Gail Dent
From: Judith Eastham REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 25 June 2020 21:26 To: Planning Subject: S/03/704
Dear Ms Clowes and Mr R Graham
Planning Application Reference: S/03/704 Proposal: Full planning permission for erection of 8 No. dwellings, associated accesses, parking and landscaping. Address: Land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop, Sedbergh
We are writing regarding the above planning application and wish to bring to your attention recent issues with the drains that have affected Derry Cottages, Millthrop. As you will be aware Derry Cottages is situated opposite the land for the proposed development of 8 dwellings.
In our previous correspondence of 20 May 2020, we raised a question over sewage disposal as the proposed plans are non-committal as to which method will be used; our concern being that the existing sewage disposal system in the hamlet will be unable to cope with a further 8 properties.
Our property, No. 1 The Derry had significant problems with the sewerage on 16 June 2020, as well as the properties at No.3 on 3 and 4 June 2020 and No.4 on 15 June 2020. The property at No.2 is presently unoccupied. It is these issues that we wish to bring to your attention as it further highlights the concerns that we raised on 20 May 2020.
We have been unable to identify the cause of these blockages, but we have identified what appears to be a collapsed drain at the entrance to Blandses farm, which, we believe may be causing the problem as we did retrieve stones and debris from the blockage.
Indeed, Mrs Stacey of Rivermead, stated in her response to the planning application on 4 April 2020, that it was evident that the existing sewerage system is inadequate. She stated that her garage had on occasions been very badly flooded with raw sewage, as had her garden, apparently owing to drains blocked at Blandes Farm itself.
We would ask that United Utilities, undertook a full survey of the drains prior to commencement of any proposed building works, with the costs bourne by the developer, to ascertain the suitability of the current foul drainage and possible impact on the rest of the hamlet.
Yours Sincerely
Joe Dawson and Judith Eastham
1 Gill Allinson
From: Yvonne Cervetti REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 21 May 2020 11:15 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
Dear Ms Clowes
With reference to the application number S/03/704 for planning development on the land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop, we are writing to register our objection on the following grounds:
1) Existing road - the whole length of Frostrow lane is already unsuitable for current traffic which includes heavy farm vehicles, heavy delivery wagons (many of which have to reverse to go down the section of road adjacent to the land proposed for development) as well as domestic transport. The existing single track road is narrow with badly damaged surface, no designated passing places and high pedestrian traffic. Visibility along the road is limited due to blind bends and there are already issues with congestion at the ‘T’ junction in the middle of the hamlet. During recent closure of Millthrop bridge the road through the hamlet was heavily burdened with traffic, many of whom ignored the 20 mile an hour sign and chose to use it as a ‘race track’ causing several accidents. A further 16 cars would massively increase the burden on this road.
2) This road is popular amongst locals as a recreational means to enjoy the local flora and fauna from Spring through to Autumn whether walking, cycling or pushing prams and for all abilities for which local footpaths may not suitable. Our concern is for the the long term ecological damage and imbalance that the proposed development will bring.
3) In recent years climatic changes have resulted in increased flooding not only along Frostrow lane, which becomes impassable, but also in the proposed field for development. Building and tarmacking on this plot would surely result in the water coming down from the fell and further flooding not only the road but the houses which lie lower than the proposed development. During the floods over the last few years the drive up to Blandses farm became a fast flowing river resulting in large quantities of debris being washed down the road, causing potential danger to vehicles. This debris still remains on Frostrow lane and is still a potential hazard.
4) The proposed house designs do not follow the integrity of a Yorkshire Dales hamlet. The designs show opulent dwellings which are not in keeping with current properties in Millthrop. People walking through Millthrop along the Dalesway comment on and appreciate the bucolic nature of the hamlet. A large, estate-like development will damage the current, positive impact.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for allowing our objections to be noted.
Your sincerely,
Mykola Hrynyk & Yvonne Cervetti
Stonerigg Millthrop Sedbergh LA10 5SJ
1 Gill Allinson
From: Judith Eastham REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 20 May 2020 22:05 To: Planning Subject: S/03/704 Proposed housing development opposite Derry Cottages Millthrop Sedbergh Cumbria LA10 5SN
From: Judith Eastham REDACTED BY YDNPA
Dear Ms Clowes,
Upon studying the plans for the proposed development we wish to make the following observations and comments.
1. The road infrastructure from the turn off into Millthrop on the Sedbergh/Dent Road to the development site is very narrow, 2.8 metres at the brow of the hill and the same width at 1 to 4 Derry Cottages. The maximum width is 4.4 metres at Hillside House. This makes the road mainly single tracked, with no road markings and limited /no lighting. Additional dwellings will only add to the increased degradation of the road surface, increase the risk of accidents and add to the problem of road congestion. Currently HGV’s to Mr.P.Hoggarths Builders Yard, within the perimeter of Blandses Farm and to Blandses Farm itself from Sedbergh/Dent road as they turn left at Stonerigg to come down the lane either reverse down or reverse out as there is nowhere to turn on the lane. This applies to refuse collection and other delivery firms ,not just to the farm but also properties approaching it. Access for emergency vehicles is also compromised, this will be exacerbated with, and within a new development. Three vehicular entrances to the proposed site from a single track lane is not ideal an alternative would be to go down Blandses farm lane and into the rear of the site giving prospective occupants more privacy, safety and reducing the collision hazard in the lane for the length of the site. The recessed areas outside 1 and 2 Derry Cottages, 1 Hillside, Hillside House and just past Stonerigg are privately owned land and not passing places as could be interpreted from the plans.
2.Within the hamlet of Millthrop,there is already a significant issue over a shortage of car parking spaces with many vehicles parked on the roadside and in lay-bys/gateways.The proposal of 2 parking spaces, per property is potentially insufficient and will lead to additional vehicles parked on the roadside/ in lay-bys which will effectively prevent tourists and visitors to the area using these spaces- thus affecting the local economy. Currently in rural villages and hamlets 59% of houses own 2 or more cars or vans.(source Statista 2020). To illustrate this problem last night (19.05.2020 )I walked through the hamlet and there were a total of 9 vehicles parked on the highway which is already narrow. There were a further two vehicles parked down on the lay-by on the Dent/Sedbergh road. This is in a period of time when we are living in lockdown and second homes and holiday lets are unoccupied, none of the vehicles belonging to them.
3.The make up of the current dwellings in the hamlet of Millthrop is approximately; * 8 private lets (providing a home). * 4 Holiday Lets * 9 Second Homes * 1 Semi-Derelict cottage. 1 * The rest are owner occupied. Since March 2018 there have been seven property sales within Millthrop of which * 2 purchasers have a local connection. * 2 purchasers moved in from out of the area. * 2 purchased as second homes. * 1 purchased to be added to a holiday let portfolio by persons from out of the area. Based on the above is there really a need for 8 new houses in Millthrop?
4.Based on 8 additional properties, our crude figures suggest an increase of 17% of dwellings within the hamlet which is too much in our view, especially with the current vacant properties. It is a known fact that a high percentage of vacant properties will attract crime and vandalism to the area.
5.Within the hamlet there are no local amenities-playground, shop , pub, nursery ,school or place of worship. This means there is a heavy reliance on cars or public transport. It is possible to catch a bus on the Dent /Sedbergh road on a Wednesday or Saturday to the nearest large town of Kendal. The nearest of the above amenities are found in Sedbergh, however all the banks and building societies have closed ,there is no provision for post 16 state education, the over 16s travel further afield if they continue in education the nearest place being Kendal. Despite the significant lack of public transport in term time buses leave Sedbergh around 8am and return around 5pm to take these pupils to school or college.
6.There is no public footpath from the development to Sedbergh.
7. The proposed development will encroach on green belt land when there are other permissible brown field sites available.
8.There is a question over sewage disposal as the plans are non-commital as to which method will be used. This raises the question as to whether the existing sewage disposal system in the hamlet can cope with a further 8 properties. Some houses are affected by surges in power/power cuts. Suitable upgrades will be required if this development proceeds.
9.There will be an inevitable impact on wildlife and the environment. The plans state that there is no flood risk to the proposed site from the River Rawthey. We agree with this , however the flood risk (is not on record ) is from Clatterbeck to the rear of the proposed site. People familiar with Millthrop know that in times of heavy rain that Clatterbeck not only floods in the field it runs down the access lane to Blandses then down Frostrow Lane forming gutters down the side of the road and bringing debris down with it which can be seen in the lane and remains there permanently. The field also floods opposite Hillside House. Our concern would be that when the access openings to the proposed site are made that the off run of water would terminate at Derry Cottages as the lowest point. Derry Cottages, particularly 1 and 2 are at least 18 inches below the level of the site. The proposed driveways and pathways will be permeable as stated in the plans, the force with which the water from Clatterbeck comes the finish will be ineffective.
