Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Planning Department Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson (Area Planning Officer)

BY EMAIL TO WENDY.THOMPSON@ YORKSHIREDALES.ORG.UK AND [email protected]

23 July 2020

Dear Ms Thompson

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide holiday accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

We refer to Wendy Thompson’s email of 4 July 2020, addressed to the Cracoe Parish Council, in respect of the above application (a copy of which has been forwarded to us as it was not sent to us directly).

We refer to the following:-

• the initial letter of objection to the proposed development dated 22 April 2019 (the “Initial Letter of Objection”);

• the second letter of objection, in relation to previously amended plans, dated 27 October 2019 (the “October 2019 Letter of Objection);

• my email of 15 November 2019 (timed at 2:25 pm) in relation to ownership and rights of access in relation to Swinden Lane (the “Rights of Access Email”); and

• the third letter of objection, in relation to previously amended plans, dated 26 March 2020 (the “March 2020 Letter of Objection”),

(being together the “Existing Objection Documents”).

As you know, the Initial Letter of Objection and the October 2019 Letter of Objection were submitted jointly by various residents of Cracoe. Due to the Covid-19 outbreak and restrictions on social interaction, we have not had the opportunity of canvassing everyone’s views regarding the content of your email of 4 July 2020, the further amended plans nor the report from the Local Highway Authority. So, as was the case with the March 2020 Letter of Objection, we are writing this letter on our own account though we doubt that anyone’s views will have changed in relation to the proposed development. We understand that some people will be contacting you separately about these most recent matters and that Karen Booth may be in touch with you on behalf of the Cracoe Parish Council.

Whilst the report from the Local Highway Authority addresses the issue concerning the access from Swinden Lane onto the main road (which for the record we still have concerns about from a safety and suitability perspective) neither your email nor the amended plans address any of

Reference 1

the other substantive objections which we raised before in the Existing Objection Documents to the proposed development.

With respect, it really does feel like our objections are being addressed on somewhat of a selective basis – with some being taken into account (in which regard we acknowledge that progress has been made) whilst others appear to have been completely disregarded and in respect of which we have not received any response at all – which, I’m sure you will appreciate, is extremely frustrating in that we find ourselves constantly having to write further letters of objection (like this one) just repeating much of what we’ve said before. To be honest, we are really beginning to wonder whether there’s any real point in raising objections to this proposed development – as we don’t appear to be making any progress on the remaining key issues.

So, at the risk of repeating ourselves for the umpteenth time, we list below the various objections (as contained in the Existing Objection Documents) which have still not been satisfactorily addressed (in part or at all). These also contain some additional comments (including in response to some of the points raised in your email of 4 July 2020), where appropriate (we do not though intend to repeat in full all our existing objections):-

1. Swinden Lane Access Issues – Suitability and Ownership/Legal Rights of Access

Whilst we acknowledge the views of the Local Highway Authority, with respect their report does not address the suitability of Swinden Lane itself as a means of access (only the question of visibility and safety at the junction).

As we’ve said previously, Swinden Lane is in private ownership – in fact the relevant section is owned by two separate persons (neither of whom are the applicants). It is not a public highway and has not been adopted as such. In this regard, we note that in the further amended plans there remains a small comment tucked away in the bottom left hand corner of one page which reads:-

“County highways authority have raised no objection to the use of the lane”.

As mentioned in our March 2020 Letter of Objection, with respect, County highways views on the use of the lane itself are irrelevant as it is privately owned and it has nothing to do with them.

In light of the private ownership of Swinden Lane we would repeat all the comments about legal rights of access, and the effect of s34(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) made in the Rights of Access Email. In particular, that it is a criminal offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway without lawful authority. Swinden Lane is a public bridleway – indeed, as you’ll know, there is a Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority sign at the top of the lane referring to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. That sign makes it clear that Swinden Lane cannot be used for vehicular access by the public.

So, if someone uses a footpath or bridleway for vehicular access, it will be a criminal offence unless they have the consent of the landowner, who is considered to be ‘the lawful authority’ i.e. that is can be shown that there is a private right in place for the relevant people to use the accessway by the relevant means to gain vehicular access to the relevant property. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988 the burden of proving that there is such a vehicular right of way in place rests with the defendant. The prosecution does not have to show that there are no vehicular rights, but rather the defendant has to show that there are such vehicular rights in place.

Reference 2

In addition, any such use with lawful authority can only take place so long as the usage will not cause a public nuisance to other highway users – walkers, cyclists and people on horseback. Whilst the number of bedrooms has reduced from 7 to 4, this still results in a significant number of additional vehicles having to enter, exit and drive up and down Swinden Lane (possibly in addition to access by the proposed 2 part- time staff).

To re-iterate what we have said before – whilst the applicants themselves probably do have personal rights of access, as the owners of Shed Barn, that would not extend (without the existence or granting of appropriate rights by a past or both of the current owners of Swinden Lane) to paying visitors, contractors / developers / workpersons and staff.

We have asked before, and on more than one occasion, what steps Yorkshire Dales National Park has taken to ensure that valid legal rights of access exist, in respect of the proposed use but to date we have not heard from you in this regard. In particular, have the applicants provided clear, documented proof that the required legal rights of access exist in respect of Swinden Lane – if so, please could you provide copies of the relevant documentation for review – if not, why have you not investigated this further and asked for the appropriate documentary evidence to be provided ? We look forward to hearing from you about this.

Additionally, we would repeat the comments made in our Initial Letter of Objection. Swinden Lane is an unsealed public bridleway which is used by walkers (including local dog walkers), horses and their riders, cyclists and farmers to access the farm land which lies beside the whole length of Swinden Lane (which carries on beyond Shed Barn for some distance). It has a rough unfinished surface and is narrow – only suitable for small farm vehicles. There are no passing places along Swinden Lane.

It was surface-dressed a few years ago (using quarry waste from Swinden quarry and financed out of local community funds) but the surface is now beginning to break up again – with the disintegration starting from the top of Swinden Lane but, in particular, in the section which leads from the wooden farm gate (which is located about 150 yards from the start of Swinden Lane) and the railway bridge. The section leading to the railway bridge is also prone to flooding as the brook which runs to the West of Swinden Lane (looking North and before the first wooden gate) regularly overflows its banks during periods of rainfall and that water flows down the access track towards the area of the railway bridge. The section of track underneath the railway bridge (except in periods of really dry weather) is permanently waterlogged and somewhat of a mud quagmire because it is in a dip at a lower level than the surrounding ground - walkers have to negotiate a narrow slightly raised path/ledge underneath the bridge but that path/ledge itself also suffers from surface water and mud (splashed from vehicles passing under the bridge).

We remain concerned about the further deterioration to the surface of Swinden Lane which this development and increased traffic flow will inevitably cause – bearing in mind also that this is a public bridleway. What assurances can you provide that this will not happen – in particular, we would like to understand the applicants’ proposals in this regard. For example, are they planning to tarmac the full access length of Swinden Lane to Shed Barn and to also drain the lane ? If not, why not ? Also, what are their proposals for improving the state of the raised path/ledge underneath the bridge and to protect walkers etc from the increased traffic flow ?

It’s frankly not acceptable just to ignore the poor state the lane is in and what might happen to it with the development - as it’s used by walkers (including local dog walkers), horses and their riders, cyclists and farmers to access the farm land which lies beside the whole length of Swinden Lane.

We also remain concerned as to the possibility of visitors to Shed Barn and/or the part-time staff deciding (for whatever reason – for instance, if the track itself is flooded

Reference 3

or they don’t fancy driving their car through the ½ foot of mud which is commonly encountered underneath the railway bridge – we certainly wouldn’t) to park on the public highway in the vicinity of the Fleets Lane junction (which would present significant safety issues both for users of the public highway and pedestrians) or to try to park in other areas along Swinden Lane (at the top end of which are some private parking spaces for the local residents at Town End – including our own).

We remain puzzled as to why none of these issues have been addressed and why we have received absolutely no response from anyone about these points. It appears that we are just being ignored – please can you provide some feedback in this regard.

2. Refuse Collection

This is another point which appears to have fallen into a black-hole. We would reiterate the observations we made in this regard about the wholly unsuitable nature of Swinden Lane as a means of access for refuse collection wagons (and indeed for residential vehicles generally). For safety and practical reasons we sincerely doubt that refuse collection wagons would be physically able (or operationally prepared) to travel down Swinden Lane, firstly through the wooden gate (which is only 2.9 - 3.26m wide), secondly under the railway bridge (which may neither be sufficiently wide or high enough to accommodate refuse collection wagons) and finally to then reverse onto the site. Noting also the comments we make in paragraph 1 above about the state of the surface of Swinden Lane – the passage of any refuse wagons up and down the lane would just make matters even worse.

We have asked (again on more than one occasion) whether the views of Craven District Council have been sought about the applicants’ proposal for the collection of refuse. We assume that the answer is “no” – otherwise we assume that we would have sight of some form of report/permission from them. So why have their views not been sought ? Again it appears that this particular issue is just being ignored but it’s very important.

To be clear - for collection, Craven District Council require bins to be left by the immediate public roadside. So, either backing 200 metres down the narrow track that comprises Swinden Lane (which has no passing spaces) and through narrow access points or driving forwards down Swinden Lane, to then reverse on site and drive back out again, are unlikely to be operationally feasible. Assuming that refuse wagons will not be prepared to drive down Swinden Lane (and we would object if they attempted to do that – because it would further degrade the surface of the track and lead to safety and noise issues), what would happen in relation to refuse for collection ? Any bin storage at the top of Swinden Lane (next to the road) would be unacceptable – as it would obstruct the footpath/public highway and would be somewhat unsightly at the top of a public bridleway.

We look forward to hearing from you about this.

3. Foul Water Discharge/Sewage

3.1 We note that in your email of 4 July 2020 you have stated as follows:-

“Concerns have also been raised in relation to the sewage disposal at the barn and a Package Sewage treatment plant has been proposed which would meet BS EN: 12566 which refer to Septic tanks and small wastewater treatment systems. It is my understanding that if planning permission were granted, then the building control officer overseeing the conversion works would ensure that the package treatment system was correct and of the right size and efficacy for the site”.

With respect this is somewhat missing the precise point which we have been making in this regard – so to repeat again what we’ve said before.

Reference 4

3.2 In paragraph 3 of our Initial Letter of Objection, we pointed out the unsuitability of the proposed discharge of sewage, via a treatment plant, in to the small brook which runs through one corner of the property. In this regard, we highlighted the fact the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges provide that any discharge to surface water must be made to a watercourse that normally has flow throughout the year. This means that the discharge cannot be to surface water that does not contain flowing water throughout the course of the year (unless there is an unusually long period of dry weather or a drought). Ditches are no longer acceptable to discharge to. For the reasons explained in our Initial Letter of Objection (about the capacity of the stream and the fact that it dries up/has a low flow rate in warmer periods – even relatively short ones and not just after ‘unusually long periods of dry weather or a drought’), we remain of the view that the proposed discharge is not compliant with the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges.

3.3 The fact that the building control officer “would ensure that the package treatment system was correct and of the right size and efficacy for the site” and that the package treatment plant would meet certain standards, doesn’t address the legal issue. The fact remains that, as a matter of law, any discharge to surface water must be made to a watercourse that normally has flow throughout the year – and this is simply not the case for the small brook into which the proposed discharge is to be made.

3.4 We had previously understood that you had asked the applicants to obtain a report from the Environment Agency – but perhaps we were wrong about this as absolutely nothing has happened on this front. So, we would be grateful for an adequate explanation as to why the Environment Agency has not been approached about this and shown the photographs we’ve provided in the Existing Objection Documents about the low flow, and sometimes almost non-existent flow, of the brook

4. Pollution : Noise, Vehicle Fumes and Light

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection (which we would repeat notwithstanding the reduction in the number of bedrooms and vehicles).

5. Accommodation/Out of Season

Notwithstanding the change of use for holiday accommodation and the reduction in the number of bedrooms and vehicles, please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

6. Impact on the Landscape

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

7. Construction Vehicles

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

8. Livestock

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

9. Conclusion

In conclusion, and for the reasons explained in the Existing Objection Documents and in this further letter, we strongly object to the proposed development and would respectfully request the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting this planning application.

Reference 5

Finally, and as we’ve said before, we remain somewhat surprised that, despite the passage of a substantial period of time since the initial application was lodged and having raised points on multiple occasions, some of our key substantive objections have still not been addressed and we have not been provided with any information whatsoever from either the applicants or the Yorkshire Dales National Park about these specific objections - which is increasingly concerning.

