the National Park.
Visual impact Although an attempt has been made to reduce the visual impact of this development it is clear that it will make a large change to the landscape viewed from many locations in the area including the view from the iconic Snake Pass from the River Wharf up to Grassington. It also has the potential to impact on the Dark Skies enjoyed by residents and visitors and could adversely impact on the International Dark Skies Park application recently endorsed by the YDNPA.
Yours sincerely,
Jude Spracklen
HVS$=`O\US$ AW\b]\$ GYW^b]\$ 8:+,$.>>$ $ $$ +0&%#7cUcab$+)+)$ $ :SO`$GW`($BORO[%$ $ ?$ab`]\UZg$]^^]aS$bVS$^ZO\$b]$RSdSZ]^$bVS$AW\b]\$9O[^$O`SO$W\b]$O$ZO`US$V]bSZ$Q][^ZSf'$HVS`S$O`S$ aSdS`OZ$TOQb]`a$eVWQV$[OYS$bVWa$RSdSZ]^[S\b$]cb$]T$aQOZS$T]`$]c`$a[OZZ$Q][[c\Wbg%$OZ]\U$eWbV$bVS$ \SUObWdS$W[^OQba$]\$bVS$S\dW`]\[S\b$O\R$TO[WZWSa$]T$bVS$^O`WaV'$$ $ *'$GcPabO\bWOZ$?\Q`SOaSR$H`OTTWQ$O\R$FWaYa$b]$FSaWRS\ba'$BO\g$]T$]c`$Q]c\b`g$ZO\Sa$O`S$aW\UZS$b`OQY%$ eWbV$^OaaW\U$^ZOQSa%$US\S`OZZg$eWbV$O$\ObW]\OZ$a^SSR$ZW[Wb$abObca4$bVWa$W\QZcRSa$\ObW]\OZ$a^SSR$ZW[Wb$]c`$ dWZZOUS$]T$AW\b]\'$HV`]cUV]cb$bVS$gSO`$dWaWb]`a$caS$SdS`g$OdOWZOPZS$a^OQS$W\$bVS$dWZZOUS$T]`$^O`YW\U$&$ bVS$aWbcObW]\$Wa$e]`aS$W\$bVS$ac[[S`$[]\bVa'$$HVWa$VOa$PSS\$Tc`bVS`$W\Q`SOaSR$Pg$bVS$9DJ?:$ ^O\RS[WQ$eVWQV$QOcaSR$Vc\R`SRa$]T$dWaWb]`a$^S`$ROg$b]$AW\b]\$O\R$bVS$AW\b]\$
! !!Vbb^a3((eee'`OQ'Q]'cY(R`WdS(ORdWQS(ZSO`\W\U&b]&R`WdS(ab]^^W\U&RWabO\QSa($ ! !Vbb^a3((OaaSba'^cPZWaVW\U'aS`dWQS'U]d'cY(U]dS`\[S\b(c^Z]ORa(agabS[(c^Z]ORa(ObbOQV[S\bNRObO(T$ WZS(--1),/(^SRSab`WO\&QOacOZbWSa&+)*,&RObO'^RT$ ! QgQZWaba'$GW\QS$bVS$=`O\R$RS$^O`b%$L]`YaVW`S$VOa$aSS\$O$R`O[ObWQ$W\Q`SOaS$W\$QgQZWaba'$7Z]\U$eWbV$bVWa$ VOa$PSS\$O$T]c`&T]ZR$W\Q`SOaS$W\$QgQZWab$TObOZWbWSa$W\$L]`YaVW`S$j$bVS$8/*/)%$eVWQV$bVS$^`]^]aSR$V]bSZ$ Wa$aWbcObSR$]\$Wa$]\$]\S$]T$bVSaS$`]cbSa'$ $ +'$7$:SdSZ]^[S\b$]cb$]T$aQOZS$eWbV$bVS$dWZZOUS'$$ HVS$Q][^ZSf$Wa$O$ZO`US$V]bSZ$O\R$Wa$]cb$]T$aQOZS$eWbV$bVS$O`SO4$Wb$eWZZ$ReO`T$bVS$dWZZOUS$eVWQV$VOa$ZSaa$ bVO\$21$ReSZZW\Ua%$"+)W$VOdS$\]$^S`[O\S\b$]QQc^O\Qg#'$HVWa$eWZZ$PS$^O`bWQcZO`Zg$b`cS$W\$bVS$ac[[S`'$ ?$R]$\]b$]PXSQb$b]$^S]^ZS$dWaWbW\U$O\R$abOgW\U$W\$bVS$dWZZOUS%$W\RSSR$?$eSZQ][S$bVS[%$Pcb$Wb$Wa$^]aaWPZS$ bVOb$bVS$dWZZOUS$eWZZ$PSQ][S$a]$]dS`eVSZ[SR$bVOb$Wb$eWZZ$Z]aS$Wba$QVO`[$O\R$b`ORWbW]\OZ$ROZSa$dWZZOUS$ QVO`OQbS`'$8g$eOg$]T$Q][^O`Wa]\%$9]\Wab]\$>]bSZ$Wa$O$0*$c\Wb$Q][^ZSf$$"]\Zg$*.W$PWUUS`$W\$aWhS#$O\R$ Wa$dOab$W\$aWhS$O\R$VOa$O[^ZS$OQQSaa$T`][$O\$7&`]OR'$BO^^W\U$bVOb$a]`b$]T$aWhS$]T$bVS$Q][^ZSf$]\b]$bVS$ AW\b]\$QO[^$UWdSa$ca$O\$W[^`SaaW]\$]T$bVS$aQOZS$]T$bVS$W[^OQb$Wb$eWZZ$VOdS$]\$]c`$a[OZZ$Q][[c\Wbg'$ 7Z]\U$eWbV$bVS$UcSaba%$bVS$aWbS$\SSRa$abOTT$[S[PS`a%$aS`dWQS$dSVWQZSa%$O\R$]bVS`$`Sa]c`QSa'$HVS$ RSdSZ]^S`$^`]^]aSa$[]`S$bVO\$]\S$Vc\R`SR$[S[PS`a$]T$abOTT'$HVS`S$QZSO`Zg$Wa$\]b$]\S$Vc\R`SR$^S]^ZS$ c\S[^Z]gSR$^S]^ZS$OdOWZOPZS$W\$bVS$Z]QOZ$dWZZOUSa'$9]\Wab]\$^`]dWRSa$OQQ][[]RObW]\$T]`$bVSW`$abOTT$ [S[PS`a'$HVS$[OX]`Wbg$]T$X]Pa$W\$V]bSZa$O`S$`SZObWdSZg$Z]e$^OWR$O\R$bVca$Wb$PSUa$bVS$_cSabW]\$]T$eVS`S$ bVSg$eWZZ$ZWdS$O\R$Q][[cbS$T`]['$ $ ,'$AWUVb$E]ZZcbW]\$O\R$Wba$W[^OQb'$$ ?\$bVS$^ZO\a%$bVS$RSdSZ]^S`a$aOg$bVOb$ZWUVb$eWZZ$PS$[W\W[WaSR%$O\R$?$OQQS^b$bVSg$R]$VOdS$a][S$[SbV]Ra$ ]T$`SRcQW\U$ZWUVb4$V]eSdS`$k[W\W[WaSRl$R]Sa$\]b$[SO\$\]$W[^OQb'$BW\W[OZ$ZWUVbW\U$[Og$eSZZ$PS$ kQ]\aWRS`OPZSl$ZWUVb$^]ZZcbW]\'$<]`$UcSaba$O``WdW\U$ZObS%$bVSg$eWZZ$\SSR$ZWUVbW\U'$<]`$QO`$^O`Y$aOTSbg%$ ZWUVbW\U$eWZZ$PS$`S_cW`SR'$$<]`$aOTSbg$`SOa]\a%$bVS$]cbR]]`$^]]Z$eWZZ$\SSR$ZWUVbW\U'$D\S$]T$bVS$CObW]\OZ$ EO`Yla$Q]\QS`\a$Wa$ZWUVb$^]ZZcbW]\$O\R$gSb$OZ[]ab$\]$Q]\aWRS`ObW]\$Wa$UWdS\$b]$bVWa'$7\$W[^]`bO\b$ Q]\aWRS`ObW]\$Wa$bVS$W[^OQb$]\$bVS$eWZRZWTS$O\R$SQ]agabS[$eVS`S%$T]`$[O\g$Q`SObc`Sa%$ZWUVb$^ZOga$O$ VcUS$`]ZS$W\$bVSW`$Tc\QbW]\$O\R$ZWTS$QgQZS'$C]Qbc`\OZ$O\W[OZa$acQV$Oa$POba$O\R$]eZa$O`S$\Obc`OZZg$ OTTSQbSR$Pg$O`bWTWQWOZ$ZWUVb'$AWUVb$T`][$bVWa$O`SO$eWZZ$PS$aSS\$OQ`]aa$bVS$dOZZSg%$Q]\TcaW\U$[]bVa$O\R$ ]bVS`$a^SQWSa$bVOb$caS$ZWUVb$T]`$\OdWUObW]\'$?$e]cZR$c`US$g]c$b]$`SOR$bVS$T]ZZ]eW\U$O`bWQZS$^cPZWaVSR$Pg$ ?`eW\$W\$CObc`S'!$AWUVb$OZa]$`SUcZObSa$bVS$PSVOdW]c`$]T$[O\g$Q`SObc`Sa$W\QZcRW\U$[WU`ObW\U$PW`Ra'$ G][S$]T$bVS$ZSaa$eSZZ&Y\]e\$STTSQba$bVOb$ZWUVb$^]ZZcbW]\$VOa$O`S$]\$W\aSQba%$O\R$bVSg$O`S$\]e$PSW\U$ `SQ]U\WaSR$Oa$VOdW\U$O$TO`$[]`S$W[^]`bO\b$`]ZS$Oa$^]ZZW\Ob]`a$W\$]c`$SQ]agabS[$bVOb$eS$^`SdW]caZg$ bV]cUVb'"$HVS$WaacS$aV]cZR$PS$bOYS\$aS`W]caZg$&$bVS$RSbOWZ$UWdS\$OP]cb$V]e$bVWa$Oa^SQb$eWZZ$PS$RSOZb$ eWbV$Wa$W\acTTWQWS\b$O\R$Oa$acQV$bVS$S\dW`]\[S\bOZ$W[^OQb$]T$ZWUVb$^]ZZcbW]\$QO\\]b$PS$_cO\bWTWSR'$HVS$ L]`YaVW`S$:OZSa$Wa$O$a^SQWOZ$^ZOQS$W\$;\UZO\R$O\R$Wa$`O\YSR$bVS$bVW`R$RO`YSab$CObW]\OZ$EO`Y$W\$ ;\UZO\R'$D\$O$QZSO`$\WUVb%$W\$bVS$L]`YaVW`S$:OZSa%$g]c$QO\$aSS$]dS`$,)))$abO`a$eWbV$bVS$\OYSR$SgS%$ eVWZab$W\$O$b]e\%$bVWa$Wa$`SRcQSR$b]$5+))'$?b$Wa$dS`g$W[^]`bO\b$bVOb$eS$[OW\bOW\$bVS$L]`YaVW`S$:OZSa$ :O`Y$GYg$:WaQ]dS`g$M]\S$abObca$&$C]bS3$bVWa$Wa$\]b$SdS\$bVS$b]^$abObca$ZSdSZ'$HVS$=OZZ]eOg$<]`Sab$ aS`dSa$Oa$O\$SfO[^ZS$]T$V]e$W\dSab[S\b$W\$RO`Y$aYWSa$VOa$O$`Sbc`\4$T]`$SdS`g$i*$W\dSabSR$bVS$`Sbc`\$Wa$ OZ[]ab$R]cPZS$"$i*'2,#$[OW\Zg$b]$bVS$Obb`OQbW]\$]T$dWaWb]`a$T`][$SdS\ba$acQV$Oa$bVS$:O`Y$GYWSa$
! ! Gail Dent
From: REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 27 August 2020 14:49 To: Planning Cc: [email protected]; REDACTED BY YDNPA Subject: Linton Planning Application C50/46L
Dear Sirs,
Having visited the Presentation of development plans for this 'luxury accommodation, I write on behalf of my wife and myself to object to the above planning application to develop the site at Linton Camp into a luxury hotel and spa complex
This not what is needed in this part of the Dales. The change in holiday and leisure patterns which has occurred because of the current Corona 19 crisis has brought many new people into the Dales, mostly not families who want or can afford luxury accommodation, but needing simple self catering facilities.
This development is too big. When in operation it will double the population of Linton village. For decades the site has been quiet, dark at night and unfrequented by cars or people.This development would radically alter the character of this corner of Wharfedale.
Despite the screening of the site there will still be light and noise pollution from it.
The developers make much of the environmentally friendly nature of this development but during the construction of it, irreversible damage will be done to the habits of migratory birds and bats, which cannot be put right by putting up nesting boxes.
Despite the attempts of the developers to encourage potential guests to walk or take the electric taxis supplied, if only a quarter of the guests took their own cars out and expected to be able to park in Linton village or other nearby villages, it would make an already difficult situation much worse. Also guests have to arrive and leave thus increasing traffic flow.
The site itself with pool, spa, restaurant etc. will require many service vehicles continually arriving and departing along narrow roads and lanes. During construction of the site, heavy construction vehicles will make life intolerable for residents of local villages and for cyclists and walkers - just the people who need to be encouraged.
If guests using the new development are to stimulate the local economy, they need to be going off the site, thus contributing to the traffic problems outlined above. If they are only or mostly in the luxury facilities provided by the site, economic benefits are to the 'big business' which owns the site. The developers promise employment opportunities but local hospitality businesses already find it difficult to recruit staff, largely because of limited transport and affordable housing
For these reasons:
Damage to the environment Harm to those already living or taking leisure here Lack of economic benefits to people and businesses already in the area we would strongly urge that the planning committee resist this development
Yours faithfully,
John and Rita Bennett 1 Gail Dent
From: robert marshall REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 27 August 2020 10:28 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
Dear Sirs,
I wish to object to the application for development of the former Linton School Camp.
The nature and scale of this development are completely alien to the surrounding landscape and seem incompatible with both national and local planning policy.
This site is in one of the most beautiful and popular areas of Wharfedale. Contrary to some of the assertions made by the applicant it is visible from local roads, public footpaths and by-ways, and from the village of linton. A development on this scale will stand out like a sore thumb.
On any view this is major development in a key area of the National Park. Both national and local policy dictate that such development should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. I can see no evidence of such exceptional circumstances in the application.
Environmentally the proposed development also seems completely at odds with established policies. The site has no transport links and visitors will inevitably travel there by car and use cars to get around during their stay. Quite simply, there are no sustainable transport options proposed or indeed possible. Roads which will carry visitors to the site, particularly though Linton village are totally unsuited to the increase in traffic that this development would bring. The lighting necessary for the safety of guests on a development of this size will inevitably be inconsistent with efforts to preserve dark skies in the National Park.
Although there are assertions that the development will create extra jobs I have considerable doubt that there is a local labour market ready to fill these posts or accommodation locally for those who are brought in from elsewhere. Staff commuting in will add still further to traffic to and from the site. Some services offered within the site will also be in direct competition with local businesses and could threaten rather than enhance existing livelihoods.
In short, this application is ill conceived. The landscape of the National Park is rightly protected from major development by well established policies. This development simply cannot be justified or reconciled with those policies. Development of the Linton School Camp Site may be desirable but this application cannot be the way forward. It would set a catastrophic precedent which would delight developers and dismay those who love the Dales.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Marshall
1 Gail Dent
From: Louise Kirkbride REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 26 August 2020 23:21 To: Planning Subject: C/50/46L Linton School Camp Site
Dear Sir/ Madam
In reference to the planning proposals for the former site of Linton Camp, I would like to put forward my points of view:
There would increase in traffic - including the B6265 through Linton village, the small single track road that joins the B6160 Burnsall road and the B6160 itself. These roads have been under increased pressure throughout this summer particularly and do not need an added increase throughout the year.
There would be increased traffic using dangerous road junctions- relating to the increased level of traffic are the junctions joining onto the B6160 Burnsall road, these road junctions have poor visibility. In addition to this is the especially dangerous road junction near Swinden Quarry.
There would be disturbance to local residents in Linton- particularly from an increase in traffic.
There would be an increase in foot traffic- again this road has poor visibility and has no provision for safe walkways for users of the site.
It would have a conflict with existing businesses- The Devonshire Hotel and Spa at Bolton Abbey and Long Ashes Pure Spa north of Threshfield, along with other hotels in the area. Why would another spa be needed when most people come to see the landscape and scenery of the Yorkshire Dales? This seems to be turning this part of the Yorkshire Dales into a Theme Park.
Social exclusion- this development is aimed at the higher income market. Surely the aims of the National Park are to encourage people from all backgrounds and not to exclude people from poorer areas? This site was formerly a camp to allow children to come to the countryside for educational needs, this development seems to me to be the complete opposite of this.
It would have an impact on wildlife, the landscape and environment- both through the construction process and when the development is in place. The increased disturbance on wildlife would have a negative impact along with the visual impact on this part of the Yorkshire Dales landscape.
The statutory aim of the National Parks in England are 'to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the national parks' I do not think this proposed development meets these requirements.
Yours faithfully,
Louise Kirkbride
1
Linton Grange Little Village Road Linton BD23 5HH YDNPA Planning Department 26 August 2020 Dear Ms. Wood,
Re: Planning Application Ref: C/50/46L, Proposed demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for tourist accommodation at the Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton, BD23 5HQ
I am writing to strongly object to the amended planning application referenced above. While the site would benefit some sort of care and attention since it has been neglected by the owner/owners for twenty years and left to deteriorate to its current dilapidated state, this proposal should not be allowed to proceed as it is a gross overdevelopment of the site adding new building to an area not currently built on. My objections are based on the following grounds: The proposal constitutes a major development in a National Park and should not be allowed because it is not in exceptional circumstances nor in the public interest. The proposal is not in line with the Local Plan 2015-2030. It violates several stipulations in relation to the development of the site (Local Plan, page 143) including failing to address: I. the huge visual impact from surround roads and footpaths, II. the proposal extending substantially into parts of the site with no buildings, III. the proposal being mainly two storeys instead of single storey, and IV. the substantial increase in traffic (at least 25% increase in local traffic based on data supplied by the Applicant from testing in 2016). The proposal will adversely impact the Dark Skies in the surrounding area, despite the Applicant’s best efforts to mitigate the impact. The scale of the proposal is no smaller than the previously submitted proposal in that it includes an equivalent number of bedrooms (60 bedrooms) and extends over a large part of the site that does not currently have buildings present. The large-scale high-density accommodation represents an overdevelopment of the site.
1
The proposal is a major development in a national park From the application documents seen so far, you do not appear to be properly considering the application as a major development and thereby only allowable in exceptional circumstances and demonstrated that it is in the public interest. Noting the NPPF 2018 paragraphs 172 and 173 and footnote 55, ‘determining whether a proposal is a ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker (you), taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or define’. How can the proposal, with its high density accommodation, having a higher square meterage than any of its nearest neighbouring hamlets (Linton and Thorpe), located on a visually extremely prominent site, publicly declared by the Applicant himself in his public relations campaign as the ‘largest leisure facility developed in the national park for decades’ (Northern Echo 7 August 2020, Yorkshire Post 8 August 2020), not be considered a major development? Once properly considered as a major development, and following national policy relating to planning applications in National Parks, I cannot see how there is a specific need for a ‘high-end spa and hotel facility’ when there are other high end luxury accommodation and spa facilities at nearby the Devonshire Arms at Bolton Abbey with its restaurants and spa (40 rooms), The Coniston Hall, just on the western edge of the YDNP (71 rooms), again providing leisure and spa facilities and Grantly Hall in neighbouring Nidderdale AONB (47 rooms). Throughout August I have made enquiries at each of these properties and each one has had room availability on all of the occasions checked. In view of this, I cannot see how the developer can argue ‘a need for the development’. Similarly, since similar facilities already exist either in the national park or close to it, it seems the scope for meeting the development outside the national park is already met. It is abundantly clear that the proposal will have a significant detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and the recreational opportunities, and despite the Applicant’s best efforts, these have not been adequately moderated. Considering recreational opportunities, the massive increase in traffic that the proposal will generate will have a significant detrimental effect on the road network around the site and make it unsafe for the public to walk, run or ride bicycles on the narrow country lanes which are barely single lane in places. Even overlooking the temporary increased traffic during the building process, the proposal has 60 double bedrooms (40 hotel suites, six two-bedroom lodges and three three-bedroom lodges) which would equate to at least 60 or 70 guest vehicles. The Applicant indicates that 50 full time staff and up to 96 part time staff (Northern Echo 7 August 2020, Yorkshire Post 8 August 2020) would run the site which would mean up to 146 additional staff vehicles accessing the site each day. Service vehicles would also need daily access to the site, such as daily laundry vehicles, food deliveries, landscaping vehicles, plus the 10 or so day spa guests (which will inevitably increase as has the trend for day spa breaks). This is over 200 additional vehicles accessing the site every day which would present a 25% increase in traffic.
2
The proposal should be deemed a major development because ‘it has the potential to have a serious adverse impact at least on the recreational opportunities provided by the National Park by reason of its scale, character or nature’, The Maurici Opinions (2). It is a sizeable holiday park with the construction of recreational facilities restaurant, bar. spa including a large outdoor swimming pool on a substantial part of what was agricultural land, located next to a scheduled monument and an area of special scientific interested (reef knolls) (see relevant case law on defining a major development in an AONB such as R (Steer) v Shepway DC [2018] EWHC 238 (Admin)). A proper assessment must be carried out as to whether this proposal is a major development, evidence should be considered including the points raised above on the potential for serious harm and a conclusion should be provided in order to mitigate a future judicial review. Even if the proposal is not deemed a major development, the proposal should be rejected on the following grounds.
The proposal is not in line with the Local Plan 2015-2030 At page 143 of the YDNPA Local Plan, several planning guidelines are dictated specifically for the site. None of these appear to have been adequately addressed by the proposal. The Local Plan identifies that the site is located in an extremely prominent open countryside location and as such the visual and landscape character impacts are a key consideration. Despite the architect’s best efforts there is simply no way to disguise a hotel and spa complex of this magnitude in the open countryside landscape. The site backs onto a popular right of way at the southern boundary where the full extent of the hotel complex will be visible. The curved structure will stand prominently as the contours of the site slope towards the eastern boundary. The courtyard spa area, while somewhat shielded from the B6160, will be completely visible from Thorpe lane and the footpaths towards the B6160 from Thorpe lane. This will detract from the view of the view of the scheduled monument. The site is prominently visible from Elbolton, an impressive reef knoll between Thorpe and Linton which sits in an area of SSI and from the footpaths to the south of the site. The site is prominently visible from the other side of the valley at Yarnbury and along the B6265 between Grassington and Hebden. The site is visible from High Lane at Grassington and along the footpaths towards Hebden. Despite attempts to reduce the light pollution from the site, any lighting on this site will be seen throughout the whole valley impacting the work taken to develop the Yorkshire Dales as a Dark Skies park. The Local Plan specifically states that “the focus of development opportunity is upon the part of the site that already contains buildings. Any development of the remaining parts of the site not currently occupied by buildings will only be permitted where it can be shown to enhance or better reveal the significance of the scheduled monument and where it will conserve or enhance the particular landscape, wildlife and archaeological qualities of the area”. The Applicant has gone to great lengths to argue that the new proposals are a huge reduction in the previous
3
proposals, that the hardstanding has been reduced compared to the previous proposals, that the number of lodges has been drastically reduced and the square meterage has been reduced. Page 23 of the DAS4 document states:
However, it is my opinion that this is misleading. The Authority must assess the amended proposal, not in comparison with earlier proposals that were either rejected or withdrawn through fear of rejection, but in view of the site in its current state. From the Local Plan ‘Any development of the remaining parts of the site not currently occupied by buildings will only be permitted where it can be shown to enhance or better reveal the significance of the scheduled monument’. The Applicant has conveniently provided a comparison between ‘Linton Camp’ and the ‘Proposed Development’ for the Authority to consider when reviewing the plans but the comparison is incorrect and misleading. I have copied the comparison below, from page 19 of the DAS4 document.
4
Superseded application Amended application
In the amended application the Applicant appears to have purposely misrepresented the extent of current buildings at the site in what seems to be an attempt to mislead the Authority to believe that the proposed development does not extend beyond the parts of the site not currently occupied by buildings. This appears to be intentionally misleading because the Applicant had already submitted a representation of the existing block plans to the Authority in Nov 2018, which clearly depict a more accurate representation of the existing buildings. The proposed plans include almost half of the new buildings being on parts of the site where there are currently no buildings.
Hardstanding – not a building
Green field- no buildings Green field- no buildings
Googlemap satellite view 2020 Amended to remove buildings depicted Substantial amount of building that do not exist at the site today on green field portion of site
There is nothing in the application documents that evidence how the proposed development ‘enhances or better reveals the significance of the scheduled
5
monument’. Furthermore, there is no evidence that locating such a large proportion of the hotel and spa complex on parts of the site where no buildings are currently occupied ‘conserves or enhances the landscape, wildlife or archaeological qualities of the area’. Therefore, the proposed development should not be allowed to proceed because such a large proportion of the proposed development is located on parts of the site where no buildings are currently located. This is a gross overdevelopment of the site and fails to adhere to the Local Plan stipulations. The Local Plan stipulates that the new structures are likely to be predominantly single storey, in line with the existing structures, have an emphasis on high quality design and landscaping that sits harmoniously in the landscape. The proposed development is largely two storeys with three storey sections in parts. Despite efforts to conceal the height in parts of the development, the stipulation is clear – that any allowable proposal does not increase the density of buildings by increasing the number of storeys. This stipulation is not simply about prominence in the landscape but also extends to preventing the development of high-density building on the site because high density building (60 bedrooms/lodges in this instance) bring additional traffic (upwards of 200 vehicles per day). By not adhering to the guidance stipulated in the Local Plan, the Applicant has submitted a proposal for a development far exceeding the capacity of the local road network which will adversely affect all local residents, visitors to the National Park using the roads to connect to footpaths and other recreational activities like cycling. The proposal shown below still includes large amounts of glazing which will not sit harmoniously with the local landscape as shown below.
The Local Plan stipulates that any proposals for the site will need to clearly demonstrate that they will not harm those elements of the scheduled monument (medieval farmstead) which contribute its significance. Scope for improved planting to enhance the setting and views of the monument so as to better reveal its aesthetic significance. From reviewing the extensive application documents, I cannot see any evidence of scope for improved planting to enhance the setting and views of the monument. The Local Plan states that careful consideration is ‘needed of how to manage traffic impacts and incorporate sustainable transport choices, including linkages with and enhancements to the rights of way and public transport networks’. The Applicant is unable to provide enhancements to the rights of way because the Applicant does not own the land on which the rights of way exist. There is no scope for improving
6
connectivity between the site and the local villages because the roads cannot accommodate footpaths because they are simply not wide enough. Changing the walls bordering the roads would damage one of the Special Qualities of the National Park. “A traditional pastoral landscape created by livestock farmers over several centuries. This historic landscape is acknowledged as internationally important and includes: an intricate network of drystone walls (as well as hedgerows in Lower Bishopdale, Dentdale and Sedbergh) that create a patchwork of enclosures across valleys and valley sides; traditional stone-built field barns, the density of which in some parts of the National Park - notably Swaledale, Wharfedale and Wensleydale - is unique.” Local Plan, page 136. The Applicant has proposed to address sustainable travel by proposing an electric shuttle bus and electric car charging points. Electric shuttle buses and electric cars are still traffic and will still contribute to the already high levels of traffic in the area. Neither the electric shuttle nor electric charging points adequately mitigate for the significant number of guests, staff and services that will use the local roads to visit the site. However, the Applicant has failed to supply a recent traffic assessment. Over recent months, Linton has experienced a substantial and sustained increase in traffic along the roads surrounding the site. There is no evidence that this substantial increase in traffic is temporary and it is more likely a permanent increased because families have discovered the picturesque River Wharfe and the ability to access it from Linton and Grassington. The Transport report submitted by the Applicant uses outdated traffic flow levels from an automatic traffic counter (ATC) which was installed by Nationwide Data Collection on the B.6160, at a location east of the existing access during the period 27/09/16 to 03/10/16. The traffic assessment should be repeated more thoroughly to properly ascertain the impact of the proposal on the local roads, including flow levels at Lauderdale Lane and Church Road. To try and show the impact of such a proposal on the surrounding road network, I have included a map below of the local area and included evidence of the excessive traffic residents of Linton and the surrounding villagers must contend with. Lauderdale lane, marked on the map, is a single lane road with small sections having capacity for two lanes of traffic. It is the main thoroughfare into Linton from the B6265 and would be the route taken by most visitors to the Linton camp site. The section of road in the village centre is reduced to a single lane on most days due to visitors parking in the village. The image is from a cold December day in 2018. It is worse in the summer. The unnamed road between Lauderdale lane and the B6160 is a very narrow lane which cannot even accommodate a single car width and a walker. There is only one passing place along this stretch of road and around 100 m which is impassable meaning that often vehicles must reverse a long way to allow a passing vehicle.
7
Impassable due to Congestion Aug 2020 significant visitors Aug 2020
Walking route to school
Reduced to single lane due to visitors’ cars Dec 2018 Linton camp site
Road width less than 2m with no passing places The crossroad at Lauderdale lane and the B6160 is difficult to pass on a sunny day. Visitors park the entire length of Great bank towards the river. This results in access to the houses and riverside at Linton Falls being very difficult, as was the case on 31st July 2020 when a boy drowned at Linton Falls. The emergency services were unable to get their vehicles to the riverside and had to leave vehicles at Threshfield school 200 m from where the casualty was. The junction between the B6265 and the B6160 also suffers from tremendous congestion. This is both at school drop off and pick up times but even on any given day cars will park here to visit the riverside. The dashed line shows the route by 10 and 12 year old children walk to school. As you can see, the children must navigate multiple traffic pinch points along the way. What we’ve noticed most of all over the last year is that visitors lack the experience of driving on narrow lanes where other road users are present. Visitors do not pause to allow passing pedestrians or cyclists safely. I have not address traffic issues from Burnsall, but I know there are many places along that stretch of road that only have passing places while also being a popular route for recreational activities such as walking and cycling. Increasing traffic along the Burnsall
8
Linton stretch of the B6160 will also adversely impact the recreational activities that the National Park offers. The additional traffic that the proposed development would generate would have a significant detrimental effect on the recreational opportunities in the national park which cannot be moderated while still maintaining the current capacity of the proposal. The amended plans make no material reduction in the impact of traffic because they have failed to address the number of units of accommodation proposed which ultimately dictates the level of staffing, services and visitor vehicles. Without massively reducing the number of accommodation units, it is not possible to address the substantial impact of traffic on the local road network and it is not possible to moderate the significant detrimental effect on the recreational opportunities that the national park provides. The only way to address the traffic issue is to drastically reduce the number of accommodation units by 50% or more and apply conditions preventing the site being used for large gatherings such as weddings and preventing the erection of temporary marquees on the site to limit additional day visitors to the site. The Local Plan highlights the issue of high surface water flood risks on undeveloped parts of the site and highlights that scope to improve management of water across the whole site as part of redevelopment should be mandatory. While it is pleasing to see that the Applicant is proposing some development of the pond area, it’s not clear how the site will accommodate and utilise the surface water run off from the hills above the site.
Adverse impact on Dark Skies The YDNPA clearly value our Dark Skies and has set out stringent policies to help protect it. Less than 10% of the UK population has access to Dark Skies. Light Pollution affects our sleeping patterns and melatonin levels, which in turn can affect general or mental health (Chepesiuk R. Missing the dark: health effects of light pollution. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(1):A20-A27. doi:10.1289/ehp.117-a20). Light pollution also impacts on wildlife, by interrupting natural rhythms including migration, reproduction and feeding patterns – it can even affect food plants & pollination. On 30 June 2020, the AGM of the YDNPA Board endorsed the application for International Dark Sky Reserve status. This was after more than 400 light measurements had been taken at night at 290 locations in the National Park over the last two years. Locations meeting the minimum requirement for a Dark Sky Reserve were recorded at over 100 locations such that a large arc of the YDNP could be designated as a Dark Sky Reserve covering 30% of the National Park. The core area covers Hawes, taking in the upper ends of Swaledale, Rawthey Valley, Garsdale, Littondale and Wharfedale as shown below. The site of the proposed development is right in the middle of an open valley in Wharefdale, i.e. in a very prominent location in the area that currently achieves Dark Skies status (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- england-york-north-yorkshire-53253418).