10. The proposal will increase the noise and light pollution within the hamlet.Houses opposite will loose privacy and light and find the development overshadowing and be overlooked,in particular Derry Cottages being lower than the proposed site.
11. There is no mention of timescale - how long will the development take to build- less than a year or phased over 5 years?
12.There has been no mention on the working hours for the development or if the contractor will be part of the considerate contractor scheme.
13. This proposed development is not in keeping with the conservation area of Millthrop it is more suited to an urban setting. The plans state “new homes to be accessed by those seeking to access the housing market
2 locally, rather than being forced to move away due to the lack of suitable, available housing”. The average salary in Kendal is £23,000 , the cheapest of the most recently sold properties in Millthrop was £125,000 which was purchased by someone for their property letting business who lives out of the area, if local people cannot afford this they certainly won’t be able to afford any in the new development. This development is not aimed at local people.There will be additional traffic as stated but insufficient parking as previously stated 59% of rural and hamlet homes have 2 or more vehicles. They also have visitors in vehicles and there is going to be nowhere to park them ,it will be tight enough for new residents to access the parking areas from a single track lane.This proposed development disrespects existing residents and will create a large impact in loss of privacy and light. With reference to planning policy and other material considerations there are significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that would arise from the proposed development.The ‘planning balance ‘is weighed negatively in weight of the proposal with reference to the disadvantages summarised above. It is respectfully requested that planning permission should therefore be declined. Yours sincerely, Judith Eastham and Joe Dawson 1 Derry Cottages Millthrop Sedbergh Cumbria LA10 5SN
3 Gill Allinson
From: Tim Ingle REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 20 May 2020 21:30 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
I would like to take this opportunity to express my thoughts on the application for the development of the land opposite Derry Cottages in Millthrop.
I currently live in 2 Riggs Cottages, adjacent to the land that is being put forward for development. We bought this house a little over 3 years ago, having previously rented 3 Derry Cottages for just over 10 years.
Having lived here for a number of years I suspect that most people living in Millthrop would probably prefer to maintain the open views and the green field rather than see a new development. However this position doesn’t help to satisfy the need of families to be able to have an opportunity to buy their own home. Unfortunately I believe that what is proposed is unlikely to truly help satisfy the housing needs of locals and in it’s current guise ‘enhance the local distinctiveness’ of Millthrop.
My main concerns are as follows:
1. The nearness and height of the 4 terrace houses overlooking the rear of the houses at Riggs Cottages.
2. The open market nature of the development is not likely to satisfy the housing needs of those living locally and is not guaranteed to genuinely help with the vitality of the local area.
3. There are aspects of the proposed the development that don’t truly reflect the local distinctiveness of the hamlet and I don’t believe could be excused by being considered to be innovative in design.
4. The increase in traffic and proposed nature of the parking.
I shall try to unpack the above points below.
Riggs Cottages will be overlooked
The proposed terrace of 4 houses are located toward the perimeter of the plot, affording the remaining 4 larger houses more substantial plots. I believe that their nearness to the boundary with Riggs Cottages, finished height and elevated position means that the rear of the cottages at Riggs may well be overlooked by the new housing.
The existing building line for housing on the other side of the road of Derry Cottages is terraced housing nearer the road with small front gardens and parking alongside or to the rear of the properties. If the proposed terrace of 4 were to follow the existing building line then the issue of being over looked may be avoided as well as providing a solution that better reflects the existing shape and pattern of the settlement. An alternative solution being to locate the terrace of four further from the boundary and provide communal parking nearer the boundary of Riggs Cottages, again echoing a feature of how the settlement has developed.
Local housing need and affordability
There are currently families renting in Millthrop and indeed opposite the proposed development who I am sure would like the opportunity to buy their own home in the local area. However the size and scale of some of the proposed houses and the lack of either local occupancy or affordability restrictions on any of the 1 development likely means a rare opportunity to address local housing demand is missed. Given the ‘pretty’ nature of the hamlet and the proximity to Sedbergh, my suspicion is that demand for some of these houses will likely come from those looking for a second home in the area, either for the purposes of holidaying or as a second home for parents with children at the private school at Sedbergh, examples of which can be easily found in the hamlet.
The development doesn’t reflect the distinctiveness of Millthrop
The Yorkshire Dales Design Guide says:
New house designs should therefore aim to reinforce and contribute positively to local distinctiveness
The submitted planning statement suggests that this ‘small scale’, ‘well designed’ housing development should be ‘approved without delay’. Though the proposal might be relatively small in number, when viewed in plan the development is quite an extension of the existing settlement and has the potential to easily effect the character of the hamlet either positively or negatively. I believe there are aspects of the proposal that neither respect the immediate neighbourhood or enhance the distinctiveness of the hamlet more broadly and should not be ‘approved without delay’ but rather prompt a more considered ‘well designed’ proposal.
Below are just a few examples of how the proposed development doesn’t respect the neighbouring housing or distinctiveness of the settlement.
Roadside Garaging A quick stroll around Millthrop will show that there are only a handful of properties with garages and the few properties with garages tend to have them set back from the road. The proposed development would have a number of garages sat very near the roadside, their rhythm and position punctuating the open view.
Front driveways instead of gardens The existing houses, to the opposite side of the development, are typically terraces, set back from the road, often with front flower gardens extending towards the road. The sense afforded to passers by is one of openness. The proposed development instead favours block paved driveways, some with garages, this aspect of design reflectIng little If anything of the existing houses opposite.
Layout and design that is not reflected by neighbouring properties. Millthrop is mainly characterised by terraced housing, similar in height and linear in layout. Though the submission shows that there will be a terrace of 4 houses they are staggered in respects to both layout and height as well as being taller than the neighbouring housing and possibly occupying a slightly more elevated position.
Dormer Windows, Again a stroll around Millthrop shows there to be no houses with Dormer style windows. Yet the proposed housing shows the dormer window as a design solution on the terrace housing. A feature deemed to be untypical of the Yorkshire Dales (Yorkshire Dales Design Guide, page 31).
Large paved drives and large north facing glazing Likewise The Yorkshire Dales Design Guide suggests avoiding large areas of paving in favour of more permeable solutions and also avoiding large glazed surfaces on north facing walls.
Traffic and Parking
I have already mentioned my thoughts on the provision of car parking. My other concern relates to traffic with the issues being both an increase in the volume of traffic and speed of traffic. The recent closure of the nearby bridge had the effect of funnelling much of the traffic from the Dent direction down the lane along which the development is proposed. The issues experienced locally at the time may have been more intense
2 but give something of a flavour as to what impact an increase in traffic has on the community. A fact that was identified and commented upon at the time to the local newspaper by the family of the land on which the development is proposed.
In summary my preference would be to maintain the open field and views of the hillside but if a proposal could be forwarded that really did look to make a genuine offer to affordable local housing and that was more in keeping then I would have no objection.
Regards
Tim Ingle
Sent from my iPad
3 Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
3 Riggs Cottages, Millthrop, Sebergh, Cumbria LA10 5SP YDNPA (Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, Yoredale, Bainbridge, Leyburn, North Yorkshire, DL8 3EL
5 May 2020 Your reference S/03/794
Dear Sir / Madam, Application to build on land south of Derry Cottages at Millthrop We are writing to object to the planned development in the village of Millthrop on land south of Derry Cottages. We continue to have concerns that this application went live during the Coronavirus outbreak when local people had many other concerns and could not meet to discuss the planning application. We greatly appreciate the help of the Authority staff who responded so effectively to our concerns about the steps that were needed to ensure that consultation with local people was as complete as possible during this difficult time. They have been appreciated by residents. We do not believe, despite Government advice to continue normal planning processes as far as possible during the Coronavirus emergency, that the application should be considered formally until such time as members of the public can make representation in person. This seems a reasonable request given the non-urgent nature of the application. Should the Coronavirus emergency continue for a long period, consideration should be given to allowing discussion to take place virtually in a way that allows public representation, and we would be happy to work with the Authority to facilitate this. We apologise for the length of our comments (which reflects our concern about the issues raised by this application). We would of course expect to talk in person at the Planning Meeting where the application is discussed. We would once again like to thank Authority staff for their help during this very difficult time when they are under pressure. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any further information
Michael Hughes Katie Hughes
Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
Application to build on land south of Derry Cottages at Millthrop (S/03/794)
Comments by Dr M.J. and Mrs K.J Hughes
We live at 3 Riggs Cottages in Millthrop which is located within a few metres of the proposed development. We are aware that housing development in the National Park is always likely to be controversial and raise difficult issues of principle and practice. The length of our response reflects our desire to engage with the challenges faced by the Park in managing development (ie rather than a simple ‘Nimby’ approach of opposing anything that impacts on us personally). We do have strong reservations about whether any development on the site is appropriate. We have still stronger reservations about the current application which seems to us unsuitable both in terms of layout and design. We have therefore divided our comments into two separate sections. It may be useful to summarise here our comments on these two issues.