Yours faithfully

Name(s) : Stephen and Wendy Woods

Property Name / Address : Merlin Cottage, Town End, Cracoe

Reference 6 Karen Banks

From: [email protected] Sent: 23 July 2020 19:54 To: Planning Subject: Fwd: Planning application Shed Barn, Cracoe

------Original Message ------From: "[email protected]" To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 23 Jul, 2020 At 15:16 Subject: Fwd: Planning application Shed Barn, Cracoe

------Original Message ------From: "[email protected]" To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, 21 Mar, 2020 At 21:45 Subject: Fwd: Planning application Shed Barn, Cracoe

------Original Message ------From: "[email protected]" To: [email protected] Sent: 21.03.20 Subject: Planning application Shed Barn, Cracoe

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number: C/23/116 Application for: full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide holiday accommodation. Location of Development: Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe.

For the attention of Wendy Thompson.

We have recently been made aware of the amended planning application for Shed Barn. After reading the application we noticed that there are some changes such as the reduction of bedrooms from 7 to 4, the replacement of the solar panels and change of parking position however there are still objections that we raised that still have not been addressed from the last consultation period. We are therefore, sending this

1 email to reiterate our strong objections to the above proposed development and would like these objections to be considered. Our reasons for this objection are as follows:

Swinden Lane. Swinden Lane is not a road, it clearly states on our land deeds and on the signage at the top of the lane, that Swinden Lane is a bridleway not a road and the signage clearly states that the track is not suitable for motor vehicles or motor cycles. The track is only used ( for access ) by three resident vehicles and small farm vehicles, of whom have permission and is evidenced in residents deeds. The deeds actually state that access to Shed Barn is only granted for agricultural use, not for the purpose that the applicants have applied for. The track is prone to flooding, which is most of the winter months and is in a bad state of repair with many potholes and uneven ground. The track will not sustain the proposal of increased traffic. Are the applicants willing to share the maintenance of the track and over grown vegetation of Swinden Lane? There is also a safety issue on entering and exiting Swinden Lane as there is limited visiblilty at the opening of this bridleway. We are aware that Highways have submitted a new report stating that there would be no safety issues with this , however given the state of Swinden Lane, we foresee some private vehicles not wanting to use the track in case of causing damage to their vehicle so will therefore park on Hetton Road either side of the track entrance, causing a safety issue for residents and farming vehicles exiting Swinden Lane. In addition to this, due to the narrowness of Hetton Road cars parked along Hetton Road this will cause problems for buses and farming vehicles who regularly use this route.

Refuse collection The proposed plan states that a refuse vehicle will be collecting refuse from the site using Swinden Lane as access. We find this extremely unlikely that a refuse vehicle of 2.5 metre in height and width will be able to travel down the narrow bridle way that is Swinden lane, negotiate the gate at the bottom and fit securely under the railway bridge. There are no passing places on the bridleway, therefore we ask the question will the refuse vehicle reverse up/down for access? Either way this could prove to be a safety issue. Again we go back to the initial statement regarding the condition of the track and its ability to cope with year round HGV weights. Have the applicants contacted the Council refuse collection regarding this?

Location of Shed Barn We believe that Yorkshire Dales planning guidelines states that barn developments for group accommodation are to be located next to a main road. However this planning proposal IS NOT next to a main road it is on a bridle way, which leads up to a narrow road and does NOT lead to a main road. Therefore isn't this a breach of Yorkshire Dales planning guidelines?

Environmental Concerns

As the plans state that the site manager will ensure that the chemical plant for foul water and sewerage will be recommended to BSEN standard and will be discharged into the stream however this raises concerns of when the stream is actually dry with no running water. This discharge will then just lay dormant in the stream bed. Have the environmental agency actually agreed that this course will be viable and environmentally friendly?

Other Concerns As Cracoe is not a tourist area the majority of residents are made of professional, retired and farming families, therefore the idea that the conversion will enhance local employment to caretake the property is unlikely. The application also states that the conversion will enhance the economy in Cracoe with the use of the pub, farm shop and café, however we feel that this is unlikely as the visitors will shop in supermarkets before and not locally.

2 The last objection to be made is the noise pollution of people visiting Shed Barn plus dogs barking in the kennel that is proposed to be at the side of the barn. This is an extremely quiet village and we would prefer to keep it this way.

We would respectfully appeal to the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting the application of changing Shed Barn into family accommodation.

Please could you acknowledge the safe receipt of this email at this address.

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully

Lisa and Mark Naisibtt

Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Planning Department Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson (Area Planning Officer)

BY EMAIL TO [email protected]

26 March 2020

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide holiday accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

We refer to Wendy Thompson’s letter of 9 March 2020 informing us that, with reference to the above planning application, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has received amended plans from the applicants.

We refer to the following:-

• the initial letter of objection to the proposed development dated 22 April 2019 (the “Initial Letter of Objection”);

• the subsequent letter of objection, in relation to previously amended plans, dated 27 October 2019 (the “October 2019 Letter of Objection); and

• my email of 15 November 2019 (timed at 2:25 pm) in relation to ownership and rights of access in relation to Swinden Lane (the “Rights of Access Email”),

(being together the “Existing Objection Documents”).

As you know, the Initial Letter of Objection and the October 2019 Letter of Objection were submitted jointly by various residents of Cracoe. Due to the Covid-19 outbreak and restrictions on social interaction, we have not had the opportunity of canvassing everyone’s views regarding the amended plans. So we are writing this letter on our own account though we doubt that anyone’s views will have changed in relation to the amended plans – we do know though that some people will be contacting you separately about the amended plans and may have already done so.

The amended plans which you have received do not address any of the substantive objections which we raised in the Existing Objection Documents to the proposed development. We do acknowledge that the amended plans reflect the following changes (as per your covering letter):-

• removal of the proposed solar panel bank from the rear field to the roof of the old milking shed - we accept this as an improvement and don’t have any specific remaining objections about this;

Reference 1

• reduction in the number of bedrooms to 4 double bedrooms, repositioning of the car parking area and a reduction in the number of parking spaces from 7 to 4 – the repositioning of the car park (making it less conspicuous) and the reduction in the number of bedrooms and car parking spaces is to be welcomed but, notwithstanding such reduction, our original objections regarding the safety and suitability of Swinden Lane as an access route remain (as to which see our further comments at paragraph 1 below).

We list below the various objections (as contained in the Existing Objection Documents) which have still not been satisfactorily addressed (in part or at all) and with any additional comments, where appropriate (we do not though intend to repeat in full all our existing objections)

1. Access Issues – Safety and Suitability and Ownership/Legal Rights of Access

Whilst we appreciate that the number of cars driving up and down Swinden Lane and accessing the public highway will reduce (commensurate on the reduction in the number of bedrooms) the fact remains that Swinden Lane is not a suitable or safe means of access (for all the reasons previously explained).

In the Rights of Access Email, we explained that our enquiries as regards the ownership of Swinden Lane were then continuing. We have conducted further enquiries and can confirm that Swinden Lane is in private ownership – in fact the relevant section is owned by two separate persons (neither of whom are the applicants).

To be clear, Swinden Lane is privately owned and is not a public highway and has not been adopted as such. In this regard, we note that in the amended plans there is a small comment tucked away in the bottom left hand corner of one page which reads:-

“County highways authority have raised no objection to the use of the lane”.

With respect, County highways views on the use of the lane itself are irrelevant as it is privately owned and it has nothing to do with them. They do though have some valid input in relation to the access point from Swinden Lane onto the main public highway and the safety and suitability of that (as to which see our precious comments in this regard). Have they formally reported about this and, if not, why not ?

In light of the private ownership of Swinden Lane we would repeat all the comments about legal rights of access, and the effect of s34(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) made in the Rights of Access Email. To re-iterate what we have said before – whilst the applicants themselves probably do have personal rights of access, as the owners of Shed Barn, that would not extend (without the existence or granting of appropriate rights by a past or both of the current owners of Swinden Lane) to paying visitors, contractors / developers / workpersons and staff.

We have previously asked what steps Yorkshire Dales National Park has taken to ensure that valid legal rights of access exist, in respect of the proposed use but to date we have not heard from you in this regard. In particular, have the applicants provided clear, documented proof that the required legal rights of access exist in respect of Swinden Lane – if so, please could you provide copies of the relevant documentation for review – if not, why have you not investigated this further ?

We would thus re-iterate the conclusions in our Initial Letter of Objection – that we fail to see how the proposed development, in terms of access, and taking into the account the likely level of vehicle use (even reduced) is compliant with Local Plan Policy L2 or SP4 nor the NPFF or PPS1. With specific reference to the wording of Local Plan Policy SP4 the proposed development:-

• does prejudice highway safety and would cause unacceptable levels of traffic which could harm the environment;

Reference 2

• has limited access to public transport;

• may obstruct, damage or lead to an unacceptable use of a public right of way; and

• does not have appropriate access.

2. Refuse Collection

We would reiterate the observations we made in this regard about the wholly unsuitable nature of Swinden Lane as a means of access for refuse collection wagons (and indeed for residential vehicles generally). For safety and practical reasons we sincerely doubt that refuse collection wagons would be physically able (or operationally prepared) to travel down Swinden Lane, firstly through the wooden gate (which is only 2.9 - 3.26m wide), secondly under the railway bridge (which may neither be sufficiently wide or high enough to accommodate refuse collection wagons) and finally to then reverse onto the site.

Have you contacted Craven District Council about this proposal ? If not, why not ?

3. Foul Water Discharge/Sewage/Livestock and Aquatic Life

3.1 In paragraph 3 of our Initial Letter of Objection, we pointed out the unsuitability of the proposed discharge of sewage, via a treatment plant, in to the small brook which runs through one corner of the property. In this regard, we highlighted the fact the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges provide that any discharge to surface water must be made to a watercourse that normally has flow throughout the year. This means that the discharge cannot be to surface water that does not contain flowing water throughout the course of the year (unless there is an unusually long period of dry weather or a drought). Ditches are no longer acceptable to discharge to. For the reasons explained in our Initial Letter of Objection (about the capacity of the stream and the fact that it dries up/has a low flow rate in warmer periods – even relatively short ones and not just after ‘unusually long periods of dry weather or a drought’), we remain of the view that the proposed discharge is not compliant with the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges.

3.2 We understand that you have asked the applicants to obtain a report from the Environment Agency. Why has this report not been produced to date ?

4. Water Supply

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection (which we would repeat notwithstanding the reduction in the number of bedrooms).

5. Pollution : Noise, Vehicle Fumes and Light

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection (which we would repeat notwithstanding the reduction in the number of bedrooms and vehicles).

6. Accommodation/Out of Season

Notwithstanding the change of use for holiday accommodation and the reduction in the number of bedrooms and vehicles, please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

7. Impact on the Landscape

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

Reference 3

8. Construction Vehicles

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

9. Livestock

Please refer to our comments in the Initial Letter of Objection.

10. Conclusion

Finally, we are somewhat surprised that, despite the passage of a substantial period of time since the initial application was lodged, none of our substantive objections appear to have been addressed and we have not been provided with any information whatsoever from either the applicants or the Yorkshire Dales National Park about these specific objections - which is somewhat of a concern.

Yours faithfully

Name(s) : Stephen and Wendy Woods

Property Name / Address : Merlin Cottage, Town End, Cracoe

Reference 4 Gail Dent

From: [email protected] Sent: 21 March 2020 21:45 To: Planning Subject: Fwd: Planning application Shed Barn, Cracoe

------Original Message ------From: "[email protected]" To: [email protected] Sent: 21.03.20 Subject: Planning application Shed Barn, Cracoe

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number: C/23/116

Application for: full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide holiday accommodation.

Location of Development: Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe.

For the attention of Wendy Thompson.

We have recently been made aware of the amended planning application for Shed Barn. After reading the application we noticed that there are some changes but theses changes do not meet any of the objections that we put forward in the last consultation period. We are therefore, sending this email to reiterate our strong objections to the above proposed development and would like these objections to be considered. Our reasons for this objection are as follows:

Swinden Lane.

Swinden Lane is not a road, it clearly states on our land deeds and on the signage at the top of the lane, that Swinden Lane is a bridleway. The track is only used ( for access ) by three resident vehicles and small farm vehicles. The track is prone to flooding, which is most of the winter months and is in a bad state of repair with many potholes and uneven ground. The track will not sustain the proposal of increased traffic. There is also a safety issue on entering and exiting Swinden Lane as there is limited visiblilty at the opening of this bridleway. In the planning proposal a letter from highways dated back a to 2017 states that there would be no safety issues. However, the said correspondence was an email and not an official report. I am sure there has been a more recent inspection from highways, it would beneficial to see a more recent report. Further

1 more Swinden Lane is privately owned has permission been granted for the change of use for access to Shed Barn.