9
The site is located between two hamlets, Linton on the west on the site and Thorpe on the southeast of the site. Both Linton and Thorpe have no streetlights and very limited external lighting. There is no light pollution in Linton and Thorpe. The nearest sources of light pollution are Swindon Quarry and Grassington village. The National Park must do everything in its power to maintain and improve the Dark Skies status and this development jeopardises maintaining the current status. While the Applicant has included elements to attempt to minimise light pollution – none of the elements proposed will reduce the light pollution to that of the surrounding villages such as Linton and Thorpe. In winter, when Dark Skies tourism is at its highest level, guests will be arriving after dark creating light pollution with vehicles. The sun sets at around 3:40pm in December in Linton. The site will be awash with vehicles arriving and departing. There is no way to minimise the impact of the resulting light pollution without reducing the number of accommodation units within the development. Even using low level lighting around the site, it cannot meet the same lighting levels that are currently experienced in Linton and Thorpe. Recent research into the economic impact of Dark Sky tourism in Northumberland carried out in 2018 found that there was a 25 million pound economic benefit in 2017 alone (summary shown below)! A dark Skies festival has been running annually since 2016 in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and Grassington is a hub for the festival. I believe the potential for economic benefit in maintaining and developing Dark Sky tourism far outweighs any alleged benefit of the proposed hotel and spa complex, which is most likely to only benefit the owner of said hotel and spa complex. The proposed development and the ability to maintain the current very low light levels in the area are mutually exclusive. The proposal cannot go ahead without adversely impacting the Dark Sky around Linton, Grassington and Thorpe and thereby adversely impacting the recreational opportunities and health and wellbeing of residents and visitors alike.
10
The YDNP planning authority states that development must not give rise to any unacceptable, adverse impacts in terms of darkness of the night sky. The policy justification states that
The proposed development in amended form still fails to provide convincing evidence that it will not adversely impact the darkness of the night sky. The scale and spread of development at the site in such an open prominent position simply cannot mitigate the adverse impacts it presents on the Dark Skies of Wharfedale.
Flood risk and foul water drainage The new flood report indicates that the development of the site will lead to a 30% reduction in surface water run off rates but there is no scientific evidence of this statement. Directing surface water run off into the River Wharfe will further contribute to down stream flooding instead of putting in adequate measures to absorbed surface water and reduce the rate of surface water run off. More details are required for the plans to be approved.
Effects on Trees The image below taken from the tree assessment submitted by the Applicant shows the extent of tree removal in order to make way for the scale of development proposed. Greater effort should be made to retain mature trees on the site.
11
Traffic impact I have previously described the issue with increase traffic on the road network around the site. I do not believe that the statement that ‘traffic will not be substantial’ fairly represents the traffic impact of the proposed development because the assessment is made using out of date data. I also consider that asking guests to car share is not an adequate solution to mitigate traffic from the site. I believe the ‘high-end’ guests that the proposal is targeting will not be interested in sharing cars with other guests. I believe this needs extremely careful assessment by the Authority in view of substantially increased visitor numbers to Linton.
Summary In summary, the amended application for Linton Camp has many potentially significant omissions, misrepresentations and errors, and has failed to consider the stipulations of the Local Plan 2015-2030. I hope that the contents of this letter will be taken into account by the Authority and additional supporting information will be obtained from the Applicant so that the Authority can make an informed decision on the proposed development. Furthermore, as my property overlooks the site and I am regular user of the footpaths bounding the site, I would like the opportunity to articulate my objections to the application verbally, if a public planning committee takes place.
Yours sincerely,
Georgina Wilkins
12
Gail Dent
From: REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 25 August 2020 18:02 To: Planning Cc: [email protected] Subject: Linton Camp Planning Application C50/46L dated 5 August 2020
I refer to the above revised application.
My comments remain the same as set out I my e-mail to you of 16 January 2019.To these I would add the following regarding the Supporting Statement of July 2020.
Whilst much is made of the reduction in the number of hotel bedrooms and self catering properties,there is no mention of the additional footfall and traffic that will arise from the intention to open the facilities(pool etc) to the public nor of the intention to host events which will further add to traffic and possibly require marquees and so on.
The document claims that the proposals will not create a significant impact on surrounding roads and villages by traffic. This is a highly misleading statement.The B6160 road used as a reference is not and will not be the main route other than for a quarter of a mile from the junction with Lauradale Lane which is and will be the main route to the site.Lauradale Lane passes through Linton village which already has traffic and parking issues as shown by the NYCC decision to install 30mph restrictions along with further parking restriction.The proposed development would make a bad situation worse rather than "not create a significant impact".
The impact of this application is to impose upon the conservation village of Linton the rural equivalent of a "New Town" and overwhelm it by its size and impact.
In short this project will lead to the Disneyfication( golf buggy transport!) of the Yorkshire Dales which surely the YDNP does not wish to encourage.
Judith Ford
1 Gail Dent
From: Anna Guttridge REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 26 August 2020 15:10 To: Planning Subject: Planning - Linton
Dear Sir/Madam,
I’m writing to strongly object to the plans submitted under C/50/46L. I strongly object to the scale of the development in the National Park. A 60 bedroom hotel spa and holiday complex is out of character in the landscape and would adversely impact the current rural views.
I have family who live in Linton and regularly stay there with my own family. This development would cause a huge increase in traffic in an area which already struggles with the number of vehicles and the roads are not suitable or safe for such an increase in traffic. There would be an increase in light pollution and noise pollution. There will also be significant development on parts of the site that are undeveloped therefore causing damage to local habitats and having a negative impact on the fauna and flora.
Regards
Anna Guttridge
Get Outlook for iOS
1 Gail Dent
From: Sandie Weatherhead REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 25 August 2020 17:47 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
I am horrified but not surprised about this amended application. This is the modus operandi of Natural Land to keep on applying till they wear down the Park and all the objectors with more and more amendments and variations.
The same applicant, of Natural Assets (which company has since been made bankrupt after a fiasco at Cairngorm Mountain) received planning for their Yorkshire Dales Ltd Park at the Aislabeck Plantation near Richmond after several attempts. The wanted a hotel but they called it "The Sanctuary" After a short time they submitted permission for more lodges and extension of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary had been the venue for weddings and stag parties and locals said the place had been "beset by anti-social behaviour complaints." The company has sold on most of the lodges at Aislabeck already and is leasing them back for holiday purposes, a business model that they have used at all of their sites. In Richmond when they received their latest planning permission, there was a scene with objectors shouting. The company is now called Natural Land. I feel sure you have done your research and all these facts are in the public domain but I needed to tell you what you may face.
This beautiful ancient peaceful site, full of the history of generations of people and early agriculture is in grave danger. The HER1 report, commissioned by the applicant, is fascinating reading. It says the site has remains underground, for example there is evidence of a co axial bank and flattened remains in the middle of the playing field. This suggest that the co axial system is part of a much bigger site. "It is evidence that the Scheduled Monument, 1019312 is actually part of the site." It also points out that remains are in the north of the site and near the old tennis court and near the site entrance. In fact they are scattered all over the site and are most likely under the camp buildings.
The archaeologist also says "The Scheduled Monument is of national importance and the setting of a Scheduled Monument is taken into consideration when planning applications are considered." Her assessment of the archaeology of the site is interesting.
"A medieval farmstead and a field system which is preserved beneath the medieval ridge and furrow meaning that it is pre medieval in date. Some of the house platforms may be of pre conquest, i.e. of Viking date." The narrow shape of the long buildings are likely to be Viking but she also remarks that the site may show evidence of an iron age field system. There are 3 hogback grave stones at Burnsall Church and 11 other Anglian /Viking crosses and artefacts including an early font.
I appeal to the owners, Matthew and Emma Riley to withdraw this application. The National Park have 3 archaeology and conservation professionals at the National Park who can make the case for listing. I strongly believe that they have an obligation to do so. I have been unable to contact them to discuss the application because they are obviously working from home during the Coronavirus pandemic and their message boxes were full.
1 Sandie Weatherhead.
Hon (Unpaid) Archivist, Burnsall Church and Parish
Former teacher at Linton Camp in 1972
Member of Upper Wharfedale Field Society, Vernacular Buildings and Local History Group
2 REDACTED BY YDNPA
REDACTED BY YDNPA
REDACTED BY YDNPA
REDACTED BY YDNPA PLANNING APPLICATION – LINTON CAMP APPLICATION No. C/50/46L
OBJECTION
1. It is very rare for such a sizeable piece of land to come up for sale in such a beautiful area, when it does it is essential that the local community as a whole gain benefit, and not an elite group of people who have no visible link to the area, especially and whose only claim to fame is the size of their bank balance. This area cries out for younger people to live and work in, and this cannot be achieved unless housing in the area is widely available and acceptably priced. That requires ‘affordable housing’ not a hotel/leisure complex.
2. The likely building time for this application will be measured in years, the effect of a continuous stream of industrial sized vehicles and equipment travelling on the B6160 from Skipton and surrounding area, is too awful to comprehend. Residents and farmers from the whole of Upper Wharfedale who have no other access road south and onwards, would find that a current 15 minute journey [Grassington to Skipton] could take twice or three times the normal time. The pollution to the environment alone makes this application unacceptable
3. The effect of the traffic arriving and leaving complex, once built, will cause a very significant increase in vehicle traffic on the very narrow Threshfield to Burnsall road B6160, as well as the access road from the B6160 [Skipton Road] through Linton. With the information on this application spread over 20+ online documents, it is difficult to judge the likely numbers of daily residents/users of the complex, but one can reasonably assume that it will be of the order of hundreds per day. In a 12 hour day and 100 vehicles leaving and returning, this equates to 1 vehicle every 3½ minutes. On quiet, narrow, country roads in the beautiful Yorkshire Dales that is simply unacceptable by any yardstick . Once again the noise and pollution should be enough to throw this application where it belongs, IN THE BIN.
4. One should also bear in mind that any company spending millions of pounds on a hotel/leisure complex is not likely to be satisfied with 100 vehicles entering or leaving daily, and will inevitably look for ways to increase footfall. Suddenly one car every 3½ minutes on these roads becomes an underestimate. For any National Park Authority to even consider such an application beggars belief, and planning approval would certainly seriously undermine public trust in the both the planning staff and its procedures and the councillors elected to oversee the protection of this unique area.
If The Yorkshire Dales National Park have any genuine care and concern for the countryside and peoples of the Yorkshire Dales, this application must not be allowed to proceed.
W C Wilton 4 Doctor Laithe, Threshfield, Nr Skipton, North Yorkshire BD23 5HP REDACTED BY YDNPA
Gail Dent
From: Val Walker-Wilton REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 25 August 2020 12:18 To: Planning Cc: REDACTED BY YDNPA Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
Planning Application Linton Camp - Application No. C/50/46L
OBJECTION
1. The potential noise, pollution, and disturbance from traffic going to and from this development would be enormous. The road from Skipton to the site would be full of industrial vehicles blocking the only road up the Dale. The roads surrounding the site are small, narrow country lanes going through small villages. There would be continual traffic jams. The quiet, peaceful countryside which visitors come to see and locals love and call home would be destroyed.
2. The impact therefore on the character of the area would be enormous. The duty of the National Park is to preserve the present character of the Park, not destroy it. The managers of the National Park have been urged to reconsider some of their policies amid fears that developers are side-stepping measures designed to secure the future of its communities and landscapes. What are the planners in the Park doing considering an application like this?
3. Another potential effect would be that this land which could have been used for affordable housing would be lost.
Val Walker-Wilton
Fell House, 4 Doctor Laithe,
Threshfield, Nr. Skipton. BD23 5HP
1 Gail Dent
From: Hannah Peace REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 25 August 2020 10:48 To: Planning Subject: Planning application: C/50/46L
Dear Sir
Re: planning application at Linton School Camp
I want to express my strong feelings that the planning application for a hotel on the site of Linton Camp is fully rejected. The plans would be a blight on the Yorkshire Dales National Park, not only because of the building but the additional traffic it would attract which the roads cannot cope with, nor the local villages which would see increased vehicles spoiling their peaceful and attractive nature.
The recent months has shown how the Dales have attracted many more visitors and the pressure this puts on the roads.
The site should be returned to grassland and not allowed to further deteriorate but it certainly should not be developed.
I hope the application will again be rejected in full.
Yours sincerely
Hannah Peace 1 Woodland View, Threshfield North Yorkshire BD23 5PP
1 Gail Dent
From: birgit hanson REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 25 August 2020 10:46 To: Planning Subject: Linton School Camp Site, Linton
When the plans for the current development of the above site was first on the agenda in 2018, I sent in my objections to the scheme, basically on the grounds that it was totally out of scale with the surrounding countryside. The number of residents at any one time on site would be more than the residents of Linton, nearby, and the traffic created would be too much for already busy rural roads. The current application has not made me change my mind. Since the first application, the number of visitors to the Yorkshire Dales has gone up enormously, and there has been a huge impact on places like Linton, Linton Falls and Burnsall. I cannot see that this development is not going to add to this problem.
I do not think, as is stated, that the new proposal will enhance the local landscape. the removal of the old buildings will do that.
As for the local economy. Maybe some money will be spent locally, but quite a number of locally run B &B establishments (which are high quality ) will suffer. If there is a restaurant on site, maybe the guests will not go elsewhere, and if they decide to go to the local pub, I doubt they will walk there and back - in the dark ? Will next thing be street lights along the footpaths ?
Will the locals want to be employed as "maintenance contract people and cleaners ?
And how will they get there ?
Local footpaths do not need "re-installing".
Under the heading of Flooding : when has this site ever been "a visitor attraction" ? No wonder it has never flooded in this situation.
So, I haven't changed my mind in spite of the posh plans. The development is not appropriate for this site.
Birgit Hanson
Birgit
1 Gail Dent
From: Norman Cooke REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 24 August 2020 21:02 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton.
Dear Sirs, I was surprised that this application has been resubmitted so soon after rejection. My concerns remain the same as the previous submission. As a previous teacher of Geography I feel I must speak out. The fundamental purpose of a National Park is to retain the landscape for future generations. Whilst acknowledging the current site has long been neglected this planning application will only create a further eyesore in the fulness of time. The site does not lend itself to easy access by traffic - vehicular or pedestrian. Recent fatalities in the area confirm a rethink around access to Wharfedale needs addressing. Once again the question needs to be addressed as to where those who might work at the site live, and how they would get there. The last thing this area needs is an unnecessary eyesore. I respectfully request that this application is once again denied. Yours faithfully
Norman M Cooke OBE, Park Grange Barn, Threshfield, Skipton, Yorkshire. BD23 5EY.
1 Gail Dent
From: Alison Geldart REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 24 August 2020 20:40 To: Planning Subject: Application Reference No. C/50/46L
Re The development of the Linton School site
I am a resident of a nearby village and wish to voice my objections to the proposed developments at the Linton Camp site. The planning committee needs to urgently look at the impact this development will have on the local communities and the environment. Key concerns:
• What cannot be overlooked is the significant increase in traffic in an area that is already subjected to congestion these proposals will bring. Access to the camp is along a narrow road with few passing places, cyclists and walkers are frequent users and will be increasingly vulnerable with increased traffic. Reducing car use in the dales should be a priority not encouraged. Cycling has increased and needs encouraging. • The camp is not on a bus route, in fact this area is quite bereft of decent public transport. Staff and residents will need cars to access the Hotel. • The village I live in and surrounding villages are frequently blocked by traffic and inappropriate parking. at times our village is no more than a car park with farm vehicles unable to pass. I have recently paid for a white line outside my house to stop being blocked in. • There are already a high proportion of holiday Hotel, B and B's holiday lets etc in the area and I do not believe we need more. In fact the area is at risk of losing what makes it so attractive to visitors. Villages are losing their communities as Tourist developments are encouraged. • The area needs more affordable housing. • The area needs opportunities for young people to be encouraged to stay.
The planning committee should not allow this development to go ahead and instead should focus on the needs of the local communities and what can be done to keep the surrounding dales villages alive and thriving and to encourage people in particular young people to stay in the area.
Yours sincerely
Alison Geldart
1 The Old Cottage Appletreewick Skipton North Yorks BD23 6DD
Ms Sarah Sayer YDNPA Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn DL8 3EL
20 August 2020
Dear Ms Sayer
APPLICATION C/50/46L: FORMER LINTON SCHOOL CAMPSITE
I write to enter comments and objections to the above Application, as follows:
Development concept: the basic assumption is that the area needs, and can absorb, a major new tourist development. Both assumptions are seriously flawed. The area already has generous tourist accommodation at all levels. The facilities for tourist activities are limited and severely stretched at times. The scope for expansion of such facilities is negligible, without serious damage to local communities and amenities. Any expansion which may be required needs to be gradual and cautious, not large-scale.
Design: aesthetics are notoriously subjective, but to my eye the proposed design is grossly unsuited to the character of the area and of its architecture, having more in common with a modern, semi-urban environment.
Location: The proposed location is derelict, and certainly in need of improvement, but that does not mean that it is suitable for a development of the kind proposed. The neighbouring village would suffer serious and irreparable harm from a large influx of visitors. There are many alternative ways in which the site could be better used: at one extreme, it could be returned to farmland, and at the other it could be developed to provide affordable housing which is currently in dangerously short supply. Any future use should reflect the needs of the area and of local communities, whereas the proposed development would only harm them.
Staffing: it beggars belief that the proposal assumes the recruitment of 14 staff. Existing hospitality providers find recruitment difficult, with staff needing to be brought in from a distance and in many cases from other countries. There appears to be no provision for staff to be provided with accommodation. Employment in the sector is generally low-paid and it therefore seems improbable that local people would benefit in any significant way from the development.
Traffic: perhaps the most serious objection of all is the effect the proposal would have on traffic in the area. The huge influx of visitors following the easing of the Covid lockdown demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that the roads in the area are not suited to the carriage of greatly increased traffic flows… Visitors to the proposed establishment, and staff travelling to work, would cause major disruption to normal traffic including, importantly, large agricultural vehicles. Increased numbers of tourists would inevitably place demands on parking arrangements which could not be met without sacrificing the character of the area.
Other infrastructure: no application should be considered unless it was clear that the local infrastructure could support it. It is not clear from the application that this aspect has been given sufficient attention.
Enforcement: It will no doubt be argued that conditions could be attached to the proposal which would mitigate some of its disadvantages. But can the Authority honestly claim that it would be willing and able to enforce such conditions rigidly and in a timely fashion?
In short, I submit that the proposal is inappropriate in purpose and scale, would damage rather than support the local economy and communities, and would prejudice other more suitable uses of the site. It should therefore be rejected in its entirety.
Yours sincerely
Robert Flower The Old Cottage Appletreewick Skipton North Yorks BD23 6DD
Ms Sarah Sayer YDNPA Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn DL8 3EL
21 August 2020
Dear Ms Sayer
APPLICATION C/50/46L: FORMER LINTON SCHOOL CAMPSITE
I write to associate myself with Mr Flower’s letter of yesterday’s date, below, and to register my objection to the above Application for the reasons given therein.
Mr Flower has however asked me to point out a misprint in his letter. In the paragraph about Staffing, the figure 14 should be corrected to 94.
Yours sincerely
Deborah A G Nicholson 20 August 2020
Dear Ms Sayer
APPLICATION C/50/46L: FORMER LINTON SCHOOL CAMPSITE
I write to enter comments and objections to the above Application, as follows:
Development concept: the basic assumption is that the area needs, and can absorb, a major new tourist development. Both assumptions are seriously flawed. The area already has generous tourist accommodation at all levels. The facilities for tourist activities are limited and severely stretched at times. The scope for expansion of such facilities is negligible, without serious damage to local communities and amenities. Any expansion which may be required needs to be gradual and cautious, not large-scale.
Design: aesthetics are notoriously subjective, but to my eye the proposed design is grossly unsuited to the character of the area and of its architecture, having more in common with a modern, semi-urban environment.
Location: The proposed location is derelict, and certainly in need of improvement, but that does not mean that it is suitable for a development of the kind proposed. The neighbouring village would suffer serious and irreparable harm from a large influx of visitors. There are many alternative ways in which the site could be better used: at one extreme, it could be returned to farmland, and at the other it could be developed to provide affordable housing which is currently in dangerously short supply. Any future use should reflect the needs of the area and of local communities, whereas the proposed development would only harm them.
Staffing: it beggars belief that the proposal assumes the recruitment of 14 staff. Existing hospitality providers find recruitment difficult, with staff needing to be brought in from a distance and in many cases from other countries. There appears to be no provision for staff to be provided with accommodation. Employment in the sector is generally low-paid and it therefore seems improbable that local people would benefit in any significant way from the development.
Traffic: perhaps the most serious objection of all is the effect the proposal would have on traffic in the area. The huge influx of visitors following the easing of the Covid lockdown demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that the roads in the area are not suited to the carriage of greatly increased traffic flows… Visitors to the proposed establishment, and staff travelling to work, would cause major disruption to normal traffic including, importantly, large agricultural vehicles. Increased numbers of tourists would inevitably place demands on parking arrangements which could not be met without sacrificing the character of the area.
Other infrastructure: no application should be considered unless it was clear that the local infrastructure could support it. It is not clear from the application that this aspect has been given sufficient attention.
Enforcement: It will no doubt be argued that conditions could be attached to the proposal which would mitigate some of its disadvantages. But can the Authority honestly claim that it would be willing and able to enforce such conditions rigidly and in a timely fashion? In short, I submit that the proposal is inappropriate in purpose and scale, would damage rather than support the local economy and communities, and would prejudice other more suitable uses of the site. It should therefore be rejected in its entirety.
Yours sincerely
Robert Flower 4 Linton Falls Linton Skipton North Yorkshire BD23 6BQ 23. August 2020
The Planning Officer,
Re: Application C/50/46L Former Linton School Camp Site
We wish to express our opposition to the above planning application. Our objections are listed in the sections below, and they have been compiled in accordance with the considerations outlined in the guidance document “Guidance Notes for Neighbouring Residents”.
All of the arguments refer explicitly to parts of the planning submission. In addition, reference is made to the Yorkshire Dales National Parks Authority Local Plan and to the Design Guide.
In what follows, references are given in the following manner, where square brackets indicate a reference: [DAS2:1.1]. The example refers to paragraph 1.1 of the document C_50_46L_DAS2.pdf.
In summary, our objections are based on the fact that the proposed, ultra-modern development is wholly inappropriate for the landscape, the community and for posterity. Most importantly, it is too big for the site, its appearance and construction contrasts strongly with the beautiful surroundings, it is too close to Linton and Linton Falls, and there is no plan or contingency for the “end of life” of the development.
It is suggested that restoring the site to agricultural use could be achieved with minimal disruption to the site, and this would be by far the best outcome for Linton and the National Park.
The Yorkshire Dales National Park Management Plan 2019-24 states that “local people will be at the heart of the delivery of most of the objectives set out in this Management Plan.” We sincerely hope that in making your decision on the proposed development that you will accept the views of local people and respect our wishes.
Yours faithfully
Dr Timothy A Rose Mrs Valerie R Rose
1 1. Background
In [DAS1:Introduction] it is stated that “This project will redevelop and enhance the brown field, derelict site”. Although it is, strictly speaking, true that the site can be described as “brown field”, this description is also at the heart of the problem with the application.
The School Camps were built in 1939, and they pre-date the National Park designation (1954) by 15 years. Their purpose was to provide holiday accommodation for city children who would otherwise not have had the opportunity to experience the countryside and nature. This was an admirable and worthwhile undertaking.
When the Camp was eventually closed in 1986, the land designation was not returned to agricultural use. The result is that 34 years later there is a proposal to build a huge, ultra- modern, five star, luxury hotel on the site, which is completely contrary to the character of the landscape within the National Park, is massively too big for the plot and has the potential to blot the landscape for many decades to come. It is also suggested that many people would find this use considerably less worthwhile than that originally intended in 1939.
In almost all of the documents comprising the submission, there is frequent reference to “enhancements” to the landscape, environment, ecology, heritage, and so on, that would be provided by the development. All of these comparisons are made with the site as it exists on the ground. This is understandable but misleading. The real comparison should be with the site once it has been cleared of the derelict buildings and their associated infrastructure.
It is extremely important that it is recognised that clearing the site would be a relatively easy, quick and an inexpensive undertaking. As noted in the documents supporting the submission: [ECO1], [HER1] and [TREE1], the land could be reinstated for agricultural use without significant disruption to the ecology, heritage or tree population at the site.
2. Planning
There are numerous examples of the extravagant claims, described above, in all the documents submitted in support of the proposal. In [DAS1], for example, it is stated that “The proposal will enhance the local landscape character by replacing unsightly derelict buildings with sensitively placed and contextually designed architectural and landscape propositions.” We are also told that it will “enhance and improve the local area” and that it will “preserve and enhance the distinct character of its surroundings”. These are what are usually referred to as a “throw-away” lines. They are meaningless, and they do not have a basis in fact.
Also in [DAS1:Economic] we are told that “The proposal will successfully contribute to the local economy”. In addition, the development will “appeal to a wide demographic, ensuring the economic viability of the project”. Given that that the proposal is for a five star, luxury hotel, it is suggested that it is unlikely to attract a wide demographic.
2 In [DAS1:Social] it is stated that the development will be “helping to enhance and improve the local area, reinstating local paths and networks, and positively contributing to the local community.” It is hard to understand how the development will reinstate any local paths or networks. Also, referring to the previous submission [DAS:12] (this should be permissible, as it is an amended statement) the business model was stated explicitly: “the facilities on site will mean that persons seeking a more relaxing holiday will have little need to leave the site.” Clearly, this statement is at odds with the statement above, which expresses the likelihood that visitors to the development will benefit the local economy. It is not surprising that the previous statement has been removed from the amended submission, as it reveals too much of the business model.
Also in [DAS1:Social], the design is described as being: “of a high quality, and has been planned to preserve and enhance the distinct character of its surroundings”. It is hard to understand how a design so out of step with its surroundings can be described as preserving and enhancing the character of its surroundings.
It is suggested in [DAS1:Social] that the development will “not only create jobs, but year round careers, encouraging young people to stay in the local area”. Elsewhere in the submission, we are told that local jobs will comprise maintenance and cleaning. Presumably, information concerning the pay and conditions of these proposed staff is commercially sensitive. It is suggested, however, that the likelihood of local people making a career working at the development is remote. It is also worth noting that the current pandemic may have a profound effect on the career choices of young people. One thing that this unfortunate occurrence has highlighted is precisely which jobs/careers are truly secure and worthwhile and which ones are not. At the present time, a career in hospitality will probably seem an extremely unattractive offering.
In [DAS1:environmental] we learn that “The self-catering accommodation will use air source heat pumps to produce their heating and hot water, while the hotel building will also utilise ground source heat pump technology with geothermal coils, to both heat and cool the building in an energy efficient and responsible manner.” We learn later in the submission [DAS3] that heating will not be provided exclusively from ground and air sources.
Also in [DAS1:environmental], it is suggested that changes to the design of the facility “will limit the level of concrete required for the build”. It will also have “timber kit construction” and have “timber cladding” These improvements are to be commended. However, without access to details of the designs, it is not possible to assess the reduction in the use of concrete.
It is still true that the development will only have the appearance of being built from locally appropriate materials. The Planning Authority should be in no doubt that the development will not be made from local materials or be sympathetic with it surroundings. Judging from the submission and from discussion with the architects (at the Presentation of Development Plans to the Public: Thursday 13th and Friday 14th August 2020) the lower half of the development
3 will be predominantly a reinforced concrete and steel construction, and, therefore, it will be completely unsuitable for the National Park environment.
Section [DAS1:Design] describes a design “that is organic and unique in form; while also very responsive to its setting, reinforcing local distinctiveness.” This is meaningless, and it should be disregarded.
The section [DAS1:Human safety and amenity] states that “The buildings are set into the topography to ensure that minimal views of the development are available from out with the site, and the plan organisation of the development ensures that the hotel is inward facing, enabling all activity to be shielded from the site’s boundaries, also reducing light and noise pollution.” It can be seen from the figure labelled Hotel Proposed Elevations on page 4 of [AMD3] that all of the hotel rooms have a view out of the site. This is, perhaps, obvious, because the whole point of building in a beautiful landscape is to provide the views out. This point will also be mentioned again, below, because it clearly has implications for the views into the site – particularly at night. Regarding noise, this may be the only mention of noise in the whole submission. Clearly, the business model for the proposed site is confidential and has not been made available as part of the submission. However, it is to be expected that events, parties, weddings, and so on will form part of the offering provided. (This was also confirmed at the Presentation of Development Plans to the Public.) Such events have the potential to cause significant light and noise pollution, way beyond that produced by the normal running of the site, described in the submission.
We are told in [DAS3:Overview] that “The revised design sits peacefully within the natural contours of the site”. This is a meaningless statement, but the description of the development sitting “peacefully” is clearly misleading. What we have learned from the submission and from presentation to the public is that the site will definitely not be peaceful.
In [DAS1:Policy BE1 Business Development Sites], it is described how the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan lists the site as suitable for type C1 Hotels, boarding and guest houses. It is suggested that the designation in the Local Plan was never intended to encompass a design that was both completely out of character and significantly too large for the plot. The single word “Hotel” contained in the designation does not provide an adequate description of what is acceptable.
In the same section, the Local Plan is cited as identifying the need to “encourage regeneration and enterprise to make for more sustainable communities”. This is an admirable aspiration, and there are numerous examples that spring to mind that comply with this need. Two obvious ones might be the brewery at Hetton and the creamery at Hawes. The creamery, in particular, is an interesting example, because on appearance alone it might be rejected. However, its function is of such extreme importance that its unsightliness can be completely forgiven. The same is not true for a hotel – which is designed to serve a tiny fraction of the outside community – and is of little or no value to the National Park.
4 Clearly, the viability of any development must be considered and without access to the Business Plan it is difficult to establish the basis upon which the proposed development is founded. It is suggested, however, that given the present pandemic a new hotel might be an extremely precarious proposition. For “normal” businesses this would be a bad outcome but for an exceptional development, such as this one, failure to operate – even after a few years – would be catastrophic for the environment, the local community and the National Park.
[DAS1:Policy BE1 Business Development Sites] also refers to the Local Plan: “As suggested in Appendix 3, the development does comprise of mainly single storey structures” For the casual reader, this may give the impression that the proposed hotel is a single storey structure. (There are numerous examples in the documentation where the hotel is referred to as single storey.) In several places the submission describes the car parking as “underground”. This is unhelpful and may lead to the impression that the hotel is smaller than proposed. It is suggested that most people would describe a structure of this kind as having two-storeys.
Referring to the Local Plan, regarding creation of new jobs and support of existing ones, it is stated that “We strongly believe that our proposal comprehensively addresses this aim, providing new job opportunities in the area, creating new positive commercial activity, and also generating new economic opportunities in the wider locality.” It is unrealistic to assume that real job opportunities will be provided to local people by the development. This important point will be discussed again, below, in the section on Sustainability.
Section [DAS1:T5 Indoor Visitor Facilities] refers to the indoor facilities on site, and it states “This will improve the economic viability of the site by ensuring that the proposed development has year round visitor appeal, working towards a more robust and sustainable business model”. It is clear from this statement that the business model is to retain as much guest spending as possible within the hotel. This is understandable, but it is not consistent with the assertion that it will “provide consistent economic benefit to the area”. This model provides and interesting contrast to B&B and camping accommodation. It is suggested that visitors to B&B and camping accommodation tend to eat out twice a day and so genuinely do benefit the local communities.
Section [DAS1:National Park Authority Design Guide Review] quotes the Design Guide in its desire for “more innovative, imaginative and creatively designed development”, and it highlights the key components of Function, Context and Quality. Clearly, the design can only be considered to function properly if it respects the wishes of the local community. In other words, they must approve it and welcome its function. In terms of context, the proposal clearly has its origins in designs found elsewhere: it is reminiscent of golf courses. Regarding quality, the proposal would probably meet with approval in most locations outside of a National Park, provided that it was sufficiently remote from residential areas.
5 The same section also suggests that “The proposal endeavours to use the same palette of local materials, as seen in nearby vernacular developments, to ensure the buildings reference the distinct materiality of the area.” It is unfortunate that the proposed buildings are not based on traditional designs or comprise traditional materials.
In [DAS2:4.1] Landscaping and Surfaces, it is stated that “The site benefits in many ways from its existing landscape”. This is the whole point of the proposal and, our opposition. The site is located in one of the most exquisitely beautiful parts of the Yorkshire Dales, and this is precisely why it is so highly prized by the developer. This is also precisely why the site should be afforded the highest protection provided by National Park status and should never be developed in the manner proposed.
Also in [DAS2:4.1], it is stated that “The Proposed Development would replace elements which currently degrade the Yorkshire Dales National Park designation”. While this is true, as mentioned previously, it should be borne in mind that clearance of the site would be straightforward. In addition, it is suggested that the ultra-modern offering proposed would degrade the National Park Designation to a far greater extent and in perpetuity. It is alarming to note that the submission does not contain plans for the “end of life” of the development. This is an extremely important omission.
It is recognised that there are examples of development in highly sensitive areas – particularly critical National Infrastructure – which are considered to be of such importance or value that planning permission is allowed, provided provision is made for reinstatement of the site after the life of the development. Obvious examples are coastal oil terminals and power stations. The contingency should be clearly set out and, ideally, suitable funds “ring-fenced” for the restoration work. These should be reviewed from time to time to ensure that they are still sufficient for the work. The fact that such assurances have not been submitted with the current proposal is sufficient reason to reject the application.