1) While the site of the proposed development has been classified as a site for possible house-building, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority should still consider the current application in light of its broader planning policies and desiderata on issues including the development of sustainable and diverse communities (in other words there can be material factors countering a ‘presumption in favour of development’ which does not, as is sometimes assumed, take automatic precedence). We would suggest that the adverse impacts of development on the Millthrop site are likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits. The removal of the original stipulation that the homes on the site should be affordable / subject to local occupancy, in response to a change in government policy, means that many of the benefits associated with any housing development on the site no longer apply. When combined with questions relating to sharply increased traffic volumes and loss of amenity, the Authority needs to consider whether any development on the site is compatible with its general policies and objectives. We note that the Authority’s declared policies and objectives over the past ten years have created an expectation that it will not approve any housing development that is out of line with them.
Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
2) We are particularly exercised by the specifics of the development proposed for the Millthrop site and suggest that it does not meet either the letter or the spirit of many of the Authority’s own published policies and guidelines on issues including: housing density on new developments; the spatial distribution of housing on new developments; housing design on new developments; and the need to ensure that new developments enhance the local natural and built environments. We believe that the current proposal will detract rather than enhance the appeal of Millthrop as a place to live and visit. We do not think that the Authority can or should approve the application in its current form, given that it fails to abide by many of its own published policies and guidelines. It is perhaps superfluous to add that any ‘presumption in favour of development’ cannot justify a development that fails to conform to laid down standards relating to housing design, housing density, etc. We suggest that planning application S/03/794 should be rejected. Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
1) The Case Against any Development of Housing at the Millthrop Site
1.1 The impact of changes in legislation on sites previously classified as possible sites for housing development When the Millthrop site was originally identified as potentially appropriate for housing development, the Authority was still able to specify certain requirements relating to affordability / local occupancy (we believe that at the time it set down that half of any housing built on the Millthrop site should be affordable and the remainder subject to a local occupancy restriction). We understand that this is no longer possible – or at least much harder – following a change in national planning legislation. We would suggest that the Authority should, when considering a planning application, still consider whether a site once designated as appropriate for possible housing development remains suitable both in the light of changes in national planning policy and its overall management of the National Park. It is not clear to us whether, at the time the Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan 2015-2030 was approved, which continued to include the Millthrop site as one potentially suitable for housing, the Authority was already unable to set down requirements relating to the provision of affordable housing / local occupancy. We would suggest that i) if the Authority was already unable to set down such requirements, then it acted unreasonably in continuing to designate the land as potentially suitable for development given that, as will be seen below, the negative impacts from any future development were bound to ‘significantly and demonstrably’ outweigh the advantages and undermine the broader objectives of the Authority’s own 2015-30 Plan; ii) if the Authority was, when the 2015-30 Plan was approved, still able to set down requirements relating to affordable housing / local occupancy on any future development, but is no longer able to do so given changes in legislation, then Paragraph 11d of the National Planning Framework allows the Authority to consider whether a ‘presumption in favour of development’ is outweighed by other factors given the changes in the policy-making environment (we note that footnote 7 to Paragraph 11d, which incidentally appears to be mislabelled in the current version of the NPF, does not limit the criteria to be used in deciding if polices are out-of-date).
The original designation of the land at Millthrop as a possible site for development can reasonably be assumed to have been predicated on a range of factors, including that affordable development / local occupancy would Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794 contribute to the social mix and vibrancy of Millthrop. Since it is no longer possible to require the developer to provide affordable housing on the site, nor for the Authority to insist on local occupancy, any development there is likely to cater heavily for retired people and (particularly) owners of second homes / investment properties, who will be attracted to the location by the natural environment (and typically be in a financial position to outbid local people). While such people can provide a contribution to the local community, any decision to allow open market housing in this situation is likely to add to the challenges facing the community at Millthrop, notably an aging demographic and high levels of second home ownership / ownership for investment. Such a development runs counter to the overall ambition articulated by the Authority in the 2015-30 Plan (eg 1.4, 1.7) since it will not ‘support people living and working in the area’ nor discourage housing ‘from being occupied as second homes’. It will contribute to problems outlined in eg 1.14. Any development at the Millthrop site is very unlikely to achieve the declared objective outlined in the 2015-30 Plan at 2.1. A decision to allow housing development at Millthrop will therefore undermine objectives set out in the 2015-30 Plan, which can reasonably be construed to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of any development, which we believe allows the Authority to refuse any request for planning permission given that the reasons for the original decision to classify the site as one for possible development are no longer applicable.
There may be a broader issue for the Authority to consider in light of the changes to planning legislation that have made it harder to specify that a proportion of housing should be affordable: namely whether it can only meet its own declared objectives and policies by focusing open market development in the more ‘urban’ areas of the National Park rather than small villages and hamlets. These ‘urban’ sites are less likely to be attractive to second-home owners / investors and retirees, with the result that even open market housing will be ‘more affordable’, as competition for new properties will be lower. It is unlikely that ‘payments in lieu’ will ever contribute sufficiently to the supply of affordable housing across the Park to justify the extensive negative impacts flowing from more open market housing in desirable village settings (ie an increase both in the level of second home ownership / ownership for investment and the average age of the community). This is certainly the case with the proposed Millthrop development as we outline in the previous paragraph. We suggest that the Authority take this opportunity to consider a more crafted policy of the kind suggested here – ie focusing open market development in ‘urban’ areas – which uses the market to supply housing that Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794 is ‘more affordable’. Such a policy is not ideal, given that it does not provide ‘more affordable’ housing in village settings, but it may help to create ‘more affordable’ housing across the National Park. It represents an improvement on a situation where open market housing development in a village setting accelerates negative trends there without contributing significantly to improving the overall supply of housing.
1.2 Traffic Volumes and Flows Development at the Millthrop site is unlikely to be compatible with section SP4 of the 2015-30 Plan, especially sections relating to transport (eg ‘g’, ‘h’, and ‘i’ on page 18). A survey conducted on Monday 27 April 2020 noted that there were during the hours of 9-10am, 1-2pm, and 4.30-5.30pm a total of 26 traffic movements at the junction of the lane that runs past the site with the lane running down to the Dent-Sedbergh Road. This was during a period of lockdown relating to Coronavirus and the figure is likely to be higher during normal times. An informal review conducted the same day suggests that there is an average of just over 1 car per household among the c. 30 houses that are known to be occupied on a full-time basis in Millthrop. While it is impossible to predict the volume of traffic associated with the proposed development, a reasonable assessment in the light of these surveys is that it will generate an increase of between 50% and 100% in traffic at the junction mentioned earlier. This would increase further if development of holiday accommodation is also allowed at the old Isolation Hospital site to the east of the proposed development (under review by the Authority). The junction mentioned above is notoriously difficult to negotiate due to poor site lines. Improvements will not be easy given the physical environment. In light of increased traffic, the local authority might need to introduce formal right of way markings (stop signs, white lines, etc). Such visual intrusion would clearly be undesirable. Perhaps more importantly, the single-track lane running past the development is extremely narrow and a major increase in traffic will create very significant problems with drivers having to reverse into entrances when they meet other cars (figure 3). It should be noted that the application to build housing at the Millthrop site acknowledges that traffic flow raises problems but does not appear to include a Transport Statement detailing the challenge or possible solutions. It should also be noted that the lane running to the main Dent-Sedbergh road from the lane that runs past the site forms part of the Dales Way and has heavy Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794 pedestrian traffic (it is also used extensively by Millthrop residents walking into Sedbergh). The lane running past the development also has heavy pedestrian traffic both from residents of Millthrop and residents of nearby Sedbergh who use it as part of a circular walk. A large increase in the volume of vehicular traffic will create new hazards and discourage walking, which is contrary to the 2015-30 Development Plan (page 10, ‘j’). At the time of writing (9 May 2020), government policy was being changed to discourage car use still further by increasing the proportion of journeys undertaken by foot. When the site was originally designated as potentially suitable for housing, the Development Brief noted that consideration should be given to developing the footpath that runs from the proposed development towards the river given the problems associated with extra traffic. Although this Brief is no longer in force, it provides evidence that when the site was designated as potentially suitable for development, it was done so on the assumption that changes would be needed to ensure that any development did not impact on public safety. The application appears to note an intention to create a footpath on the north boundary of the site but outside the dry-stone wall. There is no land on which to construct such a footpath. It is not clear to us that any actions can be taken that will ameliorate the problems associated with extra traffic. There is no public transport in the village which the 2015-2030 Plan indicates should be a factor in deciding whether to allow development (‘h’ on page 19).