Refuse collection

The proposed plan states that a refuse vehicle will be collecting refuse from the site using Swinden Lane as access. We find this extremely unlikely that a refuse vehicle of 2.5 metre in height and width will be able to travel down the narrow bridle way that is Swinden lane, negotiate the gate at the bottom and fit securely under the railway bridge. There are no passing places on the bridleway, therefore we ask the question will the refuse vehicle reverse up/down for access? Either way this could prove to be a safety issue. Again we go back to the initial statement regarding the condition of the track and its ability to cope with year round HGV weights.

Location of Shed Barn

I believe that Yorkshire Dales planning guidelines states that barn developments for group accommodation are to be located next to a main road. However this planning proposal IS NOT next to a main road it is on a bridle way, which leads up to a narrow road and does NOT lead to a main road. Therefore isn't this a breach of Yorkshire Dales planning guidelines?

Water supply

The water supply to the properties, especially at Townend is insufficient. The pressure is continuously low, we can only run one shower at a time. Even the flush of a toilet effects the water pressure. There are currently 14 residents at Townend, however, with a further possible 20 people staying in the proposed group accommodation this will nearly double the amount of people using the water supply thus putting extra strain on the water pressure.

Other Concerns

We also have grave concerns regarding the parking provision and the real use of the barn, the aspirations of the barn being for foraging is very noble, however the greater likelihood is that it will be used for stag and hen weekends. Would you want this on your door step? Even though the plans show parking at the site, never the less how likely is it that vehicles will use the bridle way in extremely bad weather such as flooding, snow or ice. We envisage that these vehicles will park on the narrow road to Hetton whereby blocking and causing problems for farm vehicles and buses. This will also be another safety issue. Furthermore the application states that the planned proposal will bring employment into the Yorkshire Dales area. Cracoe is very small village that is not a tourist spot and is mainly made up of professional people, retired people and farming families therefore the employment of a Cracoe resident to be charge of the group accommodation is very unlikely. The idea that visitors will us the pub, café and farm shop is also improbable as the likelihood is they will make prior food and alcohol purchases at a supermarket.

2 We would respectfully appeal to the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting the application of changing Shed Barn into group accommodation.

Please could you acknowledge the safe receipt of this email at this address.

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully

Lisa and Mark Naisibtt

3 Karen Banks

From: [email protected] Sent: 15 November 2019 14:26 To: Planning; Wendy Thompson Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Planning Application Objections (Shed Barn - Cracoe)(C/23/116)

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson

We refer to our letter dated 27 October 2019 (as attached to our email below) in respect of the above application (in response to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority having received amended plans from the applicants).

As you know, a Parish Council meeting was held in Cracoe in 14 November 2019 during which the subject of this application was discussed – and about which Karen Booth will be in touch separately (and she may have already done so). In the meantime, there is one point we have previously raised in respect of which we would like to convey some additional information – about the ownership of Swinden Lane and legal rights of access.

Our enquiries are continuing as regards ownership but, as mentioned previously, based on our enquiries to date, it appears that Swinden Lane is privately owned (and we do not think it is owned by the applicants). We remain concerned as to whether or not any visitors to Shed Barn (and indeed any contractors/developers/workpersons and staff) would have the legal right to travel up and down Swinden Lane.

In this regard, we would point out that under s34(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) it is a criminal offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway without lawful authority. Swinden Lane is a public bridleway – indeed, as you’ll know, there is a Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority sign at the top of the lane referring to the Natural Environment and Rural

1 Communities Act 2006. That sign makes it clear that Swinden Lane cannot be used for vehicular access by the public.

In addition, any such use with lawful authority can only take place so long as the usage will not cause a public nuisance to other highway users – walkers, cyclists and people on horseback.

This all needs to be considered in the context of our previous observation about the planning application stating that there will be a total of 7 (seven) car parking spaces provided at the site (2 existing and 5 new) - which means a potential maximum number of 7 new vehicles having to enter, exit and drive up and down Swinden Lane (possibly in addition to access by the proposed 2 part-time staff).

We would reiterate our comment that we remain doubtful that any visitors to the property, any contractors/developers/workpersons and any staff would have the relevant lawful authority to pass and repass along Swinden Lane to access Shed Barn. Whilst the applicants themselves, as owners of Shed Barn, may very well have personal access rights, that would not extend (without the existence or granting of appropriate rights by a past or current owner of Swinden Lane) to visitors, contractors/developers/workpersons and staff. As we’ve said before, whilst Shed Barn has been previously used for agricultural purposes and agricultural vehicles will have accessed the property via Swinden Lane, that’s completely different from having valid legal access rights for residential purposes (and moreover to the extent which would be required).

We assume that Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, as a part of its planning process, would seek to ensure, under the circumstances, that valid legal rights of access exist for the proposed purposes – specifically in terms of vehicular access rights for contractors/developers/workpersons, members of the public (as visitors) and any staff. Otherwise it would run the risk of granting permission in circumstances where the proposed access to the property might/would be unlawful.

We would be grateful if you could confirm what enquiries you have made in this regard. In particular, have the applicants provided clear, documented proof that the required legal rights of access exist in respect of Swinden Lane – if so, please could you provide copies of the relevant documentation to us so that we may arrange for its review. If not, we assume that this is something which you will investigate further ?

Many thanks.

Kind regards.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Woods

------Original Message ------From: "[email protected]" To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 27 Oct, 2019 At 18:50 Subject: Planning Application Objections (Shed Barn - Cracoe)(C/23/116)

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson

I am sending this email on behalf of a number of residents in Cracoe and further to the letter from Wendy Thompson dated 21 October 2019 (advising that amended plans had been received from the applications.

We wish to reiterate our strong objections to the above proposed development - for the specific reasons stated in the copy letter which was emailed to you on 22 April 2019 (the "Initial Objection Letter"). Please also now find attached our comments/objections in respect of the amended plans and some additional comments/objections we would like to raise in connection with the proposed development. The attached should be read in conjunction with, and as a supplement to, the Initial Objection Letter (a copy of which is embedded at the end of the attached pdf so you have all our comments and objections in one document).

3 We would respectfully request the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting the above planning application.

I would be grateful if you could ackowledge safe receipt of this email and the attached letter (to this email address).

Many thanks.

Kind regards.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Woods

4 Karen Banks

From: [email protected] Sent: 01 November 2019 15:46 To: Planning Subject: Planning application Shed Barn, Cracoe

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number: C/23/116 Application for: full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation. Location of Development: Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe.

For the attention of Wendy Thompson.

We are sending this email to make known our strong objections to the above proposed development. We are aware that you have also received a group email from Mr Stephen Woods, but we wanted to reiterate our objections. Our reasons for this objection are as follows:

Swinden Lane. Swinden Lane is not a road, it clearly states on our land deeds and on the signage at the top of the lane, that Swinden Lane is a bridleway. The track is only used ( for access ) by three resident vehicles and small farm vehicles. The track is prone to flooding, which is most of the winter months and is in a bad state of repair with many potholes and uneven ground. The track will not sustain the proposal of increased traffic. There is also a safety issue on entering and exiting Swinden Lane as there is limited visiblilty at the opening of this bridleway. In the planning proposal a letter from highways dated back a to 2017 states that there would be no safety issues. However, the said correspondence was an email and not an official report. I am sure there has been a more recent inspection from highways, it would beneficial to see a more recent report.

Location of Shed Barn I believe that Yorkshire Dales planning guidelines states that barn developments for group accommodation are to be located next to a main road. However this planning proposal IS NOT next to a main road it is on a bridle way, which leads up to a narrow road and does NOT lead to a main road. Therefore isn't this a breach of Yorkshire Dales planning guidelines?

Water supply The water supply to the properties, especially at Townend is insufficient. The pressure is continuously low, we can only run one shower at a time. Even the flush of a toilet effects the water pressure. There are currently 14 residents at Townend, however, with a further possible 20 people staying in the proposed group accommodation this will nearly double the amount of people using the water supply thus putting extra strain on the water pressure. 1

Other Concerns We also have grave concerns regarding the parking provision and the real use of the barn, the aspirations of the barn being for foraging is very noble, however the greater likelihood is that it will be used for stag and hen weekends. Would you want this on your door step? Even though the plans show parking at the site, never the less how likely is it that vehicles will use the bridle way in extremely bad weather such as flooding, snow or ice. We envisage that these vehicles will park on the narrow road to Hetton whereby blocking and causing problems for farm vehicles and buses. This will also be another safety issue. Furthermore the application states that the planned proposal will bring employment into the Yorkshire Dales area. Cracoe is very small village that is not a tourist spot and is mainly made up of professional people, retired people and farming families therefore the employment of a Cracoe resident to be charge of the group accommodation is very unlikely. The idea that visitors will us the pub, café and farm shop is also improbable as the likelihood is they will make prior food and alcohol purchases at a supermarket.

We would respectfully appeal to the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting the application of changing Shed Barn into group accommodation.

Please could you acknowledge the safe receipt of this email at this address.

Many thanks.

Yours faithfully

Lisa and Mark Naisibtt

2 Karen Banks

From: [email protected] Sent: 27 October 2019 18:50 To: Planning Subject: Planning Application Objections (Shed Barn - Cracoe)(C/23/116) Attachments: Planning Application Objection (Shed Barn Cracoe)(October 2019).pdf

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson

We would respectfully request the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting the above planning application.

I would be grateful if you could ackowledge safe receipt of this email and the attached letter (to this email address).

1 Many thanks.

Kind regards.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Woods

2 Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Planning Department Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson (Area Planning Officer)

BY EMAIL TO [email protected]

27 October 2019

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

We refer to Wendy Thompson’s letter of 21 October 2019 informing us that, with reference to the above planning application, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has received amended plans from the applicants.

We, the persons names below (being residents of the properties in Cracoe whose addresses are stated underneath our names and who have been resident since the years indicated) are writing jointly with reference to the above planning application and the amended plans.

We attach at the end of this letter a copy of our initial letter of objection to the proposed development dated 22 April 2019 (the “Initial Letter of Objection”). The amended plans which you have received (perhaps not surprisingly given that they are simply amended plans) do not address any of the specific objections which we raised in our Initial Letter of Objection to the proposed development - accordingly, we would repeat all the objections which we raised in our Initial Letter of Objection and would reiterate our strong objections to the proposed development.

We would also raise the following additional points (where appropriate by reference to the specific numbered point raised in our Initial Letter of Objection).

1. Amended Plans / Refuse Collection (paragraph 1.1.9 of the Initial Letter of Objection)

We note that the amended plans show a large industrial/business type external bin with a roll top.

In our Initial Letter of Objection we commented on the applicants statement that refuse “…will then be taken to a bin store to the side the main building and collected on a weekly basis. The collection vehicles can access swindon lane and can reverse onto the site in question".

Reference 1 be sufficiently wide or high enough to accommodate refuse collection wagons) and finally to then reverse onto the site.

To add to what we said in our Initial Letter of Objection, there are a number of properties located off the B6265 (the main road from Cracoe to Skipton), down farm type tracks, and the refuse collection team from Craven District Council does not travel down those tracks to collect the refuse. Instead the residents have to wheel their bins to the end of the track on refuse collection days., You only have to drive down towards Skipton from Cracoe on any refuse collection days to see a number of properties whose bins have had to be moved by the residents to the kerbside.

If Craven District Council is not prepared to drive down the relevant tracks to collect refuse from these particular properties, then why would Shed Barn be treated any differently ? In fact, the access down Swinden Lane is probably more challenging than for these properties – they would either have to back 200 metres down the narrow track that comprises Swinden Lane (which has no passing spaces) and through narrow access points or drive forwards down Swinden Lane, to then reverse on site and drive back out again – both of which are unlikely to be operationally feasible.

So we would repeat what we have said before. Have you contacted Craven District Council about this proposal ? If not, why not ?

Assuming refuse wagons cannot drive down to Shed Barn what would happen in relation to refuse for collection ? Bearing in mind, as shown on the amended plans, that the applicants are proposing to have a large industrial/business type external bin which will not be capable of being moved any substantive distance (and particularly not up and down Swinden Lane). Any bin storage at the top of Swinden Lane (next to the road) would be unacceptable – as it would obstruct the footpath/public highway and would be somewhat unsightly at the top of a public bridleway.

2. Access Issues – Safety and Suitability (paragraph 1.1 of the Initial Letter of Objection)

2.1 In paragraph 1.1.7 of our Initial Letter of Objection we pointed out that the section of Swinden Lane which runs from the first wooden gate to Shed Barn is prone to flooding as the brook which runs to the West of Swinden Lane regularly overflows its banks during periods of high rainfall and that water flows down the access track towards the area of the railway bridge. We also explained that the section of track underneath the railway bridge (except in periods of really dry weather) is permanently waterlogged and somewhat of a mud quagmire) - walkers have to negotiate a narrow slightly raised path/ledge underneath the bridge but that path/ledge itself also suffers from surface water and mud.