In [DAS2:5.1], concerning the site layout, we learn that “the scheme is based on the creation of a development that is truly sustainable, in every sense of that word.” This is an outrageous and highly misleading claim. There is no guarantee that the site can survive economically in a low carbon economy. Its whole business model is based on massive and conspicuous consumption.
In [DAS3:Tourism as part of the Rural Economy] passing reference is made to the CLA (formerly the Country Landowners Association). This is interesting, because, situated at the base of Barden Moor and close to several other moorlands, the hotel would be an ideal base for shooting parties. This may be of concern to local residents, as there is no mention in the submission of gun safes or ammunition stores on the site. In addition, it should be recognised that shooting parties – especially those arriving from overseas – often arrive by helicopter. There is also no mention of this in the submission.
6 3. Proposal
In [DAS2:1.1] we are informed that “The proposals have been developed following a rigorous design process, taking into account the advice received in the past on previous proposals for this site, as well as current advice from the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.” We are also informed that the Design and Access Statement will “document the extensive research and analysis that has informed our final proposal, combining the collective efforts of a design team of expert consultants.” These statements are intended to deny the possibility of objection or rejection. They imply that acceptance of the plan is now a formality, and they completely disregard the wishes of the local community.
In the Introduction to [DAS2:1.3] we learn that the proposed development “will positively benefit the local area, and create new and exciting future opportunities”. Again, this is a “throw-away” line. We should not forget that, with the possible exception of the income from a handful of low paid jobs, all benefits made from this enterprise will leave the National Park in the form of operator profits.
In [DAS2:1.4] the Local Plan is quoted, and it is suggested that due to the exposed nature of the site “there are opportunities for a more ‘organic’ development.” Clearly, it is impossible to know precisely what was intended by this statement, but it is likely that the intention was to impress upon potential applicants the necessity of ensuring that the character of the landscape is not materially changed. In other words, that proposals are entirely consistent with the surroundings. The ultra-modern design of the present application does not meet this intention.
In [DAS2:2.4] the planning history is reviewed. (It should be noted, for clarification, that this is incorrectly labelled 3.4 in the document.) It is noted that “Unfortunately there was no public consultation on the previously submitted planning application (C/50/46/L).” It will be recalled that the previous application was also submitted just before Christmas and very little time was afforded to the local community to prepare a response.
In [DAS3:Public Comments] it is stated that “The previously submitted proposals attracted comments from members of the public with the majority of them questioning a number of aspects of the scheme. It is felt that this was as a result of the lack of engagement with the surrounding parishes and members of the public.” There are no good reasons why the general public – and the local residents, in particular – should not be consulted. In addition, it is suggested that the notion that opposition from the public was due to “lack of engagement” is disrespectful. This implies that we would approve if only it could be explained to us properly. This is not the case: our opposition is based on understanding.
In a wider context, the impact of the proposed development, if approved, could be profound. If the development were to be successful, the pressure to repeat the formula elsewhere in the Dales would be immense. If it were to fail – or, even worse, fail quickly – the legacy for the landscape and the local community would be catastrophic, and the reputation of the National
7 Park Authority would be severely diminished.
This last point is interesting, because, in theory, the YDNPA should be able to compel operators to fulfill their maintenance obligations. What is not possible, however, is to compel them to trade. If the operation fails, for any reason, the site will quickly fall into disrepair and become a significant eyesore and embarrassment to the National Park.
In [DAS2:3.1] we are told, with respect to character and context, that “The motivation behind this process was to ensure that the project could offer a positive contemporary benefit to the area” This is meaningless.
In [DAS2:3.2] Camp Schools are described, and it is stated that “Our proposal looks to continue the original intent of the camp by allowing members of the public to experience the country side and nature.” As mentioned above, this is a very tenuous claim. The patrons of five star, luxury hotels do not require the extra facility provided by this offering in order to enjoy the countryside.
Section [DAS2:3.5] describes the “constructive relationship of receiving feedback and guidance offered by the local authority has made for a well developed scheme”. Similarly, in [DAS3:Overview] it is stated that “The revised proposals work closely with the local plan and will directly contribute to the delivery of the objectives in the National Park Management Plan.” Again, these are extravagant claims and are intended to deny the possibility of rejection.
In section [DAS2:5.2] the use of landscaping on the site is described to “create a split level structure viewed as only a single story from the north”. This is misleading. As mentioned previously, it can be seen from [AMD3] that all of the hotel rooms have a view out of the site. The view from the north, referred to here, shows that earth bunds are used to obscure the view of the ground floor car parks. The hotel is a two-storey structure.
Section [DAS2:5.3] explains how “The proposed buildings will be heated and cooled using both air source and ground source technology.” This is to be commended, but it does not excuse the other overwhelmingly inappropriate aspects of the design. If, for example, the proposed system were installed in a smaller, sympathetic, design, it might be welcomed. In the context of the present design, however, the positive contribution of this design feature is an irrelevance. It should also be recognised that without access to the design calculations, the above statement is misleading. For example, we are not informed about the presence, or otherwise, of conventional boilers in the design of the facility and the exact proportion of heat that will be developed by the scheme. In particular, it can be observed that the number (and volume) of rooms is large and the area shown on the plan available for the heating/cooling coils is relatively small.
In [DAS3:Tourism] it is stated that “The Yorkshire Dales National Park does lack a quantum of luxury and contemporary hotels that would aid in the appeal to and attraction of a wide market
8 of guests all year round.” In addition, “This is accentuated when compared to the number of luxury, boutique and contemporary offerings a short distance away in the Lake District National Park.” It could be argued that the model presented by the Lake District is definitely not one to follow. It is arguable that large parts of the the Lake District have already become significantly degraded. As mentioned above, the present scheme would be the first of its nature within the Yorkshire Dales National Park. If successful, it is not hard to imagine that other, similar applications would follow. This precedent would make subsequent applications hard to refuse.
It is also interesting to note that in the creation of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, Nidderdale was left out because it was considered to have been already spoiled by presence of the reservoirs. The special protection afforded by National Park status is designed to protect against proposals such as the present one.
In [DAS3:Public Engagement] it is acknowledged that “early in the review process that there had been minimal contact and engagement with the public and in particular a number of the local parishes that had provided comment on the previous submission.” This is a theme that has persisted into the present submission. Most importantly, the present submission is based on a “review process”. We are told that “The proposals were taken back to first principles”. This is clearly not the case. The present proposal is different to the 2018 proposal in many details, but the general shape, size and appearance of the development has remained the same. The principal objections, namely: it is too big for the site, its construction and appearance contrasts strongly with the beautiful surroundings, it is too close to Linton and Linton Falls, and there is no plan or contingency for the “end of life” of the development, all remain.
In [DAS3:Sustainable Tourism] we learn a little about the operation of facilities such as the one proposed: “The operations have a preference to employ locally as much as possible due to the authenticity provided by local staff, sense of local pride that can be created working in a successful operation and the shorter distances typically required to travel. However, whilst this is the aspiration, employment in a rural and often remote setting is possibly one of the most challenging aspects of any tourism operation with the scarcity of suitable staff willing to take on the core roles being a typical barrier.” This is one of the few admissions in the whole of the submission which acknowledges claims that the development would be good for the local community are overstated. It could be argued that this is self-evident and that staff will travel in from towns outside the National Park. This also provokes the question of where staff travelling in by private vehicle will park. One possible outcome could be that staff park in Linton village or at Linton Falls. This would be a wholly unacceptable.
In [DAS3:Reduction in Scale] the stated area covered by buildings (the roof area) is 12% less than previously. Similarly, the footprint is 19% less. These are not significant reductions. As stated above, the size, shape and character of the development has not changed significantly: it is still uncharacteristic of the Dales and inappropriate for the site.
9 In [DAS3:Improved Design Quality] we are told that the project could offer “a positive contemporary benefit to the area”. Clearly, this is meaningless.
Section [DAS3:Obtrusive Light] explains that “glazing will feature louvres that will operate to limit obtrusive light”. It is not clear from the descriptions anywhere in the documentation whether these louvres are intended to be operated centrally or at the discretion of the residents. Clearly, if the latter is the case – and bearing in mind that it appears every room has a view out of the site – then the light emitted from the site could be significantly greater than stated in the documentation.
Section [DAS3:Increased Renewable Energy Usage] states that “All heating and hot water for the scheme is expected to be produced on site.” This is the only reference found in the documentation that admits the likelihood that all heating and hot water may not be produced on site. At the very least, the design calculations should be made available to the YDNPA and if there are traditional boilers proposed for the site it should be stated clearly. At present, the stated position is misleading.
In [DAS3:Wholly in line with Local Plan] we are informed that “The team have engaged and had regular open dialogue with the planning authorities and also have utilised the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan as a reference point throughout the process to ensure the ideas and concepts produced would be compliant and exceed expectation set out in the plan.” In this statement the applicant declares the process to be satisfactorily concluded. Again, this is intended to deny the possibility of rejection and should be discounted.
4. Visual Impact
The Visual Appraisal document [ASS5:2.2.2] recognises that “Impacts on landscape character may occur due to the removal, addition to or alteration to key characteristics of the landscape.” In [ASS5:2.3.2] it is recognised that visual receptors which could be affected by the proposed development include “Residents in their homes and areas where they live”. Examples of adverse effects are given in Table 2.3: “Introduction of elements uncharacteristic of the surrounding landscape.” and “Non-characteristic or discordant or intrusive elements introduced into the view.” It is suggested that the proposed development contains significant elements that are uncharacteristic of the surrounding landscape. It should be noted that there are (to the best of our knowledge) no instances of buildings of similar shape and size elsewhere within the National Park.
Section [ASS5:2.4.1] describes how “The level and significance of an effect is ascertained by considering in tandem the sensitivity of the baseline landscape or visual receptor and the magnitude of change as a result of the Proposed Development.” This is important because the whole of the visual appraisal is based on comparison with the site as it exists at the present time. A more informative assessment would be achieved if the comparison was made with the site once it had been cleared of the existing buildings. It is suggested that such a comparison
10 would prove that the visual impact of the proposed development would be wholly detrimental to the environment. It is interesting to note that, apart from the modest cost, this explains why the site has never been cleared.
In [ASS5:2.4.4] the method of assessment is described: “Professional judgment is then made as to whether the effects are ‘important’ or not. As such, effects described within the LVA as Major and Major/Moderate are considered to be important.” This kind of exercise is what is commonly known as “marking your own homework” and it should be borne in mind that the true comparison is with the site, once it has been cleared of existing buildings. In addition, it should be noted that the comparison is being made by the agent of the applicant.
In [ASS5:3.2.5], which discusses the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it is stated that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by “protecting and enhancing valued landscapes”. Further reference is made to NPPF in [ASS5:3.2.7], which quotes: “The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that plans should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and that strategic policies should provide for the conservation and enhancement of landscapes. This can include nationally and locally-designated landscapes but also the wider countryside.” These are both eloquent descriptions of why the application should be rejected.
In section [ASS5:3.2.2], Table 3.1 describes the policies from Local Planning Policy relevant to the Landscape Visual Impact. The document quotes: “The YDNPA will presume in favour of development that is sustainable”, and the development should not prejudice this achievement by “conserving and enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage.” Clearly, the proposed ultra-modern development is wholly inappropriate for the landscape and for cultural posterity. This last point is particularly important as architectural tastes change over time: something that may seem interesting and new can quickly become dated. Additionally, it is suggested that the present opportunity is probably the last chance to restore the site to agricultural use. If the application were to be approved, the site will be effectively lost forever. (It should be borne in mind that, with the exception of towers and bridges and other sensitive infrastructure, the design life of buildings, such as the one proposed, is about fifty years.) Approval of the current development will have a profound effect on the local area, and it will have wider negative implications for the National Park in perpetuity.
Under the heading “SP4 Development Quality”, Table 3.1 describes the design criteria from the Local Plan. This states that it is necessary that “the design is informed by, and responds positively to the site, its surrounding context and landscape setting, so that the scale, height, proportions, massing, form, materials and appearance of buildings and structures are sympathetic and complementary.” Also, that it “reinforces local distinctiveness” and does not have an impact on “important public views.” The Local Plan [LP:2.13], Spatial Strategy, contains the following: “Proposals for development within or on the edge of settlements listed in Table 1 should be at a scale that is appropriate to the character and function of the settlement”. Clearly, the fact that there are no other natural features or buildings of this size,
11 shape or materials within the National Park suggests that the application does not meet these design criteria or the requirements of the Local Plan. Equally importantly, it is also too close to Linton and Linton Falls.
In section [ASS5:4.1.28] it is explained that “The villages of Linton and Grassington and scattered traditional farmsteads display a strong sense of unity and are in harmony with the landscape through the use of locally sourced building materials and distinctive vernacular building styles.” This describes, precisely, the type of proposal that might be appropriate for the site. Solely from the point of view of appearance, a proposal in the style of a stone farmhouse with field barns might be received more positively than the current space-age design.
In the same section, referring to The North Yorkshire and York Landscape Characterisation Project, in relation to development and infrastructure projects, LCT 9 Farmed Dale is noted as having inherent sensitivity to change. Among those listed are: “Introduction of further, potentially visually intrusive camping and caravan sites” and “Increased pressure for tourist related developments, such as holiday cottages, potentially affecting the character and quality of the landscape.” Although, caravan sites – in particular – are universally unpleasant in appearance, it should be recognised that both camping and caravan sites are genuinely temporary and can be easily removed with the powers invested in the local authority and with little or no harm done to the environment. Also, as mentioned, previously, visitors staying in camping or caravan accommodation tend to eat out twice a day and so genuinely benefit the local communities. The proposed “tourist related development” represented by the submission, however, is of much greater concern, and this sensitivity to change, affecting the character and quality of the landscape, is sufficient grounds to reject the proposal.
Similarly, under Cultural and Historic Character [ASS5:4.1.28] the landscape guidelines refer to the necessity to “Conserve the overall sense of tranquility and remoteness; and dark night skies.” This description is the antithesis of the description of the proposed development, which will be effectively open 24 hours a day, constantly staffed and perpetually lit.
In [ASS5:5.1.3] the “Use of green roofs to reduce the visual impact from elevated areas with views over the Site” is described. It is recognised that with appropriate maintenance and in the absence of extreme weather conditions, such as drought or high winds, the proposed green roofs might have an expected life-span similar to that of the building: about fifty years. Without ongoing maintenance, however, the appearance of a green roof might deteriorate quickly, leaving a vast expanse of area that is highly discordant with its surroundings. Clearly, the maintenance must occur throughout (and beyond) the life of the building, until demolition. Although, on the face of it, the expanse of green roofs may seem like a good solution to the otherwise appalling visual proposition of a massive, modern hotel, it should be recognised that this is also the most vulnerable part of the design. It is not at all clear from the submission whether or not the appearance of the roof will be genuinely sympathetic with the landscape. Unsurprisingly, all of the artist impressions accompanying the submission show the roof as entirely consistent with its surroundings. Clearly, this is one of the most worrying aspects of the
12 design as if – for whatever reason – the hotel ceases trading, the maintenance will cease.
Table 5.1 in [ASS5:5.2.2] forms the basis for comparison of the Visual Appraisal. As mentioned above, this should be ignored. It is not appropriate for agents of the applicant to inform the community or the YDNPA of the sensitivities. In particular, the “Overall sensitivity of Site Landscape character to specific type of development” is described as “Medium”. This finding is intended deliberately to diminish the value of the site, and it should be ignored.
The final entry in Table 5.1 is concerned with Landscape Character Types (LCTs). It describes the effect of the development on the surrounding tranquility: “This LCT has a predominantly pastoral character. Dry stone walls are key features. There is a network of minor roads and a strong sense of tranquility and remoteness. The Site incorporates dry stone walls and other building materials that complement the landscape character of the area. The proposed car free development and built form would be sensitive to the tranquility of the LCT.” This statement is misleading. To describe a development which has a business model that relies completely on the constant and continuing use of private cars to be “car free” must be an error and should be discounted.
In [ASS5:5.3.2]: “Table 5.2 considers the magnitude of the change resulting from the Proposed Development, which is then combined with sensitivity of the receptors to change in order to determine the relative level of effect on each landscape features and characteristics.” Table 5.2 contains the main thrust of the argument concerning the visual impact of the development on the landscape. With two exceptions – Landform/Geomorphology and Settlement Pattern, for which the long term impact is found to be “Minor (adverse)” – the Level of Effect is found to be “negligible” or “beneficial” in every case. In addition, the summary of the effect on the LCT (9) Farmed Dale was found to be moderately or majorly beneficial. It should be recognised that this not a matter of fact. Again, this kind of exercise is what is commonly known as “marking your own homework”, and it should also be recognised that all of the arguments made in Table 5.2 (and subsequently in Tables 5.4 to 5.7) are comparisons made with the site as it exists on the ground at the present time, and they are from an agent of the applicant. As mentioned previously, a more informative assessment would be achieved if the comparison was made with the site once it had been cleared of the existing buildings. It is suggested that such a comparison could not lead to acceptance of the proposed development.
A particular example from Table 5.4 describes the nature of change to the National Park in the following manner: “Vacant site with derelict dilapidated lodges would be transformed into a new, high quality tourist facility with landscape and built features that are sensitive to its surroundings.” It is not appropriate for this statement to appear in a formal submission from a agent of the applicant, and it should be dismissed.
In [ASS5:5.2.7] it is suggested that the development would “increase visitor numbers within a moderately quiet part of the National Park although visitor numbers are generally high within other parts of Wharfedale.” The assertion that Linton is a moderately quiet part of Wharfedale
13 may once have been true. It is not true any more. Speaking as residents of Linton Falls, we can attest to a noticeable increase in visitors in recent years, and, in particular, in recent months. Since easing of the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions visitors to Linton Falls have massively increased. On several occasions Church Road has been impassible to Emergency vehicles due to parking on double yellow lines. The increase in visitors has been accompanied by huge amounts of litter, barbecue smoke and other waste. At the time of writing, Linton cannot accept any more visitors. It certainly cannot accept any more parking.
In Table 5.5 of [ASS5:5.3.6], with the two exceptions of (9. Elbolton Cairn) and (10. Edge Lane) which are both described as “Minor (neutral)”, the visual effect of the development on all the viewpoints assessed was found to be beneficial. Similarly, in Tables 5.6 and 5.7, the visual effects on the Receptor Groups and Route Users are found to be beneficial, no change or negligible. Again, this analysis is self-indulgent, and it is suggested that the findings of Tables 5.2 and 5.4 to 5.7 are dismissed.
The summary in Table 6.1 [ASS5:6.1.7] reiterates the earlier findings that the long term visual impact of the development is wholly beneficial. Again, it should be recognised that this is not a matter of fact. It is the opinion of the agent of the applicant. Those who live nearby and will have to live with the evidence on the ground for the foreseeable future will differ in opinion with the applicant.
It is interesting to note that in [ASS5:5.2.10] the submission recognises that “the grouping and size of built development on the Site would not be typical of surrounding settlements”. This is undoubtedly true, and it is sufficient cause for rejection of the submission.
In the conclusion of [ASS5:6.2.1] it is stated that the proposed development “would be less intrusive than the former Linton Camp”. Again, this is a meaningless comparison because the site is derelict. The only valid comparison is with the site cleared of existing buildings and infrastructure.
The fact that the site has remained deserted for thirty-four years would indicate that both the local authority and the National Park are powerless to compel the owners to clear the site. Once again, this begs the question of what will happen to the proposed development at the end of its life? Whether it occurs after five years or fifty years, we can be assured that the operation will cease trading one day.
In [ASS5:App.3] Table A3.1 Viewpoint Assessment, viewpoint 7 is the iconic view of Linton Falls and Elbolton from the top of Sedber Lane. This is one of several iconic views within the Yorkshire Dales (other examples include Malham Cove, Ribblehead Viaduct, the view from Thwaite down Swaledale) that is used repeatedly in many places such as: promotional material, walking guides, calendars, jig-saw puzzles and even fridge magnets. At present, it is possible to see the existing buildings on the Linton School site in this view, but they are not obvious. It is suggested that the casual observer would not notice them. This is evident from the fact that the
14 image is used repeatedly in so many places. It is also important to note that the existing site is not lit at all. It is suggested that the proposed development will ruin this iconic view, particularly in the evening and if, at some future time, maintenance of the green roofs becomes impractical or uneconomical. It should be recognised that it is unlikely that the Park Authority would be able to compel the operator (or subsequent operators) to maintain the green roofs into the future.
The Local Plan [LP:2.21], Environmental Safeguarding, contains the following item which refers to every proposed development: “It will not give rise to unacceptable, adverse impacts in terms of any of the following: (u) important public views.” The proposed development presents a very real threat to the iconic view of Linton Falls and Elbolton from the top of Sedber Lane and should be rejected on this very important point.
In [ASS5:6.1.8] it is stated that “No important landscape effects would occur during construction” This is misleading. In other parts of the submission, reference is made to hoardings and large piles of earth that will be moved from location to location within the site during construction. It is, therefore, likely that significant landscape effects will be evident for the whole of the construction period.
The Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan [LP:2] states in its objectives that it will “Support innovative, high quality and more sustainable building design that complements the distinctive character of the National Park.” It is suggested that the proposed design can only be described as innovative in that it does not comply with the Yorkshire Dales National Park Design Guide. It is suggested that the proposed design, rather than being sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, actually has its roots in other forms of recreational activity, such as golf.
Finally in this section, the Design Guide [DG:2.1] quotes the NPPF: “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks … which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.” In the present case, it is suggested that the Sandford Principle should be used, and preference should be given to conservation rather than visitor accommodation, and the application should be rejected.
5. Sustainability
In [ASS8:Introduction] we are told that the development strives to be an “exemplar scheme, including multiple sustainable strategies from environmental design to careful social and economic planning.” It is suggested that careful social planning should, at least, include the wishes of the local community (who, anecdotally, are overwhelmingly opposed to the development). In addition, careful economic planning should include provision for the stated government aim of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (perhaps to be revised to 2030). We are not told explicitly in the submission whether or not gas or oil fired boilers are intended to be present at the site, but it is almost inconceivable that they would not be. We are also not told if
15 the electricity supplied to the site will be bought from 100% renewable sources.
In [ASS8:Economic Sustainability], it is suggested that spending from hotel guests is “expected to contribute around £490,000 per annum to local businesses.” This may sound attractive, but we learned earlier that the business model states that guests “will have little need to leave the site.” Clearly, spending outside of the facility is considered to be lost revenue. The Local Plan [LP:2.15] also describes the justification in the following manner “The objective is to improve the long-term viability of local communities by supporting existing services through new development whilst protecting open countryside from development that does not need to be located there.” The proposed development is clearly not intended to support the local community, and it certainly does not need to be situated within the National Park.
In [ASS8:Social Sustainability] it is restated that “The development will also not only create jobs, but year round careers, encouraging young people to stay in the local area”. We have learned, previously, from [DAS3:Sustainable Tourism], that this is unlikely to be the case.
Section [ASS8:Materials] describes the amended design by stating “The use of predominantly timber elements will limit the level of concrete and steel required for the construction”. Without access to the design details, it is impossible to comment on validity of the this assertion. However, it should be noted that there will be significant reinforced concrete and steel elements in the building.
In [DAS1:Transport] it is stated that “There will also be the opportunity for guests to use the proposed low emission shuttle bus to access the adjacent villages, limiting the number of vehicles on the road and in nearby settlements.” This is an aspiration, and it is not consistent with the offering of five star luxury. It is more likely that every occupant will leave and return to the facility by car, at least once a day.
In section [ASS5:3.2.2], Table 3.1 describes the policies from Local Planning Policy relevant to the Landscape Visual Impact. The document quotes: “The YDNPA will presume in favour of development that is sustainable”, and the development should not prejudice this achievement by “reducing the need to travel”. It will be recognised that the business model for the proposed development relies wholly and exclusively on the present and continuing use of the private car. It in no way reduces the need to travel.
Also in Table 3.1, under the heading “SP1 presumption of favour of sustainable development,” it is stated that the proposed plan “contributes positively to the built environment by having regard to the site context and conforms to the National Park Design Guide.” In [DG:1.3.4] Cultural Heritage, the guide describes “One of the things, which make the Yorkshire Dales a distinctive place, is the unique built heritage of the area. Local building traditions and the predominant use of local stone in construction have produced a very distinctive dales architecture”. The Design Guide continues “This distinctive environment can be threatened by alterations to existing buildings that erode their traditional character and by new development
16 that does not carry on, or take inspiration from, local building traditions.” Clearly, the proposed, ultra-modern development does not take inspiration from local building traditions, and it does not adhere to the Design Guide.
Table 3.1 also quotes the Local Plan: “conserves or enhances the landscape character of the National Park through use of high quality design, appropriate landscaping, and removal of unsightly development.” This is an interesting point, because the reference to removal of unsightly development is one of the few points in the submission upon which most people can agree. It is clear from the submission, and, indeed, it is self-evident, that the unsightly existing buildings (and their modest foundations) could be removed very quickly and inexpensively, and the site returned to agricultural use. Clearly, this would be the very best outcome for the National Park and the local community.
6. Transport
In [ASS4:4.14] of the Transport Assessment the submission quotes the YDNP Local Plan: “Development that provides facilities or services that support appropriate informal recreation will be permitted provided that it does not generate unacceptable levels of traffic to the detriment of the road network.” In [ASS4:4.17(section numbering is erratic)] it is stated that “The site complies with the above policy objectives, provides some access improvements to local amenities and opportunities to travel by sustainable modes of transport.” This is an interesting amendment from the previous submission [ASS3:3.8], in which it is stated that “The site complies with the above objectives and is sustainable in reducing the need to travel, especially by car.” The previous claim has been diluted considerably for the new submission. As mentioned previously, it will be recognised that the business model presented by the proposed development relies wholly and exclusively on the present and continuing use of the private car. It in no way reduces the need to travel by car.
In section [ASS4:3.9] present traffic levels are discussed, and it is stated that the “7-day average daily flow only comprises 6.5% of the carrying capacity on a rural 2-lane road. ” This statement is misleading. Comparison with other, genuine two-lane roads, that may, perhaps, join significant towns is meaningless. There are only four routes by which the site can be approached: Linton village, Linton Falls, Threshfield and Burnsall. On all of these approaches, two vehicles cannot pass without slowing and taking action, and, in each case, the roads can be blocked to emergency vehicles by roadside parking. (This is not uncommon in Linton, Linton Falls and Burnsall.)
In section [ASS4:4.6] it is stated that “A new bus stop and pedestrian access at the existing gated entrance, adjacent to the development which will improve access to bus transport”. Bearing in mind that the proposed development is for a five star, luxury hotel, the notion that residents might frequent the public bus services is hard to recognise.
17 Section [ASS4:5.3] describes the car parking arrangements. “In addition to parking for residents and staff, there is provision for car parking spaces for visitors.” (These spaces can be counted on the map: there are very few.) Given that one of the intended uses for the proposed development is large events, such as weddings, (which we learned from the Presentation of Development Plans to the Public) the questions arise: where will the overflow car parking be? And what will be the impact on the surrounding roads and on the residents of Linton and Linton Falls? The absence of answers to these questions are of huge significance and, of themselves, are sufficient grounds to reject the proposal.
In section [ASS4:8.12] we are told, unequivocally, that “It is proposed that all generated traffic by the development will have sufficient on-site parking (as detailed on the architect’s plan drawing) to accommodate demand, thereby eliminating any occurrence of vehicles parking out on the public road.” The statement is worthless. It should be recognised that prospective visitors – particularly event visitors – are unlikely to be turned away, which, again, begs the question: where will they park?
Simply to state that vehicles will not park on the road is of no value. The road is not a “clearway” and there is nothing to stop them. It should be noted that – even now – the double yellow lines in Church Road and Linton Falls are not sufficient deterrent to the determined visitor.
In section [ASS4:6.3] it is calculated that “based on a hotel with 46 No bedrooms and self- catering accommodation with 9 No units, it is estimated that the proposed leisure facility would generate a peak hour flow to and from the development combined of not more than 25 vehicles per hour.” It is not stated in the document how many vehicles are assumed to serve each of the self-catering units.
It will be recalled from the previous submission that in [ASS3:5.5] it was suggested that the development would generate around 60 trips per day. The current estimation of 25 trips per hour represents a possible increase of 1000% from the previous estimation. At the very least, this tells us that this is a difficult assessment to make. It is suggested that neither figure can be relied upon.
Of equal concern to the overall numbers of vehicle journeys to and from the site, is the time of day during which they might occur. In particular, in [ASS4:6.6] it is stated that there will be “no major concentration of new traffic on the highway network throughout the day, and in particular through the period 08:00 to 16:00 when children are dropped off and collected from school.” This assessment is counter-intuitive. It would be expected that for those residents intending to enjoy a day out in the Dales, departure and return to the site would coincide quite closely with the start and finish times of local schools. Also of concern is traffic from guests and staff leaving parties/events late at night and, to a lesser extent, staff arriving early in the morning – in particular – if they choose to park in the village and walk to and from the site.
18 Section [ASS4:7.1] is concerned with non-car modes of transport. It is stated that “The sustainability of a site is inherently linked to its location and access to facilities that encourage active travel and public transport use.”, but also that “It is expected that those using sustainable modes of transport to and from this type of development use will be lower than that at other use types.” This is a clear admission of the business model, and it explains that use of public transport from a five star, luxury hotel is an unrealistic expectation.
Section [ASS4:8.6] describes the proposed new bus stop. It is not clear from the submission which of the buses serving the site will need to turn around at the bus stop and exactly how they should do this safely. As mentioned above, there is no realistic expectation that any of these services will be used.
Section [ASS4:8.7] refers to Appendix H, which is missing from the submission and so cannot be considered.
One aspect of the transport links to the proposed development which is of particular concern, is the likelihood of guests – particularly overseas travellers, arriving by air – who might wish to travel onward to the site by helicopter. There is also the very real possibility that guests might enjoy a helicopter ride over the beautiful Yorkshire Dales. Both of these propositions are appalling, and the impact on the local community would be catastrophic.
Finally, in the conclusions of the Traffic Assessment [ASS4:10.7], it is stated that “The objectives of promoting more sustainable transport choices are considered to be satisfied.” It will be recognised that this is entirely contrary to the business plan proposed in the submission, which is based on what is currently the least sustainable transport choice: continued use of the private car.
7. Heritage
In [HER1:Executive Summary] we are told that, with regard to the Grassington and Linton conservation areas “There is no intervisibility between the site and these assets so there would be no change to their character or appearance and the development would have no impact on their setting.” We are also told in [HER1:4.2.7] that “There would be no change to the significance or setting of the Conservation Areas and listed buildings in Grassington or Linton.” This is to miss the point. It is not the view from one to the other that is impacts the setting. Rather, it is the proximity of a huge ultra-modern hotel to these sensitive assets.
In [HER1:4.1.3] the visual impact is discussed further: “Given the current state of dereliction there is an opportunity to replace the camp buildings with a development designed to respect the open agricultural setting that will enhance the setting of the monument.” Clearly, to reinstate the site as a genuine open agricultural setting would be even more desirable. It is suggested that – even from the agent of the applicant – the above statement is inappropriate and should be dismissed.
19 In [HER1:Appendix 2: Legislative and Planning Policy Context] the NPPF, in describing the value of a heritage asset, states “Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence but also from its setting”. It is suggested that the setting next to a modern hotel is less good than a rural, agricultural setting.
8. Drainage
In [ASS9:Proposed Foul Drainage] the possible routes available to connect the site to the foul water system are described: “Each one will be investigated to see if land access can be agreed, with a longer route being considered following the road.” The statement accepts that agreement to land access is unlikely to be forthcoming, and it is suggested that this is a clear indication of the depth of feeling opposing the development. The alternative route proposed along the road is an appalling proposition: there would be massive and prolonged disruption along the road, and, if it came to pass, it would be a long-lasting and highly conspicuous reminder of the depth of feeling against the development. This possible outcome, alone, provides sufficient grounds to reject the proposal.
It is interesting to note that there is no mention in the submission of the likely significant disruption to the road network and the surrounding area from the connection of mains water, gas and electricity. These are serious omissions from the submission, and they contribute to the understatement of the impact of the construction phase of the development.
9. Lighting
In the executive summary [ASS10:1.0] the effect of the proposed lighting is described: “On the basis of this assessment and subject to the incorporation of the recommendations set out in this report, it is considered that obtrusive lighting from the proposed Lighting Strategy does not pose a constraint to the proposed development.” It is recognised that the submission describes a lighting regime that is consistent with the guidance. The inescapable fact, however, is that site will be lit. Furthermore, it will be lit throughout the hours of darkness, without curfew.
In [ASS10:2.1] we are told of the use of louvres to prevent light escaping from the rooms to the surrounding area. We discovered, previously, however, that all of the hotel rooms have a view out of the site [AMD3]. It is not clear from the submission whether the louvres are closed centrally – obscuring the site from the landscape – or if the guests have control over the louvres and the view out. It is suggested that the latter is more likely. In which case, the hotel will be seen from the landscape at night. It should also be noted that, although the nature of the exterior lighting is described in detail, the interior lighting is not described at all. This allows the possibility that light escaping from the hotel rooms could be considerably greater than stated.