1.3 Visual Impact on the Landscape The application to develop the Millthrop site claims that it will have little visual impact on the landscape. This statement is incorrect (see figure 4 for a photograph of the site). The development will severely obscure the view of Frostrow Fell for individuals walking the Dales Way (especially those walking away from Sedbergh towards Millthrop) and for those walking along the lane past the development. The eight proposed new houses would enjoy a good view of Frostrow Fell but the view would be obscured for the ten houses on the other side of the lane (thereby creating a net loss of an existing amenity which is out of line with note ‘n’ on page 19 of the 2015-2030 Plan). The loss of amenity for the existing local population, and those walking through the village, outweighs the gain in amenity enjoyed by purchasers of the new houses and any other putative benefit from the development. It is unlikely that any reasonable person would conclude that the damage to the visual appearance of the landscape is outweighed by any possible benefits from the development. Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
In summary, then, we suggest that any development on the Millthrop site is unlikely to constitute a sustainable development in the sense set down in the National Planning Framework and the Authority’s own policies and guidelines. It will raise the average age of the village and increase the number of under-used houses; it will increase vehicle flows and reduce pedestrian traffic; and it will create a net loss in the amenity for both locals and visitors provided by unobstructed views across the site towards Frostrow Fell. These are all clearly contrary to the stated objectives of the Authority in its 2015- 2030 Plan and can reasonably be held to ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ of any development at Millthrop. Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
2: The Case Against the Proposed Development (S/03/794)
2.1 Overview The Authority has set down clear guidelines and principles relating to development both in the 2015-30 Plan and in the Yorkshire Dales National Park Design Guide. The author of the application is aware of the former document. There do not appear to be any references in the Design and Access Statements to the Design Guide (we apologise if we missed the references). We would suggest that while the application seeks to make a case that the development is congruent with the local area, complete with photographs, the application is in practice entirely incompatible with the policies and guidelines laid down by the Authority. The application does not provide an evidence-based response to the various issues and requirements set out in the 2015-30 Plan (notwithstanding some efforts to give that impression by citing specific clauses). Claims that development will attract families as permanent residents are unsubstantiated and seem unlikely for reasons given in 1.1 above. The application contains certain ‘buzzwords’ around community and sustainability, but these do not conceal the lack of evidence showing how the proposed development will contribute to achieving them. Such an approach is not acceptable (particularly when dealing with a development in a National Park).
2.2 The Overall Appearance of the Development When the site was originally identified as one for possible housing development, several design / layout stipulations were made in the ‘Development Brief’ about any future building, including that it should be sympathetic with the rest of the village, that the houses should be behind front gardens stretching to the boundary wall with the public lane, and that all car parking should be screened away from public view. The assumption seemed to be that new development would echo 1-3 Riggs Cottages, approved in 1991, where parking is behind the houses which face the road with a garden in front (see Figure 1). While this Development Brief is no longer extant given it also included stipulations relating to affordability / local occupancy, the design specifications it laid down are still of value, and in effect remain embedded in the Design Guide, which articulates at a high level similar principles relating to the design and appearance of all new building. We would suggest that the Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794 principles are important ones. We also note that the Development Brief was displayed on the Authority’s website till at least the late autumn of 2018, without a disclaimer that it was no longer in force, creating a reasonable expectation that the Authority remained committed to the principles of housing design and layout embedded in it (it was a material factor in our purchase of Riggs Cottages in 2018). The application makes no attempt to ensure that the proposed housing development meets the guidelines set out in the Design Guide. Millthrop is essentially a collection of houses set out in continuous rows close to the road on an east-west axis and the proposal makes little attempt to retain this feature. While the development represents a continuation of the row of Riggs Cottages, the proposed houses are set back much further from the road, (the claim that it continues the line of existing development is wrong). The front gardens do not stretch to the boundary wall since there is hard standing which includes vehicular access and parking for cars (which will be extremely intrusive visually). It is not clear that the new houses are of the same height as neighbouring houses (no dimensions are given on the plans). The overall impression given in the plans is one of a suburban development or a development in a smaller town where the imperative of ensuring sympathetic building is less important than in a National Park. While we recognise that new developments can enhance an environment without slavishly following the existing template of the built environment, we think it unlikely that any development at the Millthrop site could meet the general principles and objectives set down in the YDNP Design Guide unless it:
1) Continues both the ‘line’ of Riggs Cottages eastwards along the lane and the layout of Riggs Cottages (ie with gardens in front and parking to the rear); 2) Is of dimensions broadly in keeping with other housing in the immediate area including height (which may require significant excavation); 3) Is of a design broadly in keeping with other new local housing built in recent decades, that is Riggs Cottages, Stonerigg and Underigg (figures 1 and 2), which received planning permission precisely because they were considered to ‘fit in’ with the local built environment; 4) Ensures a reasonably even distribution of housing size and plots and does not create a situation where one detached house occupies the same space as four three-bedroomed terraced houses (see below for details). Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
Such a development might permit some variation in size, eg allow for a small row of two-bedroom cottage, as well as a small row of three-bedroom cottages like Riggs Cottages. It might also allow for (eg) development of one smaller detached house similar to Stonerigg and Underrigg (see figure 2). Such housing would be ‘more affordable’ on the open market and likely to attract a range of purchasers including local people.
2.3 The Spatial Distribution and Design of Housing in the Proposed Development
Housing Density The 2015-30 Plan requires that new developments have a housing density of 35 dwellings per hectare (page 40). The proposed development appears to us to have a housing density equivalent to around 25 dwellings per hectare. None of the criteria allowing for an exception to the rule seem to be material in this case. The Authority should therefore not approve the application since it would be acting contrary to its own policies without justification.
Spatial Distribution of Housing in the Development It would appear that the land associated with the four terraced houses amounts to about 25% of the site; the land associated with the semi-detached houses amounts to about 25% of the site; while the remainder of the land is occupied by the two detached houses (one appearing to have a slightly larger plot than the other). We estimate that the plots occupied by the two detached houses ‘scaled up’ are at a density of about 12 dwellings per hectare and the four terraced houses at about 45-50 dwellings per hectare (our precise figures may not be entirely correct but we are confident they give some sense of the disproportion). The four terraced houses are ‘squeezed’ right up to the boundary with Riggs Cottages which, contrary to what is said in the Design and Access Statement will only accentuate the lack of ‘flow’, given that they are set back much further from the lane with parking in front and without gardens reaching to the lane. The spatial distribution of housing set down in the application would therefore appear very uneven and be entirely out of Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794 keeping with the rest of the village which consists mainly of terraces and small blocks. The houses opposite the development show no such disproportion; nor is such disproportion evident elsewhere on the east-west axis. The claim in the Design and Access Statement that the detached houses proposed for the east of the development are in some way congruent with Blandes Farm is ingenious but irrelevant since the farmhouse there is largely invisible from the road. The visual impact of all eight houses needs to be reviewed only in terms of the east-west axis of the lane. There is no evidence that the proposed spatial distribution will create an interesting eclecticism that enhances the visual appeal of the development. It will simply look odd and out of keeping with the local built environment (cf the Design Guide 2.3 on this issue).
Housing Design The proposed design of the houses appears to owe nothing to the Design Guide. It is of course possible to develop new styles that are harmonious with the existing built environment. This application does not do so. The application provides extensive review of the vernacular architecture in the area but makes no effort whatsoever to show that the housing design is consistent with or enhances the extant architecture (as recommended by the Design Guide). Two of the four terraced houses have dormer windows to the north (front) elevation. While the Design Guide notes that dormer windows are occasionally seen in the western areas of the National Park, this is not true of Millthrop, or indeed other local settlements, and appears totally out of keeping. None of the doors on the north elevation face outwards which is again at odds with housing in Millthrop and indeed traditional housing in the Yorkshre Dales more broadly. The south (rear) elevation of the terraced houses have French doors. While the visual appearance of the rear of the buildings is much less sensitive than the front elevation, it is worth noting that the presence of French doors is out of keeping with the local built environment. There do not appear to be any chimneys on the four terraced houses (actual or cosmetic) even though these are a feature of virtually all houses in the village. The house design in itself is well-suited to a suburban site (it is not clear to us if the design has been repurposed from another development). It is totally out of keeping with the local environment of Millthrop and the western Dales more generally. The semi-detached houses have to the front elevation what appears to be a large arched window. While that is not in and of itself a problem – similar design can be seen in barn conversions in the area – it is out of keeping with Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794 the immediate built environment and (candidly) seems to be aimed at potential purchasers who want to buy a property that has a barn-like appearance. Houses that have such features were traditionally ‘stand-alone’ farmhouses or gentry residences: they would have had no near neighbours (ie would not have been in a village setting). The less sensitive but still important rear elevation of the semi-detached houses have French windows and several velux windows. Once again, no attempt has been made to conceptualise the design in ways that enhances the local built environment. The smaller of the two detached houses appears to have a great deal of glass in the area ‘sticking out’ to the north elevation, also visible to the east elevation, which is out of keeping with anything in the surrounding built environment (or in any sense complementary with it). The north elevation of the four-bedroomed detached house again appears to have a large arched window that is not in harmony with the local village environment or indeed village architecture more generally in the region. The house appears to have a double garage (almost no houses in Millthrop have garages). We believe that the largest of the detached houses is around 2000 square feet without garage space which means that these flaws will be particularly intrusive as well as creating the visual-spatial incongruities identified in the previous section. It is not clear whether these designs were prepared with the Millthrop site in mind. The semi-detached and detached houses are of a style that is almost never found in Yorkshire Dales villages and would seem utterly incongruous. The terraced houses seem to have no relationship to any local architecture nor possess any intrinsic architectural merit. The overall appearance of the houses taken together would represent a pastiche of a rural development that has no authentic relationship to house design and settlement patterns found in the National Park. It would be unlikely to win approval in any rural area and should certainly not be approved in an area as sensitive as the YDNP. We would note that the proposal does not seem to indicate in any detail how the design of houses will ensure a high level of energy efficiency (a subject that we presume should be addressed at this stage of the planning process). All new development across the country must address this issue. This is particularly true in the case of the National Park given the emphasis in the 2015-30 Plan on sustainable development. This issue like many others should have been addressed in more detail in the application.
Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
2.4 Environmental / Wildlife Issues We are not experts in this area and note an impact report has been compiled by an expert. We can therefore only add our own observations that are not informed by any specialist knowledge. We can confirm that the site is used extensively for foraging by soprano / pipistrelle bats and that Daubenton bats also forage in the area though we have only seen them to the north of the field. We were under the impression from foraging patterns that the pipistrelle / soprano pipistrelle colony was to the east of the site in a woodland roost but may well be mistaken. We note that there are curlews nesting in the hills beyond Frostrow Fell, which occasionally visit the development site, even though it does not provide the habitat normally favoured by these birds. The dry-stone wall in front of the proposed development does support the ecological cycle of butterfly life in the area though this would not have been evident when the report was carried out. We have only seen the chrysalises of common species there (though there are of course rare species in the area). The ecological impact report was compiled in July 2019, and good practice given the sensitivity of the YDNP natural environment would suggest the need for spot surveys at other times of the year, to provide more definite answers to some of the questions raised in the report (the reviewer appeared somewhat uncertain about where the housing was to be situated on the site).
2.5 Drainage and Sewerage We again stress that we are not experts in this subject and our knowledge is derived only from previous experience of dealing with these issues in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application seems to us vague on issues relating to drainage, simply noting that the discharge of surface water will be managed sustainably, while the question of connecting to the main foul-water sewer is answered with a ‘don’t know’. The field on which the site is located is on a watershed (it is not clear whether the development itself crosses the watershed). Sustainable drainage of surface water will be hard to achieve given the high water-table in the area and the high level of rainfall (a hydrological survey would have helped to clarify these issues but none appears to have been carried out). Any viable application would need to provide much greater detail about how surface water will be drained including whether porous hard surfaces of the kind mentioned can provide sufficient drainage given the soil type and water-table level. The site is comparatively large and failure to manage the drainage of surface water will impact on the flooding that regularly occurs down the track leading up to Blandes Farm (carrying Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794 debris on to the highway after heavy rain). The drainage of surface water will also impact on the level of the beck that runs to the rear of the development which is deemed of local ecological importance. We are concerned about the potential for surface water flooding on the road in front of the development through run-off after high rainfall (we understand that kerbing was put here at some point to deal with this problem which would of course be made worse by development). We also have concerns that development might lead to increased discharge of water towards Riggs Cottages since these houses are located at a significantly lower level (though as we note earlier significant excavation of the site would be needed to ensure that the terraced houses are consistent in height with Riggs Cottages). We would need to see a detailed hydrological survey to reassure us on this point (and would in the absence of such a survey take the necessary action to ensure liability was assigned correctly prior to the start of any construction should flooding to neighbouring properties occur in the future). We presume that the ‘don’t know’ response to the question of connection to the main sewer reflects concern that it may not have the capacity to cope with discharge from any new development (though the original Development Brief implies that it does). This obviously needs to be confirmed since residents of Millthrop would be concerned about any threat of an overloaded sewerage system. If the development is to be served by private drainage, then this will have to take the form of an on-site sewerage treatment plant (ie rather than an old-fashioned septic tank), or by reed-bed filtration. A reed-bed filtration system would be preferable on environmental grounds. Any private drainage would need to ensure that the quality of effluent meets the strict standards required when it is likely to flow into a watercourse.
Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
3 Summary
3.1 In the light of our comments we think that that the Authority should consider in the context of the National Planning Framework whether any housing development is still appropriate at the Millthrop site, given that the original rationale for the decision to designate the land as a site for possible development no longer appears to apply, and that: · It is likely to increase the number of older people and second-home owners in the village, thereby exacerbating an existing challenge identified in the 2015-30 Plan, which can reasonably be considered in the context of a National Park to outweigh any ‘presumption for development’; · It will increase significantly the volume of traffic in an area of narrow lanes and high pedestrian footfall, which in the context of a National Park can reasonably be assumed to outweigh any ‘presumption for development’; · It will damage the visual landscape for existing residents and visitors in a way that is not balanced by any counter-veiling benefits, creating a net loss of amenity, which in the context of a National Park can reasonably be assumed to outweigh any ‘presumption for development’.
We believe that the Authority has created a clear expectation that it will not permit any development that conflicts with its policies and objectives, and that it does have the authority to withhold planning permission on any site where the negative consequences of development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
3.2 The Authority should reject planning application S/03/704 since:
· the overall design of the development is out of harmony with the wider built environment, not least because it is set too far back from the road, and fails to continue a line of development along the south side of Millthrop in which houses are typically close to the lane with a small front garden; · The car parking will be visually intrusive and out of line with an earlier Development Brief for new building at the site which noted the importance of parking being screened from view (for example, as in other developments in the village in the past thirty years, behind the houses). Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
The principle remains important and is effectively embedded in the section on car parking in the YDNPA Design Guide even if the formal Brief is no longer in force; · The development is internally quite unbalanced with four houses ‘crammed in’ to the west end while two larger houses are on large plots at the east end (creating a visual impression quite out of keeping with the wider built environment); · The design of houses shows no evidence of being informed by the principles set out in the YDNP Design Guide or a more general awareness of how development in a sensitive setting needs to pay great attention to ‘fit’ with the locality. The proposed designs have no harmony with the local vernacular nor offer any new form of design that would enhance the local built environment; · The application does not accord with the required housing density set out in the 2015-2030 Guide; · There has been no serious attempt to understand or resolve potential issues relating to both surface-water drainage and foul-water drainage.
We should note here that we doubt whether the Authority could approve this application, even if it desired to do so, since it would be acting unreasonably by approving a proposal in manifest contradiction of design policies and standards that it has itself laid down. We recognise that effective planning is an iterative process in which interactions between developers, the planning authorities and the local community help to create outcomes that so far as possible meet the needs and desires of all stakeholders. We do not believe any of the points we make in this submission are trivial. The application fails to address key planning / design policies and guidelines, typically engaging with them only rhetorically rather than in terms of substance and evidence. We do not believe this application could ever be developed in ways that facilitate the construction of high-quality housing that enhances Millthrop as a place to live and visit. We respectfully urge the Authority to reject the application and make clear that any resubmission should engage more fully with the spirit of the planning process and propose a development more in keeping with the needs and environment of Millthrop.
Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
Figure 1 Figure 2
1-3 Riggs Cottages built c 1991 Stonerigg built c 1991
Objection to Development of Housing at Millthrop S/03/794
Figure 3 Figure 4
Single track lane in front of site Picture of site from lane Gail Dent
From: Carol Nicholson REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 12 May 2020 14:34 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
While I have no objection, in principle, to houses being built in the field opposite me, I am concerned about the impact up to 16 or more cars will have on this small hamlet.
There is only a narrow, single track road with no passing places. The areas shaded grey to the side of the road are parking places on private property.
There is a working farm and a builders yard to the east of the site. The road is regularly used by tractors, tankers, delivery vans, land rovers, with and without trailers, cars etc. and it is a popular route for walkers. The road is also a short cut between the Dent road and the Garsdale/Hawes road.
If the houses were to be set further back and the stretch of road in front of them was widened to make 2 lanes it would do much to mitigate the impact the increase in traffic would have.
Another concern, there have always been eels, now a protected species, in Clatterbeck, The small stream to the south of the site. I saw no mention of them in the ‘’Ecological Impact Assessment’’. Will there be safeguards in place to make sure the beck isn’t affected by the building of these houses?