Photographs 1 to 6 below are recent photographs of this particular section of Swinden Lane showing the type of flooding issues mentioned above and, in particular, the flooded section underneath the railway bridge (which is currently about 6-8 inches deep) – that flooded section will probably remain that way until the middle of next spring.

Reference 2 Photograph 1 : view along Swinden Lane in a Northerly direction towards the railway bridge.

Photograph 2 : view along of the flooded section of Swinden Lane underneath the railway bridge (with Shed Barn beyond the bridge to the right)

Reference 3 Photograph 3 : underneath the railway bridge (with Shed Barn in the background to the right).

Photograph 4 : underneath the railway bridge (looking from the vicinity of Shed Barn in a Southerly direction).

Reference 4 Photograph 5 : view of the track next to Shed Barn looking towards the railway bridge.

Photograph 6 : view of Swinden Lane looking in a Southerly direction from near to the railway bridge..

Reference 5 This just serves to re-iterate the point mentioned in our Initial Letter of Objection. Swinden Lane is not an appropriate means of access for Shed Barn (bearing in mind the current state of the track, in terms of its state of repair (or lack thereof) and propensity to flooding).

How likely is it that visitors (remembering that the increase in the level of traffic using Swinden Lane could be by up to 7 (and perhaps more) additional vehicle)s when faced with the state of the track, and in particular the flooding under the bridge, will decide not to actually drive to Shed Barn ?

What will happen then ? Well, we envisage that many visitors, not wishing to potentially damage their private motor vehicles, will then have to back up along Swinden Lane, turn around somewhere (where ?) and then will decide to park elsewhere – but where ? Several of the residents at Town End, Cracoe have private parking spaces at the very top of Swinden Lane – there would be an increased risk of visitors deciding to use those private spaces. Alternatively, they might decide to park at the top of Swinden Lane on the road which leads to Hetton – and, as we explained in the Initial Letter of Objection, that would give rise to serious safety issues (both for pedestrians and motorists) – there is simply not enough space to park that many vehicles safely along that road (which is near to the Village School and Hall).

We explained that Swinden Lane (as can be seen from these and the pictures enclosed with our Initial Letter of Objection) is unsurfaced and disintegrating. The only vehicles which currently pass through the first wooden gate in the direction of Shed Barn, are small farm vehicles – such as Land Rovers, quad bikes and small tractors with trailers. Any increased traffic (and particularly when Swinden Lane is flooded) will just serve to accelerate the disintegration of the track – which it should be remembered is a public bridleway. The only possible way in which Swinden Lane could perhaps be considered a suitable means of access for residential vehicles to Shed Barn would be if the entire length of Swinden Lane (i.e. the 200 metres from the Hetton Road to Shed Barn) was properly drained (in particular, the section under the railway bridge) and then tarmacked – and, presumably, that it is not something which the applicants are prepared to do.

We would thus re-iterate the conclusions in our Initial Letter of Objection – that we fail to see how the proposed development, in terms of access, and taking into the account the likely level of vehicle use is compliant with Local Plan Policy L2 or SP4 nor the NPFF or PPS1. With specific reference to the wording of Local Plan Policy SP4 the proposed development:-

 does prejudice highway safety and would cause unacceptable levels of traffic which could harm the environment : we commented in our Initial Letter of Objection that the Highways Authority would need to carry out a full safety and access assessment (with all the relevant facts to hand) in order to fulfil their statutory responsibilities in considering access issues and road safety – has this happened yet (if not why not) ?

 has limited access to public transport;

 may obstruct, damage or lead to an unacceptable use of a public right of way; and

 does not have appropriate access.

2.2 Tarmac – Swinden Quarry : in paragraph 1.1.5 (g) of our Initial Letter of Objection, we asked whether the owners of Swinden quarry (Tarmac) been consulted as to any potential impact on the structure of the railway bridge (which lies just before Shed Barn) – the railway which runs over that bridge is used by Tarmac to transport

Reference 6 quarried stone by rail to the wider rail network in Skipton and beyond. There would be an increased risk of vehicles striking the railway bridge (in light of the proposed significant increase in the number of vehicles driving up and down Swinden Lane) and also safety issues as regards the railway line itself. The railway bridge and line are about 25-50 metres South of Shed Barn and has limited safety fencing etc. We would expect Tarmac to have some views about the proposal and presume that you have been in contact with them about this ?

2.3 We remain uncertain as to who owns Swinden Lane but what appears clear, based on our enquiries to date, is that it is privately owned (and we do not think it is owned by the applicants). We are continuing our enquiries in this regard. But we would have thought the owner of Swinden Lane would have a vested interested in the proposals – given the likely further damage and deterioration of the track. Also, as we questioned in our Initial Letter of Objection, it is unclear whether or not visitors to Shed Barn would have the legal right to travel up and down Swinden Lane. Yes, Shed Barn has been previously used for agricultural purposes and agricultural vehicles will have accessed the property via Swinden Lane – but that’s completely different from having legal access rights for residential purposes.

3. Foul Water Discharge/Sewage

3.1 In paragraph 3 of our Initial Letter of Objection, we pointed out the unsuitability of the proposed discharge of sewage, via a treatment plant, in to the small brook which runs through one corner of the property. In this regard, we highlighted the fact the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges provide that any discharge to surface water must be made to a watercourse that normally has flow throughout the year. This means that the discharge cannot be to surface water that does not contain flowing water throughout the course of the year (unless there is an unusually long period of dry weather or a drought). Ditches are no longer acceptable to discharge to. For the reasons explained in our Initial Letter of Objection (about the capacity of the stream and the fact that it dries up/has a low flow rate in warmer periods – even relatively short ones and not just after ‘unusually long periods of dry weather or a drought’), we remain of the view that the proposed discharge is compliant with the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges.

3.2 We understand that you have asked the applicants to obtain a report from the Environment Agency. Why has this report not been produced to date ? Unless, of course, the applicants are simply waiting to commission that report at a time when the weather is much wetter – when the brook will inevitably be running with more water than normal. But that wouldn’t alter the fact that, as per the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges the watercourse must normally have flow throughout the year – and it doesn’t.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, and for the reasons explained in our Initial Letter of Objection and in this second letter, we strongly object to the proposed development and would respectfully request the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting this planning application.

Yours faithfully

Name(s) : Stephen and Wendy Woods

Property Name / Address : Merlin Cottage, Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 1999

Reference 7 Name(s) : Mark and Lisa Naisbitt

Property Name / Address : Town End House, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2012

Name(s) : Chris and Karen Booth

Property Name / Address : Bulls Head Cottage, Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2005

Name(s) : Andrew Stewart

Property Name / Address : 1 Barn Cottages, Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 1996

Name(s) : Mary and Colin Atkins

Property Name / Address : The Courtyard, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2000

Name(s) : Richard Jackson

Property Name / Address : The Rookery, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2006

Name(s) : Maureen Chaduc

Property Name / Address : 2 Orchard Croft, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2008

Name(s) : Jonathan Phillip

Property Name / Address : 1 Orchard Croft, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2001

Reference 8 Name(s) : Debra and Neil Geldart

Property Name / Address : The Old Police House, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2007

Name(s) : Peter Newlands

Property Name / Address : 1 Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2011

Reference 9 Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Planning Department Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson (Area Planning Officer)

BY POST AND EMAIL TO [email protected]

22 April 2019

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

We, the undersigned (being residents of the properties in Cracoe whose addresses are stated underneath our names and who have been resident since the years indicated) are writing jointly with reference to the above planning application. We wish to register our strong objections to the proposed development - for the specific reasons stated in this letter. We also have a few related comments and observations (which we also set out below).

1. Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2015-2030 – Policy L2 (Conversion of traditional buildings - acceptable uses) and Policy SP4 (Development quality)

1.1 Access Issues - Safety and Suitability (including Highway Authority comments)

1.1.1 Local Plan Policy L2 provides as follows:-

"With the exception of former dwellings, proposals for the change of use of traditional buildings to high intensity1 residential, visitor accommodation and employment uses will only be permitted within existing settlements and building groups, or other suitable roadside locations2.

Proposals for the change of use of isolated traditional buildings to low- intensity uses will be permitted provided they do not result in material alteration to the exterior of the building or its surrounds.

Proposals for change of use to a dwellinghouse for continuous occupation will be subject to a local occupancy restriction (Appendix 5).

1 For the purposes of this policy, higher intensity uses will be permanent residential dwellings, ancillary living accommodation, live work units, group visitor accommodation (bunkhouse barns and holiday lets) and intensive employment uses (such as retail, offices, restaurants/cafes).

2 For the purposes of this policy ‘existing settlements and building groups’ are not restricted to those forming part of the settlement hierarchy set out in Table 1. For a building to be considered roadside it, or its immediate definable curtilage, must physically adjoin the boundary of either a sealed metalled road maintainable by the Highway Authority, or a sealed metalled private road that connects to a road maintainable by the Highway Authority. Roads must have had a sealed metalled surface prior to 1 July 2014. Buildings that do not physically adjoin, but are in close proximity to such routes, or that are served by an established (since at least 1 July 2014) unsealed road or track, will be considered, subject to the impact on the landscape.

Reference 10 All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to group visitor accommodation will be required to be capable of effective supervision and management.

All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to a dwellinghouse for holiday occupation will be restricted to short stay letting only.

All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to live/work units will be required to meet criteria (a) & (b) of Policy BE4 (New build live/work units)."

1.1.2 Local Plan Policy SP4 provides, inter alia, that all development proposals should conform to the following criteria (in relation to Transport):-

“(g) it does not prejudice highway safety or cause unacceptable levels of traffic that would harm the environment or capacity of the local road network;

(h) it contains adequate provisions for connection to public transport;

(j) it will not obstruct, damage or lead to an unacceptable use of a public right of way unless an agreed alternative route has been provided;

(k) it will have appropriate access and parking provision;”

1.1.3 The proposed development of Shed Barn, therefore, relates to a high intensity use. The site does not physically adjoin the public highway, but is accessed via an unsealed track (in this case a public bridleway).

1.1.4 We note that, in August 2017, Rural Solutions, on behalf of the applicants, submitted a pre-application enquiry to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA). The YDNPA provided a written response to that enquiry in which the principal observation was as follows:-

"The proposal does not fall comfortably within Policy L2 with regards to the conversion of traditional buildings as it is in a remote location that is not considered to be in a roadside position. In such circumstances, lower intensity uses are generally considered appropriate. The uncertainty with regards to the suitability of the access may also be a fundamental limiting factor....

However, there are a number of matters that provide weight in favour of your proposal, particularly the quality and likely heritage interest of the buildings and garden; the very contained position within the landscape with the site being screened in long views from all sides; the location close to the existing settlement; and the potential for new off-grid development of the highest sustainability credentials.

Whether these positive elements would outweigh the Policy L2 concerns with regards to the position of the buildings and any highway concerns and necessary changes required to satisfy them would depend on the comments of the Highway Authority .... despite it [the proposal] having some conflict with Policy L2 and potentially Policy SP4 in relation to highway access."

1.1.5 The YDNPA, in its response to the pre-application enquiry, recommended that the "Highways Authority be formally approached to determined the suitability of the access for such an intensive use and to establish the scale of any works likely to be required to satisfy these requirements."

In this regard, we would make the following comments:-

Reference 11 (a) We note that in the Design and Access Statement Rural Solutions (on pages 11 and 12) say that the Highway Authority was approached and that they had confirmed in an email that the Highways Authority would have no objection to any forthcoming proposal. A copy of that email is annexed to the application.

(b) The Highway Authority response email was dated 25 August 2017 (considerably before the date of the formal planning application) and we doubt that the Highways Authority was in full possession of all the relevant facts of the proposal in terms of the level of vehicle access required (as all that appears to have been provided to the Highways Authority, as per the email from Rural Solutions dated 24 August 2017, was a site plan).

We note that the planning application documentation places heavy reliance on this supposed consent from the Highways Authority (repeatedly making reference to it) – about which we comment further in paragraph 1.1.10 below.

(c) The planning application states that there will be a total of 7 (seven) car parking spaces provided at the site (2 existing and 5 new)(as to the size and impact of which see also paragraph 7 below) - which means a potential maximum number of 7 new vehicles having to enter, exit and drive up and down Swinden Lane. We assume this number is to match the proposed number of bedrooms at the development (also 7). But then what about access by the proposed 2 part-time staff - will that potentially increase the maximum number of vehicles to 8/9 and where will they park (if they park on the public highway at the top of Swinden Lane that will give rise to safety issues) ?

(d) The access point from Swinden Lane onto the public highway is not directly onto the B6265 (despite a number of statements in the planning application documentation saying that it is onto the B6265). The B6265 road junction is about 25-50 metres to the East of the small junction between Swinden Lane and the road (heading West – known as Fleets Lane) which leads from the B6265 junction to the village of Hetton. The access point is thus onto a much narrower road than the B6265.