Section [ASS10:3.2] quotes the NPPF Guidance for taking into account the likely effects. It states that they should: “limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity,
20 intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.” In [ASS10:3.3] it is recognised that “The rare dark sky environment of the National Park is cherished by local people and recognised internationally.” The Yorkshire Dales National Park website proclaims: “The stunning dark skies of the National Park, so free from light pollution, are one of its very special qualities.” It is likely that, if the proposal is accepted, enjoyment of the dark skies will be denied to the residents of Linton.
It should be mentioned that because [ASS10] describes the exterior lighting in its quiescent state, the impact of parties and events, which may extend late into the night, and – as is likely – take place in a marquee on the lawns, is not discussed at all. It will be recognised that such events are usually brightly lit for safety as well as decoration and entertainment.
Lastly in this section, it will be recognised that there is a strong likelihood that fireworks will be used in celebrations at the development. These are becoming more widespread and are a genuine nuisance. No mention is made of this possibility in the submission.
10. Ecological Statement
In [ECO1:Executive Summary] it was observed at the site that: “a broad level of decline in ecological value was identified due to the lack of management” and “Enhancements will likely result in an overall net gain in the biodiversity value of the Site”. We have been told, previously, that much of the site will be levelled and large quantities of earth will moved from place to place during construction. (This is usual, and it results in every part of the site being affected.) This will, effectively, clear the site ecology. The statements above – which are the view of the agent of the applicant – suggest that development and management will increase the biodiversity of the site. It is suggested that this is very unlikely.
In [ECO1:2.4.1] it is stated that the bat roost assessment was undertaken “outside the bat activity season.” Also, “internal access was not possible inside all of the buildings”. It is suggested that this is unhelpful, and it would have adversely affected the assessment of bat activity at the site. Regardless of when the site is eventually demolished, this deficiency in the assessment should be addressed.
In the conclusions [ECO1:4.3.2] the findings are summarised, and it is found that the habits recorded “with the exception of woodland, are considered to be of site value only.” This statement devalues the site.
Also, in [ECO1:4.3.4], it is stated that “Numerous opportunities for enhancement have been adopted in accordance with reporting (2018) and design discussions (2020) during the course of this scheme and have subsequently been implemented within the landscape strategy (Ecus Ltd, Sheffield) and Site designs (Trail Architects, Perth). Enhancements will likely result in an overall net gain in the biodiversity value of the Site.” Coming from the Environmental Consultants, this statement is wholly inappropriate and probably not justifiable from the
21 evidence presented.
Similarly, we are told by the same consultants in [TREE1:4.2.2] that: “The Client proposes the demolition of the existing derelict camp buildings and structures and the construction of a luxury hotel, self-catering properties, a gym, spa and restaurants with an extensive biodiversity led landscape scheme.” Again, the description of the development as “biodiversity led” is an overstatement. This is a “throw-away” line and should be ignored.
It is suggested that restoring the site to agricultural use could be achieved with minimal disruption to the site, and this would be, by far, the best outcome for Linton and the National Park.
11. Concluding Statements
Despite the many arguments presented in the submission, the proposal is essentially for a massive, ultra-modern development situated on a relatively small site. Contrary to the stated intention, the plans demonstrate no sensitivity for the beautiful surroundings and – as well as being inappropriate for a National Park – it is also too close to the village of Linton and to Linton Falls. At the time of writing, Linton cannot accept any more visitors. It certainly cannot accept any more parking.
The submission contains countless meaningless statements and “throw-away” lines concerning the value of the development to the local community, and the benefit to the landscape and environment. It is suggested that the discussions, above, have identified that these claims are false, and they have demonstrated that the development is wholly detrimental to the environment and the local community.
The submission contains no mention of contingencies in the case that the business fails. More importantly, there is no mention of how and when the site will be reinstated at the end of the operational life of the facility. This is a serious omission, and this, alone, is sufficient grounds to reject the application.
It is clear that throughout the planning process there has been complete disregard for the wishes of the local community – which are overwhelmingly against the development. The submission suggests that this opposition from the public was due to “lack of engagement”. It also contains numerous implications that approval of the application cannot now be denied. This is disrespectful both to the local community and to the National Park Authority.
It is recommended that every effort should be made – by legislation, if necessary – to reinstate the site as agricultural land. This is the only truly sustainable way forward. Both the land and the community should be afforded the the highest level of protection by the National Park designation. This is whole purpose and “reason for being” of the National Park.
22 The Yorkshire Dales National Park Management Plan 2019-24 states that “local people will be at the heart of the delivery of most of the objectives set out in this Management Plan.” The views of local people should be respected.
Finally it is suggested that the Sandford Principle which is designed “To help national park authorities make decisions between conservation and recreation” should be applied in this case. It states that: “where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation interest should take priority”. In the present case, preference should be given to conservation rather than visitor accommodation, and the application should be rejected.
23 HIGH BARN STIRTONSTIRTONSTIRTON SKIPTONSKIPTONSKIPTON NORTH YORKSHIRE BD23 3LQBD23 3LQ 212121ststst AugustAugust 2020
Dear Sir/Madam Re: Linton Camp School Planning Application (C/50/46L) My family have owned one of the houses nearest to the Linton camp site for over a hundred years. I lived there for much of my youth including some of the second world war years. I have visited the area on average at least once a week for the past forty years It was with horror and disbelief that I read the latest application for the proposed development of the site. I remember, as a child, the building of the camp and then its occupancy by evacuees from the bombing. I also clearly remember my Mother saying that the land would be returned to the farmers when the war was over. The whole concept is unacceptable, and one may even say ridiculous because: - 1) The development would not be much smaller than the main part of the village of Linton, and therefore disproportionate. It would thus affect the character of a village that was once chosen as the ‘most beautiful village in the north’. 2) It would certainly overload the narrow winding local roads, causing danger to pedestrians and other road users, not to mention damage to the walls and verges. It would not be acceptable to widen and/or straighten the roads because these narrow winding roads are an important feature of the Dales National Park. Equally the local paths should not be “improved” to accommodate the increased number of pedestrians. It would spoil their character 3) It would ruin an area of open unspoilt countryside, which is another important feature of the Dales National Park. The area already has a leisure complex at Long Ashes near Threshfield, which has the advantage of being well screened and well off a relatively main road. There are also very good facilities at the Devonshire Arms Hotel, Bolton Abbey, which have the advantage of being in old traditional buildings, and are on the edge of the park with good wide road connections. 4) It would occupy a significant area of good agricultural land, and therefore in a country already unable to produce sufficient food for its ever-growing population, could not be described as a sustainable development. 5) Whilst in the right place we should encourage good modern architecture, this area of open countryside in a National Park can in no way be described as the right place. Even though it is proposed to use local materials, it would be totally incompatible with the architecture of the small villages and field barns that so characterise the Yorkshire Dales National Park. It would not in any way enhance the local scene. On the other hand, removal of the derelict buildings, and then a return of the land to agriculture would undoubtedly enhance the natural beauty of this area. Failing this a small group of traditional stone-built cottages would be more acceptable. 6) There would inevitably be light pollution both from windows and outside lighting (even if these lights point down some light would be reflected from the ground), and also there would be light from powerful headlights. 7) The Dales are about farming, wild unspoilt scenery, walking, climbing, potholing, fishing, swimming in the rivers, eating in Dales pubs, and either camping or staying in the pubs or in Dales holiday cottages. They are not about modern state of the art ‘posh’ hotels, with swimming pools, gymnasiums, and spa facilities – these facilities are already supplied in most towns, where they are more appropriate. Finally in summary, this development would not ‘conserveconserve and enhance the natural beautybeauty,,,, wildlife and cultural heritage, or promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of national parksparksparks by the public’ as required by the revised Environment Act 1955 as the statutory purposes for national parks in England and Wales. The same conditions are laid down in the Dales National Park local plan (SP2).
Yours faithfully
Tom Gibson (Dr T W Gibson)
REDACTED BY YDNPA REDACTED BY YDNPA REDACTED BY YDNPA Gail Dent
From: Patricia REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 22 August 2020 10:13 To: Planning Subject: Planning application C/50/46L
Re: Linton regeneration company Ltd
We write to outline our objections to the above planning application. Following the viewing of the application and site visit, we list below our objections:- 1. The building of a ‘village’ the size of Linton adjacent to Linton. 2. The increase of traffic on our already overcrowded narrow roads, especially through the village of Linton. 3. Light pollution in a dark skies area , a concept promoted by the YDNP. Despite any assurance of ‘downlighting’ it would be impossible to light a complex of this size with an outdoor swimming pool without causing light pollution. 4. In spite of the reduced plan, the site would include a 48 bedroom hotel, spa, swimming pool, 9 chalets all of which will involve 2 years of total disruption and noise pollution, diesel particulates, danger from HGVs as equipment & materials are delivered to any site. 5. The representatives couldn’t answer the question re the removal of the existing chalets and debris. However continued to emphasis the slight reduction in the plan. 6. Added Pressure on the sewerage system, water supply and drainage. 7. The increase in traffic flow from guests and staff, which will be continuous day and night. 8. The ludicrous idea that guests & staff would be chauffeured by golf buggies, range rovers or minibus to nearby villages . 9. The Dales have already suffered an enormous increase in visitor traffic - including parking anywhere, blocking routes for emergency services, the toxic debris & devastation left behind . Your representatives have been present at zoom meetings with local parish councils to try to find a solution to the problem. This scheme will increase all of the above. The site should be cleared and returned to it’s natural state.
Tricia Stewart Ian Stewart New Laithe Linton in Craven Skipton BD23 5HQ
Sent from my iPhone
1 Karen Banks
From: Charles Knowles REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 21 August 2020 09:52 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
Having visited the site last week and spoken to the Agents who have submitted the proposals for Linton Camp. Our comments are below:-
The scale of the development is still far too large it would be creating a new village between Linton and Thorpe.
Increased traffic, parking and visitor numbers in an already very busy area with narrow twisting roads.
Light and noise pollution increase.
We would also be very concerned about possible future expansion
Charles and Angela Knowles, Ivy Cottage, Linton.
Sent from my iPad
1 Gill Allinson
From: Rebecca May REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 20 August 2020 08:04 To: Planning Subject: Comment on Application number: C/50/46L
District: Craven Application number: C/50/46L Parish: Linton Site address: Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton Dear Ms Wood, I write to object and raise comments regarding the amended proposal. I think it will have huge consequences on the local environment, light pollution, road networks, local access and impact on the local school access and spoils the true nature of our local environment. Kind regards Miss Becky May
1 Gill Allinson
From: Rebecca Hore REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 20 August 2020 07:56 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
District: Craven Application number: C/50/46L Parish: Linton Application type: Full Case officer: Katherine Wood Grid reference: 400253, 462752 Site address: Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton
Good morning,
I write to object the above amended application and the impact it will have on the local people.
Traffic is already an issue in the area with single track roads often getting blocked.
Our little boy attends threshfield primary school and we have to walk on tge road for some of the way which poses significant risk.
In addition to this we feel it distracts from the area and could have a huge impact on the community during the building phase which our local roads would not tolerate.
Kind regards Mrs Rebecca Hore
1
REDACTED BY YDNPA Gail Dent
From: Roger Carswell REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 19 August 2020 16:35 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
Dear Sirs,
I understand that several planning applications have been made to redevelop this site, and fear that the planners will be worn down by the persistence of repeated requests. It was said when the ‘temporary’ school was erected that the site would be turned back to its original agricultural use. This request is to renege on the assurances given at the time.
The current proposals are basically to rape the natural countryside to turn a part of the Dale into a giant amusement centre. There will be very little positive contribution to the locality in return for the traffic, noise and desecration of the countryside that this project will cause both in the short term and long term. The detrimental impact on the locality will be irrecoverable, though I have no doubt that some individual will line his/her pocket at the expense of locals who seek to be guardians of the countryside.
Please reject this awful project and preserve the Dale for what it is.
If the land has to be developed and promises made long ago forgotten, a cluster of houses would contribute much more to the Dale and its long-term future.
Yours faithfully,
Roger Carswell 42 Badger Gate Threshfield BD23 5EN
1 Gail Dent
From: Ian Green REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 18 August 2020 10:02 To: Planning Subject: C/50/46L Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton
Re: amended planning application
I write to object to the amended proposed development in the strongest possible terms. The amended plans have not changed my key concerns.
My greatest worry is for the safety of my family. I live in Linton with my wife and two young children, and the local roads are already extremely busy. Traffic heading towards Burnsall from Skipton already comes via Linton and uses a narrow single track lane. This is the same route that would be used to reach the site for many visitors, and is the default route for sat-nav. Many people already visit Linton, with the result that cars are parked in every available space most days of the year. The size of the roads and the nature of the village mean that there is no room for a pavement, nor space for the number of cars that visit.
Traffic arriving from Harrogate would pass by Threshfield Primary School, this is also an over-used road. Like many other families we walk our two young children to school from Linton most days. Any extra traffic on the roads would not only have a negative impact on the environment, but would add a very real risk to the safety of our children. The amended proposal includes at least 115 parking spaces, so clearly there will be an increase in regular traffic. In addition a project of this type will require significant resources during the construction phase, all of which will need to be delivered via road - none of the surrounding routes are suitable for the influx of HGVs that would be necessary.
The sheer size of this development is completely at odds with the surrounding environment. The surrounding countryside and villages are unspoiled and embody the special qualities of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. A hotel and associated buildings will have a huge and permanent impact on this area. A key purpose of the YDNP is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the park - clearly this development does not help to achieve that aim, and along with the damage to the local environment, it will also impact many important public views. It is true that the existing derelict buildings do not have a positive impact, however this could be resolved by simply demolishing them and returning the land to nature, either farmed or wild.
The site is visible from many villages in the area, and however well planned, the additional internal and external lighting will be a source of pollution that impacts the dark night skies of the area. This is yet further damage to another special feature of the park, and it is the duty of the YDNP to prevent this intrusion.
Another key environmental impact is noise. Anyone in the vicinity of the area as it currently stands will hear only the sounds of nature and the occasional car. Should this proposal proceed, this will change irreversibly - the sounds of people in a restaurant or gym setting, client vehicles arriving and departing, regular service traffic such as daily food and laundry deliveries. There would also be the inevitable background hum of the services associated with a hotel of this size - heating & cooling, kitchen facilities, cleaning, ground care etc.
I remain concerned that the YDNP would even consider this proposal, given that it is contrary to many of the stated aims of the Park. The proposal is also clearly at odds with planning policy in relation to conserving natural beauty, restricting major developments, impacting public views, light pollution and road traffic.
In summary, I ask again that you refuse this development, and any amendments or similar developments. There is no place in this area for a development of this nature. The future of this incredible and unique, yet vulnerable, National Park is in your hands and it is your duty to protect it.
1 Sincerely,
Ian Green Stoneycroft Linton BD23 5HH
2 Gail Dent
From: Sarah Hill REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 18 August 2020 07:25 To: Planning Subject: Amendments to the proposed plan for the former Linton Camp Site, Linton, nr Grassington
Sarah Hill, Manor House, Linton, Skipton BD23 5HH
Dear Sir, I have reviewed the latest amendments to the proposed plan for Linton Camp by the Linton Regeneration Company.
I would like to object to the proposal for various reasons:-
Traffic There will be an increase in traffic on small roads. Particularly, this will mean extra traffic through Linton Village B6265 and the cut through to Burnsall Road B6160. This cut through is very narrow, has no footpath for pedestrians. It has a footpath opening on to it. It has poor visibility at both junctions for cars exiting.
There is only one opportunity to pass another car along its length.
The driveway for our house opens out on to it near the junction with the B6265. There will likely be more chance of an accident as we reverse out of our driveway on to the cut through, if there is more traffic.
Extra traffic, travelling in both directions will create more hazardous conditions for walkers, cyclists and cars and potentially more accidents or collisions.
Bicycles also use this cut through and they would be put at increased risk by there being more cars using this stretch of road.
During the construction of the proposed development there will be large delivery wagons arriving on site carrying materials and supplies in a constant stream. All clogging up narrow roads and driving through Linton Village.
These will add to the dangers and further pollute the air.
Staffing I question where the staffing for the hotel will come from. Existing businesses in the area have staff driving in from outside the national park. They also have difficulty in recruiting experienced staff.
Additional jobs will create more traffic into the area.
If staff accommodation is to be provided then the jobs created will not be for local people.
Existing businesses already find it hard to recruit staff.
I don't believe that the creation of jobs is justification for the development of a five star spa hotel. I don't think the Dale needs such a development. 1
Community contribution There is mention in the report that visitors will contribute to the economy by spending in other establishments... But they are not contributing to the community in other more useful and permanent ways. (Parish councils, charitable committees, societies, schools, etc)
Electric bus service There is mention of electric buses for residents and staff. For how long would that service continue after the build.? There is no mention of time frames here.
Construction materials etc What guarantees are there that the developers will not cut corners to modererate the costs involved in such a high spec eco build? The proposed glazing, shuttering (window louvres), cladding and grass roofing, ground source heat pumps, air sourse heat pumps, are all very costly. Could these be sacrificed to cut costs? What guarantees are there that these proposals will be honoured?
Use of local contractors and local service providers What guarantees are there that the LRC will actually use local suppliers and providers?
Outdoor Swimming Pool Even with the proposed special lifting floor in the swimming pool designed to conserve heat overnight, the idea of having an outdoor pool in North Yorkshire is non-sensical. Even reusing residual heat from the Ground source heat pumps, air sourse heat pumps etc. It is not an eco friendly option. It still rains a lot in The Dales. I see it as a facility that would be greatly underused due to largely inclement weather.
Upheaval and chaos of construction There will be a significant amount of upheaval for the locality during the proposed construction, as well as noise disturbance and dust. This could go on for a considerable length of time.
Duplication of existing businesses and services Similar facilities nearby: The Devonshire at Bolton Abbey The Devonshire Fell at Burnsall The Gamekeepers in at Long Ashes together with spa and leisure centre. Grassington House Hotel offering fine dining. A number of local beauty therapy practitioners offering spa type treatments and therapies Numerous pubs, Bed and Breakfast establishments, hotels, camp sites, air B n B, holiday let's etc, etc, already provide a vast array of the same offering proposed by LRC and many of which do not boast 100% occupancy rates and therefore they may well lose out on business.
I do not believe we need more of this kind of provision in this locality.
Final thoughts Whilst I appreciate that something needs to be done to the site to make it less of an eye sore and safer, it has considerable history as Linton Camp. Many people who attended the camp are still alive and have strong memories of the place. Prior to being compulsorily purchased in the 40s it was farm land.
Turning it into a five star deluxe hotel just does not seem right.
I would prefer it to be farm land with a museum/information point reflecting its history. OR A modest local housing development with a museum/information point reflecting stories of the camp from the past.
2 Thank you for considering my opinion. Yours faithfully
Sarah Hill Resident of Linton Parish
Get Outlook for Android
3 Gail Dent
From: Briony Wood REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 17 August 2020 08:20 To: Planning Subject: c/50/46L Linton Camp proposal
Dear whom it may concern.
I am writing to put across my points around the proposed development of linton camp. Please see list below of the views of someone who has lived locally the majority of their lives and how their views on the proposed development;
- Great that the camp will no longer be derelict. - Has there been a survey to find out whether there will be a demand for the proposed hotel and spa? - How will this impact the roads as these are small roads where people who are not used to driving on narrow roads already struggle. - Is this not taking away business from the already established businesses in the area that are currently struggling due to the impact of COVID - The businesses round this area already struggle to find staff due to various reasons i.e. no affordable housing for people to live in round here meaning a commute to work, public transport is not regular enough. - The street I currently live on is half empty the majority of the time due to them being second homes and when they are in use they do not use local amenities for instance getting deliveries from supermarkets and not respecting the local countryside e.g. complaining about pheasant noises in a morning.
Points to further consider with future proposals; - Let the local community know if there has been any other proposals of use for the site. - Make the dates and times to go view the proposed changes not during work hours only. Not everyone that lives in the local area can work in the local area and have to drive to work so couldn't make it back in time for these hours.
I admit I don't have the answer to what the site should be but there are greater considerations to be taken, the main ones being. Traffic, litter and living areas for the workers.
Regards,
Briony
1 Karen Banks
From: Andrew Bunney REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 14 August 2020 16:54 To: Planning Subject: Backing for plans
Dear National Park,
I have lived in the Yorkshire Dales for 57 years of my 57 year life, and i think the redevelopment of Linton camp in to a 5* hotel is a fantastic idea/plan. It is most definitely what the area needs and would be a huge boost to the economy of Grassington shops and would also give many Job opportunities to local people . So it has 100% backing from me..
Regards
Andrew Bunney.
Sent from my iPad
1 Karen Banks
From: harri-son REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 14 August 2020 13:05 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
To the planning officer
I am a resident of Threshfield I live on a farm with my husband and children. I grew up in Linton and attended Threshfield School. For the past 30years I have witnessed the deterioration of the site at Linton camp. I have also seen previous planning applications rejected. The current plans are sympathetic to the surroundings with care taken to ensure minimal impact. The scale of development has been reduced to an acceptable compromise. Although other uses have been suggested I believe this is the right location for higher end tourism that has also considered provision of shuttle buses to take staff to work but also transport guests to surrounding villages who will benefit from the guests spending money locally. The development will provide employment both during and after construction. It would be a real shame if this site were to remain as it is. I do not believe this site is appropriate for affordable housing as it is not close enough to village amenities which are essential for low income families. I also feel there are more suitable locations for small business units. I support this application.
Yours Rebecca Harrison
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
1 Karen Banks
From: Angela & Jack Soper REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 13 August 2020 21:12 To: Planning Subject: Proposed development at the former Linton Camp School C/50/46L
We are not in favour of the proposed development at the former Linton Camp School (C/50/46). The many reasons why this development would be inappropriate have been set out clearly by Linton Parish Council and the Friends of the Dales, and we support their views. We have lived in the neighbouring parish of Threshfield since 1999 (Gams Bank BD23 5NP), and the objections raised correspond to our own experience. Therefore we urge you not to grant planning permission for the proposed development.
We would support the development of the site in a manner suitable for the location and the needs of the local community.
A M Soper (Dr) & N J Soper (Dr)
1 Karen Banks
From: LISA WALMSLEY REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 13 August 2020 20:29 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
I'm writing to put my objections down on this application, i see no benefit to the local area with this business other than adding pressure to an already struggling tourist/hospitality sector in wharfedale with staffing issues. the dale is so expensive for folk to live that work in this kind if employment so much so that alot of businesses struggle with finding staff. in my view this is yet another plus for the tourists to the dales but I'm struggling to see the plus points as a local family.
Please encourage and think hard about units for local tradesmen so we don't keep losing them to skipton and beyond.....encourage local businesses to invest in the area...help them see the potential in stopping here, and let's bring back some dales industry, encourage more jobs outside the tourism sector so our kids have a little more choice and might want to carry on living round here. it's sadly turning into a museum. I've lived here 42 years and it's becoming more and more prevalent.
Lisa Roddis
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Karen Banks
From: Bill Brady REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 13 August 2020 20:27 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L
I live in Threshfield and would prefer to the site, it it had to developed, to be turned into units. Spaces for small businesses and workshops to have secure spaces locally. I would expect the units to have solar panels, ground source heating and meet the latest SUDS requirements. We have nowhere for the younger 18-30 generation to start businesses. Yet another tourist attraction is not going to keep the younger generation here.
I strongly object to another tourist attraction.
Regards
Bill Brady Threshfield BD235ER
1 Karen Banks
From: Claire Simpkin REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 13 August 2020 20:09 To: Planning Subject: Application number: C/50/46L
Dear Katherine Wood
I strongly object to this development. I feel that a development of this type will not enhance the park or bring the right sort of investment, the area needs. A lavish 5* hotel will only benefit the developer, the clients will have all they need on site, as such they are likely not to eat out of an evening but stay on site. Thus not benefiting our failing local economy.
The development does nothing to encourage more families or young adults to reside in the national park.
Again tourism seems to be the focus rather than a different business model. Perhaps offices, a small business park and real affordable housing to encourage families to stay here and stop the ydnp becoming a retirement home.
Yours sincerely
Claire Simpkin
1 Karen Banks
From: Heather Walker REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 13 August 2020 15:34 To: Planning Subject: Planning application number C/50/46L Linton camp
Dear Sir/Madam We strongly oppose the plan for the old Linton Camp. We do not need anymore hotels or holiday let's. These roads were not built for the traffic it has now. We already have hundreds of holiday homes owned by outsiders which has driven the prices for buying or renting in our area through the roof.Making it impossible for our younger generation to stay where their roots are.Most of these holiday homes stand empty half the year which is scandalous. Business owners find it very difficult to employ staff as it is.The wages paid to hospitality staff doesn't cover today's living costs and for our young to remain with us they need work that pays and affordable housing. We have a very poor bus service which ends early evening so staff cannot work until hotels etc close. Affordable homes is a better option We have an aging population and as our young are forced to leave the villages will soon die completely Even farmers cannot find people to work for them It's ludicrous to suggest this area needs more hotels and holiday let's. We already have two very good health spas leisure centres in Long Ashes and The Devonshire.We don't need anymore. No please reject this plan Affordable housing will help build and maintain a healthy vibrant life for our young.Please don't sell us out to money people. Thank you Brian Walker High Cross Cottage Grassington BD235BY
1 Gail Dent
From: Hunter Wright REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 10 August 2020 12:42 To: Planning Subject: Linton School-C/46L
Good afternoon, My opposition to this scheme remains implacable-it is wholly inappropriate to the site and to the National Park
Regards J H Wright 11,Linton Falls BD23 6BQ
1 Gail Dent
From: Paul Wood REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 08 August 2020 10:03 To: Planning Subject: Application Reference No. C/50/46L
I am writing to strongly oppose the application from Linton Regeneration Company Ltd for redevelopment of the site for tourist accommodation (AMENDED) at Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton.
As a local resident for over 25 years I know this area well and this proposal is a gross overdevelopment in a quiet area.
My other concern is the greatly increased traffic movements on small local roads from both visitors and daily staff travel. As a keen leisure cyclist I cycle the Burnsall to Threshfield road many times each week. It is a delightful road when the traffic levels are low but a more dangerous road at weekends and holidays when traffic levels increase, just because it is narrow in places with many bends. This development will hugely increase the danger to cyclists and other existing road users.
Paul Wood, Addingham.
1 Karen Banks
From: Patrick Baker REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 06 August 2020 09:35 To: Planning Subject: Planning application
FAO Sarah Sayer Re Planning application for Former Linton School Camp site, Linton Application Number: C/50/46L I wish to register my objection to this application on the following grounds: - It ignores the problems of access to the site on roads wholly unsuitable for the volume of traffic expected - It will have a negative impact on the present nature and character of the local environment and surroundings - Local amenities are quite inadequate to support the demands of such an extensive development - While the present site is something of an eyesore, a scaled down development of a few dwellings would be much more in harmony with the area and therefore a more appropriate development of the site. Thank you for considering these objections.
Patrick Baker REDACTED BY YDNPA
1 Karen Banks
From: David Aynesworth
Hello
I would just like to comment on the above application.
1) To my mind the proposed architecture is completely alien to the Yorkshire Dales and would represent further creeping suburbanization and would damage the character of the area that so many people come to see .
2) This sort of hotel application is not needed and would have an adverse effect on existing Hotels.
3) Where will the staff come from? One of the biggest problems for hotels and public houses in the dales is the extreme shortage of staff and this would make the situation even worse than it already is.
4) I suggest that this application is turned down and that the land be used for lower cost housing that younger people can buy to encourage young families to return to the dales. On the same site some small lock up units could be available to rent to encourage young people to be able to set up as plumbers electricvians joiners etc. This could also help towards the shortage of staff problems for existing hotels, pubs and other visitor attractions.
Regards
David Aynesworth
Summersgill Coit Hartlington 01756 720262
1 Planning Number C/50/46L
Linton Camp School Site, Linton, N Yorks – Application to re-develop as Tourist Accommodation
It feels as though there is an attempt to play down the impact of this development.
The main impacts appear to be:
· Vehicle Numbers and Journeys · Access arrangements and local road network · Landscape and Visual Assessment · Ecology · Archaeology · Uses of the hotel
Vehicle Numbers and Journeys
These will vary considerably and average figures are worthless. At certain times in this area there are traffic jams and it’s almost impossible to park. The impact of large, slow-moving farm vehicles needs to be considered. It is suggested that 60 vehicle movements per day will be generated. This seems a gross underestimate – there are 25 staff to start with and those people are unlikely to walk or use public transport as mostly they will be on shift work with unsocial hours.
Access arrangements and local road network
Many of the roads and road junctions are narrow with acute angles and there would need to be designated routes for delivery vehicles. Sightlines are sometimes poor due to high walls and field boundary hedging. There are no pavements along these roads from the hotel to the actual start points of off-road public footpaths, so hotel visitors are likely to drive to the ‘start’ of the walk in their guidebook and park rather than set off from the hotel on foot.
Landscape and Visual Assessment
The long reports indicate that there is little argument here as the hotel is an improvement on the derelict remains. It appears to be well designed and to an extent the visual impact has been minimised. However, the hotel complex will still be a visual intrusion. It is not in the same style as local existing buildings and the impact of signage, lighting, parking (even if some is underground), boundary treatments etc will all ‘urbanise’ the site.
Ecology
Much underplayed. Bird surveys should be undertaken at different times of day and in different seasons. The report mentions 39 species – which is lower than local annual suburban garden counts of around 58 species. No ‘unusual’ species are mentioned. No actual species of bats are mentioned nor numbers.
Archaeology
The LIDAR survey and photographs indicate a most interesting area so it is hoped they do some proper archaeology before construction work commences. This should be included in the conditions.
Uses of the Hotel
There is not much about this but one might expect that it is possible that the hotel will put on conferences and trade fairs, become a wedding venue or run late night events (with fireworks). Will they want to land helicopters, as at Bolton Abbey? Will they attract coach holidays? What will be the impacts of such activities?
Application C/50/46L
Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton
Full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for tourist accommodation
Case Officer – Katherine Wood
Dear Ms Wood
Please see my comments regarding this application, with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (revised February 2019).
Achieving sustainable development
The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. I am not convinced that this application satisfies any of the three criteria of social, economic or environmental objectives. Rather, this appears to be an entrepreneurial attempt to impose its wishes on the community, disregarding the needs/wishes/sensibilities of the communities and environment. An additional problem in terms of sustainability is the impact on local traffic networks. The cumulative impact of this development in the area does not appear to have been properly assessed.
Promoting sustainable transport
The application does not appear to have detailed very much in the Design and Access Statement. It would appear that this hotel and spa, which is to cater for the needs of the "higher socio groups" who will be walking everywhere (?????), doesn't really take into account the lack of road infrastructure here. The visitors to the spa still have to get here – and out - by road. So will the staff. So will the delivery vehicles. So will any vehicle which needs to access the site. That isn’t even taking account of what vehicles would be involved in the initial build. Or the duration of it.
The B6252 is the “main” road through to Threshfield and Grassington from Skipton. It is already heavily used by quarry vehicles and local agricultural and normal traffic. In addition is the influx of vehicles brought here on day trips and holidays. Not to mention the cyclists, often in clubs, who help to slow down the motorised vehicles on what is a B road, quite narrow in parts, with several blind corners. The road is full of hazards and speeding is another issue which has caused Police monitoring, is speeding. We hope that this will result in traffic calming or a further speed restriction to 20 mph. The fact that there are also several local schools in this small area merely exacerbates the concerns we all have regarding traffic. The approval of this hotel/spa can only increase an already fraught situation. The B6160 which is used to access Linton is yet another small and narrow road.
The application states that all of these visitors will walk everywhere or take advantage of the electric vehicles which will be provided to "bus" them into Grassington. One would have thought that they would be able to walk this small distance on the public pathways, but…..
I would suggest that if they've come on holiday to explore this beautiful area which is full of attractions, they would do what the majority of our visitors do and use their vehicles. We have no rail travel and a minimal bus service to facilitate travel.
I would suggest that development should be refused on highways grounds as there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Achieving well-designed places
Paragraphs 124 and 125 are quite clear in what is needed and it would appear that effective engagement between the applicant and the communities involved here, has not happened.
I seriously question whether the design submitted by this application is sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, or that it will establish or maintain a strong sense of place.
It would not appear that there has been any consultation process with the communities who will be expected to live with this application. For such a development, one might reasonably have expected the parish councils at least, to have been approached by the developer to discuss the proposal. As far as I am aware, if it weren’t for the publication of the Craven Herald, a Skipton weekly publication, we may not have known of it. The level of community consultation appears to have fallen short of what is required.
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Paragraphs 170 to 183 refer. I would challenge whether this application satisfies any of these requirements or contributes in any way.
Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Would this new development make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the Dales National Park? Would it contribute to the historic environment and character of this place? Paragraph 200 states that Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably. Does this proposed application satisfy that requirement?