Yours sincerely
J. S. Woof Hillside House
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1 Gail Dent
From: Angela Sefton REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 09 May 2020 15:07 To: Planning Subject: Planning reference S/03/704
Good morning,
We own number 10 Millthrop, Sedbergh, LA10 5SP and are writing with regards to the proposed planning application for 8 new dwellings in the hamlet reference number S/03/704 as we have only just become aware of them.
Having read the application and looked at the plans we have several concerns which are listed below:
1. The limited narrow access roads into Millthrop are not substantial enough for the vehicles, supplies, increased traffic that will be necessary to complete the build. During the diversion last year when Millthrop Bridge was closed due to damage I personally witnessed one lorry hit the telegraph pole at the end of the row of cottages as it was too wide for the road. On another occasion our small raised stone bed underneath our window was hit and damaged as there isn’t sufficient space for two vehicles to pass in opposite directions, particularly if there is a car parked on the verge. The type of vehicles and frequency of traffic necessary for this development would undoubtedly cause severe problems both to the road and to the quality of life of residents who will be negatively impacted by the problems these vehicles will cause including lack of available access to the road when lorries/other vehicles are stopped, damage to the surface of the road, noise and dust created by the vehicles etc.
2. The proposal of 16 new car parking spaces allocated to the 8 dwellings will significantly impact the properties already in the hamlet, particularly the row of cottages of which we are one, as there is no pathway in front of our homes and our front doors lead directly out onto the road itself. It is already necessary to be vigilant of cars on the country lane as it is but with so many extra vehicles the danger is increased, particularly for homes with children or with children visiting. There is not sufficient room for two vehicles to pass safely for the entirety of the lane and therefore there would be regular instances of vehicles needing to reverse posing a danger, increased likelihood of collisions, increased noise levels for residents etc. The increase in traffic from such a development would negatively impact residents’ enjoyment of their own homes and the ability they currently have to enjoy the rural setting of the hamlet which has several listed buildings and is within a conservation area.
3. The properties being proposed are not affordable homes for the local community and would be at market value which means they won’t necessarily benefit the local community at all as there aren’t local occupancy clauses attached which is one of the reasons this site and others had been suggested for development within the YDNP policy.
4. The number of properties being proposed is excessive for what is a small rural hamlet and will therefore greatly effect the character of the hamlet which is in a conservation area.
5. The impact of the building works on the properties already in-situ in this small hamlet can only be negative with increased noise, increased dust, increased traffic effecting the quality of lives of residents for a significant period due to the small area/footprint of the current homes.
6. The style & location of these proposed properties are incongruous with the character of the hamlet.
7. The new properties needed locally for families, which are identified in the YDNP planning policy, should be in a location as to offer easy access on foot to schools, health care, shops and other facilities with Millthrop not providing that being located over a narrow bridge on the outskirts of Sedbergh.
1 We therefore object to this proposal and would be grateful for confirmation of receipt of this email.
Kind regards,
Mr & Mrs Sefton
2 Gail Dent
From: BT REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 09 May 2020 14:58 To: Planning Cc: REDACTED BY YDNPA Subject: Planning Application Number S/03/704
Dear Michelle
I am writing on behalf of my elderly in laws William and Jean Dobson who live at 1 Hillside in Millthrop in respect of the above named planning application. They wish to register some concerns in respect of the proposed development which are : Potential loss of light, overshadowing and overlooking Potential noise and disturbance from traffic and car parking Including some foreseeable misuse of their own land which will be used as a passing place for the increase in the number of vehicles The width of the road in front of the development is only single track and would not be suitable for the increased volume of traffic The loss of value to their own property The general appearance of the houses are out of character of those already within the hamlet of Millthrop We would be grateful if these concerns are taken into consideration. Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Yours sincerely
Michael Baines
Sent from my iPad
1 Sedbergh Community Swifts
Contact: Tanya Hoare 6 Railway Terrace Lowgill Cumbria LA8 0BN [email protected]
Michelle Clowes Planning Department Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale, Bainbridge, North Yorkshire, DL8 3EL 7 May 2020
Dear Ms Clowes
Re: Planning Application S/03/704: Land opposite Derry cottages, Millthrop, Sedbergh Full planning permission for erection of 8 dwellings, associated accesses, parking and landscaping
I am writing on behalf of Sedbergh Community Swifts (SCS), a group that is part of a network of experts and advisors throughout the UK. We provide evidence and advice about swifts, so that these endangered but seriously declining birds can be supported through planning decisions as a part of wildlife conservation and ensuring biodiversity net gain.
OUR COMMENTS:
This new development, not common in this area, offers an ideal opportunity to achieve biodiversity net gain through installation of internal swift nest bricks, in accordance with the national NPPF, NPPG and local planning policies W2.
We are pleased to note that the application acknowledges this, and specifically through the incorporation of swift and bat boxes. We ask that, if the YDNPA intends to grant permission for this application, you make installation of internal swift nest bricks a planning condition.
The costs of swift bricks are minimal relative to the potential gains. Their Installation into the fabric of the new buildings during the construction phase is extremely easy, inexpensive, with no need for ongoing maintenance and will last the life-time of the building.
The Ecological Impact Assessment suggests installation of only 3 nest bricks (section 7.3) but, given the above, we recommend that this development is suitable for a higher number. We discuss this in Section 2 below, and would be happy to work with all concerned to work out what would be most appropriate .
Swifts are in serious decline, (see point 1 below) and as they are entirely building-reliant for nest sites, installing swift bricks in this development would be a classic example of how we can act to help stem this decline.
Page | 1
1. BACKGOUND
a. Decline of swifts in the UK Swifts are on the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Amber-list of Birds of Conservation Concern. Latest figures from the BTO show a 57% decline. This rate of decline will almost certainly result in swift being red-listed at the next review.
b. This decline is due to the loss of nest habitat as buildings become renovated or demolished. c. Swift nests cause no damage nor create mess, unlike swallows or house martins. d. Swifts are only in the UK from May to August, migrating from Africa to breed here.
2. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
a. We have expertise and wide experience of the installation of a variety of designs of internal swift nest bricks and external boxes. By consulting with the applicant and architect about all options at the outset, we would be happy to liaise to advise on this. b. The EIA gives 3 swift boxes for this development, of type Schwegler 16S or similar (section 7.3). A more recent, superior, S-brick design is preferable, as described below. c. Since they are so simple to install and inexpensive relative to the total costs, we recommend that this development could easily sustain a minimum of at least 8 bricks: a ratio of 1:1 is now used in all properties built by the Duchy of Cornwall for example. In fact an even higher number would be entirely appropriate.
d. Nest bricks are often better in clusters, rather than one per dwelling. Here it may be appropriate to position them in twos or even threes. Nest bricks can be installed high in gables, alongside barge boards or purlins, or under eaves, at a minimum of 3.5 metres height.
EXAMPLES OF INTERNAL SWIFT NEST BRICKS
Swift Bricks are built into the fabric of buildings, recreating natural cavities found in older properties. Integral bricks are designed to be easy to build in, and are compatible with building regulations. They have no requirement for ongoing maintenance, not subject to deterioration and therefore are an ideal long-term biodiversity measure.
The new and most versatile design of swift nest brick is the S- Brick.
For details: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t-RD4sSFj-oYMy_mkexKea-z3hV8DdY8/view.
• The standard S model is 215mm x 102.5mm x 65mm (UK brick dimensions) • Other sizes can be made • It can fit within a stone outer leaf or cladding • Can accommodate any cavity/wall width • The slip front can be made to any colour and texture • Built in England to order
Page | 2
A wealth of detailed information can be found at the two main swift websites: Action for Swifts: www.actionforswifts.blogspot.co.uk/ Swift Conservation: www.swiftconservation.org
IN CONCLUSION
We respectfully ask that a planning condition be considered for the Installation of at least 8 swift nest bricks in appropriate positions, and we would be happy to give full cooperation with all concerned. Given the ease of installation in new build, it would be entirely appropriate to include an even higher number of bricks - which would truly demonstrate the YDNPA’s commitment to achieving biodiversity nest gain and support this highly endangered bird.
The presence of swifts will be a great asset for the species and for the area’s residents since their spectacular aerial displays provide immense enjoyment for the community.
Yours sincerely REDACTED BY YDNPA
Tanya Hoare (Chairman) Sedbergh Community Swifts
Page | 3
Gail Dent
From: rob white REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 05 May 2020 11:03 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
Dear YDNPA
Thank you for your recent letter to make us aware of the application for development opposite our property.
Firstly, nobody will openly welcome new buildings built in front of what is currently a beautiful farmland view with yearly lambs in the field and morning sunshine at the front of the property.