Moreover, that small junction is only about 100 metres away from Cracoe Village School - the narrowness of the road on which the school is located, coupled with the fact that schoolchildren walk across that junction to school, causes us great concern in terms of safety – both personal and property (bearing in mind, in particular, the proposed maximum number of vehicles which would be accessing Shed Barn via Swinden Lane). The village hall is located next to the school and that is also accessed by vehicle and on foot along the same road.

Photograph 1 below shows the access point onto Swinden Lane from Fleets Lane and highlights the narrowness of Swinden Lane.

Photograph 2 shows the view in a Westerly direction along Fleets Lane, from the junction with Swinden Lane, looking towards Cracoe Village school and Cracoe village hall (also showing the pedestrian footpath which runs to the school and village hall and which crosses the access point to Swinden Lane).

Reference 12

Photograph 1 : access point to/from Swinden Lane.

Photograph 2 : view Westerly along Fleets Lane in the direction of Cracoe village school and hall.

(e) Under the circumstances, in light of the proposed maximum of 7 (and perhaps greater) vehicles which would require access to/from Swinden Lane and our observations above, we doubt that the

Reference 13 Highway Authority’s initial view is adequate. Surely they would need to carry out a full safety and access assessment (with all the relevant facts to hand) in order to fulfil their statutory responsibilities in considering access issues and road safety).

(f) We are also concerned as to the possibility of visitors to Swinden Lane and/or the part-time staff deciding (for whatever reason – for instance, if the track itself is flooded – as to which see paragraph 1.1.7 below) to park on the public highway in the vicinity of the Fleets Lane junction – this would present significant safety issues (both for users of the public highway and pedestrians).

(g) Additionally, have the owners of Swinden quarry (Tarmac) been consulted as to any potential impact on the structure of the railway bridge (which lies just before Shed Barn) – the railway which runs over that bridge is used by Tarmac to transport quarried stone by rail to the wider rail network in Skipton and beyond.

1.1.6 Swinden Lane is an unsealed public bridleway which is used by walkers (including local dog walkers), horses and their riders, cyclists and farmers to access the farm land which lies beside the whole length of Swinden Lane (which carries on beyond Shed Barn for some distance). It has a rough unfinished surface and is narrow – only suitable for small farm vehicles. There are no passing places along Swinden Lane.

1.1.7 It was surface-dressed a few years ago (using quarry waste from Swinden quarry and financed out of local community funds) but the surface is now beginning to break up again – with the disintegration starting from the top of Swinden Lane but, in particular, in the section which leads from the wooden farm gate (which is located about 150 yards from the start of Swinden Lane) and the railway bridge.

Photograph 3 below shows the unsurfaced and disintegrated nature of Swinden Lane (looking in a Northerly direction from before the wooden gate towards the railway bridge and Shed Barn).

Reference 14 Photograph 3 : view along Swinden Lane towards the railway bridge and with Shed Barn immediately behind.

This particular section is also prone to flooding as the brook which runs to the West of Swinden Lane (looking North and before the first wooden gate) regularly overflows its banks during periods of high rainfall and that water flows down the access track towards the area of the railway bridge. The section of track underneath the railway bridge (except in periods of really dry weather) is permanently waterlogged and somewhat of a mud quagmire) - walkers have to negotiate a narrow slightly raised path/ledge underneath the bridge but that path/ledge itself also suffers from surface water and mud.

1.1.8 The only vehicles which currently pass through the first wooden gate (as seen in photograph 3 above), in the direction of Shed Barn, are small farm vehicles – such as Land Rovers, quad bikes and small tractors with trailers. In this regard, we note that the Right of Way Statement contains the following comment :-

"Large tractors and farming lorries already use the bridleway to access surrounding farms, and the vehicles needed to carry in required building materials will be no larger than the farm vehicles already using the bridleway".

The assertion that large tractors and lorries use the bridleway is not correct because they would not fit under the railway bridge (which is shown in photograph 3 above and photograph 4 below).

1.1.9 Refuse collection : we note with surprise the following statement in the Sustainability Statement in relation to the disposal of refuse:-

"It will then be taken to a bin store to the side the main building and collected on a weekly basis. The collection vehicles can access swindon lane and can reverse onto the site in question".

Taking into account the factors outlined in the preceding paragraphs, we sincerely doubt that (for safety and practical reasons) refuse collection wagons would be physically able (or operationally prepared) to travel down Swinden Lane, firstly through the wooden gate (which is only 2.9 - 3.26m wide), secondly under the railway bridge (which may neither be sufficiently wide or high enough to accommodate refuse collection wagons) and finally to then reverse onto the site.

Photograph 4 below shows the view from Swinden Lane, underneath the railway bridge, with Shed Barn just beyond and to the right.

Reference 15 Photograph 4 : view along Swinden Lane in a Northerly direction underneath the railway bridge.

Has Craven District Council been consulted about this proposal ? For collection they require bins to be left by the immediate public roadside. So either backing 200 metres down the narrow track that comprises Swinden Lane (which has no passing spaces) and through narrow access points or driving forwards down Swinden Lane, to then reverse on site and drive back out again, are unlikely to be operationally feasible.

Assuming that refuse wagons will not be prepared to drive down Swinden Lane (and we would object if they attempted to do that – because it would further degrade the surface of the track and lead to safety and noise issues), what would happen in relation to refuse for collection ? Any bin storage at the top of Swinden Lane (next to the road) would be unacceptable – as it would obstruct the footpath/public highway and would be somewhat unsightly at the top of a public bridleway.

1.1.10 As mentioned above, we note that the planning application documentation places heavy reliance on the supposed consent, dating from August 2017, from the Highways Authority (repeatedly making reference to it). Furthermore, the planning application documentation contains repeated references to the supposed nearness of the local bus stop in Cracoe – in this regard we would point out the following (emboldened text added for emphasis):-

(a) on page 3 of the Design and Access Statement and page 3 of Rural Solutions’ letter dated 21 March 2019 (which can be found in the Design and Access Statement), there are statements that “The site is located within walking distance of Cracoe village (approximately 200 metres);

(b) on page 4 of the Design and Access Statement and page 4 of Rural Solutions’ letter dated 21 March 2019, there are statements that “There are bus stops within 300 metres (approximately) of

Reference 16 the site which provide services to these destinations [i.e. Grassington and Skipton]”;

(c) on page 3 of Rural Solutions’ letter dated 21 March 2019, it says that the site has “good road access and regular transport links”; and

(d) on page 16 of Rural Solutions’ letter dated 21 March 2019, it says that the site “is located within a sustainable location where services and amenities can be accessed by a short walk. In addition there are bus services which provide connections to neighbouring settlements where a higher order of services does exist”.

The statements above, that Cracoe village is only 200 metres away from the site and that there are bus stops within 300 metres of the site, are, with respect, incorrect and represent underestimations of the distances involved – as the site is located near Town End right at the Western end of the village. The two bus stops in Cracoe are located near the Devonshire Arms Public House (which is right in the middle of the village) and that’s where the limited village services are located – having measured this properly this is actually a total of 600 metres from the site (not 200-300 metres – it’s actually 200 metres from the site to the access point onto Fleets Lane and then another 400 metres to the village centre and bus stops).

It should also be noted that this is a rural bus service – with not particularly frequent services (for example, on weekdays there are 9 services to Grassington between 07:42 and 18:16 (less at weekends) and there’s only one bus a day which travels further up the Yorkshire Dales towards Kilnsey, Kettlewell and beyond).

It seems clear that the applicants are seeking to place heavy reliance on the supposed nearness of the village and bus stops because of the requirements of Local Plan Policies L2 (and its related footnote 31) and SP4 and also the requirements of the following:-

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) – paragraph 103 : which states that “significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. However, it recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making”; and

 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) in relation to sustainable development : this states that “accessibility should be a key consideration in all development decisions” and which directs that “most developments which are likely to generate large numbers of trips should be located in or next to towns or other service centres that are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, in line with the policies set out in PPG13, Transport.”

Given the location of the site, and the fact that it is not as close as the applicants have suggested to a public bus stop (which, in any event, comprises a rural service), we would expect the vast majority of visitors to Shed Barn to actually use their cars to drive to locations – rather than walking and catching a bus. Human nature after all has a tendency to rely on the flexibility afforded by car transport and, if as the applicants say, the development will be used by “families” how likely is it that families with small children (or even more grown up children) will decide to walk to the bus stop

Reference 17 (with its limited services) rather than just jumping in their car ? We find the suggestion that the car use of visitors will be limited to be extremely far- fetched.

Equally, the Yorkshire Dales is a popular venue for motorcycles – often in large groups. If motorcyclists were visitors to Shed Barn there’s no doubt that they would always use their motorcycles rather than public transport.

So, in practical terms, the purported availability and use of public transport has been somewhat ‘overplayed’ by the applicants.

1.1.11 Under the circumstances, we do not consider it suitable to permit an increase to the level of traffic which would be driving up and down Swinden Lane by up to 7 (and perhaps more) additional vehicles (plus the suggested refuse collection lorry and possibly motorcycles) - some of which no doubt would be 4x4s, large SUVs and even possibly transit vans/minibuses.

The surface of the track is unlikely to withstand such an increase and there would be serious safety concerns in relation to the current public users of the track (such as dog walkers) - particularly, in darkness. As mentioned above, in paragraph 1.1.5 we also have serious safety concerns about the access point between Swinden Lane and Fleets Lane (bearing in mind the narrowness of the road, the volume of increased traffic and the nearness of the village school and hall - see photographs 1 and 2 above) – in which regard the Highways Authority would need to be fully engaged.

We strongly disagree with Rural Solutions’ assertion that the potential highways/access issues have been fully addressed – all we have is a single email, dated 18 months prior to the submission of the application, and without full possession of the relevant facts in terms of traffic levels etc.

1.1.12 In conclusion, we fail to see how the proposed development, in terms of access, and taking into the account the likely level of vehicle use (with 7 or more vehicles, cars and/or motorcycles – some of which no doubt would be 4x4s, large SUVs and even possibly transit vans/minibuses) constantly accessing the site up and down a narrow unsealed track which is a public bridleway), is compliant with Local Plan Policy L2 or SP4 nor the NPFF or PPS1. With specific reference to the wording of Local Plan Policy SP4 the proposed development:-

 does prejudice highway safety and would cause unacceptable levels of traffic which could harm the environment;

 has limited access to public transport;

 may obstruct, damage or lead to an unacceptable use of a public right of way; and

 does not have appropriate access.

1.1.13 We are also presently uncertain as to who owns Swinden Lane and, in this regard, as to whether or not visitors to Shed Barn would have the legal right to travel up/and down Swinden Lane. Our enquiries in this regard remain ongoing.

1.2 Supervision and Management

Under Local Plan Policy L2 "All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to group visitor accommodation will be required to be capable of effective supervision and management".

Reference 18 We note that the planning application refers to the employment of two part-time staff in relation to the property (who presumably will not permanently reside at the property). We sincerely doubt that this would be sufficient in terms of effective supervision and management - in light of the number of potential residents, rural location (yet relative nearness to the properties at Town End, Cracoe and the public bridleway) and the proposed number of vehicles (in which regard see also our comments in paragraph 4 below regarding pollution).

2. Water Supply

2.1 We note that in the Foul Drainage Assessment Form (FDA), the applicants have stated that they receive water from the public mains supply. That cannot be correct - as the YDNPA will be aware the whole of Cracoe (apart from the village school) is on a private water supply, operated by Cracoe Water Company Limited, sourced from springs on the fells above Cracoe.

2.2 Cracoe village school was only connected to a public water supply a few years ago. Yorkshire Water carried out works to connect the school – the mains water connection is located at the end of the small track which runs off to the West of Swinden Lane (starting just before the first wooden gate on Swinden Lane). That point of connection lies only 100-200 metres from Shed Barn.

2.3 We assume, therefore, that the applicants mean that Shed Barn is connected to the Cracoe private water supply and that causes considerable concern and objections. The system can suffer from low pressure – and this is certainly experienced in the properties which are located closest to Shed Barn i.e. at Town End, Cracoe. This problem is (not surprisingly) particularly prevalent for a period in the morning (when people are getting up to go to work or start the weekend) and early in the evenings – even having a shower can prove to be a challenge with the water pressure often reducing thereby causing low pressure sensors in some showers to be tripped resulting in a cold water shower (until such time as the pressure resumes – which can take some time).

We do not know where the supply pipes run but we have a real concern that the extra load on the system from, what in effect would be a new supply Shed Barn, would further reduce the overall system pressure and put an added strain on the limited water resources of the private supply to the village – resulting in a significant loss of amenity to certain properties (particularly those in the vicinity of Town End).

2.4 In this regard we note, in particular, that the proposal includes a total of 5 bathrooms/shower-rooms. Additionally, there will be kitchen related utilities such as washing machines, sinks etc - presumably also all the linen etc from the 7 bedrooms will be washed on site which would further increase the use of water.