Conclusion
The Planning and Development page of the YDNP, states that “Planning is vital to ensure new developments are well designed and carefully sited. They need to contribute to the quality of the natural environment and built heritage”. The Planning Policy states that “The purpose of planning policy is to ensure that development needs are provided for, but only if they happen in the right place, at the right time and in the right way.”
I do not believe that the proposed application can satisfy requirements of the Planning Policies of the Yorkshire Dales National Park nor the National Planning Policy Framework (Revised February 2019).
Yours sincerely
(sent by email)
Judith Blackburn Greenacres Station Road Threshfield BD23 5EP
Sarah Hill and Ian Moulding [email protected] Manor House Lauradale Lane Linton Skipton North Yorkshire BD23 5HH
9th January 2019
The Yorkshire Dales National Park South Team Planning Service Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn DL8 3EL
Email: [email protected]
Dear Sirs,
Re:- Linton Camp Redevelopment Proposal – C/50/46L
As home owners in Linton, we are writing to lodge our concerns about the proposed development on the site of Linton Camp, by the Linton Regeneration Company.
Appearance and design The plans show buildings, that despite using the vernacular building materials, seem out of place and altogether too futuristic. Rather than blending in with the features of the locality, they stand out and draw attention to themselves.
Size, Height and Scale - The height of the Hub building at 8.5m above the level ground around, is too imposing. The end of the building where the reception doorway is to be located will be visible from the Burnsall to Linton road, especially at night. - The scale of the proposal is very large. The 2011 Census states that the population of Linton Village was 176. This proposal, when fully occupied could accommodate up to 170 guests plus staff, which would make it a similar or larger population than the actual village.
Potential noise and disturbance from traffic. - This is one of our major concerns and objections. The proposal states that the facility is trying to attract socio-economic group A and B people for short stays. If we calculate, roughly, that there are three short stays available in a week – even working on a conservative 50% occupancy that would mean approximately 40 cars (each containing 2 people) coming up the Dale, on three occasions during the week (and returning too) so 40 x 3 x 2 = 240 extra trips a week. - The TRICS database which the transport experts refer to, anticipates on average 60 extra trips per day which represents approximately 15% increase in traffic. - There will also be associated additional traffic from delivery vehicles and staff driving to work. - The roads affected will be - the B6265, which already carries significant traffic. - Lauradale Lane which runs into Linton Village and on to the B6160 - The unclassified road peeling right, off Lauradale Lane, to meet the B6160 to the east of the Great Bank crossroads.
Our house is situated exactly on the junction of Lauradale Lane and the unclassified road. The lane is a single track, metalled, narrow lane with high verges and hedge rows along its length. There is only one passing place. Vehicle Satellite Navigation systems regularly mis- direct cars, vans and lorries along it, as it appears to be a short cut to Burnsall. It has a blind summit and a foot path exits on to the lane on this summit. If more cars were to use this lane to access the B6160 then there would be much greater chance of accidents to pedestrians, cyclists and walkers using this quiet lane. In addition, the infrastructure of the lane would be further compromised. Already, dry stone walls are regularly dislodged as their foundations are shaken by passing traffic. Large coping stones can regularly be found tumbling into the road way.
- Our driveways exits near the junction and if there was an increase of traffic along this lane there would be much higher chances of accidents and collisions occurring as we reverse out. We have no option but to reverse out.
- In addition, there would be a rise in the amount of fumes and noise as a result of the extra traffic passing either through Linton or via Threshfield.
This substantial increase in traffic will have a detrimental effect on the quality of the road surfaces and a knock on effect in terms of expenses to maintain them.
Traffic during the building period There will be a huge impact on the environment during construction of the site as huge amounts of concrete are ferried up the Dale. Large and heavy vehicles will cause all sorts of disruption, fumes and noise as they deliver their loads.
Impact on amenity or character of the local area.
Our concern is that there would be a huge impact on the amenity of the area around Linton. Linton is a very peaceful and quiet village. The surrounding fields, fells and lanes are undisturbed and unspoilt.
Adding an extra three hundred people (and their dogs!) into the equation will disturb the special ambience and spoil the very thing for which people wish to visit the area.
Effectively, the proposal to build such a large ‘satellite’ village near to Linton, is out of proportion.
The character of the village of Linton is that of a thriving village; of people who live, work and play there. It has a proud history and a farming heritage. There is a pub that is supported strongly by locals and regulars. Adding in so many extra-passers through does nothing to enhance the fabric of society.
The guests at the hotel may be contributing to a secondary economy but they are not becoming members of the parish council, or sending their children to the local schools, or becoming school governors or contributing to the organisations and running of events in the Dale.
All this will change the character of the area. There will be more holiday makers than locals. There could well be a divided community.
Sustainable transport The Yorkshire Dales National Park Plan suggests that the authority wants to promote sustainable transport choices with access to jobs, shopping, leisure services by walking and cycling. Clearly, whoever wrote the report has not cycled to Grassington using Great Bank and Station Road! They are both very steep and challenging roads on which to cycle.
The YDNP plan also states that is wants to reduce the need to travel by car. We fail to see how this can be achieved if this proposal is agreed.
The only way that potential guests, suppliers and staff can reach the new development would be by road.
The proposal suggests that guests will walk, cycle or catch the bus into Grassington. They may well do this on a fine weather day but we are pretty sure they will be just as tempted as ever to hop into their car on wet and cold days.
Bus Services Pride of the Dales - Linton to Grassington. There are buses only at 1003, 1300, 1405, 1610 and 1820 Monday to Saturday and NONE on a Sunday. The Pendle Witches service comes up the Dale on Sundays but its route goes nowhere near the ‘Camp.’
The transport report erroneously states that there are buses running daily to and fro Ilkely. This is not correct. In the winter, there are three buses a day on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. There are two on Sundays. In the summer, there are two buses on Saturdays as well. And that is all!
Lack of pavements There are already no pavements between Linton and Grassington river bridge. There is a foot path through the fields from the B6160 down to Church Lane in Linton Falls from where it is possible to access a path over the Tin Bridge and up to Grassington. There are no other paths close to the proposed development that lead to Grassington.
Lack of cycle ways There are no existing cycle ways.
Potential for accidents The transport report uses accident figures on the B6160 to illustrate their case. They state that there has only been one accident over a certain period of time. This in itself illustrates nothing. The fact that there have been few accidents in the past does not mean that there won’t be in future. The two scenarios are not compatible. It stands to reason that with increased foot-fall, more cars, more delivery wagons, more electric vehicles, more bicycles and more people in holiday mode, there is an even greater chance of accidents.
Light Pollution We are concerned about the increase in light pollution from the development despite assurances that light pollution will be minimised.
Additional Comments
Side swipe to Long Ashes The rather subjective comment about the sustainability of Longashes Leisure Park is unnecessary and ironic. The author states….’One wonders how sustainable the scheme is given its relatively remote location and dependence on cars for access.’
This is a sentence that could be just as easily applied to the current proposal!
Long Ashes is sustainable because most of the occupants live there all year round, supporting the gym, spa, beauty therapy suites, leisure facilities, hairdressers, shop, public house, function rooms, and restaurant. They also are actively involved in the local community, organisations and charitable concerns.
In the summer months, owner/occupants of the static caravans and touring caravans additionally support the viability of the business.
It is close to a petrol station and very well stocked Spar Shop. It is on a network of many walking routes and paths. It is a 10 minute walk from Threshfield with its pub, café, florist, sports centre and rugby club, all accessible along footpaths and pavements.
Surely, if the sustainability of Long Ashes can be brought into question, the same can be asked of The Linton Camp proposal, which would have a far more transient and fickle customer base.
Eco-friendly initiatives. In the proposal, there is a cursory mention of the eco- friendly initiatives that will be considered.
Planting more trees and shrubs and putting grass rooves on building admittedly is, in a small way, eco-friendly but the MASSIVE carbon footprint from pouring hundreds of cubic metres of concrete into the ground to build the underground car parks, pool and buildings is glossed over.
There is no mention, though, of grey water collection or solar panels. There is no firm commitment in the proposal of renewable energy installations. There is only a passing reference to possible installation of ground source heat pump. We believe that with a futuristic development of this kind all types of eco- friendly, sustainable power and heat production should be compulsory.
Out door pool - Really? We note that the swimming pool seems to be an outdoor pool. How is this in any way eco- friendly? The heat from the water will disappear into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. The water will need to be much warmer than an indoor pool to compensate for the colder air temperature. We are talking about North Yorkshire here, not the Costa Del Sol: Building an outdoor pool makes no sense on any level.
Demand for water The plans show, in addition to the building of a swimming pool, a considerable number of bathrooms and toilets, changing rooms, etc. There will be a huge increase in the demand for water. There is no mention of how this extra demand will be provided. This is of grave concern.
Extend the season The YDNP plan mentions that it wishes to extend the season in which people can visit. This means that visitors will come in traditionally out of season times and there will naturally be a knock on effect in terms on demand for electricity, heating, water, lighting and so on.
Staffing Already businesses in the village and in nearby Grassington cannot find sufficient staff from the local area. Staff will have to come up the Dale. As house prices are generally prohibitive, and wages in hospitality notoriously low, it is unlikely that staff will be able to afford to live in the area. They will need to drive to work so adding to the extra traffic.
Other luxury Accommodation in the area There are already a number of luxury branded accommodations in the Linton and Grassington area. Owners of those businesses have indicated that they are not full year round and so one wonders how the demand for luxury accommodation is to be stimulated.
Secondary economy Support for the proposal states that visitors to the area will contribute to the secondary economy but in order for them to contribute they must be additional visitors and we don’t see how simply having this facility is going to generate additional visitors. It may well simply attract people who already visit the Dales to try a new facility thereby diverting customers from existing businesses already operating in this competitive market place.
Although, we see that there is a need to do something with the Linton Camp we strongly feel that this is not the right kind of development. The land, for the majority of its history has been agricultural land.
We believe the proposal represents significant over-development of the site.
We hope that you will seriously consider our comments and objections.
Sarah Hill Ian Moulding
!
Katherine Wood[via email]
Planning, YDNPA 21 January 2019
Objection to planning application: C/50/46L: Hotel complex, self-catering accommodation and associated leisure facilities at former Linton School Camp site
Dear Ms Wood
We acknowledge that the former Linton School Camp site is deemed suitable for ‘business development’ as set out under Policy BE1, and in Appendix 3, in the Local Plan. In this particular application, we welcome the efforts the applicant has made to reduce the impact of the development by measures such as putting the car parking underground, and using green roofs on some of the buildings. However, we have several concerns about the proposal, sufficient to make us object to the proposal as it now stands. We would need significant amendments to be made to address the following issues of concern.
Scale and landscape impact: the proposed development covers an area significantly larger than the existing footprint of the old buildings. The current footprint is 3683 sq.m., and the proposal is to increase this by 3167 sq.m., giving a total developed area of 6850 sq.m. This is against Appendix 3 of the Local Plan, which sets out guidance for the development of allocated business sites. For the Linton School Camp site it states that ‘Any development of the remaining parts of the site not currently occupied by buildings will only be permitted where it can be shown to enhance or better reveal the significance of the scheduled monument and where it will conserve or enhance the particular landscape, wildlife and archaeological qualities of the area.’ But no such enhancement of the cultural, historic, wildlife or landscape qualities of the site is demonstrated in the application.
The table in Appendix 3 also suggests that new structures should only be single storey, as the site is in an ‘extremely prominent open countryside location’, and yet the hotel buildings are all 2 or more storeys in height. The scale of the new buildings and their visual prominence also does not meet Policy SP1 of the Local Plan, on sustainable development, which expects developments to conserve or enhance the landscape character of the National Park.
Continued./...
Friends of the Dales, Canal Wharf, Eshton Road, Gargrave, North Yorkshire BD23 3PN Telephone 01756 749400 www.friendsofthedales.org.uk Charity number 515384.Company limited by guarantee number 1822908! !
Light pollution: with such a prominent site, light pollution is clearly a potential issue, and whilst the proposal includes measures to reduce the effects of the lighting by for example using low level lights, it does not go far enough. For instance, it fails to include the use of light sensors, so that external lights only come on when needed. A development of this scale will inevitably bring with it external lighting, which will impact on the special qualities of dark skies and tranquillity, an increasingly rare resource and one of the reasons the Dales are valued.
Traffic generation: the scale of the development will undoubtedly increase the levels of traffic on local roads. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that there should be more sustainable transport choices, and that travel by car should be reduced. The North Yorkshire Local Transport Plan also requires that the impact of traffic on the natural and built environment is reduced. The sustainability policies in the Local Plan are similar: SP1 requires that development reduces the need to travel, while SP4 states that development should not prejudice highway safety or cause unacceptable levels of traffic that would harm the environment or capacity of the local road network.
It is our opinion that the Transport Assessment does not provide an adequate assessment of traffic generation, and thus does not give decision makers the information needed to be able to make an informed decision. It focuses on road safety, but fails to address the statutory purposes of National Park designation, and the implications of traffic generation on the special qualities of the National Park. It fails to consider where the staff required to service the facilities will be travelling from. Many are likely to come from outside the area and thus travel up from the south, through villages including Burnsall and Linton. It fails to consider the impact of this extra traffic on local communities, notably on the village of Linton where the road is narrow and without pavements, and is thus shared with pedestrians, including children walking to school. Linton is also a Conservation Area, and there is no assessment of the impact of traffic generation on the historic or cultural environment either here or in the wider environment.
The choice of site to provide a comparable assessment of traffic movements - a country park in Lancashire - is unhelpful. It is hard to see how this can be compared with a 5 star hotel, with its higher staffing levels, deliveries, maintenance and management, as well as visitors. A more appropriate comparison could be with the 71 bed Coniston Hotel on the A65. Finally, it is unrealistic to expect visitors enjoying the accommodation offered by a 5 star hotel to make use of the wholly inadequate local bus services.
Continued./...
Page!2! !
It is our view that a development more sympathetic to the site, without such high levels of traffic generation, such as self-catering lodges, would be more appropriate for this sensitive site.
Yours sincerely
Dr Malcolm Petyt, Chair of Policy Committee
Friends of the Dales is a working name of the Yorkshire Dales Society which was founded in 1981 and is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. Friends of the Dales is free of political and financial affiliations. We work to ensure that the Government, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, and other relevant agencies deliver their obligations to care for the special qualities of the Yorkshire Dales, an internationally important area. We do this by considering major planning applications and policy development affecting the Yorkshire Dales and adjacent areas. We offer a year round programme of walks and talks so that everyone can enjoy and learn more about this beautiful area and why it needs protection. We have a membership of around 1,300 individuals, families, businesses and organisations.
Page!3! LintonHouse Linton Skipton NorthYorkshire BD235HQ 20/01/2019
DearSir/Madam,
PleasefindbelowmyresponsetotheproposedreͲdevelopmentofLintonSchoolCampintoahotel complex,selfͲcateringaccommodationandassociatedleisurefacilities(planningapplicationRef C/50/46L).
IamawarethattheLintonSchoolCamphasbeendesignatedasabrownfieldsitebytheYorkshire DalesNationalParks(YDNP)planningauthorityand,assuch,itsreͲdevelopmentisatsomeͲstage likely.Indeed,IbelievethatifconsideredappropriatelyinthecontextoftheYDNPlandscapeand theneedsoftheresidentsoftheDalesNationalParks,inparticulartheconservationvillageofLinton towhichitisdirectlyadjacent,futuredevelopmentofthesitewouldprovetobepositive.
However,theplansthathavebeensubmittedasapplicationreferenceC/50/46L,donot,inmyview, consideroradequatelyreflecttheseimportantcriteria.Insteadtheplansfocusonmaximising revenueforthe‘LintonRedevelopmentCompany’atanunacceptablecosttotherarebeautyofthe DalesNationalParkslandscapeaswellasthenearbyvillageofLinton,itsresidentsandcurrent touristpopulation.AssuchIwouldliketoobjecttothisplanningapplication,thedetailsofwhich areoutlinedbelow.
Scaleandvisualimpact
Firstly,IthinkitsimportanttounderlinetheimportanceoftheYDNPlandscapeaswellasthe tranquilbeautyoftheconservationvillageofLinton(locatedlessthat300mawayandclearlyvisible fromthedevelopmentsite).
TodothisIhighlight,andagreewith,withseveralofthepointsmadebytheapplicantinsection3of theirdevelopmentproposalwheretheyhighlightthe‘SpecialQualitiesoftheYorkshireDales NationalPark’.Namely,‘Thearea’suniquelandscapecharacteriscreatedbytheparticular combinationofmanyelementsͲthemanagedmoorland,pasturesandvalleygrasslands;small woodlands;dispersedvillagesandfarmsteads;thelocalbuildingmaterials;strongfieldpatterns; drystonewallsandfieldbarns.Thisiswhatmakesitsuchaspecialplace.’‘TheYorkshireDalesis aspecialplaceanditisessentialthatnewdevelopmentenhancesratherthandamagesthequality ofthearea.’
Indeedtheapplicationalsoreferencesinitsdesignaccessstatement3.2‘Lintonisanidyllichamlet ofpredominantlyresidentialproperties,focusedaboutacentralgreenandwatercourse,andis designatedasaConservationAreainitsentirety.’
Thespecialnatureandrarityofthislandscapeisgovernedandprotectedbybothnationalandlocal planningpolicywhichspecificallyreferencecriteriafortherestrictionofdevelopmentswithrespect theirscaleandtheirimpactonthenaturalbeautyofthearea.Someofthekeypoliciesrelatingto andconflictingwiththisproposalare:
TheNationalPlanningPolicyFramework(NPPF)paragraph172whichoutlinesthatwithinstatutorily protectedlandscapessuchasNationalParks‘thescaleandextentofdevelopmentwithinthese designatedareasshouldbelimited.Planningpermissionshouldberefusedformajor developmentotherthaninexceptionalcircumstances,andwhereitcanbedemonstratedthatthe developmentisinthepublicinterest.’
Theproposedplansamounttoadevelopmentareainm2ofseventimesthatwhichwouldbe definedasamajordevelopment(1000m2).Assuchitisclearthat,consideringNPPFlegislation above,thedevelopmentMUSTbeclassifiedasmajorandthereforerequiringexceptional circumstancesforitsapproval.Idonotbelievethatsuchexceptionalcircumstancesexistand,ifthey do,theyhavecertainlynotbeenoutlinedaspartoftheplanningapplication.
Inadditiontothescaleofthedevelopmentonam2basisasignificantproportionofthe development(thehotel,spaandleisurecomplex)istwostorieshighwithsignificantlevelsofglazing. Thisrepresentsaclearchangeindesignfromthesinglestorycedarcladbuildingsthatcurrently constitutethedevelopmentand,assuch,willbequiteprominentinthelandscapefarfromthe YDNPpreͲplanningadvicetominimisethedevelopmentsimpactonthelandscape.
Thesebuildings,thelargeststructuresintheproposal,arealsolocatedawayfromthefootprintof theexistingcampbuildingsandthereforewillbebuiltonwhatiseffectivelygreenfieldsite.The developmentthesebuildingsalsocontradictsthepreͲplanningadvicewhichwasgivenandstrongly advisedthatonlytheHubbuildingcouldbebuiltinareasnotoccupiedbytheexistingcamp developmentfootprint.
Thescaleofthedevelopmentsite,measuring5.28hectares,isalmostequaltothatofthevillageof Lintonwhichliesamere300maway.Indeed,whenatcapacity,whichishastobeanambitionof the developers, the population of both staff and visitors at the hotel and leisure complex will materiallyoutnumberthepopulationofLintonvillage.Thiswill,Iamafraid,fundamentallydamage thenatureofthis‘idyllichamlet’.
Inadditiontothescaleofdevelopmentsinstatutorilyprotectedlandscapes,severalpolicieshave alsobeensetouttomanagethevisualimpactofdevelopments.Nationally,theNPPFadvisesat paragraph172that‘Greatweightshouldbegiventoconservingandenhancinglandscapeand scenicbeautyinNationalParks.’
Locallythefollowingpoliciesareinplace: • PolicySP1requiresdevelopmenttoconserveorenhancethelandscapecharacterofthe NationalParkthroughuseofhighqualitydesign,appropriatelandscaping,andremovalof unsightlydevelopment. • PolicySP2explainsthatdevelopmentwillnotbepermittedthatprejudicestheNational Parkpurposeofconservingandenhancingnaturalbeauty. • PolicySP4indicatesthatdevelopmentmustnotgiverisetoanyunacceptable,adverse impactsintermsofimportantpublicviews.
Iprovidebelowanarticulationastowhytheproposeddevelopmentfailstomeetandinmanycases conflictswiththelocalplanningpoliciesoutlinedabove.
Iagreewiththedeveloperinthatthecurrent,dilapidatedcampbuildings,thatoccupyasmallarea oftheproposeddevelopmentsite,areunsightly.However,Idonotbelievethatthedevelopmentof a7,000m2hotelandleisurecomplexisthecorrectwayinwhichtoaddressthisissue.Analternative approachcouldbefortheYDNPtoenforcePolicySP1andrequestthatthedevelopmentcompany demolishandremovetheunsightlycampbuildingswhicharetoodilapidatedforfutureuse.
Secondly,thescale,designandmaterialswhichareproposedwouldsitawkwardlyagainstthelocal landscapeandbuildings.Thisisnoclearerthenwhenconsideringthemassive,twostory,curved hotel,spaandleisurecomplexandhubbuildings.Approvalandconstructionoftheseforeign shapedstructureswouldbeunprecedentedwithintheYDNP.Theirappearancewithsignificant areasofglazingwouldconflictwiththesurroundinglandscapeandarchitecturebehighlyvisible fromgreatdistance.Furthermore,approvalwouldsetadangerousprecedentforfuture applicationsacrosstheYDNP.InmyviewthiswouldconflictpoliciesSP1,SP2andSP4.
Whenconsideringtheapplicationagainsttheseregulatorycriteriaitisclearthatitfailstomeetthe levelssetbothwithrespecttoscale(thematerialityofthedevelopment)aswellasthevisualimpact thatitwillhaveonboththeYDNPlandscapeandalso,morelocally,Lintonvillageandtheother adjacentvillagesofThreshfield,BurnsallandHebden.
LightPollution
AsalocalresidentItakegreatpleasureinthedarkskiesaboveLintonandtheYDNP.Havinglived andworkedincitiesforperiodsofmylifetheimportanceofthisisoftenoverlookedandcannotbe valuedenough.
ItisclearthattheNPPFandtheYDNPplanningauthorityalsogreatlyvaluesourdarkskiesasboth organisationsetoutthefollowingstringentpolicytoprotectthis,nowincreasinglyrare,phenomena.
TheNPPF,asamendedin2018,statesthat‘decisionsshouldalsoensurethatnewdevelopmentis appropriateforitslocationtakingintoaccountthelikelyeffects(includingcumulativeeffects)of pollutiononhealth,livingconditionsandthenaturalenvironment,aswellasthepotentialsensitivity ofthesiteorthewiderareatoimpactsthatcouldarisefromthedevelopment’.Inparticularthe policystatesthatdevelopmentshould‘limittheimpactoflightpollutionfromartificiallighton localamenity,intrinsicallydarklandscapesandnatureconservation’.
TheYDNPplanningauthorityPolicySP4‘Developmentquality’fromtheAdoptedLocalPlanstates thatdevelopmentmustnotgiverisetoanyunacceptable,adverseimpactsintermsofthedarkness ofthenightsky.Paragraph2.31ofthepolicyjustificationstatesthat‘OneoftheSpecialQualitiesof theNationalParkistheextensiveareasthatbenefitfromtranquillityandaccesstoadarknight sky.ThisisanincreasinglyscarceresourceinEnglandandisprotectedbynationalplanningpolicy. Wherethesequalitiesarepresent,proposalsfordevelopmentshouldavoidharmfullevelsofnoise orlightemissions.’ ItisinthiscontextthatIassesstheplanningapplication.Onreviewingthelightingassessment, undertakenbyPSA,Ifoundthereporttobeselective,factuallyincorrectandmisleading.Idetail belowsomeexamplesfromPSA’slightingassessmentreport:
• ‘thesiteisgenerallylocatedwithinopenfieldsapproximately1kmawayfromthevillageof Lintontothewestofthesite’.Theactualdistancebetweentheproposeddevelopmentand houseswithinLintonvillageisjustunder300m(asmeasuredbygooglemaps); • ‘Duetothetopographyoftheareaithasbeennotedthatyoucannotseethesiteoranyof theexistingstructuresfromthevillageofLinton’.Inactualfact,anumberofexistingcamp propertiesaredirectlyvisiblefrompropertiesinLinton.
Giventhenatureandproposedusecaseforthedevelopmentsufficientlightingwillneedtobe providedtoensureguestsafetyalongfootpathsandoutsidebuildings.Nottomentionthelarge glazedareasofthehotelandleisurecomplexwhichwillbeopenandlitwellintothenight.Asa proposedmitigationtodirectupwardslight,skyglow,glareandlightintrusionthelightingtothesite willbeprovidedby‘belowhorizontal’lights.Whilstthisdoesshowsomeeffortfromtheapplicant,I donotbelievethatsufficientlightcanbeprovidedtothesitewithoutmateriallydamagingthe intrinsicallydarkskiesintheYDNP.
InadditiontolightpollutiontothenearbyvillageofLinton,thedevelopment,givenitsprominent locationinthevalley,willbeclearlyvisiblefromagreatdistancecreatingabright,artificiallighthalo inanotherwiseuninterruptedvista.ThiswillbesignificanttothepopulationofGrassingtonaswell asHebdenandanyvisitorstravellingalongtheB6160ortheB6265.
Furthermore,toprovidelightbelowahorizontallevelthelightsourcemustbelocatedatthetopof asignificantnumberoflampposts.Thiswillnotonlyincreasethevisibilityoflightatnightbutalso beunsightlyduringthedaytime.
GivenallofthesefactorsIdonotthinkthatthecurrentplanscanbeapproved.
Trafficintensity,roadsafetyandcongestion
AsaresidentofLinton,withthreeyoungchildren,thetrafficintensityandcongestionthroughthe villageandalongthelocalroadnetworkisofgreatimportancetome.
Trafficintensity,congestionanditssustainabilityisalsorecognisedintheLocalPlanwhichdetails thisinAppendix3andnotesthat:‘Carefulconsiderationneededofhowtomanagetrafficimpacts andincorporatesustainabletransportchoices,includinglinkageswithandenhancementstothe rightsofwayandpublictransportnetworks.’(page.143)
Itisclearfromtheplanningapplicationthattheproposeddevelopmenttargetssocialdemographic A&B,whichhasthelargestdisposableincome.Itisalsoclearfromtheproposedprovisionof undergroundparkingfor140cars,5lightgoodsvehicles,9disabilityvehicles,15motorcyclesanda bus.Thattheapplicant,rightly,expectsallofitsguestsandstafftotraveltooandfromthesiteby privatevehicle. Takingtheavailableparkingasaproxyforvehicleintensitytheproposalhasanincreaseinvehicle intensityvsthepriordevelopmentatLintonCamptof>400%fromthe32vehiclespacesthatwere providedaspartofthepreviousdevelopment.
AccordingtotheresultsfromtheTRICSwebsite,vehicularmovementsalongtheB6160are predictedtoincreaseby61perday,whichequatestoanincreaseoftrafficontheroadof428 additionaltrips(anincreaseof50%).Thisinitselfisasignificantincreaseintrafficonthenarrow roadservicingthesite.
However,giventhenumberofnewemployees(50fullͲtimeand96partͲtimepositions)and hotel/lodgerooms(61intotal)confirmedintheDesignandAccessStatement,thisfigureseemsa materialunderestimation.Inmyviewanincreaseofthisscaleisnotsustainableforthesitenorthe localroadnetwork.BothofwhicharekeytotheYDNPretainingitsuniquelookandfeel.
Whenconsideringtherouteinwhichvisitorsandstaffwillusetoaccessthesiteitisclearfrom searchesonsatnavsearchenginessuchasGoogleMapsthat:
• ThevastmajorityoftrafficwillaccessthesitefromtheA59orA65viatheB6265 GrassingtonRoad.TheywillthenturnoffanddrivethroughthecentreofLintonVillagevia LauradaleLaneandthenforkrightalongasingletrackroadwithnopassingplaces.This directlyconflictsthedevelopersstatementthat‘Themajortrafficroutesbypassthevillage [ofLinton]andthereisonlyonethroughroad,theB6265,leavingthesettlementitself peaceful.’Thisisofgreatconcerntome. • TrafficfromthedirectionofHarrogatewillbeguidedalongtheB6265throughGrassington thenviathenarrowChurchLanewhichpassesdirectlybyThreshfieldPrimarySchool.This route,likethevillageofLinton,isalreadyheavilycongestedatschooldropoffandpickup times.Myown,andmanyotherparents,childrenwalktoschoolalongtheseroadsona regularbasisandIfearthatanincreasedflowoftrafficwillmateriallyincreasethechanceof atrafficaccident.
Lintonisalreadyaverypopulartouristdestinationwithmanypeopleenjoyingthepeacefulbeauty andaccesstothenationalparkthatitprovides.Suchpopularityalsobringswithittrafficandthe villagealreadysuffersheavilyfromcongestionoftenreducingtheroad,whichhasanunrestricted speedlimit,toasinglelane(seephotoonthefollowingpage).
Theadditionofasubstantialnumberofvehiclestothisalreadytightlycongestedvillage,whichthis developmentissuretobring,willonlyincreasetheproblemandincreasetherisksoftraffic accidents.Nottomentiondestroyingthe‘peacefulsettlement’whichwillbeaprimaryattraction forthedevelopment.
TrafficcongestioninLinton–December2018
FloodRisk&FoulWaterDrainage
Havinglookedattheplansitdoesnotseemthattheyhavebeendevelopedsufficientlytoaddress concernsrelatingtothehandlinganddrainageofrainandfoulwater.
ThesiteislocatedinFloodZone1accordingtothenationalonlinefloodmapforplanning. Therefore,adetailedandwellconsideredrainwaterdrainageplanmustbeconsideredinorderto avoidfloodingonsiteandexacerbatingwaterrunoffintolocalstreamsandrivers.Asitstandsthe plansproposeofdisposeofexcesswaterviaaseriesofsoakaways.
Giventheheightofthewatertableitwouldseem,tomeatleast,tohamperifnotnegatetheability ofasoakawaytowork.Itdoesnotappearthattheresultsofanypercolationtestshavebeen released.AssuchIdonotbelievethattheplansareinapositontobeapproved.
Furthertotheinadequateplansforthetreatmentofrainwatertheplansforfoulwaterseemequally inadequate.Fouldrainageandeffluentisplannedtobedischargetoanewprivatewatertreatment plant.Giventhattheprimarysolutionforfouldrainagemustbetotieintothelocalsewerage systemitseemsstrangethathasnotbeenpresentedasthedefactooptionforthesite.Itisalso unclearastothevolumeofwastethatwillneedtobetreatedonsiteand,asaconsequenceofthis, thesizethataprivatetreatmentplantwillneedtobenoritslocationonthesite.Insummary,more detailsarerequiredfortheplanstobeapproved.
Ihopethattheplanners/planningcommitteetakesthesepointsonboardwhenconsideringthis verymaterialapplicationasIbeleivethatitwillhaveasignificantandlonglastingimpactonthe YDNPandthelocalvillages.
Yourssincerely
JoeMidgley Karen Banks
From: Hunter Wright
Dear Sirs, On behalf of my wife and myself I wish to register strenuous objections to the above proposal. However,I will preface my comments by saying that the Linton Camp School site is in serious need of redevelopment,having been an eyesore in the Dale for at least thirty years. Having said that, the development proposed is totally inappropriate for this site. Whilst I appreciate that, in part, the National Park relies on tourism I would question the need for additional accommodation geared toward tourists. There are nearby hotels and pubs with rooms in Skipton,Linton,Hebden,Threshfield,Hetton,Cracoe,Burnsall and Grassington as well as innumerable B&Bs The proposal is a gross over development of the site for the wrong purpose. It is well documented that there is a desperate need for housing in The Dales,to prevent young people from moving away. Given the stringent limits on development in The National Park the grant of consent for this development would limit the extent to which more appropriate developments could be authorised. The site is ideal for a small residential "hamlet" of houses,to include affordable housing and to include a covenant or condition that the houses are for permanent residence and not for holiday letting-similar to the agricultural occupancy condition which applies to other properties in the Park. In addition the B 6160 is a narrow road,unsuited to the additional traffic a development of this size would generate. I therefore urge the National Park to reject this application. Yours faithfully,
J H Wright 11,Linton Falls, Linton,BD23 6BQ.
1 Tarn Laithe
Linton
Skipton
North Yorkshire
BD23 5HJ
17th January 2019
Katherine Wood
Principal Planning Officer
Planning Service
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority
Yoredale
Bainbridge
LEYBURN
North Yorkshire
DL8 3EL
Dear Madam, REF:C/50/46L – PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LINTON CAMP
I am writing to strongly object to the application made regarding the proposed development of this site. As a member of Linton Parish Council, you will already have received the main reasons for my objection, however, I would like to add a few more personal thoughts.