The personal impact of this development will mean reduced sunlight, our window blinds closed and no view of farmland which essentially takes away the character of living within a National Park.
That said, you have allocated this land in your 2015-2030 plan for housing so, its probably inevitable that one day housing will be there - something I have reminded my children of that the view from their bedroom windows is indeed time limited (make the most of watching those lambs have races, skipping and jumping on mums back.)
On the proposal itself, I think its a well thought out design with a mix of terraced, semi detached and detached dwellings. I have concerns over the extra volume of traffic if this development, Millthrop bridge and the development at Longrigg Residential Centre gains approval.
Millthrop lane regularly floods and is not wide enough for two way traffic.
Something not clear on the proposed plans is the shading of householder curtilage to appear part of the highway when it is not a passing place officially and will likely be fenced off in future.
In all likelihood general walkers who pass will continue to walk on the road and my children will use the proposed footpath as a cycle track, I suggest that instead the existing dry stone wall is moved back and the footpath omitted to make the road wider in essence also improving our current situation of tight turning when reversing into our driveway.
Policy C1 allows this development to pay a compensatable sum in lieu of providing affordable housing. Is this justifiable when Sedbergh in general is short of housing suitable for growing families ?
We are currently adapting our rented, two bed into a three bed to support our growing family as are many others in the locality of Sedbergh. It would be great if we had an opportunity to access a proportion of these homes at reasonable prices for first time buyers.
Turning greenfield into concrete spaces will add to the water run off into the highway as I doubt permeable driveways will be able to take the storm run off which will add to the current rainwater down the lane.
In conclusion, we support this application for a development that provides houses for local people and people from outside the area moving in (preferably families to support our schools, shops, doctors etc.. but not for second homes.
1 Thanks
2 Hillside, Millthrop, Sedbergh.
Sent from Windows Mail
2 Mr & Mrs M.L. Metcalfe No 1 Bridge End Field Millthrop, Sedbergh, Cumbria
5th May ’20
Planing Dept. Yorkshire Dales National Park Fao: Michelle Clowes Ref: S/03/704
Dear Sir
Application Ref: S/03/704 ‘land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop, Sedbergh’
Further to the above application we would like to submit comment on two items as follows:
- It is noted that item 5.15 of The Planning Statement pays due diligence to traffic: ’Sight lines ….. to accord with the Manual for Streets’ and that ‘Car parking provision is made in accordance with adopted standards’ . However in in item 5.16 ‘additional traffic' (although ‘minimal' ) is acknowledged by the applicant as an adverse impact and does remain a concern to existing residents. Likewise, will the Planning Authority also be addressing the implications of any cumulative increase in traffic generated by Application Ref:S/03/275D (‘Conversion of residential centre..’ Longrigg) which will also be accessed via Hillside & The Derry?
- May we also ask that the Planning Authority consult with the relevant utility providers regarding the capacity of the extg sewers/drains? In recent years drainage has been problematic in adverse weather and would merit some attention given the potential increase in use proposed.
Yours Faithfully
Mr & Mrs M.L.Metcalfe REDACTED BY YDNPA Karen Banks
From: James Palmer REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 04 May 2020 07:05 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
Good afternoon, I have reviewed the application after the applicant alerted me to it. The houses appear well designed and in keeping with the area and the land proposed for development is currently unimproved grazing. I do have four comments on the application however:
1. The issue of foul sewage is not addressed in the application although reference is made to a main drain in the vicinity in another document. 2. There are currently 12 properties for sale within a 1 mile radius of the same specification. This would suggest that further housing of this type is not immediately needed in Sedbergh. 3. The current pandemic will have a marked impact on the economy for some time. It is highly unlikely that the employment market will increase to such an extent that any further housing is required in Sedbergh, indeed, the market may well diminish. 4. I gather that large numbers of houses in Millthrop are currently holiday lets, this would suggest that there is greater demand for this purpose than for permanent housing. There is a need for low cost housing nationally, the proposed houses would not fit into this category based on size and likely market price.
Based on the above I remain equivocal about this application. Kind regards,
Dr James Palmer REDACTED BY YDNPA
1 Karen Banks
From: Martin Baggley REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 03 May 2020 19:32 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
Objections to Planning Application for Houses opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop
1) Local occupancy restriction (under “matters of policy”)
In the DAS1, both para 5.4 and the “benefits panel” contain the statement that these houses will provide the benefit of:
“New homes to be accessed by those seeking to access the housing market locally, rather than being forced to move away due to the lack of suitable, available housing - this will help provide a more balanced community for all ages.”
As this implies, will a local occupancy restriction (Section 106) be applied to these houses?
......
2) Services (under “any other potential effect on your locality”) a) The water supply to Millthrop runs along Hospital Lane. There used to be an additional supply running across the river below Millthrop Bridge. Please can United Utilities be consulted to ensure that the supply will be sufficient to meet the additional demand from these houses. b) The gas pressure in Millthrop is, at best, low. Please can Cadent be consulted to ensure that any additional load can be met without further drop in pressure.
......
3a) Millthrop Bridge (under “potential noise and disturbance from traffic”)
YDNPA will be aware of the recent severe disruption to Millthrop and Lower Dentdale residents due to the knocking down of the parapet on Millthrop Bridge, resulting in its closure. The bridge is about to be restored to its listed condition. During this disruption “Hospital Lane” (called “Millthrop to Frostrow” in the planning application) was used as the only practical diversionary route for local traffic. This resulted in damage to the lane and numerous hold-ups due to its very limited width and lack of formal passing places.
Building these houses will substantially increase the risk of renewed damage to the bridge leading to repeated disruption, further issues with Hospital Lane, and difficulty with providing building supplies to the plots.
3b) Millthrop Brow (under “potential noise and disturbance from traffic”)
YDNPA will be aware that this is the only practical route into Millthrop from the Dent Road (which is not the “main route through Millthrop” - the very misleading description on page 4 of DAS2).
1 Although short, Millthrop Brow is narrow, has a steep section and no formal passing places. The sight lines are mediocre at both ends. Heavy construction traffic using this road will cause damage to the road surface and, possibly, to the under-lying services.
The road through Millthrop itself is narrow and only has a thin top surface layer. It was not re-surfaced several years ago “because its not deep enough to plane” (verbatim from the surfacing team). Heavy traffic through the village would be very detrimental to the road and cause vibrational damage to the roadside cottages.
Once the houses are built, the additional traffic will have a considerable impact on both the Bridge and the Brow – particularly if permission is also given for the development at Longrigg.
Martin Baggley
12 Millthrop
2 Karen Banks
From: pamela coren REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 01 May 2020 17:18 To: Planning Subject: Objection to S/03/704 at Millthrop. For the attention of Michelle Clowes.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Ref. S/03/704. Land opposite 1-4 Derry Cottages and six other dwellings at Millthrop.
Points of objection.
From the guidance notes: ensuring that the character or amenity of the area are not adversely affected by extensions, new buildings or changes in the use of existing buildings or land.
It is difficult to ascertain from the plans how much view of the hillside will remain to the householders of the ten properties on Millthrop Lane which face the site. It may be possible to glimpse the felltop over the roofs of the new build, depending upon how much the site is levelled. The hillside presents a continually changing display of light and colour with its network of stone walls and fields, mature trees along the very lively beck, fell-top, intense bird life, the heron fishing the beck. Nothing rare, but everything a naturalist would expect in a hamlet surrounded by fields which have never been built on. The eco survey's argument that no endangered species are present is specious. Many now common will edge towards the red end of the list if fields in country parks are built on and natural habitat destroyed.
If this development goes ahead the windows of all my living rooms will look onto a hard standing car park for 8 cars and the back of a block of four terraced houses. Like other residents, I moved into the hamlet for its rural character and chose the house for its green outlook. Replacing this with a suburban view for ten dwellings is not a benefit.
Global warming. Problems of local flooding increase every year. Footpaths up to the Rigg, including the Dalesway, become running streams. Millthrop Lane (also known as 'Hospital Lane' ) often floods at a dip and is not always passable. Getting out of Millthrop and Sedbergh in the winter has been problematic for the last few years, because of surface flooding on the Dent Road, the A683 and the A684. Many days this winter we have not been able to drive to Kendal because of road closures after flooding. Water streams past my garden gate (there is no surface water drainage): it may increase to risk level with the additional run-off from three paved driveways discharging into the lane.
Economic and sustainability issues have changed considerably since this field was first listed as a site. Economic constraints mean there is not likely to be any improvement to the infrastructure in this area. All Millthrop's utilities and service systems are under strain and call for frequent repair and will continue to do so as extreme weather events hit the Dales. The claims made in this development brochure need to be re-examined in the light of current prognoses rather than those made ten years ago. Rural housing schemes of this size are now more suitable for large villages with good transport and country towns where services are located.