2.5 We also note that the proposed development contains 7 bedrooms – presumably (though it is not clear from the application paperwork) this equates to a maximum number of 14 occupants in the building ? The total number of residents currently residing at the 6 properties which form Town End, Cracoe (1 Town End, Town End House, Merlin Cottage, 1 Barn Cottages, 2 Barn Cottages and Bulls Head Cottage) is 14. So, in effect, the development would potentially double the number of persons utilising the private water supply at the end of the village. The FDA states that the expected flow from the package treatment plant will be 2,850 litres a day (as to which see paragraph 3 below) – which would suggest that the amount of water to be abstracted from the private village supply will be substantial (notwithstanding the statements made about the use of water saving technologies in the Sustainability Statement) – bearing in mind also the number of bathrooms/shower-rooms and bedrooms in the development. In effect it would be like building 4-5 new properties near Town End in terms of impact on local amenities, pollution etc.

Reference 19 2.6 All of this would inevitably put a severe strain on the water resource and associated pipe pressures to a point where the amenity of the residents of Town End and those properties to the Western end of Cracoe village between the farm and Town End (and perhaps other local residents as well) would be severely impacted. This is not acceptable – the proposed development is just too large for the private water supply to cope (it can sometimes struggle to cope at the moment). Surely the property would need to be connected to the public connection point (referred to in paragraph 2.2 above).

2.7 Accordingly, in terms of water supply, and with specific reference to the wording of Local Plan Policy SP4 (in relation to human safety and amenity), the development would not respect the amenity of its neighbours and will not be served by appropriate and adequate storage, waste management and other infrastructure. It does not, therefore, satisfy Local Plan Policy SP4 on such grounds.

2.8 Finally, has Cracoe Water Company been formally consulted about the viability of the proposed development – vis a vis the private water supply.

3. Foul Water Discharge – Livestock and Aquatic Life

3.1 We note that it is proposed that foul water and sewage will be treated by a package treatment plant before then being discharged into the stream which runs at the Southern edge of Shed Barn. The FDA records the estimated total flow as 2,850 litres a day.

3.2 The stream (arguably more of a brook really) into which the effluent from the package treatment plant will be discharged, runs initially across the field which is on the opposite side of Swinden Lane to Shed Barn (which is used for the grazing of livestock and from which livestock drinks) and then across further farmland towards Fleet/Hetton.

We also understand that the stream contains some aquatic life – such as frogs and crayfish.

3.3 Furthermore, the stream into which the effluent from the package treatment plant will be discharged does not carry a very large volume of water and is quite narrow. Indeed, during dry spells (even very short ones), the stream tends to dry up - either completely or to the point of very minimal water flow. In that case, what will happen to the effluent discharge if there is insufficient flow in the stream ? Clearly, this is a serious concern – as to which see our observations in paragraph 3.4 below).

Photograph 5 below shows the proposed section of stream into which the effluent will be discharged (taken on 19 April and showing very low levels of water and flow – and this after only one week of dry weather).

Photograph 6 below shows the section of stream (running away from Shed Barn in the opposite field).

Reference 20 Photograph 5 : proposed section of stream for discharge from the package treatment plant (taken on 19 April and showing low levels of water and flow).

Photograph 6 : section of stream (running away from Shed Barn in the opposite field).

3.4 We note that the applicants state that the site is not in a Source Protection Zone 1 or 2 and that, therefore, this discharge is permitted. We also note that, in the FDA, they have stated that the system meets the requirements of the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges. However, those Rules provide that any discharge to surface water must be made to a watercourse that normally has flow throughout the year. This means that the discharge cannot be to surface water that does not contain flowing water throughout the course of the year (unless there is an unusually long period of dry weather or a drought). Ditches are no longer acceptable to discharge to. For the reasons explained in paragraph 3.3 above (about the capacity of the stream and the fact that it dries up/has a low flow rate in warmer periods – even relatively short ones and not just after ‘unusually long periods of dry weather or a drought’), we do not believe that the proposed discharge is compliant with the General Binding Rules for Small Sewage Discharges – the flow of water through the stream is just not sufficiently high throughout the year (bearing in

Reference 21 mind also the likely effect of climate change and much longer, drier summers in the UK). Under the circumstances, the proposed discharge should be subject to obtaining an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency and the Environment Agency must conduct a full environmental impact assessment.

3.5 Additionally, what assurances can be provided to local farmers that the discharge is completely harmless to their livestock and as to the safety and health of aquatic life ?

3.6 The glossary to the FDA explains that almost all package treatment plants use electricity and are vulnerable in the event of power failures (as to which see also the comments at paragraph 5 below). What assurances can be provided that any such vulnerability will be appropriately managed ?

3.7 Additionally, is there an increased risk of attracting vermin (such as rats) to the site (particularly in periods when the stream flow and levels are low) ?

3.8 Accordingly, in terms of foul water discharge, and with specific reference to the wording of Local Plan Policy SP4 (in relation to human safety and amenity and environmental safeguarding), the development (i) would not respect the amenity of its neighbours, (ii) will not be served by appropriate and adequate storage, waste management and other infrastructure and (ii) would affect ground water (in relation to the stream). It does not, therefore, satisfy Local Plan Policy SP4 on such grounds. In any event, an Environment Agency permit would also be required.

4. Pollution : Noise, Vehicle Fumes and Light

4.1 Noise Pollution

4.1.1 This specific objection relates to both noise from the proposed residents of Shed Barn and the up to 7 vehicles (or more) which will driving up and down Swinden Lane (and the suggested refuse collection truck). In this regard, as mentioned above, it should be noted that the total number of residents currently residing at the 6 properties which form Town End, Cracoe (1 Town End, Town End House, Merlin Cottage, 1 Barn Cottages, 2 Barn Cottages and Bulls Head Cottage) is 14. So, in effect, the development (which has 7 proposed bedrooms) would potentially double the number of persons living in that general vicinity (the existing properties have an average occupancy ratio per property of 2.33 whereas Shed Barn would have an occupancy ratio (at assumed maximum capacity) of 14 – six times as high).

Whilst Shed Barn is in a rural location, is not located that far (150-200 metres across fields) from the existing properties at Town End and the other properties at the Western edge of the village between the farm and Town End. Noise carries easily in the very quiet rural environment - when events are held at the local village hall (which is next to Cracoe village school on Fleets Lane) noise can be readily heard and sometimes a fair distance away. It is simply not acceptable that a development of this size (in terms of numbers of vehicles and guests) should be located at the proposed site.

4.1.2 One of the attractions of living at Town End, Cracoe, and along the Northerly edge of the village generally, is the openness of the countryside at the back of the properties (where many of the residents bedrooms, and all the back gardens, are located) and the lack of any other residences in the Northerly direction. Shed Barn is ¾ or more visible from the back of all the properties at Town End and the other properties at the Western edge of the village between the farm and Town End. It also extremely rare for any vehicles to drive all the way down Swinden Lane after about 7.00-8.00 pm at night.

Reference 22 Equally, no doubt some of the visitors to Shed Barn would decide to have nights-out in the pubs and clubs in Skipton and this would lead to taxis arriving back at the property very late at night/into the early hours. Taxis would either drive up and down Swinden Lane (at unsociable hours) dropping people off at Shed Barn or (which is perhaps more likely) would stop outside the properties at Town End to let the people then walk down Swinden Lane. Either way there would be increased noise, very late at night/into the early hours, from both vehicles and people (some of whom might be rowdy, noisy and somewhat ‘worse for wear’).

4.1.3 The residents who live at Town End and towards the Western end of the village, have a serious concern and objection about increased noise levels – particularly early in the morning and late at night (from vehicles and residents). In particular, visitors to group accommodation will either arrive separately (in a large number of different vehicles (cars and/or motorcycles– spread out over time)) or in larger group-type vehicles such as transit vans and minibuses. And arrivals/departures would be experienced at unsociable hours – such as late on Friday evenings/nights when people have travelled, having finished work, for the weekend, or late on Sundays to travel home.

In this regard, we note that, as mentioned above, Local Plan Policy L2 requires group visitor accommodation to be capable of effective supervision and management. Also, Table 4, which relates to Local Plan Policy L2, makes it clear that, for group accommodation, there must be the "ability to contain/control outside storage, noise and other forms of pollution, and ancillary development".

The planning application refers to the employment of two part-time staff in relation to the property. We sincerely doubt the sufficiency of these arrangements in terms of effective supervision and management in terms of pollution - in light of the number of potential residents, the rural location of Shed Barn (and yet its relative nearness to the properties at Town End and the public bridleway) and the numbers of vehicles. There is a real risk to disturbance to those residents who live at Town End, and the other properties at the Western edge of the village between the farm and Town End, and to their enjoyment of a peaceful and tranquil rural location.

4.1.4 We note that in the Sustainability Statement the applicants state that "As a tourist destination for walkers and the central wharfedale location a large proportion of visitors will walk directly from Shedbarn as a start to their walks, greatly reducing the need for personal transportation".

With respect, Cracoe is not located in central Wharfedale (central Wharfedale is the area surrounding Grassington (several miles to the North)) and the walks which are available from Shed Barn are, as a consequence, more limited. The Design and Access Statement lists a number of tourist attractions in the Yorkshire Dales National Park – within a driving time of 40 minutes from Shed Barn. Under the circumstances we sincerely doubt that the need for personal transportation of the residents would be "greatly reduced" as claimed. Many people would drive to locations elsewhere (including driving to walks elsewhere) and motorcyclists would inevitably always ride their cycles – so we fail to see how the level of traffic going up and down Swinden Lane would be reduced. In this regard see also our comments/observations at paragraph 1.1.10 above.

Reference 23 4.2 Vehicle Pollution

In an era when there is an increasing concern about the pollution caused by vehicles, the proposed access to Shed Barn of up to 7 cars and/or motorcycles (and perhaps more), some of which no doubt would be 4x4s, large SUVs and even possibly transit vans/minibuses, is not exactly eco-friendly and runs somewhat contrary to the eco- design principles surrounding the proposed development. Whilst we note that the applicants intend to provide an electric car charging point, in reality very few people currently own and operate electric cars (so there will be little, if any, reduction in pollution levels).

The increase in the level of pollution which would be caused from vehicle fumes is a real concern for residents in the vicinity - in particular those at Town End, Cracoe.

4.3 Light Pollution

4.3.1 Another significant attraction of living at Town End, Cracoe, and in the other properties at the Western edge of the village between the farm and Town End, is the darkness of the skies at the back of the properties due to the lack of any other residences in the Northerly direction. Shed Barn is ¾ or more visible from the back of all the properties at Town End and from the other properties at the Western edge of the village. The existence of dark skies is a real bonus to those of us who are amateur stargazers and whose enjoyment would be restricted by the existence of any light pollution in the Northerly direction. It also needs to be borne in mind that there are no street lights in Cracoe (so as to maintain the dark landscape).

4.3.2 In response to this point, we suspect that the applicants would point to the lighting proposals set out at section 4 of the Design and Access Statement – where mention is made of light fittings being installed at low levels, to shine along the ground (with upwards light being avoided) and those external lights being fitted with PIR sensors to turn them off between 11pm and 5am. Whilst laudable in its objective, and with respect, sensors can be easily turned off. Residents sitting outside on a summer evening, and possibly late into the night if it's particularly warm, would probably arrange to leave the lighting on and even adjust their points of direction – which also goes back to our previously mentioned concerns about effective supervision and management of the residents at the property.

4.3.3 Additionally, notwithstanding pollution from external light, the existing full height barn door (on the Southern elevation of Shed Barn) is to be replaced with a large glass panel/picture window. This will be visible from all the properties which have a North facing aspect at Town End and at the Western end of Cracoe village (and more so from the upper floors of those properties) – including from all the back gardens (as an illustration of which see photograph 10 below). So, regardless of the purported controls on external lighting, light pollution will still occur from within – particularly from the large glass panel/picture window (in which regard we very much doubt that residents will always be considerate enough to close any curtains/blinds – and that’s assuming that that window will not be left completely open all the time).

In summary, we have serious concerns about all forms of pollution emanating from the property – might it just turn into a 'party barn' with lots of late night parties from large groups of individuals (who late at night would not be under effective supervision and management). This would really negatively affect the amenity of the properties in the immediate locale and their value.

Reference 24 Accordingly, in terms of pollution, and with specific reference to the wording of Local Plan Policy SP4 (in relation to environmental safeguarding), the development would impact on the level of noise and the darkness of the night sky. It does not, therefore, satisfy Local Plan Policy SP4 on such grounds.

5. Electricity – Ground Mounted Solar Panel Arrays

5.1 It’s not clear from the application as to whether it is intended that the property electricity supply will be sourced solely from the proposed solar panel arrays or whether is there any intention to connect to the main public supply (and, if so, at what point and how).