I currently live alongside Lauradale Lane as you enter the village of Linton which already suffers from dangerous parking; inconsiderate parking across our driveway; people reversing onto our property to turn and cars being driven at 60mph which is the speed limit through the village, making it difficult leaving our own driveway at times. The infrastructure of the village cannot cope with the potential of more cars passing through.
Whilst living in Linton I have been a teacher at the local primary school for the past 4 years and I have seen first-hand the difficulty people have passing school on the narrow road during drop off and pick up times. The school parents and locals follow a one way in and out to alleviate this problem. Satnav directions to the development from the North will route visitors past the school potentially causing many problems. Children also walk home to Linton, Threshfield and Grassington along these roads that will be made even busier with guests heading to check in. The beautiful village green itself already hosts many visitors and as a council we have decided not to have unsightly bins all over the place, encouraging visitors to take it home to dispose of this however doesn’t always happen and the increase in foot fall will only make this more of a problem and inevitably cost the village more in up-keep.
I understand that Linton Camp site needs to be developed in some way but with our schools struggling for numbers, surely it would be more beneficial to the area to look at more housing.
I am now a small business owner employing around 4 part time local people having purchased a B&B business in Linton a year ago. The B&B is a mere 350m building to building and from there the camp can clearly be seen. During the purchase of the B&B nothing was raised about this proposed development, although I believe this has been in the pipeline for a few years. After a year of trading we are not at full capacity and we service a similar demographic to the one this development hopes to attract. If this development goes ahead the effect on our trade could be devastating. We do not have the advertising power of a significant hotel nor the ability to alter prices.
I realise my letter deviates from responding directly to the YDNP planning policy but do hope that these comments will be taken into consideration too.
Yours sincerely,
Clare Oakes LLYN BANK LINTON SKIPTON NORTH YORKSHIRE BD23 3LQ
21st December 2018
DearSir/Madam Re: Linton Camp School Planning Application (C/50/46L) My family have owned a house just outside Linton village for over 100 years. My sister still lives in the house. I lived there myself during the second world war, and spent most of my holidays there until in my early 20s. I worked in the area for 25 years, and over the past 40 years have visited it at least once a week. I clearly remember the camp being built, and realising even then that it did not fit into the Dales scene. However, it was a very necessary part of the war effort as it housed young evacuees escaping from the bombing in the cities. I also remember being told that the land was to be returned to the farmers after the war. It was with horror and disbelief I read of the proposed development. The whole concept is unacceptable, and one may even say ridiculous because: - 1) The development would not be much smaller than the main part of the village of Linton, thus disproportionate, and therefore damaging the character of a village that was once chosen as the ‘most beautiful village in the north’. 2) It would certainly overload the narrow winding local roads, causing danger to pedestrians and other road users, not to mention damage to the walls and verges. It certainly would not be acceptable to widen and/or straighten the roads because these narrow winding roads are an important feature of the Dales National Park. 3) The area already has a leisure complex at Long Ashes near Threshfield, which has the advantage of being well screened and just off a relatively main road. 4) It would destroy a significant area of good agricultural land, and therefore in a country already unable to produce sufficient food for its ever growing population, could not be described as a sustainable development. 5) Whilst in the right place we should encourage good modern architecture, this area of open countryside in a National Park can In no way be described as the right place. Even though it is proposed to use local materials, it would be totally incompatible with the architecture of the small villages and field barns that so characterise the Yorkshire Dales National Park, and would strike a most discordant note. It certainly would not conserve or enhance the Park’s natural beauty and would therefore be contrary to the first Statutory Purpose of the National Park. On the other hand, removal of the derelict buildings, and then a return of the land to agriculture would undoubtedly enhance the natural beauty of this area.
Yours faithfully
Tom Gibson (Dr T W Gibson)
Karen Banks
From: Georgie Wilkins
Dear Sirs
I’ve been reviewing the Linton school camp application.
I note that the site has C2 status. I’ve looked at the YDNPA local plan to try and understand what C2 status means and the local states that C2 are designated local exception sites for small scale affordable housing sites which the Linton camp plan is not.
Please can you provide some guidance on what C2 site status means and how it should be considered according to the local plan document? If I’ve misunderstood something, please can you explain why the Linton camp plans are allowable under C2 status if they indeed are?
With kind regards
Georgina Wilkins
1 Grange Farm House Linton BD23 5HH YDNPA Planning 14 January 2019 By email only
C/50/46L Full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site for tourist accommodation
Dear Sirs I enclose my comments on the above mentioned proposal, relating to Linton Camp. I would also like to note that Planning Notices do not appear to have been adequately displayed to enable local residents and passers-by to be aware of the proposal. I often go passed the site on the route to Burnsall but I have not seen any Planning Notices. I also regularly walk the footpaths along the site boundaries but no Planning Notices are visible. I strongly oppose the proposal on the following grounds.
• I believe the scale of the development is a grossly oversized major development not suitable for the National Park. • I believe the local road network with not be able to accommodate the tourist accommodation of the proposed size and intensity and therefore poses significant risk to existing road users. • I consider the proposal will have an adverse effect on the landscape and the environment. • I believe the proposal will have a detrimental effect on our ‘Dark Skies’.
Scale of Development According to the Local Plan, Linton Camp has been identified as a site for development. However, it must be borne in mind that the scale of the proposed development puts the proposal in the category of a ‘major development’, as defined by Government planning policy for National Parks. Linton Village centre has around 40 dwellings. The proposal is for 61 units, thereby instantly increasing the size of the village centre by more than 150%. Government planning policy advises that major developments should be refused in National Parks save for exceptional circumstances. There does not appear to be any exceptional circumstances in this case. For this reason alone, the proposal should be refused. The Local Plan provides guidance on any proposed development of Linton Camp. The Local Plan specifies that proposals should be predominantly ‘single storey buildings’ and that any proposal should ‘focus on the area with existing buildings’. However, the proposal appears to include very tall buildings, up to three storeys high, which cannot be considered to fall within the guidance provided in the Local Plan. The proposal also appears to include a massive increase in the amount of buildings including a huge hotel complex and a reception hub building. This appears to double the footprint of the existing buildings. The proposal therefore appears to fail to meet the guidance of the Local Plan. For this reason, the proposal should be refused. I’ve had a look for comparable local tourist facilities of the size proposed to see how such facilities have evolved over the years. I’ve done this because there is no commitment within the proposal that could be considered to limit further development beyond the substantial plans already proposed. One such site would be Coniston Hotel and Spa complex. Coniston provides 70 bedrooms, a spa, a restaurant and other leisure facilities. Interestingly, they’ve recently built staff accommodation. Coniston is only marginally larger than the proposed development but is accessed form an A road, with excellent road access and visibility, and provides staff accommodation, one assumes because they are unable to obtain and retain local employees. The proposal for Linton Camp is simply too large. The Applicant expects to require 100 staff to run and service the complex. The Applicant explains that the staff will be sourced from the local area, however there is no evidence that there is availability of such a large number of employees in the local area. Evidence suggests the contrary because local business cannot currently obtain and retain local staff in the hotel and restaurant industry. The pub in Burnsall already provides accommodation for its staff because there are not enough employees available locally. Even if the Applicant is successful in attracting the numbers of staff required, where will they live? There is a limited supply of affordable housing in the local area. The cheapest house currently on sale in Linton is an agricultural barn and it is listed at £350K (and this has yet to be converted into residential accommodation). There is no information within the proposal on the availability of local employees, nor any statistics on unemployment. There is no provision for staff accommodation and so it can only be interpreted that staff will have to travel by car (there is no bus service to the site unless the proposed employees have contracts limited to several hours on a Wednesday and a Friday). Transportation and movement of staff would contribute to an enormous increase in traffic in area. For this reason, the proposal should be refused.
Road network and increase in traffic One of the special qualities of the National Park is the cultural heritage. Minor roads along the dales, bordered by drystone walls are a special quality of the Wharfedale valleys. I run along the minor roads, I ride my bike along the roads, I walk my children to school along the minor roads and my children cycle along the roads to and from school. The site is located on a minor road, predominantly being a single carriageway with passing places. There is a blind summit just before the site on the north west side of the site. There is a challenging crossroad with poor access just before the site. There are no footpaths or cycle paths and no means for providing these without negatively impacting one of the special qualities of the National Park. Because of the scale of the development proposed and the type of development proposed, I believe that the development will unacceptably increase traffic on the local highway network because of vehicle trips made by visitors to the development, employees from out of the immediate local area, and vehicles servicing the site, including large HGVs that will need to service the site, and even larger HGVs required during the build process. While the proposal provides a traffic assessment, it fails to provide any mitigating solutions to the massive increase in traffic which will inevitably occur if the proposal is allowed. An increase in traffic at the expected level will adversely impact the attractive village of Linton which already welcomes a substantial number of visitors by car. Visitors currently park on the roadside making the village almost impassable on a busy day, certainly making the road through the village single carriageway. Visitors also double park in front of the pub limiting access for emergency vehicles and farm vehicles. An increase of traffic (based on the traffic assessment) of 30-40% would be detrimental to the special qualities of the National Park around the Linton, Threshfield and Burnsall area as the local road network cannot accommodate such an increase in vehicle movements and would put residents at risk. Typical hotel check-in times correspond directly with school finishing times, meaning that the roads to and from the site will be most crowded with vehicles from outside the local area at exactly the time that our children are walking home from school. Improving the road network to overcome these problems would destroy several special qualities of the Yorkshire Dales National Park and we have an obligation as a society to protect our National Parks. The only solution is to massively reduce the intensity and size of the proposed development. For this reason, the proposal in its current form and current size should be refused.
Landscape and environment Again, because of the excessive size of the proposed development, and the design of the development, I believe the proposal will have an adverse impact on the special qualities of the landscape. The site is only well shield at present because each of the buildings is a low single storey building. However, this is not what is proposed. Instead, the proposal includes a large hotel and hub building having an unusual out of character semicircular frontage with a glass fronted design overlooking the open valley. The proposed buildings will be visible from the Hebden road and footpaths. The proposed buildings will be visible from the hills around Thorpe. The new buildings will also be directly visible from Linton Village. While the design is modern and interesting, and if it were in the right location, some might describe it as beautiful, the modern geometric lines and large glass frontage will be completely out of place in the valley landscape and will hugely detract from the special characteristics of the Wharefdale Valley. I believe the proposals will have an unacceptable impact on the special qualities of the YDNP landscape. Light pollution from the site should also be assessed and quantified. There are few details of the potential impact of lighting on the landscape and environment. I’d expect for a development of the size proposed, advice from local policing would recommend at least some 24 hour lighting at least of the public areas and accesses to the cabins and hotel. Otherwise, temporary residents could be unsafe. I believe the lighting required for such a development would have an unacceptable impact on the dark skies of the National Park. The site would be highly visible from Linton village at night, and it would be highly visible from Grassington, Hebden and Thorpe, like a beacon blighting the landscape.
Safety Finally, I understand that a major hazard runs along the perimeter of the site. I understand that a tourist facility of the size proposed should not be built in close proximity to a hazard such as an ethylene pipeline due to the risk to the visitors in the event of a breach of the pipeline. For this reason, I believe the development should be refused and the only way I believe this objection can be overcome is by massively reduces the site of the tourist facility or by proposing an alternative use such as a handful of houses. As mentioned above, I also believe that the development of the proposed size would increase traffic along our road network so as to put pedestrians and cyclists in danger.
In conclusion, I strongly oppose the planning application, and I believe it should be refused for any one of the reasons provided above.
Yours faithfully, Georgina Wilkins
L.M.Spilsbury Troutbeck Linton Skipton North Yorkshire Planning Service BD23 5HH Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale 14 January 2019 Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL
Dear Sirs
REF: C/50/46L - PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LINTON CAMP
We are residents of Linton with our house having views over to Linton Camp, and we are writing to strongly object to the application made regarding the proposed development of this site. We are extremely disappointed, and frankly amazed, that this is the first we have heard of this application which if progressed would have a massive negative impact to our village, community and environment. There has been no consultation or engagement that we are aware of with the local community which we find staggering as this development is right on our doorstep. There are many reasons why a development of this type and scale is totally inappropriate but our main objections are:
1. PRINCIPLE - this site was originally set up during the 2nd world war for the benefit of underprivileged children from the City of Bradford. The huts were built in a way that gave a temporary and low impact feel to the site, and the effect of vehicles to and from the site would have been minimal due to the nature and scale of its use. The proposed development talks about providing a facility for the more privileged tourist, this totally contravenes the original principle as to why this piece of historic agricultural land had a change of use.
2. SCALE - the proposed development massively increases the floor space compared to the original timber huts that were built on the site. The impact of this new development within the YDNP will be totally inappropriate to this exquisite and historic landscape nestled between the historic villages of Linton and Thorpe.
3. LOCAL IMPACT - Linton is a small, very historic village with a large proportion of listed buildings. The village and pub are already a very popular tourist destination and as neither the village or the pub have a car park the few roads are often full to capacity with parked cars. This then makes exiting our lane onto Lauradale Lane extremely difficult. The thought of having a massive increase in traffic through the village due to the new development, and its proposed number of cars and service vehicles, would not only exacerbate this problem but also have a seriously detrimental impact on this unspoilt and unique village.
4. LANDSCAPE - the proposed development would have a negative impact on a number of key issues regarding the natural environment. In walking around this area we regularly see a wide range of wildlife such as Hares, Hedgehogs, Polecats, Barn and Tawny Owls, Curlews, Oystercatchers, Lapwings to name but a few. Most of these animals shy away from areas inhabited by man. Also, the development and it's necessary lighting needed for the site to function safely would have a very negative impact on the dark skies which we are fortunate to have here in the YDNP.
5. FACTS - having looked at the application there seem to be a number of key 'facts' that are grossly inaccurate e.g. • The camp is one kilometer away from Linton village - wrong, it is about a quarter of this distance, there are a couple of small fields separating them. So whilst sitting outside the village perimeter the camp is very close therefore any development potentially has a significant impact on the village. • The camp cannot be seen from Linton village - wrong, the camp is clearly visible from houses on the east side of the village, we can clearly see the camp from our house. • The existing huts are 6 meters high - wrong, the huts are single story pitched roof structures that are probably only about 4 meters high to the apex of the pitched roofs. Of course the eaves are much lower still. • These are significant factual errors that then cast doubt on other 'facts' contained within the application
We live here in a protected historic landscape understanding that to maintain this unique environment you choose to live with a reduced number of facilities. The tourist to the YDNP is well provided for; with many B & B's, holiday cottages, bunk barns, hotels, camp sites, caravan parks, pubs with rooms etc. all providing accommodation from the affordable to the expensive. We do not feel that it is right for a development of this scale, with the additional facilities it will offer its visitors, should be imposed on the local residents who choose to live here. We therefore hope that our feelings about the proposed development and the negative impact it will have on us, and the village of Linton, will be seriously taken into account and this proposal will be rejected.
Yours faithfully
Louise & Robert Spilsbury Karen Banks
From: Diane Lowe
I write as a resident of Linton village to object to the planning application C/50/461 - Linton Camp.
Whilst accepting that the site is a bit of an eyesore (although most of it is not obvious to the passer by) I am staggered that is has even been considered that a development of the proposed size could be acceptable to the YDNP. There are, it seems, many reasons to object which have been put forward by the Linton Parish council and other bodies but I personally object on the following issues:
• The road network is totally inadequate for the expected increase in vehicles - this would impact both on Linton via Skipton and Linton via Grassington. • it is unlikely that the increase in numbers of visitors would have a positive impact on Linton or the neighbouring villages as the facilities available within would not encourage visitors to leave the development • The area is considered, quite rightly, to be an unspoiled, quaint and quiet part of England which in itself attracts many visitors. By allowing a development such as this to go ahead would greatly impact on this perception
Yours faithfully Diane Lowe High Laithe, Linton Hall Farm, Linton, BD23 5HQ
1 !
"# $%&&'(
)* + ,- $ ' % ,.' / ' , *( / -,'0 / ''/ '*' / /$ / '/' 012 / ' &$, $3 / 4
5 & $ 0 &+ ' & $ ,0 6 //(&' 0 / # 5 ' # / $2 /
6* & * (&' $-& *$0 (* 7 , ' /' &'895 8 :"+ 0 & $ &/' 0 ;<= <<5 /&
" # > $0# !? ) ' 0 $ /' //- 0 * '' -* & ' / '*
& &
"0 53 > @ 33
"@ 5 /' 095 :'$ 95 8:6 0 ' '$ / - ' (*'' /, &&'/ , //- 0(' / A+ 0 & /- &&' $-95 8=:8 / ! 6 $$ / //- 0 ' $&' 0 ' ' '& /$ / ' 6 / ,/ ' & 0 (, /$ $$ ( ** #
695 8:(*'/ ' # $# ' 0* B##C( / $ 0 /', / ' / ' -0, '$ / '$- / / ' &' 0 /## 95 8D:(*'7 (1" # $ % 46 //(95 8!:/ ', $ 8 6" , &95 8: / /$&' ( ) / $' / ',/6 / * "' # 9#8 :( $ ( ' & *$8 % + ; (& ' & , /$ & E( 0 * # $$ ' / 0 / $' 7 0 &' #
695 8 : / /$& , - ,0 '$ 6 '$ # ; ( /0 '' / $& //- 0($*'/ ' //$ / $& /* / / /$ / '
695 8D: . . $- / ' /( /;"! 0/ / -$& *$ - ' $8 / ; ( /
/- 0 &&' - & /
695 8=:( / /$& ( ( / % 0 % " 0 /0 /- 0* - &,$, &0 ' 0 " */ / "# $5 /,/ , /- 0* , 0 /&0 ' 0 * , 0 '* /$6* , /0 &'/'' / ' '* $ /0, ' //$6* (&,'0 , & # -0
6 $ $2 /928= : $ (*' (/ ' /&'/''" //- 0 (&( ' # $2 /
"& " , = 95 8=: ''/* / ' ; '" B;" C6/ ', &&'&/- 0 /$ 7 % $-% ( % / % & % / $-% " 0 0 /$"/ ', /- 0*' , 0/ '0 ' /' $ &- ' ,0 , / /,/ ' /, # $5
695 8=:% 12 ( " , = ' 0 & $ 0''$- &&'&/- 0 / ' ) 0 +'B 0# (*' - C- &A&&' & /, - ' 6 //( 00 &&&' ;"B!C 0/ * & /, 6 /, '$ /, # $5 0 && '6 0 /?&( '0& ' / 0* * $ 0 - , " /&+' * '00 * 10 $ * 0* 4 / / ,'$ / & $ 0 0 /" , =B / , 7 " , = /==C '0 0 /* + $ / 050&0 - 0* /, '-/& '0 * 0 /* ' /,' /&+ $, /$ 6 $$ / ' '0 ' / / '' '& //- 0
6 $ 95 8= : ,0 '$ 3 & 6" , ==&95 8=:(**+' &B!A , ; C /B A/$ C*' ,/ ',/ - &&'&/- 0 -* /* & /, 0 (" , =(- &&' '$ & /, 5$ ( &? / $6 $$ / # $5 / 0 &/$ &" , =(= / ==60 ( , & ' / & +&- &&' &/- 0&0-* ' ( $ = 0 $&0 / ' /@ 5 ,0 " 0 & ( / $$ / # $5 B /(& , , '( C / 0 $&$ ,& ' $ /
695 8=D:" , = /= /&3'2 /3 F 5$ (- &&' & /, ! - ' # ' &'$ (*0 * ,.' ,0 (,&0/, ' /- 0 & / - ,&' &&'-* ( / $ $$ / # $5 / 0 & ,0
6 00 95 8 :" , ( / - &&' '' //, 5$ ( /,'$ / 0 && ' 6 & ' " * - , /* - -*-/' $ /&& , & * , , /&& ' " /, ' * /$/, # $5
695 85:" , 5 @*5 0(-* ''-*& /A , &0& /, " & - ''-* * B+ 0 ' /> 0;-(3,, /@ / '(-*&0 "* /* * / C / / 0 ' ' 80 0 ( * $$ / (' / (.$? * EE /-&/$0 $ 5 ( , + $, /$ ' -* (, ,- 6 $$ / ' , -* /'0" -/&0& ' 0 $ / / 0 ' 6 0 + $ 6 $$ / //- 0* ''-*( ' &( 0& 0(0 '&$& ,'0 0 '' '0' 6* ,'$ / # 5 * /, , '0 ' B , 7 * C0 $& &
"' # 9#8 :A-0 &$ /$(' & *$0*' & - //- 08 456 " //- 0
- ''-*& /A , &0& /, / /,.'/ - 0
695 8 =: / ' 5 0( / " 0 /$6 & ,0 (&' 0 / /$ / $ & * ,0-/&0 ' ' * / $' '6 (&( $&' / ' &&' * , -/&* &' '/
" # ' # 9#8: ,.'- * & / 6 $$ / // $' , / ',/ - - ' / '&0 # $2 /" & '/ ( &(0 / $- -6 $$ / // $( ,$ 0 ' /$ / ' ( ' &0 &' '- B ' $ &C $ #
'( /928 : $5 '( $2 /7 ##8 7 6 ' ( $$ / /&/#' /, /( / &' /,$-' - - ''00/
6" , &95 8: / /$&+ / / * ( 8 6 928 :; G $($ // ', " . ( / $ " $2 /' % * ; ( //- 0/ / $2 /
" , &95 8: $$ / " $(,' &' &&* ,0 *'0 ' $6 ' &0 ,0 ( /(//( &?-/(
= $ + $, /$ B /0/ & / C' /,0-/- 7 ' / + - ( / / $' ; ( * /,- , '0& # / ' /
66/ ' $ /5'' 095 8 : / % * * 695 8=:A'0'& & '0( / % 5 (95 8=: '/ A'0'& ( / % / " &'& 0 / . &/6 /,'$ / , 0/ *' //- 0 , / / $/ 0 '- +/ , *& ' " * , ( ( ('0 ( / ( / 6 ' *& ' , ' * &- # ** 0 ' ' ''00/ &&$ 6& ( * /- &&' - /& /' ''/*&&$ ''00/ (, * & / &&'*/'00 "# $ 5 /,/ , 0 (7 / ,-( 0 /$" &/- 0 + '0 +0 0& ' ,&&0 - 6 / ,'$ / & & ' ,&* ,&&'- B / ' C 0-/&0 # , * &/- 0; / , ( / , 0/ /, $ / ' $/, # 5
"' # 9#8:/ ', ,.'-& * " / /- 0' / 0 ,.'-
"' # 9#8 =: / ', & *$0 % ! * " //- 0 ' // ' '00 ( /' / /, /* #
695 8=:* , ( / 6 ' * * -, , ($- ' ,+'/ 0 & * , 0 / * /5 ( ' ,&'/( / & * & * ' ,'0 / / 0
695 8 : $( / % - & " & 6 '
&&'& + 0$ ' / # 5 ( / ,- * , & * /$ " '+ $ *& 0 // $* /, & /0 6 $$ / * /, & , & *$ / # $2 / / & /- 0* /, 0 ' /$ /& '' '& &
695 8 :, 0/ /+ ' ( * ; ( 0 // * ,-(*'+ / - /- 0* ,& ' '0 6 $$ / 0, , 0/ / /,.'/
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
6 / ,/ ,0 * ' 0&'$' ' , & >0 ( 0&* /* * ,' / /& &&& ' " 0 ( / &&'$ / .' '
695 8=:# $G (&' 0 /;H= H ( / / " &/ 0 /$; ( *$&&# $5 ( /* + 00&-*& ' / /*/ '00 * /,& , & $' , ,.' $ /0 ' $& /, ,0
!" ##
695 8=:&" 5 0( ,0 7 #' # 8 ( 695 8:7 ' " # '-$/ =( $ ,.'- 0 ' /89 695 8D: / % 6* ,'$ /, # $5 ''", 0/ /, //- 0 * / +' - /' $ &- ' 6* / ' / - , '
695 8==:(/ ' & ' &&'B- ' . C$ /, /- 0( / 5 6 1 :; < B6'/ (95 8:G$* ($- &$ & / C6 /&&' ' ' * $$ /!D && & ' ( B-* , 0 &' $C* /( , (,, &&' /- 0* && '/ 6* /' ' / /&0 &0 '-- 6 $$ / # $5 0 ' 0,&$ $ '
695 8D: $$ / *& .$ # , ' = H / &/- 0695 8D=: / = +1;<++ ,:+:; 6 /, / * , , / / , / /* /(&(,//0 &0 /*"# $5 * '$ ,0
D ('' &" &&'5 095 8!: / % " # $5 * '$ ' , / ,0 (*' , /* ' , ''
#
95 : / ' /@ 5 (;<= <<5 /& 9#: # ' # =? 92: # $2 /
! Linton Skipton BD23 5HH
7th January 2019
Re: C/50/46L Linton Camp
Dear Sir,
I strongly oppose the plan to develop the Linton Camp area into a large (61 unit) hotel complex. I have documented a number of factors which make this development out of scale for a small community with negative impacts on the environment and families of the parish. I will discuss my four main reasons to oppose this plan.
1. Substantial Increased Traffic and Risks to Residents. Many of our country lanes are single track, with passing places, generally with a national speed limit status; this includes national speed limit through the village of Linton. Throughout the year visitors use every available space in the village for parking - the situation is worse in the summer months. This forces the entire village to become a single lane for a majority of the time. The villiage is not on the main route of Skipton-Grassington or further up the valley. However, the hotel will draw more visitors to the the village. This will cause anxiety to the residents who do not have designated parking and struggle to find space - this will be a problem for commuters. An increase in traffic of more than 60%, many of which are not local to the area, or experienced in country lane driving. Thus local congestion is unaviodable. A greater risk is to the local children walking to, and from, the local school's (Threshfield Primary School and Upper Wharfedale - the High School). There are no pavements along these lanes to protect children from the cars travelling along the national speed limit roads, and by significantly increasing non-local drivers to the area this poses a significant risk for road accidents leading to injuries or fatalities i.e. the local people expect the children to be on, or close to, the road. Children have to walk between parked cars within the village (and further outside the village in warm weather). Cars travelling at the national speed limit require 18 car lengths (73 m) to stop and this significantly impact the risk of fatality.1 In the UK 16% of pedestrian casualties are on rural roads.2 Of the pedestrian casualties, 69% are children and there is also a particular risk travelling to and from school (82% of the 69%).2 Whilst the dangers are there today, my point is the risks will signficantly increase with the projected 60% increase volume of cars and service vehicles. The village is very popular for runners and ramblers; many people are seen walking along the lanes towards the River Wharfe or towards Cracoe.
Those arriving from (or departing to) the Grassington direction will pass Threshfield primary school to get to the hotel. I recommend visiting that lane during morning drop off and pick up times to understand the congestion problems and the associated safety
1 https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/learning-to-drive/stopping-distances/ 2https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/f ile/448036/pedestrian-casualties-2013-data.pdf risks. In fact it is so serious that Threshfield primary school asks parents and taxis to use the road as a one-way system during pick-up and drop-off (heading out towards Grassington and returning from Threshfield village (near the fire station).
Along with people walking along the roads are also those that cycle. Again, there are no provisions for increasing the safety of cyclists. Since the Grand de part, Yorkshire has seen a dramatic increase in cyclists. Along with this has been a four-fold increase in cyclist fatailties in Yorkshire – the Burnall to Threshfield road, which the proposed hotel is situated on is on one of these routes.
2. A Development out of scale with the villiage. The complex is a 61 unit hotel and is out of scale with the area; it will dwarf the village which has less than 98 dwellings, (20% have no permanent occupancy).3 This will be particularly true in the summer. I do not object to people visiting and staying in the village, indeed I welcome them, but it is possible that the village will become so overwhelmed that it will lose its charm and traditional dales village character. By way of comparison, Coniston Hotel is a 71 unit complex4 (only 15% bigger in size) and is vast in size and has ample access from an A- road. Mapping that sort of size of complex onto the Linton camp site gives us an impression of the scale of the impact it will have on our small community. Along with the guests, the site needs staff members, service vehicles, and other resources. The developer proposes more than one hundred members of staff. There clearly is not one hundred people unemployed people avaiable in the local villages. Coniston provides accomodation for their staff members – no such provisions has been outlined here. The majority of jobs in hotels are relatively low paid and thus it begs the question of where they will live and commute from.
3. Light Pollution and its impact. As an amateur astronomer, I am highly aware that the hotel complex will increase light pollution on our dark sky. In the plans, the developers simply say that light will be minimised; however ‘minimised’ has no quantification. Minimal lighting may well be ‘considerable’ light pollution. For guests arriving late, they will need lighting. For carpark safety, lighting will be required. One of the National Park’s concerns is light pollution and yet almost no consideration is given to this. Futhermore, in addition to the outdoor lighting, the hotel and reception areas have large windows which will pollute the sky and surrounding area for the majority of the night.
Whilst it has an impact on my hobby, a more important consideration is the impact on the wildlife and ecosystem where, for many creatures, light plays a huge role in their function and life cycle. Nocturnal animals such as bats and owls are naturally affected by artificial light. Light from this area will be seen across the valley, confusing moths and other species that use light for navigation. I would urge you to read the following article published by Irwin in Nature.5 Light also regulates the behaviour of many creatures including migrating birds. Some of the less well-known effects that light pollution has are
3 https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/sources/census_2011_ks/report?compare=1170216768 4 https://www.theconistonhotel.com/about-us/ 5 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00665-7 on insects, and they are now being recognised as having a far more important role as pollinators in our ecosystem that we previously thought.6 The issue should be taken seriously - the detail given about how this aspect will be dealt with is insufficient and as such the environmental impact of light pollution cannot be quantified. The Yorkshire Dales is a special place in England and is rank the third darkest National Park in England. On a clear night, in the Yorkshire Dales, you can see over 3000 stars with the naked eye, whilst in a town this is reduced to <200. It is very important that we maintain the Yorkshire Dales Dark Sky Discovery Zone status - Note: this is not even the top status level. The Galloway Forest serves as an example of how investment in dark skies has a return; for every £1 invested the return is almost double ( £1.93) mainly to the attraction of visitors from events such as the Dark Skies Festival.7 Many have suggested that LED lighting is the best because it has least impact on the environment. However, this is only partly true, whilst LEDs use the least energy of all light sources, their light consists of a large fraction of blue light (to make white light). Blue light attracts insects and other creatures, along with causing other (daytime-like) responses – even humans tend to tune iphone displays to make them more red at night due to the effect it has on sleep and thus mental health. There has been many studies on humans – the effect on other creatures is likely to be even greater. Futhermore, blue light scatters more readily than green, yellow or red light (the reason for the blue sky) and thus causes greater light pollution in the sky. A reference a detailed study is referenced below.8 ‘Light will be minimised’ is clearly not approprate for such a development in such an important region of the United Kingdom. For local astronomers the hotel development would signal a decline in the quality of the night sky in the Yorkshire Dales National.
4. Future Developments. A final concern is the additional area marked on the plans which has no current building plans; however, it is highly likely that if this hotel is granted that the additional land will be developed in some way to expand the activities of the hotel. Again this is unquantifiable change to our Yorkshire Dales National Park should be deeply concerning to us all.
In summary, I wish to oppose the development of the hotel complex on the Linton Camp Site because it is: out of scale, out of character for the village, will cause light pollution, will create significant increase in traffic increasing safety concerns, and in future be developed further making the other three problems worse. I thank you for taking the time to read all my points and look forward to hearing positive news in the near future.
Yours faithfully, Kevin Critchley, PhD
6 Eisenbeis, G. in Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Rich, C. & Longcore, T. (eds). pp 281–304 (Island, 2006) 7 http://www.darkskiesnationalparks.org.uk 8http://dynamics.org/MAUI_NIGHT_LIGHTS/ARTICLES/Falchi+Cinzano++Haim_limiting .2011.pdf
h w* [ / [ ò" I! ò w* /)98)6:[ B ò" t% Y ! b ò" ID9 8!5 Ç* 8604 >BBB96 9* & %D % & &!"
W! 08B Y í t % t% h'' +{! Ç/ t% { ò" 5% b % t" !! ò% . [9ò.Üwb b ò" 5[? 49[
{ . 9 Y í
CÇ!h Y í
5 a
w t ! w /[ t ! ! C [ {! / { [ .5&' Iv
í a ë I! " # # $ %&
!' # !% % 5% t% b % % % ) ! # #!% " '%%# *
*+ / 5 C , ! b [ t .
í %% ' ! % ò 5 b t [ t !"# $ !%!& !( 5 & !") +' ' ,[ % t%./0 { h ' 9 % L ! 4 % , . 5% 6 '
ò" 5% b % t" [ % t% 08950848 ! 5 08: 0 . / /0 , .& 4 w' * 9L!)8> ? W! 08? 6 w' * /)98)6:)9bv4 9 5 08>
t
!! !% . t% { !% ! % ' 5$ !&
I# # !% % # !% '' % $! $&
L '! ! % %% %% # #!% ! ! !! % # ' % $ C 99 >0 ' b % t% t% C#" +bttC/ b % t% t D! 9 +bttD/&
í % ! % '' ' % % ) F { 058 %#&
L' ! !! $ #%% '%% ,a$ 5% Ç . # bttC t% {t9 ' 5% t%:&
Ç !% '% ! ' F % ! #!% # ' % ' % ' $ % &
9 ' % 5$ % '' ! ! ! % ' ' % # 5% t% % # ' % b % t"&
&+ { { b a ! t
Ç F ! 9&0? 5 % ' ' [ % 06>&0 # &
L ! > % .::8 ! ' w í' %% ! ' [ C%% ' D %%).:0:9&
Ç !% !! 5 % ' % ! ' [ #%% ' .::8 % % !% ' # #"?&
9 t* 889 w' L5* ?58895086848: w * 8: 84 086 : ò" 5% b % t" [ % t% 08950848 ! 5 08:& > Ç [ % t% !%% ,F % . G F 64 ' t%* ,9F % ! % G !% % " &. ? C F% t b &* 89&:?)& 89&:?)0 89&:?) 89&:?)9
t 0
L ! % ! ' %% %# % ' , ". !% +% ! % % B?: !% /& t 5% !% 5! ' #%% F % 09H %! ! ' ! % # ! ! %! % ,!. !% % ,{! . !%& Ç # #%% ! ! % !% '% %& Ç ' [ % t% 2 ' ! ' % ' !% ! ' % !% " ' % % % ' ' #%% % # # , * + , , - - + ( (& - , . , / + 64/& C! ' 5 % !F . ' !% . t% { %% 6&4 % !% # !% ! ! I! # !% ' &
Ç ,%. ' #%% %% F % % %# %% I! % !% % % ! % ! ! %! # 5 !% %) ! !% % % &
L % ' 9F t .% " { t% ! # !% % I! ' ! 5% t% ! t% !! . 5% F ' ! % !% ' # 5 ' & L % % ) % #%% % ' ' !% ! % #%%' % % I!% ' &
Ç #%% % % F % 98 ! ! F % % & ! #%% " ! )% % 5 ' & Ç F #%% % 5'') ! ! % ! ! & 9F #%% #%% %%# ' % &
'+ [ ë 9
Ç !% . [ ë !% ! % +[ë!/ " B& ! !F Ç% !&9 ' , , , /
B Ç 9F % [ ! % ' ' bttC bttD + : !F / % ! ! ' . &
t 4
% ! % ! & Ç ! ! ' % ,%. !% ' # & C ! % ' ! %&
Ç ! ' % % #" ' !% ' # ' ! % " % ' ! F ' ' b % t" ' %% #%" &
Ç Ç% 9&9 ! % !! '' ! ' % % #" ' % % ! ! 8&
Ü' ! % ' ) ' % '' ! & Ç %! ,#'% . % ! )% , . % ,#%%5 .&
í% ! #'% % #!% ! ! % I! ' # !% !% ' $! &
Ç % ' % , . Ç% 9&: % % % & Ç Ç% ' % % !% % ,#%% . % G 98 9 90&
L % % Ç% 9&>& Ç Ç% % ' % % !% % ,#%% . % G 9: 9> 9?&
í ! $! %! ' ! %&
Ç % #%% ! ' % '! %% # '' !% ' # ' &
L '%%# #%% !% ' % ,#%%5 . %%&
C! # ! % 9F % [ ! % %J # ! !% % #%% % # % ' ,5" {" . %! ! ! ' # ," .& / % %
8 w % '!%% Ç% :& # {! ' ! %.
t 6
% #%% '' & L , . % %"% #%% !%% % ! % %%)%%! &
D % % !% % '' ' % ! % % % &
+ 9 Ç
Ç ! 9 ! [ : ! B: !% # ! & Ç $ ' % % ! & t >0 ' bttC # % ! b % t" ' # %% % " %& Ç [ ë !% ! % 0B # ! ' ' ! ' #%% ! ' '6 ' F G ' & Ç # % ' ' $ ! # b % t" #!% %% % ' ! % % ' &
L ' % ! % ' % %% ' % ! # !% & ["# F # w t ! +wt! / t { t%) %%! % )F ' % wt! & t 9&0& ' % . { ' # 9&4& '!% !% ! ! % ! wt! ' &
í% [ { a % ' % % F ' wt! ' % % ' %% # ' #%% & Ç ' !% & b % ! ' [ { a % Ç {! Ç {! Ç / t% ' ! ' ! ! ' ' # ' DB0 +F #% ' % 9! [ / % ' / ! ! !) & {%% % ' ' DB4 DB> % ! ' + F #% ' % 9! [ / % ' / . % 5 ! ! % & / ! ' I!% # %' F
.{ 9?4>*080 Ç w% 5 5% ! G w
t 9
' % 68 / . ' I!% # %' F ' % 08 & b $! ' # + !%% # ! DB0 % ! ! / 5 ! ! ' ' % % 9&0 ' [ë! & Ç %)5 ! ! ' #%% %% % + % ' ' I! %/ #%% # ' { !% ! a! +{!a/ ! % ! ' & Ç ! % ? ' % &
D % ' # ò" 5% b % t" ' ! F " % % % '! % !% % # %% F %% % )F ' wt!. # % &
! ! !% !% L ! !% % %! '' ' + # / #%% % # F #%% ! ! % & Ç # . { #%% [ % t% t% í4 G t # #%% &
+ 9 9
Ç % % ' ! # !% ' ! ' " &
Ç 9F t I {! . % 9 % % L ! F% % % '' ' % { ' { % { ' L +{{{L/* / w' Y%% +% % / C a C ["% /% a# 5 % 4&0& ' w & Ç ' % # {{{L L w " ù& b !% 9%. Ü D! ' L w " ù ' {{{L. b !% 9% !% !% + !% ) [ % t% !! / % ! ' % !% 5 % % ! F % )! # ' F 5 # & b ' # b !% 9% !% t % !%
t :
' ' 5% I! ò" 5% b % t" !! ! ' !% &
! %% 6&0 % '! ' % !% ! % '%% % ! % ! ! # F % #% ! % ! !% %# Üë &
Ç 9F % [ ! w # # ! ) 5' 9 % % ! + ' Ç% :5 ' / %%! F % % #%% % ! !% G %! ! " ' & L ' %"% % #%% '%% F #% % % ! ! # 9 % % ! &
D '' !% ' ' ' % % #"&
+ Ç 9
Ç [ % t% % !F 4 *
,/ , , - ,, ( ( * ( & - , - (* ( -&. +& 64/
Ç !% Ç ! # % % # +' %% / % # ' % % % # !% .::8 ! $ &
I# 5 ! { +5!{/ % , % ' ! % % # #%% # [ ë%% Ç '% D .& Ç ' # Ç ! * % ' 5 5 % % % % % & /% I! ! ! !% ! & L % ' % ' !% ! '% ' % ' ! ' %&
t >
L ' % % # ! "#% # # ' .::8 # ' ! ' # !% ' # +twhí/ & 98) ,#%% # % # ! #%% . # !% ' +& /& I# % # !F Lë ' w # ' ! % - #%% ! ' & Ç F % # !%% ! # 6&? 9& # % 9&9 Ç ! +&0/& a ' %! # % ! &
L I! % # I! % J ' !% %" # twhí % # # ! % ! ' % ' ò" 5% b % t"& Ç ! ' &
! !% ' ÇwL/{ # !% % .::8 : # I! ' '' ' 60? % + ' 98H/& Ç %' ' '' # & I# ! ' # % +98 '!%%5 B: 5 / %)% +: %/ ' 5 ! { '! # ! & b # % ' ' Ç ! & Ç % #%% % !% ' ) '' ! #%% % % # '' % % " % # "#% %% # ! & í #!% I! ! ' .::8 '% '' '%# ' ! % % & Ç % % " % ! % ! ' % % &
Ç % ' '' %% ' .::8 % t" # %% # F ' # b % t"& h ' ! ' !9B ' ! % '' #%% .::8 ' .% . ! 5 & Ç % !%% ! % %% ' '' ! # !% # ' .% ! ' t". ! ! + ' [ % t% & 80/&
Ç !!% '' ' !% # ! ' IDë ) % % % '' #!% ! %
t ?
I!%% ' % % #%% %% ' % % ! ' !% ' # % &
í ' % #" I! % ' + # ' / % # 8?+ / ' bttC #!% ! Ç ! ! "& Ç !% % % % ' % '' ' '' ! % 0&
7+ b L
ò" 5% b % t". [ % ë% wI! +W! 08>/ # % , + * . , / ! #!% I!& Ç #!% %! ' ' %% ' '' ! & D ! B?: !% # % F ' % % 488 # #%% ! ' % % #" ' !% ' # # #!% F % '!%% ' % ' ' ! " I!%' ! &
! b ! %! ' I! #!% !%% ' % # # % 5 '! & Ç [ % t% ' ' % I!% ' % " ,1 + *, , . / +& 08/& [ % t% t% {t6 # % % ! ! % ' , + , . + B/&
Ç !% I! % % %%! '' % ! '! ' ! ' $ ' % % twhí #" !% & . ' ' a t% % % ' # %"% '' ' % % " ! % # ?8 ' bttC&
9+ I L
Ç I ! '! % 4& Ç ! ,1 * - * + - - ( * * - , , /& L % # $ % # % %
12 For example, IEMA Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, 1993
t B
! % ! % !% % 5 ' &
Ç ' ' ' !% [ % t% ' % ' ' #%% % # # , * + , , - - + ( (& - , . , / +& 64/&
! ! % % % " I! ! ! 5% t%& L F ' ! % !% ' # 5 ' & Ç # I ! % ' % % I!% ' !%% " ' F ' !% ' # ' % '!# !% &
Ç % % % ' ' ! #%% %%# ' # # & Ç #%% ! % ' ! # % ' b % t"&
! ' [ % t% #% L/ - + (( , ò 5 * & (( ( * (. +&8/& a '% + ' >B4 / 9 % ! a # % ' % %# / % # #%% # " b % t" , ! % % . +& 4:/ % #" ' % ! # % % & w% ' ' #%% % ! %%# ' # ! ! % ' % % !% !% & !% ! ! %' '' # % ' ' % % % ' # .::8 !% '! ' % ! % % + !%% # ' # /&
Ç # % + *))###&% %&!")/ % % % % # '% %! ' ' !% % % ! & Ç '' ' !% / %! 5 '!%% # % % # B> ' bttC&
t 8
L % # % , . [ { a % ' % { !% a! & 44:: ,a% ' '% . ! ' & !% ! I ! , ' # % { !% a! #!% % . +& :/ '! ' a % ' ' +DB0 ' Ç {! / ! ! # %% & a ' I! %" % # { !% a! ! ! # #!% F ' #%% ! % &
:+ C w ; 5
Ç C% w " 5 ! w % % # C% ù % % '% ' %&
I# # w % " ' !' # '% + 6 & 6 ? & :/& í% # !% # W'%#)[L5!w !' # ' 6 # % # % % !' # '% & Ç %% # " ' !' # '% % !% ' + !F !/ % # ! !% ! % & L " !F 4 ' [ % t% # ! ' % I! ! 48H ! !' # !5'' & b ' w &
í% %% #%% ' ' % ! ! 5 ' '% " F '' ) ! % # bttC [ % t% t% //0& Ç% ? +'% " !%% F/ ' [ % t% , !%%. % 4 ' !' # '% " !% !$ F ,- 2( , , , - + ( ,, + * ( , + ( .&
Ç ! !' # '% " ! %% w # !' # '% " !F !&
4 { Ç% 4* '% " !%% '% J , % M b % t% t D! & t* 8:> w' L5* >58:>5086848:
t
L " ' !' # '% ! w + ' % / ' % ' !% & Ç ' !' # % % %' t% !% ' G %% F ' )%" ! % "&
L ! !' # '% " % % # !% +% ' #!% %"% % ' /& Ç !! . 5% % !F . ' t% { I! % ! % !% # t% !% ' % ' + %! {!5 /& a % !% ' !% #!% ! '!% "# ' ò" í # t % &
í # $ # C% w " 5 b ò" /! /! % + [ [ % C% !! / 9 ! % ! # ' & Ç $ ' # ! !% ! ! % % " ' ' & L # ! ' ' # '% " # % &
*+ h! a
L ! % # '%%# )!% !% " # ! %' ' ' !% &
• Ç 9 % L ! { !% !F ! ' t% { % { í a t% / ! 9 % a t% +/9at/ !% !% & I# %% ! % % ! ) ! # !% & • v! 6 !% C ! # ! #%% % # %# ! '%) & Ç %%! %# ! '% % ! # !% +# '* !ta5 [LbÇhb5880/& • Ç ! ' ! +&& I!% '' / % % & ! % ' ! ! [ / # F I!% #!% %
t 0
' ! ! # #!% F ! ' % '! # ! & • Ç ! % %% Ç '% v! % 0 % 5# ' & L' % ' ' % ' !!% ' I! ! & • v! ? !% C 09 F '!%% % & D ! ' ! '!% ! &
L %! !% ' 5% ' [ / # %% ' %% % ' # ò" 5% b % t"&
í ! ' % #%% " ! ' !% ' ' !% #%% ! ' !% ' !! % " % ' ' % ' &
ò! %
! b % awÇtL b ! t
t 4
! !+ D = C ; , &
{! * *))'%55'5%& &&!")
t 6
Karen Banks
From: Diana Spratt
Regarding application C/50/46L
The current site is an eye sore & almost anything might be considered preferable.
Having studied this application I consider light pollution to be a huge & lasting issue. The application itself refers to the “Dark night skies” as being due to the lack of light pollution.
In the short term the disruption on that part of the narrow B6160 between Burnsall & Linton during construction can only be horrendous. There seems to be a suggestion that Church Road & Church Lane be used to take some of the traffic presumably passing Threshfield Primary School which already is impassible at ‘drop off’ & pick up’ times.
There are a lot of good things in this application & presumably the National Park will hold them to these.
Sincerely
Diana Spratt
Sent from my iPad
1 Karen Banks
From: birgit hanson
C/50/46L Linton
I wish to register my objection to the above planning application.
The scale of the development is totally out of proportion to the surrounding villages, especially Linton, and will not necessarily be of any financial benefit to the area. The visitors presently using private/local B & B s and guesthouses , holiday cottages and hotels may go to the new facility instead, leaving the truly local businesses worse off
Also the traffic created concerns me Although the first day of a stay the guests may go for a local walk, the following days they are bound to use their cars to reach other starting points, and in the evenings they will not wish to walk in the dark to visit pubs or restaurants. The cars will be out again. Linton village has already got a problem with parking, as I know from going to my allotment in Linton. I go on my bike now, as it is nearly impossible to park at any time of day or year.
The Dales are flooded with tourists, and it is getting more difficult to give them all a worth while experience.
Yet another problem will be the workforce. I might have the numbers wrong, but did it say 91 part time staff ? Where will they be coming from ? I doubt you can find that many staff within walking distance of the site. Yet more cars on the road.
How many staff will live on the premises ? Local housing is scarce and expensive, and catering/housekeeping jobs are not normally paid at premium rates, so anybody not resident will have to travel. Local public transport is not flexible enough for people to use for getting to and from work. In fact the closest bus connection - passing the door - only goes 3 days a week, and if you use Skipton bus, you can't work later than 18.00.
Altogether a disaster.
Birgit Hanson 2 West View Threshfield Skipton BD23 5 PQ
Former resident of Linton
1 LLYN BANK LINTONLINTONLINTON SKIPTONSKIPTONSKIPTON NORTH YORKSHIRE BD23 3LQBD23 3LQ
212121st December 2018
DearSir/Madam Re: Linton Camp School Planning Application (C/50/46L) I write on behalf of my sister Jan Gibson, who lives in the house that is nearest to the proposed development by road. She has lived in this house for over 50 years, and has been familiar with the area for over 80 years. I, too, have spent much of my life in the area. Our family lived in the house for most of the second world war. Unfortunately, my sister has had a stroke, and cannot write her opinion. I hold her Power of Attorney. It was with horror and disbelief that we read of the proposed development. We both remember, as children, the compulsory purchase of the land at the beginning of the second world war to build a camp that was then used by evacuees from the bombing. We also clearly remember our Mother saying that the land would be returned to the farmers when the war was over. The whole concept is unacceptable, and one may even say ridiculous because:- 1) The development would not be much smaller than the upper part of the village of Linton, and therefore disproportionate, thus damaging the character of a village that was once chosen as the ‘most beautiful village in the north’. 2) It would certainly overload the narrow winding local roads, causing danger to pedestrians and other road users, not to mention damage to the walls and verges. It certainly would not be acceptable to widen and/or straighten the roads because these narrow winding roads are an important feature of the Dales National Park. 3) It would ruin an area of open unspoilt countryside, which is another important feature of the Dales National Park. The area already has a leisure complex at Long Ashes near Threshfield, which has the advantage of being well screened and just off a relatively main road. 4) It would destroy a significant area of good agricultural land, and therefore in a country already unable to produce sufficient food for its ever growing population, could not be described as a sustainable development. 5) Whilst in the right place we should encourage good modern architecture, this area of open countryside in a National Park can In no way be described as the right place. Even though it is proposed to use local materials, it would be totally incompatible with the architecture of the local small villages and field barns that so characterise the Yorkshire Dales National Park. One might say that it would strike a most discordant note. It would not in any way enhance the local scene. On the other hand, removal of the derelict buildings, and then a return of the land to agriculture would undoubtedly enhance the natural beauty of this area.
Yours faithfully
Tom Gibson (Dr T W Gibson)
for Miss Jan Gibson, who has approved the content of this email
Karen Banks
From: Chris Alder
Planning Application number: C/50/46L
This email is an objection to the proposed development referred to in the above planning application.
In summary: The proposal amounts to unnecessary speculative development in a site that should be being returned to open countryside.
The following points are made:
1) There is no Dales-based economic driver for this development, the Grassington area is already well supplied with a diverse range of tourist accommodation that offers much choice even in high season. The proposed development will only displace business from existing accommodation providers. A similar establishment already exists at Long Ashes and that is not operating to capacity. It is difficult to see which local businesses might benefit from this development.
2) A development of such a size in open country will cause considerable harm in landscape terms and also provide the potential for large-scale events creating noise and light in an otherwise rural setting. This will be going against the Park Management Plan primary statutory duty and directly against objective A2. It cannot be satisfactorily screened from the various roads and footpaths in the area and lights will be visible from a wide area. It cannot be considered a positive landscape change as envisaged in objective A3.
3) The local roads already come under pressure during peak periods and are narrow with poor sight lines. Promoting extra traffic, especially larger size vehicles required for supply delivery, will only exacerbate such difficulties as are already to be found, e.g. when agricultural traffic is on the roads.
4) There is no local supply of suitable staff of sufficient magnitude. Consequently, staff will have to commute from elsewhere; compounding the traffic problems such a large-scale development will produce. The local economy does not need larger numbers of low paid jobs as typically found in accommodation provision, but higher skilled, better quality, particularly graduate level, posts.
5) The location of Linton Camp School is an historical accident. There is no rational reason why a temporary expedient designed to assist in wartime should govern modern development and the YDNPA should be working towards returning this site back to agricultural use. The YDNP Local Plan is at fault in indicating that this is a suitable business development site, as the Plan notes, this site is ‘extremely prominent’.
Dr. C. and Mrs J.L. Alder 5 Wharfe View Grassington SKIPTON North Yorkshire BD23 5NL
1 Karen Banks
From: Peter Weatherhead
For the attention of Katherine Wood
I would like to object to the above planning application for the following reasons
1. I do not see any justification, or need for a development of this size in this part of the national Park. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, and for the area.
2. I do not see how the applicants will find the staffing numbers projected for the development, especially when existing pubs and hotels find it difficult to staff their businesses.
3. The local roads are entirely inadequate to serve such a large enterprise. The B6160 from Burnsall for the most part has inadequate width for 2 cars passing from opposite directions, I know from experience that one has frequently to stop to allow vehicles through. Equally from Threshfield the road has a very narrow S bend near the Bank Top crossroad. The road from Cracoe, the B6265 also has restricted width, and a sharp S bend over the old railway bridge. This road regularly floods, and passes through Linton, where car parking on the road regularly restricts access. The additional traffic movements created by visitors, staff, and service vehicles is going to be detrimental to the villages of Linton, Burnsall, Threshfield, and Grassington. The crossroads at Bank Top has inadequate site lines, especially when turning right from Linton towards the proposed site. The proposer omits to show the narrow short cut roads in Threshfield, and out of Linton, also the road past Threshfield School when approaching from Grassington. There is a potential for all these roads being used for access to the site-Satnav may even encourage this.
4. This site should have been cleared many years ago, when the school closed. If there had not been an existing use, Planning policies would have never allowed any development of this site. There is a need for affordable housing for local young people in the area. I suggest the Authority, in stead of fruitlessly seeking small individual sites in the area, should develop this site for a small number of low cost houses, perhaps with some small workshops, and office space, and thereby in one development satisfy a real local need.
Yours sincerely
Peter Weatherhead
Appletreewick Resident
1 Karen Banks
From: Sandie Weatherhead
I wish to object to this development to the following reasons:
The scale of the application is massive overdevelopment in a sensitive area
The design of the buildings is not at all in keeping with the vernacular tradition
The roads leading to the site are narrow in every direction with places where 2 cars cannot pass without stopping
The site is close to Linton Conservation Area - 260m west
The site is 0.66 of a mile north of Elbolton and its nationally important cave
It is adjacent to a medieval farmstead or hamlet with its field system which extends under the site
The applicant intends to excavate for a large car park and no doubt for utilities and broadband
Having lived in the Dales for 50 years, I taught at the school as a supply teacher in 1972 and know the site very well. I am also a member of the Vernacular Buildings and Local History group of the Upper Wharfedale Field Society. I would like to see the site returned to its natural state as it was in the 1930s The title of the site 'Camp' shows that it was a temporary site.
Alexandra Weatherhead
1 Karen Banks
From: [email protected] Sent: 01 January 2019 22:53 To: Planning Cc: [email protected] Subject: Comment on application: C/50/46L Linton Camp development
Having read the application and most of the accompanying documents I would make the following comments:
1. Timetable. The application is for a major development and is accompanied by a large number of documents. To allow just December for consultation and comment is much too short, particularly in view of Christmas and New Year.
2. Scale. The National Park refused a much smaller application in 2006 (C/50/46G) saying "....it is considered that the scale, massing, design and siting of the proposed development would be damaging to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape." The scale of the new proposal is much greater and the siting is more extensive. It is hard to see how in this case the planning officers say that it is "a significant and welcome improvement and is likely to be supported in principle" (pre application advice 4.7). The scale of the proposal is far too large in relation to the character of the area and the nearby village of Linton.
3. Traffic. There will be a significant increase to the amount of traffic through the village of Linton. In the designation of Linton as a conservation area it states: "The major traffic routes bypass the village and there is only one through road, the B6265, leaving the settlement itself peaceful." The traffic counter set up by the applicants was on the B6160 to the East of the existing camp entrance (in the Burnsall direction presumably). The B6160 is one of those major routes bypassing the village. Quite probably the B6160 will not be affected too much by the development but the quiet road through the village will see a big increase in traffic. Most cars going to the hotel will come along the B6265 from Skipton. They will then turn right at Catchall and come through the village. After crossing the bridge they will fork right on a narrow single track road with no passing places. This is the direct route to the site and is indicated on most, if not all, satnav systems (Waze, Google maps and RAC routefinder all show this route). The peaceful settlement referred to in the conservation area statement will be no more. Conservation areas are formally designated as a heritage asset (National Park Plan 2015- 2030 page 69 5.3). Policy L1 page 68 makes various requirements regarding Heritage assets. The extra traffic will seriously affect the Linton Conservation area, but in this respect none of the requirements of Policy L1 have been followed.
4. Wastewater treatment. The application states that foul sewage will be treated onsite in a biodisc plant plus tertiary treatment. This is not shown on any of the plans as far as I can see. For a large hotel with catering, this plant could be substantial and unsightly. The alternative of discharge to a public sewer is mentioned. This could require access across
1 private land to make the link. This proposal is at odds with the statement in the Heritage Assessment:
6.6.4 The existing development was constructed with a complex foul and storm water drainage system which feeds into the local mains network. Whilst the system itself is outmoded, the connections to the mains remain.
If the connections are there, why the suggestion of an on site biodisc system, tertiary treatment and a soakaway? I feel that more detail should be provided about the disposal of foul sewage. This is an important aspect of the plan and has been simply glossed over in a few sentences.
I hope the committee will consider these comments in coming to their decision.
Peter Fattorini The Cottage Conistone Skipton BD23 5HS
2 ! " #$%&
' " (" ) * * ' + , " - .
' " /01 ) * .* ) ) " 2* )3 )01 ) 4 4"*) .
' ) " . ) ) ) " ) 5$567 5899# ) ) " ' 77 ) " . ) 4 ) ( ) * ) " )" ) : ' . )0 +67;, 5$567 < 81 *+ : * , )* ) 0( 1' 5$567 899# * ) ) ** * ) 2 " <* $= )" . )' 77 * )) )*"*) )) ) ) * ) $= ) * :) * > ) " 77 ) * * )* ) 77 ' * 2 )* ) -?<0 < $: #1 '6* ) ) @* ) "
' )@* 4 ))5$567 < 80 $ ;1 * ) * 9* * ) < .+ " * ,0 A ? * B1 ' ? . 0 +9 ) )< ,1 * ) ;;$ C 8 )-?< 9<' " D#( * " * ) ) * ) ) @* ) )* "* ) " E* ) *) * ) *E @* ' * 2 ) " * " )-?< 9< )D#* " .) * 5$567 < 8 )" " * <* $=
#' 8 8 ) 9 ) */ F . G ) . * ) F' ) " ) )"*)* * " *( ) 4 * ) * @* )-?< 9<6"*) ) )) *-?< 9< )9<6 " ) " @* )) ) . * )* ) * ) . ) ) " * E " * 2 ) " * -?<
6' ) ) " 2 ) -?< '$* " ) ) ) 08 1 ) "*) !"
# $ %& '( ) $ % % ( ** $$ +,+-.
* %* ( / ( * ) ( - % ( 0(' *$ 0 ! * ( '* * ( $ ( % ) 1! * *( ) #('' ( $ ( ''** ( $ 1
. % '( * $& ( . ( ( 2 34 %0 * *$ % $ 235 * (4 0 '( * ( ') ( -$$6 # ( * . 0 ** $ )*( % 02 74- * ) * ('( %
. # * )* ('( %*( ( % . 8* * ' ' ( ' ) $ * (* '* . % $ 95' $! & 39 %:* $ % ( * * 35 * (* *( ( ) *( ($ % (*) $ % $ $; $ * $ % $ %( ( + (*) $ <( $ % ( ( ( 8* ( ( % ( ) $ * $ ( % * * 2# 4
. % * ) $ %= 5 $ $' $ % #'( $ . ' % # $%( $$ $ ( * * %% * ( * * %$ . >%(?@ $ ' A % 8 ' '( '' $ $ 7 3 0 * (* 0$0* ( % * 0 ( * (' %% ( <( ( ( ! '( $ . * % * ' %' *( %( ( . % % $%( $ %% ' ( . 8* ( ') $ 2#34 0 ** $02# 4 ( * ( ( ( % '*( ( (* ( ( ( ( * ' * % ) 1
% ** $$( ) $ ' (* $$( 1+ % ' )%** ( $$ (&( * $ ( $ * * 1 (' % % * $& ( $ * * *( * $$( % * ( * ( (' ( ) % $ @3@>( # #9 >>7+ $ $ $ '! ( ' % $ ('$ ** ' ** %* ('$ ** ' -% ' %% ( -* ( . * $& ' (*( () $ . 8* $ % $ () $ + %* 8( % * % * % (*) $ 6 '$ -% * $& ''( ) '' %%%** (%* ('( %(, ( ( - * ('% (% (' ( *% * * ( ( () $ &* $ ** %B%(( % ! ' $$ * $ $ ( %* ** % $ @ 9 ?3. @ 3C3- $ '&*
! ' ' '* % (*! +'% ( * * $$( %' $ '** ' -* ($ %% -* ( (' (* $$( * $ ( * % $(
+** ' 9- ( 0 * ** ' * 0 0) &* % * * ) 0 29 34-%* * % %% * ' ( ' . 6 % '* (( ) $ $ . D('( ( ) '*( '* '*( %* - %+B * :* $ * ( ) * * * * *'( ( % ( ** *% ) % ?> & $ ( % ('( >%( $?@ $ '( E** ( %% ('( , 2 ) )3 $ % ( ( $ 4. ( '( *'( *( % () * $$( ' (''( . 3 -$ * $ '0*0 1 $ ** $(% '( % ! ) $ $ ( * :* $ * ( +B * $ ( & ( * * ( %* (* $$( $ $ ** ' $ % *$ ( 0 $ ( * ( '( *( * *) * ( ) % $ %') ( ' ( , $ '** ' +** $ 7 3
.$ % @3@> * 6 - ( *( . % !$ ) ( ' '*( ( '( + 0 @3@> % $ % *029 34 *$ ) ( % ** $ ) ' % ' -29 4$ '% 0 ) % ( % ) 0$( * ** ' % % 95' $ 39 %* >%(?@ : $ %% $ ( % %% * ( ( % . E '($ $ ' % %% * % /* $ + ( * () $ ( %% ( )'*( <( ( ) '*( <( * $ ( <( (
# ( $8 %* . <( ( ( ( ( ( ( % ( $( % (%* * * $ '( % * $&'( ( % * $( C ' '* $ 8( 0 $ ( 0 (' '% % % ' ( % $ $ ( () ( * ( $ ( ) %> F( (*$ 0 <( $ ( %* 0 ' & ( * $23 @4 0 ) $ ) % * %%* ) $ 0 <( C) $ $ 02C-+4( ' 71 -' ( % '( &*( ' ' % ( ' 7 .'( %% * (* (* $ ($ ($%$ ' ( ' %$ ('( 1 C) ( %$ ( * % ##
( % $( * $ ( % $ ('* (*'( %% * ( . % 0 * 0$( ' ( $ ( . % $ ( ( '% ) (' * %% * ( ( '$ %*% ** % *%$ F* ( % :) * ( ( % ( ( ( % % (
C . # *<( % * <( $ 234- * <( $ * ) ( ' 2#34
. * * $ 2 42 40*% * ( $0 ('* $0 ( ** $$ 0 % *) ( $$ '$ ** ' () % % *$ ' %$ 6 * (
* /. % G( ($%' % (*!
* 7 ?- ) # ( ( 7 33. <( %* . ) % %
. . % (' * ( ( + $ '$ % $ * %'( ) * %%* % ( + * & 5 @B 5.# $ ) % % ( (* #
- $ ( ( *(* ( - $ ( <( %! % $ * ' % $ ( "( * ( ( * D( ( (' % * * ( () %%%( %' *( (* ('( ' *
! ** 5 375 > .A )$ $ $ ) $ ' !$ * '&*) &$ * (* ($ % ( % % )
! ) ) 8* ) $ ( % * * $ $ % ( .( % * ( %
( ( $ * ! * (<( * %* . ('% ' ( ( % %(
Gail Dent
From: Valerie Anderson
Re: Proposed development of Linton School Camp into hotel and leisure complex
After studying the planning application for the above and as a homeowner in the village of Linton we wish to put forward our opposition for this proposal on the following grounds;
We consider the small country roads in this area totally unsuitable for such a development as the site is not accessible by any other means than road vehicles
The scale of the proposed development is just too large for the local area to take without impacting on the surrounding areas with excessive noise/light pollution
We are in receipt of the comments made by the members of Linton Parish Council and wholeheartedly agree with all their comments
We therefore request the application be refused
R & V Anderson Fountain House Linton in Craven BD23 5HH
1 Gail Dent
From: maria brown
I wish to inform you of my objections to the proposed development. It would have a negative impact on the local environment. The scale of development is overly large and excessive, & will spoil the local landscape. The impact of traffic will be detrimental; the local road network, already congested at various times of the year, will not support the number of proposed vehicles and will cause safety issues. Regards Maria Brown Linton resident
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1 Gail Dent
From: Natasha Midgley
Dear Ms Wood,
I am a resident of Linton Village and live on the opposite side of the village from the Linton School Camp Site. I have three young children who attend Threshfield Primary School. I am also Chair of the Governors at Threshfield Primary School.
Regarding the planning application number C/50/46L I would like to express my concern about the size of the development in general and specifically the number of vehicles which are likely to be accommodated on the new site (160 vehicles and 100 bicycles), not to mention the increased traffic arising from deliveries to and from the hotel.
I wanted to make you aware that there are five families living in Linton Village (and another three in Linton Falls) with children attending Threshfield Primary School, who walk to school down Church Road and Low Road on a regular basis. There are another five or so families whose children attend Upper Wharfedale School in Threshfield and who walk to and from school on a daily basis along the same route. As there are no footpaths to school, and the speed limit on these roads is 60 mph, road safety is at the forefront of everyone’s minds and families already need to be very careful.