5.2 We note with some concern that the plans for the development do not indicate the length or height of the proposed two ground mounted solar panel arrays – the only measurement provided is that they will be situated about 4 metres from the boundary fence in the Eastern part of the field at the rear of Shed Barn.

Photograph 7 below shows the area of the field in which the solar panel arrays are to be located – i.e. just over the wire boundary fence in the open section of the field where there are some sheep. This photo was taken from Swinden Lane just beyond Shed Barn.

Photograph 7 : field behind Shed Barn in which the solar panel arrays will be located.

5.3 These solar panel arrays will be clearly visible from the section of Swinden Lane which runs beyond Shed Barn – and, in particular the section which runs roughly West to East behind Shed Barn (where about 100 metres beyond Shed Barn, Swinden Lane takes a right-angled turn to the East). Moreover, they will be visible from all the properties at Town End and at the Western end of Cracoe village (and more so from the upper floors of those properties) – including from all the back gardens (as an illustration of which see photograph 10 below). Even more so when the sun is glinting off them – from the plans they appear to be directed in an Easterly direction. They will also be visible from the hills to the North of Swinden Lane and probably also from the properties in Bordley village.

5.4 In conclusion, the solar panel arrays will have a significant negative visual impact on the rural landscape. In this regard, it would not conserve and enhance the historic environment (contrary to the NPPF at section 16 and Local Plan Policy L2 (in respect of heritage assets).

Reference 25 6. Group Accommodation/Out of Season

6.1 The proposed change of use is so as to provide group accommodation. In several places the planning application documentation refers to accommodation for "families and friends". So is the applicants intention to only permit families and friends to stay in the property or is it intended to be a much wider range of potential visitors ? In particular, would there be any restrictions, for example, on the use of Shed Barn for stag/hen party weekends, motorcycling clubs or to prevent its use, more generally, by large groups of males and females – if not, then this would significantly increase the risk of noise and light pollution (as referred to in paragraph 4 above).

6.2 What assurances are there that the property would not actually be used by the applicants and their close family for "continuous occupation" - in which case, under Policy L2, a local occupancy restriction would need to be imposed ?

6.3 Whilst the aim, as expressed on page 13 of Rural Solutions’ letter dated 21 March 2019 of attracting people “to the YDNP, encouraging a happy healthy lifestyle and access to the countryside …” and that guests will be provided with “board games, foraging cookbooks, walking guides, children’s activity guides to promote a healthy and sustainable holiday” are laudable, we have severe reservations about the proposed development in terms of its size (in particular the numbers of vehicles and tourists) and location – it will simply have too severe an impact on our amenity and that of the locale.

6.4 In our collective experience of living and working in, and enjoying, the Yorkshire Dales National Park, these larger scale group accommodation projects are located immediately adjacent to the public highway and in more rural locations (so as provide safe and suitable vehicular access and to preserve the amenity of any neighbours). So, there really must be better locations for this type of development – as to which see also our comments in paragraph 10.2 below.

6.5 In the Design and Access Statement, great play is made of the supposed economic benefits to the local economy of the development. But visitors to group accommodation have a tendency to stock up on supplies prior to arriving on site (such as from a supermarket) and, therefore, we sincerely doubt that any benefits would be as significant as those which would purportedly exist (noting as well that such economic projections are far from an exact science).

7. Impact on the Landscape

7.1 In the 'Justification' section of the Heritage Statement, there is a statement that "The barns are situated in a dip in the landscape and only the side of the small barn is clearly visible from the bridleway, hence any alteration would have a minimal visual impact on the area."

7.2 We note also the following statement in the YDNPA’s response to the pre-application enquiry:-

“the very contained position within the landscape with the site being screened in long views from all sides.”

7.3 Additionally, there are statements on page 13 of the Design and Access Statement that:-

7.3.1 the proposal will not have a “negative impact on the landscape given the building and its access track on Swinden Lane are both in-situ and have always been used in connection with the barn. Consequently, there is no need for additional landscaping or any engineering operations to facilitate a new access”; and

Reference 26 7.3.2 “we regard there to be no elements that would change the character of the national park landscape for the worse”.

7.4 We disagree with the accuracy of the statement in the Heritage Statement that Shed Barn would have a minimal visual impact on the area – it is not particularly well contained or screened within the landscape. Whilst the property is in a slight dip, this is only relevant when you are near to it - the large barn (and not just the small barn) is clearly visible from the bridleway and indeed down more or less the entire length of Swinden Lane before the property. Three-quarters of the Southern elevation of the large barn (the lower quarter is hidden by the railway embankment) is clearly visible from all the properties which have a North facing aspect at Town End and at the Western end of Cracoe village (and more so from the upper floors of those properties), including from all the back gardens. The properties at Town End, Cracoe stand in a slightly elevated position relative to Shed Barn and the other properties at the Western edge of the village (between the farm and Town End) are in an even more elevated position due to their positioning on the hill which rises from Town End into the centre of the village.

Additionally, Shed Barn is more or less entirely visible from the back road between Hetton and the B6265 junction at Town End, Cracoe and from the footpath from Cracoe village school and hall - looking from the road/footpath across all the farm land.

Photographs 8 and 9 show the view of Shed Barn from the bridleway just beyond the railway bridge – the statement in the Heritage Statement (that “only the side of the small barn is clearly visible from the bridleway”) is, therefore, clearly incorrect. The vast majority of the Southern and Western elevations of Shed Barn are visible from the bridleway.

Reference 27 Photographs 8 and 9 : view of Shed Barn from the bridleway.

Photographs 10 and 11 below show the Southern elevation of Shed Barn when viewed from Town End, Cracoe and photograph 12 shows the view of Shed Barn from the footpath which runs alongside Fleets Lane near Cracoe village/school hall. As can be seen from these two photographs Shed Barn is clearly visible in the rural landscape.

Photograph 10 : view of Shed Barn from Town End, Cracoe

Reference 28 Photograph 11 : view of Shed Barn from Town End, Cracoe.

Photograph 12: view of Shed Barn across the fields from near Cracoe village school.

7.5 The proposal will therefore, in fact, have a negative impact on the landscape – for the following reasons:-

7.5.1 the development itself is actually much more visible in the landscape than the applicants suggest in the planning documentation;

7.5.2 the proposed number of vehicles (7 or more, plus the suggested refuse collection lorry and possibly motorcycles), and some of which no doubt would be 4x4s, large SUVs and even possibly transit vans/minibuses, which would be constantly accessing the site via Swinden Lane and parking there would spoil the rural landscape (in which regard see also our comments above concerning the suitability and safety of that access and pollution);

Reference 29 7.5.3 the plans indicate that the area of parking to be provided at the site is 250 square metres (so equivalent to a rectangle 25 metres long and 10 metres wide) which by anybody’s standards is a big car parking area - it will be clearly visible within the landscape from several aspects (as illustrated in photographs 8-11 above) – it will be like looking at a large car park right in the middle of a field (a real eyesore); and

7.5.4 the proposed ground mounted solar panel arrays (as to which see paragraph 5 above) will also be visible from many aspects – in particular from Swinden Lane itself (see photograph 7 above), from the properties at Town End and at the Western end of the village and also from near the village school and hall (and probably even from Bordley).

7.6 In conclusion, we believe that it is not correct to say that the proposed changes will have little visual impact on the area. They certainly will as the property is much more visible than has been suggested by the applicants and for these reasons alone the application should be rejected.

8. Construction Vehicles

The same issues arise here, in terms of the safety and suitability of access in respect of Swinden Lane, as have been made above. Whilst the Rights of Way Statement says that a banksman will be employed to supervise works to the property and that no materials or vehicles will be kept/parked on the public bridleway, the fact remains that it is a very narrow single track (with no passing places). So where exactly will the materials and vehicles be located ? If the intention is to park them on the grass verges at the edge of the track that is not acceptable because that will just damage the verges (as has been the case when vehicles have been parked in the vicinity of Shed Barn before).

9. Livestock

We note that there will be a dog pen at the property – presumably for visitors to bring their pets ? What assurances can be provided that livestock in the immediate vicinity will be adequately protected from pets (particularly during lambing and calving seasons) – there is a real concern in the rural community with animals who have not grown up in an environment/locale where livestock are present and which might have a greater tendency to worry farm animals.

10. Other Comments/Objections

10.1 Sustainability Statement

10.1.1 This states (under the ‘Transportation’ section) that the diversification of the barn will provide jobs for the locality – but according to the application only 2 part time jobs will be created. Also, it references supporting "local service contracts" – precisely which contracts are proposed to be outsourced to the local community ?

10.1.2 As to the statements regarding the reduced need for personal transportation and refuse collection, please refer to our comments in paragraph 1.1 above.

10.2 Design and Access Statement

In the Design and Access Statement there are statements explaining that Shed Barn is “one of approximately fifty other barns in the Yorkshire Dales that the applicants and their wider family own and are currently considering as part of a wider diversification strategy to ensure their retention and continued use”.

Reference 30 In light of the significant issues which we have identified above in relation to the planning application, surely, therefore, there are far more suitable locations for this type of large group accommodation development within the portfolio of fifty other barns which the applicants and their wider family own – in terms of being immediately adjacent to a public highway and further away from existing dwellings. It’s just too big a development, in terms of the proposed numbers of vehicles, occupancy rates, water supply and discharge issues, pollution issues, negative visual impact etc to be located down a narrow one-track lane (itself accessed via a narrow B road near a school), not far away from the existing properties at Town End, Cracoe.

11. Conclusion

In conclusion, and for the reasons explained above, we strongly object to the proposed development and would respectfully request the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting the above planning application.

Yours faithfully

______

Name(s) : Stephen and Wendy Woods

Property Name / Address : Merlin Cottage, Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 1999

______

Name(s) : Mark and Lisa Naisbitt

Property Name / Address : Town End House, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2012

______

Name(s) : Chris and Karen Booth

Property Name / Address : Bulls Head Cottage, Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2005

Reference 31 ______

Name(s) : Andrew Stewart

Property Name / Address : 1 Barn Cottages, Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 1996

______

Name(s) : Mary and Colin Atkins

Property Name / Address : The Courtyard, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2000

______

Name(s) : Richard Jackson

Property Name / Address : The Rookery, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2006

______

Name(s) : Maureen Chaduc

Property Name / Address : 2 Orchard Croft, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2008

______

Name(s) : Jonathan Phillip

Property Name / Address : 1 Orchard Croft, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2001

Reference 32 ______

Name(s) : Debra and Neil Geldart

Property Name / Address : The Old Police House, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2007

______

Name(s) : Peter Newlands

Property Name / Address : 1 Town End, Cracoe

Resident(s) since : 2011

Reference 33 Karen Banks

From: Neil Geldart Sent: 02 May 2019 15:32 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: C/23/116

I would like to object to the proposed development C/23/116, Shed Barn, Swindon Lane, Cracoe.

Mong other reasons it is the scale of the development, the potential noise and from traffic, the impact of the proposal on the character of the area & the sewage plans.

I hope my views will be considered when this application is up for review, and I look forward to a reply that acknowledges my objection.

Regards

Neil Geldart The Old Police House, Cracoe.

1 Karen Banks

From: [email protected] Sent: 24 April 2019 21:22 To: Planning Subject: Planning Application Objections (Shed Barn - Cracoe)(C/23/116) Attachments: Planning Application Objection (Shed Barn Cracoe)(C-23-116).pdf

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

I am writing on behalf of a number of residents in Cracoe who wish to register our strong objections to the above proposed development - for the specific reasons stated in the attached pdf copy letter. We would respectfully request the YDNPA to take our views into account in rejecting the above planning application.mso-fareast-font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">

Just to clarify - this is not a single objection from myself but a composite objection by the residents of a total of 10 separate households in Cracoe (located near to the proposed development) and whose names and addresses (and lengths of residency) are stated at the foot of the attached letter. We decided that it would be easier, rather than submitting multiple separate objections, to effectively form a committee and submit a combined joint objection. I'm acting as the representative of all of those residents. The names of the residents and their addresses are listed below for ease of reference:-

• Stephen and Wendy Woods (Merlin Cottage, Town End, Cracoe) • Mark and Lisa Naisbitt (Town End House, Cracoe) • Chris and Karen Booth mso-fareast-font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast- language: EN-GB;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">(Bulls Head Cottage, Town End, Cracoe) •

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; 1 font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}

Andrew Stewart (

1 Barn Cottages, Town End, Cracoe) • Mary and Colin Atkins mso-fareast-font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast- language: EN-GB;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">(The Courtyard, Cracoe) • Richard Jackson (The Rookery, Cracoe) •

Maureen Chaduc (2 Orchard Croft, Cracoe) • Jonathan Phillip mso-fareast-font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">mso-fareast-font-family:Arial;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso- fareast-language: EN-GB;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">(1 Orchard Croft, Cracoe) •

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes;

2 mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}

Debra and Neil Geldart (The Old Police House, Cracoe) •

Peter Newlands (

1 Town End, Cracoe)

A hard copy of the attached letter will also be posted to you containing the signatures of the above.

I would be grateful if you could ackowledge safe receipt of this email and the attached letter (to this email address).

3 Many thanks.

Kind regards.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Woods

4 Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Planning Department Yoredale Bainbridge Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL

For the attention of : Wendy Thompson (Area Planning Officer)

BY POST AND EMAIL TO [email protected]

22 April 2019

Dear Sirs/Madam

Application Number : C/23/116

Application for : full planning permission for the change of use and conversion of agricultural barn to provide group accommodation

Location of Development : Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

1. Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2015-2030 – Policy L2 (Conversion of traditional buildings - acceptable uses) and Policy SP4 (Development quality)

1.1 Access Issues - Safety and Suitability (including Highway Authority comments)

1.1.1 Local Plan Policy L2 provides as follows:-

Proposals for change of use to a dwellinghouse for continuous occupation will be subject to a local occupancy restriction (Appendix 5).

Reference 1 All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to group visitor accommodation will be required to be capable of effective supervision and management.

All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to a dwellinghouse for holiday occupation will be restricted to short stay letting only.

All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to live/work units will be required to meet criteria (a) & (b) of Policy BE4 (New build live/work units)."

1.1.2 Local Plan Policy SP4 provides, inter alia, that all development proposals should conform to the following criteria (in relation to Transport):-

“(g) it does not prejudice highway safety or cause unacceptable levels of traffic that would harm the environment or capacity of the local road network;

(h) it contains adequate provisions for connection to public transport;

(j) it will not obstruct, damage or lead to an unacceptable use of a public right of way unless an agreed alternative route has been provided;

(k) it will have appropriate access and parking provision;”

In this regard, we would make the following comments:-

Reference 2 (a) We note that in the Design and Access Statement Rural Solutions (on pages 11 and 12) say that the Highway Authority was approached and that they had confirmed in an email that the Highways Authority would have no objection to any forthcoming proposal. A copy of that email is annexed to the application.

Photograph 1 below shows the access point onto Swinden Lane from Fleets Lane and highlights the narrowness of Swinden Lane.

Reference 3

Photograph 1 : access point to/from Swinden Lane.

Photograph 2 : view Westerly along Fleets Lane in the direction of Cracoe village school and hall.

(e) Under the circumstances, in light of the proposed maximum of 7 (and perhaps greater) vehicles which would require access to/from Swinden Lane and our observations above, we doubt that the

Reference 4 Highway Authority’s initial view is adequate. Surely they would need to carry out a full safety and access assessment (with all the relevant facts to hand) in order to fulfil their statutory responsibilities in considering access issues and road safety).

Photograph 3 below shows the unsurfaced and disintegrated nature of Swinden Lane (looking in a Northerly direction from before the wooden gate towards the railway bridge and Shed Barn).

Reference 5 Photograph 3 : view along Swinden Lane towards the railway bridge and with Shed Barn immediately behind.

The assertion that large tractors and lorries use the bridleway is not correct because they would not fit under the railway bridge (which is shown in photograph 3 above and photograph 4 below).

1.1.9 Refuse collection : we note with surprise the following statement in the Sustainability Statement in relation to the disposal of refuse:-

"It will then be taken to a bin store to the side the main building and collected on a weekly basis. The collection vehicles can access swindon lane and can reverse onto the site in question".

Photograph 4 below shows the view from Swinden Lane, underneath the railway bridge, with Shed Barn just beyond and to the right.

Reference 6 Photograph 4 : view along Swinden Lane in a Northerly direction underneath the railway bridge.

(b) on page 4 of the Design and Access Statement and page 4 of Rural Solutions’ letter dated 21 March 2019, there are statements that “There are bus stops within 300 metres (approximately) of

Reference 7 the site which provide services to these destinations [i.e. Grassington and Skipton]”;

(c) on page 3 of Rural Solutions’ letter dated 21 March 2019, it says that the site has “good road access and regular transport links”; and

Reference 8 (with its limited services) rather than just jumping in their car ? We find the suggestion that the car use of visitors will be limited to be extremely far- fetched.

So, in practical terms, the purported availability and use of public transport has been somewhat ‘overplayed’ by the applicants.

 does prejudice highway safety and would cause unacceptable levels of traffic which could harm the environment;

 has limited access to public transport;

 may obstruct, damage or lead to an unacceptable use of a public right of way; and

 does not have appropriate access.

1.2 Supervision and Management

Under Local Plan Policy L2 "All proposals for the conversion of traditional buildings to group visitor accommodation will be required to be capable of effective supervision and management".

Reference 9 We note that the planning application refers to the employment of two part-time staff in relation to the property (who presumably will not permanently reside at the property). We sincerely doubt that this would be sufficient in terms of effective supervision and management - in light of the number of potential residents, rural location (yet relative nearness to the properties at Town End, Cracoe and the public bridleway) and the proposed number of vehicles (in which regard see also our comments in paragraph 4 below regarding pollution).

2. Water Supply

Reference 10 2.6 All of this would inevitably put a severe strain on the water resource and associated pipe pressures to a point where the amenity of the residents of Town End and those properties to the Western end of Cracoe village between the farm and Town End (and perhaps other local residents as well) would be severely impacted. This is not acceptable – the proposed development is just too large for the private water supply to cope (it can sometimes struggle to cope at the moment). Surely the property would need to be connected to the public connection point (referred to in paragraph 2.2 above).

2.8 Finally, has Cracoe Water Company been formally consulted about the viability of the proposed development – vis a vis the private water supply.

3. Foul Water Discharge – Livestock and Aquatic Life

We also understand that the stream contains some aquatic life – such as frogs and crayfish.

Photograph 6 below shows the section of stream (running away from Shed Barn in the opposite field).

Reference 11 Photograph 5 : proposed section of stream for discharge from the package treatment plant (taken on 19 April and showing low levels of water and flow).

Photograph 6 : section of stream (running away from Shed Barn in the opposite field).

Reference 12 mind also the likely effect of climate change and much longer, drier summers in the UK). Under the circumstances, the proposed discharge should be subject to obtaining an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency and the Environment Agency must conduct a full environmental impact assessment.

3.5 Additionally, what assurances can be provided to local farmers that the discharge is completely harmless to their livestock and as to the safety and health of aquatic life ?

3.7 Additionally, is there an increased risk of attracting vermin (such as rats) to the site (particularly in periods when the stream flow and levels are low) ?

4. Pollution : Noise, Vehicle Fumes and Light

4.1 Noise Pollution

Reference 13 Equally, no doubt some of the visitors to Shed Barn would decide to have nights-out in the pubs and clubs in Skipton and this would lead to taxis arriving back at the property very late at night/into the early hours. Taxis would either drive up and down Swinden Lane (at unsociable hours) dropping people off at Shed Barn or (which is perhaps more likely) would stop outside the properties at Town End to let the people then walk down Swinden Lane. Either way there would be increased noise, very late at night/into the early hours, from both vehicles and people (some of whom might be rowdy, noisy and somewhat ‘worse for wear’).

Reference 14 4.2 Vehicle Pollution

The increase in the level of pollution which would be caused from vehicle fumes is a real concern for residents in the vicinity - in particular those at Town End, Cracoe.

4.3 Light Pollution

Reference 15 Accordingly, in terms of pollution, and with specific reference to the wording of Local Plan Policy SP4 (in relation to environmental safeguarding), the development would impact on the level of noise and the darkness of the night sky. It does not, therefore, satisfy Local Plan Policy SP4 on such grounds.

5. Electricity – Ground Mounted Solar Panel Arrays

Photograph 7 : field behind Shed Barn in which the solar panel arrays will be located.

Reference 16 6. Group Accommodation/Out of Season

7. Impact on the Landscape

7.2 We note also the following statement in the YDNPA’s response to the pre-application enquiry:-

“the very contained position within the landscape with the site being screened in long views from all sides.”

7.3 Additionally, there are statements on page 13 of the Design and Access Statement that:-

Reference 17 7.3.2 “we regard there to be no elements that would change the character of the national park landscape for the worse”.

Reference 18 Photographs 8 and 9 : view of Shed Barn from the bridleway.

Photograph 10 : view of Shed Barn from Town End, Cracoe

Reference 19 Photograph 11 : view of Shed Barn from Town End, Cracoe.

Photograph 12: view of Shed Barn across the fields from near Cracoe village school.

7.5 The proposal will therefore, in fact, have a negative impact on the landscape – for the following reasons:-

7.5.1 the development itself is actually much more visible in the landscape than the applicants suggest in the planning documentation;

Reference 20 7.5.3 the plans indicate that the area of parking to be provided at the site is 250 square metres (so equivalent to a rectangle 25 metres long and 10 metres wide) which by anybody’s standards is a big car parking area - it will be clearly visible within the landscape from several aspects (as illustrated in photographs 8-11 above) – it will be like looking at a large car park right in the middle of a field (a real eyesore); and

8. Construction Vehicles

9. Livestock

10. Other Comments/Objections

10.1 Sustainability Statement

10.1.2 As to the statements regarding the reduced need for personal transportation and refuse collection, please refer to our comments in paragraph 1.1 above.

10.2 Design and Access Statement

Reference 21

Wendy Thompson Mrs Maureen Chaduc Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority 2 Orchard Croft Planning Dept Cracoe Yoredlae North Yorkshire Bainbridge BD23 6LB Leyburn North Yorkshire DL8 3EL

24th April 2019

Re : Planning Application No C/23/116 – Shed Barn, Swinden Lane, Cracoe

Dear Wendy

With regards the above planning application I would like to register my concerns and objections to the proposed development of Shed Barn.

Access.

This property is accessed via a single track. Before reaching the site you need to open a wooden gate which lies across the track. You then need to pass under a low railway bridge.

This track is a public footpath and bridleway and is used extensively by walkers, bikers and horse riders. It is also used by farmers to access fields to that side of the village.

I am a regular user of this track as part of my daily dog walks and my first concern is that if there is any traffic along this single vehicle lane the walker/cyclist would need to find somewhere to stand while the vehicle passes. This track has a brook on one side and a ditch on the other and there are very few places to move to when meeting any oncoming vehicles. Any families with young children would find it extremely difficult to pass a vehicle on this track safely.

Secondly, I am concerned about the increased traffic that this development will create. The application states there will be parking spaces for up to 7 cars. My concern is what happens when cars leaving the property are met with cars arriving. If those cars heading down the track (ie towards the site) reverse back to the main road they will then need to reverse onto the road and wait there until the oncoming car has passed, there is no way for 2 vehicles to pass each other on that track. If you review the road map for this end of the village you will see the track lies approx 50M from the main junction onto the B6265 that means potentially cars will be stacking directly after a busy and fast (40 MPH) junction.

The other added complication regarding cars trying to pass and stacking on the main road is that the path at that point is used by school children walking to the local school, I believe this increased traffic introduces an increased danger to those local children.

Waste Disposal.

It is proposed that bin lorries would reverse down to the site during waste collection. Has it been confirmed with North Yorkshire County Council that this is possible, I believe the low height of the railway bridge which needs to be passed before arriving at the site make this prohibitive. If it is possible, again I point out the dangers to walkers, cyclists and horseriders when meeting such a vehicle along that lane. But my main concern is that in reality any waste bins would actually need to be walked up to the main road and left there which would then become an obstruction to anyone using the footpath.

In conclusion I would strongly object to this development due to the accessibility of the site and the increased dangers to current users of the area that this proposal poses.

If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely

Maureen Chaduc. Gail Dent

From: Jill Horn Sent: 23 April 2019 09:40 To: Planning Subject: FW: Application: C/23/116 at Shed Barn

Hi Gail,

One for the planning inbox,

Many thanks, Jill

Jill Horn Planning Technician

Working hours: Mon | Tue | Wed Direct: 01969 652311 Switchboard: 0300 456 0030

Website Facebook Twitter

Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale | Bainbridge | Leyburn | DL8 3EL

-----Original Message----- From: JAMIE CRAMER [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 April 2019 00:43 To: Jill Horn Subject: Application: C/23/116 at Shed Barn

Regarding the above application - I would like to express my support for it. As a resident of the village (Cracoe) - I feel this would be a sympathetic way of preserving a beautiful building with very little downside if any to residents. Hopefully it might bring a few more people to the local economy too.

Please note - I have nothing to gain by saying this - I don’t know who owns it and I would benefit from it in any way shape or form - except that a nice building would be preserved. (I walk my dogs past it!)

Thanks

Jamie

Moorview Cottage

Sent from my iPhone