Threshfield Primary School operates a one way traffic system which requests that all parents drive to school from the direction of Linton and Church Road and leave school along Low Road in the direction of Threshfield, completing a ‘loop’ to include the B6265 and the B6160. At school run times (before and after 9am and 3.30pm) the road past the school (Low Road) becomes almost impassable. Parents of the school and many local residents are aware of the one way system but visitors to the area are not, causing increased congestion.
I know you have been made aware of the level of congestion in the village of Linton, particularly on weekends and holidays and when the weather is good, with the result that cars are parked throughout the village on both sides of the main road, reducing visibility particularly of pedestrians.
The planning application refers to approximately 6,000 vehicles a week past the site, which appears to overstate the current traffic levels and therefore underestimate the expected impact on the B6265 and B6160 arising from hotel guest, staff and delivery vehicles. Our narrow road network, on which national speed limits prevail, cannot cope with such an increase in traffic, especially given the preference of local residents and also visitors to walk. I have similar concerns surrounding the waste and sewage disposal from such a large development, given widespread and unresolved drain blockages, possible ‘fatbergs’ and other drainage issues in Linton already.
In summary, I believe the scale of the proposed development needs to be significantly scaled down so that it’s impact on the surrounding area does not have a negative impact on the surrounding area that the hotel residents have travelled here to enjoy.
Kind regards,
Natasha Midgley Linton House Linton Skipton BD23 5HQ 07880 596997
1
2 Gail Dent
From: kim scholey
Dear Sirs, I would like to write and raise an objection to application C/50/46L. Even though we do not live directly in Linton the scale of this project is concerning. As my daughter attends Beamsley school we use the B6160 to Bolton Abbey every day during the week. There is already a high volume of traffic based on type of road and can not accommodate the high volume of visitors to the development, employees from out of the immediate local area, and vehicles servicing the site. Some areas of the road is single car only and there are very limited ‘passing space’ on the road. The application of this size should be rejected as the local road network is unsuitable to accommodate the additional vehicles. This site is an unsustainable location for this development as realistically it is not accessible by means other than private motor vehicles.
Yours faithfully
K Scholey
1 Gail Dent
From: Andy Ryland
Linton School Camp(Planning Ref c/50/46L)
I wish to oppose the planning development on the following grounds
1. I believed it will cause severe damage to the special qualities of the national park (See below) Including through the use of construction techniques which generate significant greenhouse gases which will impact on the special qualities of the National Park) 2. Potentially cause significant damage to the cultural heritage of the National Park. (See below) (This needs to be quantified before permission considered) 3. Be detrimental to the social well-being of the local community. (see below) 4. Pose an undue pressure on the footpath network, which is already in a poor condition. (If permission given a significant sum needs to be given to the YDNPA for improvement works) 5. The impact of both foul and surface water has not been fully assessed or planned for 6. The traffic impact assessment has not looked at the impact on the wider road network or on capacity of linking road especially, traffic at school times, road safety issues and through Linton village a weekends and at junctions on the wider road network.
Special Quality • With its open fells and numerous valleys the Yorkshire Dales National Park offers expansive views that show to advantage the area’s beauty and variety.
As the development is on a valley side it is in an exposed position and not only will it be a blot on the landscape and a carbuncle in the landscape as viewed from Grassington and the Moors above Grassington and both side of the Wharfe Valley.
Special Quality • The Yorkshire Dales National Park is special in retaining the darkness of night across much of its area. As it suffers little from light pollution, the moon, night sky and atmospheric effects can be fully appreciated.
As the development is on a valley side it is in an exposed position at night the light pollution from the site will affect the views of the night sky effecting causing loss to people living and visiting the Wharfe Valley. In misty conditions it will appear like a glowing motorway service station perched on the valley side.
Special Quality • There are extensive areas where a true sense of tranquillity, remoteness and solitude can still be found, which is rare in England today.
As the development is on a valley side It will affect the feeling of remoteness across the whole of the valley. The potential for noise from music and event will echo across the valley so every property and field and moor will lose its sense of tranquillity. Unlike Scargill house where the activities are quite there is no assurance that the activities on this site will be similarly quiet.
One basis alone the development must be refused due to the damage it will cause to what make the National Park so special.
Foot Path Network
The applications state that the foot path network is adequate however Footpath F/p 150/1 would provide an important link to Grassington is in poor condition and steep and little more than a sheep trod. The rest of the local 1 network needs improvement to cope with extra demand. One example being to replace swing bridge with a bridge suitable to take wheel chairs.
Road Network and social wellbeing of local people due to traffic danger especially to young children walking to school.
The development is lightly to generate significant extra traffic and in particular put traffic on to the road from Linton, Linton Falls and Thresfield to Threshfield Primary School. At the beginning and end of the school day this is heavenly used by children walking to school. The road has no step offs in places and extra traffic on this route particularly by motorists not expecting the presence of children will put their lives in danger. Therefor the development would have a significant impact of the social well-being of the people of the national park and must be refused by the National Park Authority.
The most direct route from Skipton to the site via Linton involves a tricky man over crossing traffic to the north of quarry. There is a danger that traffic proceeding south is obscured due to the hill. The highway examination does not examine this danger. Secondly the centre of Linton Village is already heavily parked with vehicles during the summer and an increased level of traffic on this route on busy days will mean that there will be an need for increased reversing man overs putting pedestrians as risk.
The route from Skipton is also uses a single track road from Linton to the B6160. The road is too narrow for vehicles to pass and is also used by pedestrians and cyclists. The proposals will there generate and unacceptable levels of traffic and should therefore be refused.
Archelogy
The applicants own report notes that:
The site lies adjacent to a Scheduled Monument, and associated features may extend into the playing field area of the site. Geophysical survey of the site south and east of the existing buildings, identified evidence for medieval ridge and furrow cultivation as well as some curvilinear features which may be archaeological in origin. There is therefore potential for as yet unidentified heritage assets to exist, extending onto the former playing field where little development is proposed, except for landscaping. The area beneath the existing buildings was not suitable for geophysical survey.
The potential for the presence of significant below-ground archaeological remains across the site is considered to be high, especially in the area of the existing playing field but this is also the area with the least potential impact from development. It is possible that further below-ground remains may be present beneath the school buildings.
• As one the National Park Authorities Primary Purposes is to “Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National” and there is significant risk that the development may damage the cultural heritage. The plans should not be considered until such time as these have been properly assessed, as to approve the plan before this would in effect be authorising their destruction, abet having been recorded. Therefore the plan should be deferred until such time as a full investigation has taken place and if archaeological remains are found the plans refused on the basis that the development will destroy this cultural heritage of the Yorkshire Dales.
Climate Change
The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has acknowledged that one of the greatest threats to the Special Qualities of the National Park is Climate Change. Yet this development will used a significant amount of concrete in the construction the method of manufacture generate significant greenhouse gases. On this aspect along the development should be refused unless a method of construction which is carbon neutral can be proposed so as to ameliorate the damage this will cause to the special qualities of the National Park.
Effluent Discharge
This is clearly not been finalised for example there is discussion in the document with regard to discharge in to the Church Road Sewer. Yet in the past this sewer suffered capacity problems and still causes smells in the area where it discharges in to the river. 2
Before the application can be considered by the National Park Authority the method of both foul and surface water disposal needs to be properly resolved. In particular the effect the development will have on the amount of water entering the stream which flows in to the river Wharfe above Linton Falls. As if this is significant it will likely cause flooding problems at Threshfield School and at Linton Falls.
Yours Sincerely
Andy Ryland 12 Linton Falls Skipton BD23 6BQ
3
Karen Banks
From: Pete Wright
I am only a local resident so do not suppose that my feeling or remarks will carry much sway but feel that I must make comment.
I had hoped that the derelict buildings would soon fall down and not be a blot on the landscape of the beautiful Yorkshire dales but see that the new proposal will replace the old wooden huts with an obscene modern monstrosity which will be with us for many hundreds of years.Many local hotels cannot attract guests when charging modest fees so it is difficult to see how this luxury hotel will manage to attract custom. Hotels in the area struggle to attract staff and the proposed business is planning to have 50 full and 96 part time staff. Where will they all come from and will have to travel on narrow minor roads to get to work from considerable distance away. Traditionally staff in this type of hospitality industry are from abroad and following our leaving the EU in March there will be precious few of these people left and no more will replace them. The hotel will not operate without sufficient staff and so is doomed to fail and slowly fall into dereliction.
The drainage system cannot cope fully at the present time with Threshfield School having to have a sewage storage tank to hold waste until such time as the drains can accept it when it is pumped out to the drains. Also the Environment Agency has given Yorkshire Water authorization to put untreated sewage into the River Wharfe on Church Lane, Linton Falls. Also in this area we sometimes get pools of sewage leaking from the drain alongside the footpath running from the generating station to little Emily's bridge and also at this point sewage leaks from a manhole into captain beck. If the hotel plans are passed there will be a vast increase in sewage from guests and staff as well as volumes created from catering both preparing food and washing down after food has been served and laundry.
The development will cause a vast increase in traffic in the area with construction vehicles and plant coming and going and the leading away of spoil when excavating the underground car park alone will be a mammoth convoy of lorries. The excavation of this car park will no doubt require blasting with explosives to break the stone under the topsoil. There has been a complex survey of trees but that for flora and fauna seems to have been skilled over. T study plant life there requires a year round study at least and with the grounds being subject to little or no management there must be some interesting plant species there. My wife and I a few weeks ago found a dead polecat on the road outside the camp and there can be little doubt that it must have lived within the wooded area of the camp and that it probably was not alone there. It had no sign of injury and it would we terrible if it had been poisoned. |The dead animal was shown to national park staff in the visitor center. The camp sits in an area of ancient field systems and alongside a medieval settlement and as far as I can make out no archaeological survey has ever been undertaken and the mere digging of a few random holes will do little to help us understand the underlying history of the area.
We already have lots of walkers visiting the area many of whom do not stick to public footpaths and think that is perfectly acceptable to roam at will. Many of those with dogs do so in order that they can just let their dogs run loose dropping their mess where ever they like. Even worse is when they pick it up in plastic bags and leave them in a hedge bottom stuffed in a wall or hung up in a tree. We have also seen an increase here on both sides of the river of cyclists using these public paths across fields. Both these activities can only get worse if we encourage more visitors to stay in the proposed hotel complex.
There are alleged accusations circulating that allegedly members of National Park staff have been working in secret in order to ensure that this application goes through smoothly. If these are true it is felt that there must be an investigation and public inquiry to ensure that no irregularities have taken place. 1
I am sure that there are other reasons such as mass congestion of narrow roads on the access to the development as there will be mass increases in vehicle movement during construction with developers plant and contractors and subsequent guests and staff who will in the majority of cases have to come through Linton or through Grassington and down Church Lane passed Threshfield School. Both these narrow lanes will not be able to cope with increased traffic.
Yours, Pete Wright, Greenhaw Cottage, Linton Falls.
2
The Old Rectory Linton-in-Craven BD23 5HH
January 15th 2019
Dear Planning Department,
Planning Ref: C/50/46L
In response the above application I would like to object to this application for the reasons noted below.
Sewage- In document NGR SE 002.628 section 6 the document refers to the historical site waste output, but there is no mention of the proposed output for the proposed new development. Given the likely intense usage and with the far greater staffing and occupancy levels on the proposal submitted, I have real concerns as to the current local infrastructure ability to cope. In addition, to note the population of Grassington as 1600 is misleading as the current sewage treatment plant services not just Grassington but Threshfield, Linton Falls and Linton Village. Since the closure of the site, stated as 1986, the development of many more homes have been erected, putting an additional and unnecessary strain on the existing treatment plant. The parks have recognised this, and quite rightly ensured new developments should make alternative treatment/septic tank arrangements to ensure the infrastructure isn’t overloaded. I believe the proposed development has not made an attempt to work on a viable solution to the sewage and should accordingly be rejected.
Scale- this development is a ‘Major Development’ as defined by the policy as being many times the 1000m2 measure. What we are now having to consider as a community is totally outrageous. Our family were initially of the view that this application was nothing more than an ambitious plan designed at settling on something altogether more modest. Alas, we find this is certainly not the case as the parks officers have suggested this is an acceptable scheme, based on their time spent in consultation over several years. God only knows what the first scheme must have looked like if this is the proposed development. We strongly object and regard the prosed plan as unacceptable, as this is altogether far too grand and unsightly. From the Hebden road the current camp is notable and not altogether a pleasant vista, but the current scheme would be far larger and a total eye sore. This scheme should be rejected as there are no grounds to substantiate the approval of said scheme, as a ‘Major Development’, under current planning policy. It is widely accepted that sprawling developments are frowned upon especially when they alter the aesthetic appearance of a village/community. Here we have one such proposal which isn’t sympathetically located either within an existing village, or small enough to blend in, but rather a grand ‘island development’ with no surrounding infrastructure to support its existence. Importantly, why are several of the buildings located on the highest land to the west end of the development? These are in direct line of sight from the Village of Linton. Our home, The Old Rectory, has three of our bedrooms and one bathroom looking directly onto the proposed site, and we will have full line of sight of the new buildings to the west end of this proposed development. Could these not have been placed on the lower levels rather than on the very top edge of the development? These units are an aesthetically awful imposition and I object to these on the proposed plans.
Access & Traffic- We have 3 children who walk to local schools from Linton Village, 2 too Threshfield Primary and 1 who walks daily to and from Upper Wharfedale. These routes will incur significant additional traffic flow as staff and guests make their way to the proposed development. There are no footpaths from our village to either school and the roadside, is the only route. In the early hours during the Autumn and Spring we have always been concerned over their safety, but with this proposal they will for certain have the additional dangers as drivers who will be setting off in cold/frosty conditions, not familiar with the area, and potentially setting their sat navs. Does this now mean we will have to join the increasing hoards who drive their offspring to school twice a day? I do hope not. In the past the camp was used as a home for vulnerable children, which meant the site was limited to local staff, that knew the area, and the children were all resident. The current application proposes something altogether very different and will be reliant on many more cars/deliveries using the small lanes around the area. No roads around Linton can cope with this additional volume. I object to the application for the above reasons.
Light pollution- I note from the application that the cafes and restaurants open until 11.00pm and are designed with full length ceiling to floor glass frontages. I believe this offers unnecessary light invasion for the wildlife and local residents and will be unsightly.
Footpaths and pedestrian walkers- this is the most difficult point to make without sounding obtuse. Visitors travel to the dales to enjoy our beautiful surroundings, and tourism is one of the economic pillars that our communities rely upon, along with agriculture and the quarries. Footfall from this development to our village will be either along a particularly wet path to the south of the camp or down the road and the narrow back lane into Linton. Guests will understandably wish to enjoy the hospitality of the Fountain Inn and then regularly we will have the effect of late-night noise and revelry that goes with a journey back to the new development. At no point in the proposal has there been a scheme to upgrade the paths or road for the very simple reason this couldn’t happen. Nor has there been details on how the boundary to the camp will be secured/walled/fenced. I own two of the main fields between the camp and the village along with Glebe Farm, which are all in the direct line from the camp to the village. Meanwhile, and due to this application, the local parish council are proposing to make a lot of the Linton Village a parking by permit for residents. This is for the most part a reaction to this planning proposal, as given the poor paths and road to the village many will drive and congest the narrow lanes and the limited parking in the village. Similarly, Grassington will also be accessed across the road and down a field, all in the dark, and again in and around local residents, causing noise, litter and nuisance. I contest that this scheme will materially affect the appearance of our village, and the surrounding area.
Finally, I consider our approach as progressive and commercially focused. This ‘grand scheme’ is a huge step away from the general progressive approach taken by the national parks and a worrying insight In to what I hope will not represent a trend in the future.
Your sincerely
Mr John Sumner Mrs Leigh-Anne Sumner Karen Banks
From: Heather Throup
Lane End Farm
Bradley
BD20 9HE 17th January 2019
Dear Sirs,
I am voicing my concerns over the proposed development at Linton as a number of my family live in the village and I spend a significant amount of time there being the main carer for my grandchildren who attend the local schools walking on the narrow roads daily. Consequently I know the area very well and the problems we experience throughout the year with a very high volume of traffic.
However my main concerns are:
1. The amount and scale of the the development
The scale of the development is extremely inappropriate for this particular rural location within the Yorkshire Dales National Park. My understanding of government planning policies advises that such a major development should be refused in the National Parks unless there are exceptional circumstances. I am not aware that any such circumstances exist.
2. Major hazardous installation
The site ear-marked for this planning application lies in very close proximity to an Ethylene Pipeline that I know is a major hazardous installation. In the event of an emergency situation a large number of tourists would not know what to do or which direction to go in an event of a breach, nor are there extensive emergency services close at hand. Therefore a development of this scale should be refused.
3. Highway/traffic
Because of the size of the proposed development and the nature of the proposed business it will unacceptably increase the traffic on our local narrow highways, because of the many vehicle trips made by visitors to the development, employees from out of the local area and the many vehicles servicing the site daily and prior to this there will be many heavy goods and construction vehicles using our local roads during development. Our local road network is very unsuitable to accommodate the additional vehicle movements and the site is in an unsustainable location for this development as realistically it is not accessible by means other than private vehicles. Children from both Threshfield Primary School and Upper Wharfdale walk these routes daily. The application should be refused for the reasons relating to Highways Traffic and Sustainability.
4. Light Pollution
1 External lighting to facilitate the proposed use of this large development and the design of the buildings that include extensive areas of glazing will most certainly create light pollution and will most certainly create light pollution and will have an unacceptable impact on the dark skies of the Yorkshire North Parks.
5. Landscape impact
The scale and design of the proposed hotel complex, self catering accommodation and other associated leisure development will have an unacceptable impact on the very special qualities of this area of the Yorkshire Dales National Parks
Yours Faithfully
Heather Throup
2 Karen Banks
From: Norman Cooke
Re. Former Linton School Camp Site, Linton.
To whom it may concern. I have considered the above application as detailed on your web site. I have also read the submission from Linton Parish Council outlining their objections to this proposal. I think they have created a comprehensive, balanced and powerful document outlining accurately the reasons why the proposed development should be rejected. I fully endorse their submission. Yours sincerely,
Norman M Cooke OBE, Park Grange Barn, Threshfield, Skipton, North Yorkshire. BD23 5EY.
1 Karen Banks
From: J FORD
I write from Fountaine Cottage Linton regarding the above referenced application and in support of the views expressed by Linton Parish Council.
Nothing has changed in the local area since the 2006 application for 40 chalets which was rejected comprehensively as contrary to National Park Policies.
The proposal for 61 units and associated buildings is an alien concept which would destroy the nature of Linton village.Linton has a population of 176 (2011 census) and this proposal would effectively create an adjacent totally new village in excess of 350 and more including staff.This is evidenced by the proposed 160 plus car park. Whilst I am aware of changes to planning legislation surely the intention is not to provide for the wholesale creation of new villages within National Parks.
Officers should already be aware of the parking congestion within Linton village particularly at weekends and in the summer.The traffic generated by the proposed development both initial large construction machinery and subsequent visitor and support staff would place a disproportionate and dangerous load upon Lauradale Lane and Linton village which would conflict with Policy SP4
Finally the comment in the application regarding Consultation is risible - there has been no attempt of consequence made to consult Linton residents.
John L Ford
1 Karen Banks
From: Graham Craven
The camp is a prime site in the locality that would benefit from development however, if approved, the above planning application will be of considerable detriment to the area for the following reasons.
The proposal is significantly larger than the current camp and the design would dominate negatively in such a rural area.
Current tourist accommodation is well balanced and integrated throughout the local villages and the community. The application refers to research undertaken a number of years ago and argues that this will fill the shortfall in accommodation. Since that research, a large number of quality Airbnb business have been established by local residents for which there is a healthy demand. This development argues that it is sustainable on minimum occupancy. As a large business it will inevitably resort to viariable pricing according to demand, undercutting Airbnb and boutique hotel rates and taking money out of the local economy rather than increasing it.
Although it will create a substantial number of low paid jobs, current business already struggle to attract local people due to woefully inadequate affordable housing in the locality. This will therefore create considerable competition with local business to attract and retain quality staff. It will inevitably therefore result in significant extra traffic not only from holiday makers but employees on a daily basis.
We would urge the Planning service to fundamentally rethink the use of the site to create affordable housing which would enable development to be in keeping with the area and attract and retain young people to the locality thereby improving employment shortages and to create a sustainable and diverse community.
Graham and Gill Craven Monks Wood Monkholme Lane Threshfield BD23 5HE
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
1 Gail Dent
From: [email protected] Sent: 16 January 2019 14:31 To: Planning Subject: Linton Camp Planning Application
From Angela and Charles Knowles
Ivy Cottage, Linton-in-Craven, Skipton. North Yorkshire. BD23 5HH
16th January 2019
Planning Service Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL
Linton Camp Planning Application C/50/46L
Dear Sirs,
As long term residents of Linton with a view of part of Linton Camp we realise that something should be done to improve the site which in its present state is detrimental to the appearance of the Dales National Park.
However the present proposal, in our opinion, it disproportionately large for the area and its narrow roads.
We support the response to this application from the Linton Parish Council.
Charles and Angela Knowles
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
Gail Dent
From: Glenda Priestnall
Dear Sir I strongly object to the proposed plan to build a leisure complex on the old camp site in Linton The need for low cost housing far outweighs that of a leisure centre which will increase traffic and noise in a largely unspoilt rural area . The needs of local young people should be seen as a priority rather than increasing tourism which is already too much for the villages to cope with Yours faithfully Mrs Glenda Priestnall BD235EN
Sent from my iPad
1 Gail Dent
From: Michael Lovitt
RE C/50/46L
I fully endorse the Response to LINTON CAMP PLANNING APPLICATION presented by Linton Parish Council and in addition would wish to comment on the limited time made available for a response. Whilst recognising that the time allowed was within the legal limit it was obvious that this application would arouse local concerns and it was insensitive to say the least to allow for the minimum time for response.
Michael Lovitt FALLS COTTAGE LINTON FALLS
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
1 Gail Dent
From: A GREEN
6 Fountaines Cottages
Linton
Ref C/50/46L
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing to express my objections to this planning application
The size of the development seems extremely large and inappropriate, the site is also visible from Grassington and will probably be extremely well lit up. These all impact severally on the beautiful views in the dales and I would have thought contravene your own planning policies
The site is only accessible via a minor B road. The increase in traffic on this road will severally impact Linton Village and Threshfield.
I believe that there will be an increases Flood risk with a development of this size on this site.
The site has previously been an educational site, and since the closure of the School there have been several applications for more appropriate use been turned down.
Regards
Barbara Weatherald
1 Gail Dent
From: Ian Green
I write to object to the proposed development in the strongest possible terms.
My greatest concern is for the safety of my family. I live in Linton with my wife and two young children, and the local roads are already extremely busy. Traffic heading towards Burnsall from Skipton already comes via Linton and uses a narrow single track lane. This is the same route that would be used to reach the site for many visitors, and is the default route for sat-nav. Many people already visit Linton, with the result that cars are parked in every available space most days of the year. The size of the roads and the nature of the village mean that there is no room for a pavement, nor space for the number of cars that visit.
Traffic arriving from Harrogate would pass by Threshfield Primary School - this is also an over-used road. Like many other families we walk our 4 year old to school from Linton most days, and push our 2 year old in a pram. Any extra traffic on the roads would not only have a negative impact on the environment, but would add a very real risk to the safety of our children.
The sheer size of this development is completely at odds with the surrounding environment. It represents a massive increase on the floor space of the existing buildings. The surrounding countryside and villages are unspoilt and embody the special qualities of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. A hotel and associated buildings will have a huge and permanent impact on this area. A key purpose of the YDNP is conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the park - clearly this development does not help to achieve that aim, and along with the damage to the local environment, it will also impact many important public views.
The site is visible from many villages in the area, and the additional internal and external lights will be a source of light pollution that impacts the dark night skies of the area. This is yet further damage to another special feature of the park, and it is the duty of the YDNP to prevent this intrusion.
I am concerned that the YDNP would even consider this proposal, given that it is contrary to many of the stated aims of the Park. The proposal is also clearly at odds with planning policy in relation to conserving natural beauty, restricting major developments, impacting public views, light pollution and road traffic. I also understand that both the NYCC Flood Authority and the Environment Agency have objected on the grounds of flood risk and drainage.
In summary, I ask that you refuse this development, and any amendments or similar developments. There is no place in this area for any development of this nature. The future of this incredible and unique, yet vulnerable, National Park is in your hands.
Kind regards,
Ian Green Stoneycroft Linton North Yorkshire BD23 5HH
1 Gail Dent
From: Annette Wetherell
Ref: (C/50/46L)
My objection to the above planning application is the extra traffic this will cause fhrough the village of Linton-in-Craven. As a fourth generation resident of the village, in a property that borders the road, I have witnessed the increase in traffic over the decades. I believe the local road network is unsuitable to accommodate any additional vehicle movement.
Visitors to the area come, hopefully, for the relative peace and tranquillity of our village, which has 46 houses and a population of approximately 120. To add the proposed number of 'dwellings" nearby is totally out of proportion.
Please refuse this planning application. Thankyou for receiving and reading this email.
Regards
Annette Wetherell (Mrs) Manor House Farm Linton in Craven
1 Gail Dent
From: David Creed
We wish to register our opposition to the proposed development in application C/50/46L. Size and Traffic impact This development is wholly inappropriate for a village of Linton’s size and will radically change the character and amenity value of the immediate area. In the External Lighting Assessment, page 3, the development is stated to have 47 bedrooms and 20 beds in lodges. Assuming the 47 bedrooms hold an average of two people and adding the 20 beds in the lodges the capacity will be at least 114 visitors. Virtually all will arrive in cars since access by public transport is very limited and the hotel is aimed at social groups A/B and over 55 year-olds who would not normally arrive by public transport. Consequently traffic movements by residents into or out of the site will be at least 110 per day assuming each car averages two people and makes just one return journey. Adding in daily visits by service vehicles, and staff vehicles for the proposed 50 full time and 96 part-time employees (page 11 Design and Access Statement and the Application Form) each of whom probably will make at least one return journey a day, means that it is likely that movements into or out of the site will be in excess of 400 per day. This will increase by approximately 50% the traffic on the B6160 which was assessed at around 407 movements day eastbound and 448 westbound (Traffic Assessment page 7 para 5.2). Traffic approaching the site from the south through Linton village will be directed by satnav onto the single-track road forking right after the village to connect to the B6160. This road is totally unsuited to such traffic. The submitted Traffic Assessment that assesses trips at 60 per day (Traffic Assessment page 7 para 5.5) is misleading. There are other apparently misleading statements in the Application – for example it is not credible that the site employs 25 full-time people (Application Form section 18) since it is virtually derelict. Policy SP4 would be breached by the safety and environmental impact of the development and we object to the development on those grounds. The site is much better suited to one or two high value residential properties. Light impact We also wish to object on the grounds of lighting impact. Dark skies are of great importance to visitors and wildlife. Light pollution from the site will be substantial, not just from the buildings and access paths but from traffic movements after dark. Landscape impact We further object on the grounds that the landscape impact will be negative. The YDNP occupies an historic landscape which is its primary visitor attraction. Adding a modern hotel complex will erode the quality of that landscape in the Linton/ Grassington area. Policy SP2 will be breached since the development will not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the park.
David and Anne Creed Spring Cottage Linton BD23 5HJ 12 January 2019
1 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlo ok prevented automatic downlo ad of this picture from Virus-free. www.avg.com the Internet.
2 Gail Dent
From: Paul Cutler
From: Paul & Hannah Cutler
New House Linton North Yorkshire BD23 5HJ
12th January 2019
Dear Sirs
We write to strongly object to the planning application of Linton Camp ( C/50/46L )
We are residents of Linton village and if the development was to go ahead would have the following irreversible consequences for our family and the village environment , may I also request that you acknowledge receipt of this email.
1. Road safety and parking are already a very significant issue in the village. We have a 4 year old son who attends Threshfield Primary School, when the weather permits we make the effort to walk to/from school, the roads in the village already provide us with concerns on this issue as there is no traffic or parking management in place. The main road through the village is essentially as single track lane because of the parking on both sides of Lauderdale Lane and this is often the case even at 8:45am on a January morning, to add extra cars and service vehicles into this environment is not taking the needs and safety of village residents ( and visitors ) into account.
The parking situation is already extremely unsatisfactory and at times literally impossible, we do not have the luxury of parking at our home, when we do use the car for the school run when we return after less than 10 minutes in the afternoon it is currently very rare that we can park near our home as spaces fill so quickly, we are then left with the only option of parking on Lauderdale Lane with its double parking and 60 mph speed limit, and unenviable task of controlling a 4 year old in this environment.
We do not accept that a development of this size will not exasperate these issues, not only in volume of traffic using the roads in the village but also the size of those vehicles.
2. The sheer scale of the proposed development is completely out of context to the size and environment of Linton village, we appreciate we are extremely lucky to be able to bring up our family in this environment, but to add such a substantial commercial venture attached to the village will change it forever.
3. The location of our home faces towards the proposed site meaning light pollution is inevitable despite whatever efforts are made to minimise any issue, the upper portion of the proposed build will be visible from our main bedroom and gone will be the uninterrupted views, and at night the darkness we adore.
1 We would ask that this application be rejected, and that the planning authority come and discuss with residents what would be a suitable development of the site, and also how we can overcome the significant traffic issues that already exist in the village that affect the safety of residents and visitors alike.
Regards
Paul & Hannah Cutler.
2
Gail Dent
From: Phyllida Oates
I have only just learned of this proposed development - where has there been publicised notification of this, leaving us only a short time to respond?
Please will you note my STRONG OBJECTION to your potential approval of the redevelopment of the Linton Camp site. This is one of our ancient archaeological sites, and the evidence is still visible - bad enough when the Camp/school/hospital was established, but at least THAT did not violate the land so, and was meant to be only temporary. These new plans are TOTALLY INACCEPTABLE !
Previous plans for housing were abandoned/disallowed mainly due to the access on such a narrow road (which MUST NOT be widened just to please the indulgent modern public), and the prospect of such a leisure development is OUTRAGEOUS, considering the heavy building/supply traffic, continuous maintenance supplies, disruption and destruction of such a dales road known for its historic charm...... and then the busyness of the development users.
HOW CAN YOU EVEN CONSIDER SUCH A DEVELOPMENT ON SUCH A SENSITIVE SITE?
Phyllida Oates, 15 Hardy Grange, Grassington.
1 Gail Dent
From: The Pearsons
Sirs, I would like to register my objections to the above development for a number of reasons:
• There is no obvious need for hotel development in the area. • Any such development would be totally out of keeping with the architecture of the Linton area which would be irreparably harmed by this proposed development both visually and also socio- economically. • I fail to see any financial benefit accruing to the area. • The site and its surroundings are important from a geological and botanical point of view, and those would be permanently damaged by any construction. Locals and visitors enjoy the Dales countryside and any diminution of this must be opposed. • Such development would increase the traffic on the B6160, a narrow country road, creating danger to road users, drivers especially those not familiar with the area; cyclists whose numbers have increased greatly in the past few years, and walkers, whether they are locals or visiting hikers. • There would be a greatly increased traffic flow through Linton village which is already congested and which is served by narrow single track roads both from the Grassington direction and also from the Skipton direction. This would include hotel employees travelling to work, probably in the main from Skipton, as there would not be sufficient within the immediate local catchment, and also hotel visitors mingling with the traffic which is usually parked randomly within the village. • I object to rights of way being altered purely for the convenience of developers.
Please take these comments into account when considering the application which will, I trust, be refused.
Bryan Pearson, Cobble Close, Skirethorns, Threshfield, Skipton BD23 5NX.
1 Gail Dent
From: Wally Wilton
The National Park Authority has long accepted the need for 'Affordable Homes' within the National Park to ensure that primarily young local people can continue to live and work in the area of their birth and thereby ensuring a diverse age band across the park. The recent government changes to the Affordable Homes regulations have made matters considerably more difficult, despite representation by amongst others, The YDNP.
It beggars belief therefore than when a somewhat unique parcel of land such as Linton Camp becomes available and, which could provide space for a significant number of new homes, and therefore an equally significant number of affordable houses,the YDNP see fit to encourage the building of yet another 'honey pot' for tourism.
Whilst tourism has a place within the park it should not be at the expense of affordable housing for local people. The YDNP Planning Authority is widely known for it's sometimes inconsistent approach to planning, acceptance of this particular planning application would confirm that view.
Wally Wilton 4 Doctor Laithe, Threshfield, Nr Skipton, N. Yorkshire BD23 5HP 01756 752 196
1 Gail Dent
From: Val's Account
I thought that the Park was concerned about the lack of affordable housing for young people in the Park? Why is valuable land like this in Linton being used for - a massive hotel (how will this fit into our landscape)? And not being used for affordable homes? Who could use an outdoor swimming pool in our climate?! How is the road through Linton going to cope with this extra traffic? How is the narrow Burnsall road going to cope with the traffic? How about the safety of walkers on the road?
I object to this planning application. Again another example of the inconsistency of the Park Planning Department.
Val Walker-Wilton Fell House, 4 Doctor Laithe Threshfield Nr. Skipton BD23 5HP
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1