Provision of family housing in this hamlet is problematic, except for families with multiple vehicles who drive everywhere. There is no footway for pedestrians in the lanes, or on the Dent-Sedbergh road which Millthrop lane decants into. Increasingly wet winters are making the footpaths a struggle throughout much of the winter. In 2019 Millthrop Bridge on the road to Sedbergh was damaged by a stray lorry and closed from 14th October to 20th November. The listed bridge has been hit by lorries and closed three times in the last 7 years. After all such incidents the approved diversion named by the Highways Authority is an hour's drive on the fell road over Barbondale in order to get into Sedbergh.
1 Millthrop & tourism. Millthrop is much-visited in Spring and Summer for its 'picturesque' qualities, by walkers staying in Sedbergh and holidaymakers in Millthrop's many holiday cottages. It holds tourist attention and generates local income because it is historically interesting and without modern development. It has only admitted small infill properties designed to fit between existing buildings and its natural boundaries have been respected. The proposed development will drastically alter the look and feel of Millthrop. A first build on the agricultural fields which lie along the valley is a dangerous precedent for the integrity of this landscape.
Pamela at Underrigg, Millthrop
To help protect your privacy, Micro soft Office prevented automatic downlo ad of this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com
2
Karen Banks
From: charlotte clarke REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 01 May 2020 14:33 To: Planning Subject: Planning portal Reference PP-08590675
To whom it may concern,
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed planning notice for 8 houses and potentially 16 vehicles on farm land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop (Planning portal Reference PP-08590675.)
Residents of Derry Cottages use a narrow, single-track road and already need to go to the farm entrance to turn round, as it is not possible to turn on the road. There are a number of heavy-goods vehicles, such as the waste and recycling lorries, that also use this road and have to reverse from the junction to the East-side of Millthrop. Thus, it would become increasingly dangerous if there were up to 16 more cars using it.
Millthrop is a small hamlet and is not suitable for so much traffic. The narrow road is already used by lorries, farm bikes, tractors, pickups, trailers, cars and vans, and there are no passing places if they are to meet. Furthermore, the addition of these new houses would make it greatly unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists that enjoy regular use of the Lane.
We realise that there is also a planning application for 3 holiday lets on Frostrow lanes. This building has been there for many years and will undoubtedly be put back into use which adds to our concern, since there could be a further 10 vehicles using the road.
The proposed site opposite Derry Cottages is farm land and owned by Mr and Mrs Hogarth. Additionally, they own No 3 Derry Cottages and also tried to buy No 4, which we now live in. We feel that this proposal is for financial gain only and has no consideration for the safety of the current residents of Millthrop. We do not stand alone in our objection to this proposal and we would like you to bare this in mind when considering the application.
Kind Regards Tony and Kath Clarke.
1 Karen Banks
From: Sally Jeffery REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 30 April 2020 18:24 To: Planning Subject: Re: Comment on application: S/03/704
To Whom it May Concern
Re planning application S/03/704
We have lived in Millthrop for 32 years. There have been a number of changes in the hamlet during those years. One of the changes is that getting on for 50% of the houses, particularly the row of terraced cottages which make up the spine of the hamlet, are now either holiday cottages or second homes, while virtually all of the houses were owner occupied, or anyway, lived in full time, when we first came. When I walk up the street on a dark winter's evening, there are no lights on in many of Millthrop's homes.
We understand the need for more affordable housing locally but unless the houses in this proposal are, indeed, affordable and deemed available only for local inhabitants, I fear the proportion of second homes and holiday cottages will only grow. This will further hollow out the sense of community which has always been an important part of life in Millthrop. At least half of the houses in the proposed development do not look like affordable starter-type homes for young families and a similar development nearer the main centre of Sedbergh - such as the field next to Guldrey Fold and opposite Queens Drive - would surely be a more appropriate kind of site for such families....within closer walking distance of all the local amenities.
This development may change the nature of the hamlet irreversibly and be the gateway to even more wholesale development which would destroy its essential character.
We hope you will give careful consideration to these issues, otherwise we will go the way of Cornwall and other beautiful parts of the UK, where much of the best housing is taken up by people owning it but not making their lives part of the community.
Sincerely, Joseph Rosbotham and Sally Jeffery
From: Planning
Email 2/2
Many thanks, Karen
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, ren amed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Karen Banks Planning Support Officer Working hours: Mon | Wed | Thu | Fri Direct: 01969 652352 Switchboard: 0300 456 0030
1 Karen Banks
From: Peter Apps REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 29 April 2020 17:08 To: Planning Subject: Planning ref S/03/704. Proposed development of land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop, Sedbergh
Please find our comments below on the proposed development of land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop, Sedbergh. Planning ref S/03/704
While it is understood that some form of development may be allowed on this site, we feel that the style and design of the proposed development is unsympathetic to the rest of Millthrop which contains mainly older, terraced style houses. This development may well be suited to the edge of more urban housing estates but does not fit the needs and character of this small hamlet. We are concerned that these houses are not in any way consistent with the majority of housing in this area. Roof lines are irregular, windows of differing styles and not similar to any existing houses, few of which feature dormer windows. This mix of styles does not fit well in this local landscape. Further concerns are felt regarding the entrances to the development. The lane is very narrow and tightens as it heads westward toward Blandses Farm. Residents at the end houses of the Derry Cottages terrace already face difficulty exiting their parking areas as traffic can come along that lane often well above the 20mph speed limit. We are further concerned that the proposed houses are unlikely to attract younger families and are more likely to attract people with disposable incomes as second homes. Nor does there appear to have been any serious consideration to providing solutions for local and working families as even the smaller, three bedroom semi terraces would not be affordable to young families or first time buyers. We also note that there appears to be a small risk of flooding as water and gravel pour down off this field and the driveway to the neighbouring Blandses farm onto the lane when it rains more heavily and that this can be fairly continuous throughout winter months. Although this may not be part of your remit, the speed limit in Millthrop needs to be lowered from 20mph to 10mph as the lanes are too narrow to cope with extra traffic, and parking is an issue that is not easily overcome here. Existing elderly residents will also find it even more hazardous to take exercise outside their homes.
Thank you.
Peter Apps & Carolyn Flood Cherry Hall Millthrop Sedbergh LA10 5SP
REDACTED BY YDNPA
Sent from my iPad
1
REDACTED BY YDNPA Ref S/03/704
"Land opposite Derry Cottages* Millthrop in the parish of Sedbergh."
*the site is actually opposite the four 'Derry Cottages' and six further properties, 10 in all.
______
27/04/2020
For the attention of Michelle Clowes.
I wish to raise an objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:
1/ The proposal makes the assertion that this land is more than 20 metres from a water course, which while technically correct, makes no reference to the water course, called ClatterBeck which runs along the southern boundary of the field and which is prone to flooding following moderate to severe rainfall (two photos attached). The extent of the flooding is restricted to the area of the field immediately behind the proposed site but is an indication that there could be problems if the site is to be levelled in some way. Clatterbeck is part of the natural drainage of the fell-top known as 'The Rigg'. In addition, following moderate to severe rainfall the lane-side of the field is adversely affected by surface water. Water pools over several parts of the site sometimes over 15 meters in diameter and there is extensive run off through the dry stone boundary wall into the lane. Such water pooling usually takes at least a day to drain away which suggests that there is only a small depth of top soil before hitting bedrock. On some occasions the overflow from Clatterbeck at the back of the field has extended to the centre and joined the surface water at the front of the field. The design brief makes reference [DAS2 page 7] to the use of soakaways to deal with surface water, although the Application in Section 11 has ticked 'Sustainable Drainage System' rather than 'Soakaway'. While this may not be a planning matter, building control may have a view. With the addition of non-permeable surfaces in building materials this may mean additional water run off onto the roadway and the potential of flooding the gardens of surrounding properties. There is no reference to any hydrogeological survey in these proposals. It is worth noting that the piecemeal historic development of this tiny hamlet has been within natural boundaries and has not used this site.
2/ The second issue is that of traffic. All the properties in Millthrop are accessed by an unclassified single-track lane, known as 'Hospital Lane' or 'Millthrop Lane' (optimistically referred to on the plan as the 'Millthrop-Frostrow Road'). The proposals make reference to an additional 16 vehicles, and a further number may be included if ref. S/03/275D (a little further down the lane) goes ahead. I am concerned about the safety at the T-junction in Millthrop which has poor sight lines and very limited manoeuvrability, particularly for longer vehicles. A commercial vehicle reversing and needing a banksman is an everyday occurrence at the junction. The whole length of the lane allows for a single vehicle only and with no official passing places any additional traffic is going to be problematic. The lane is serviceable through the centre of the village, but degenerates into a broken and uneven track in the Frostrow direction past Blandses Farm, having been badly affected by previous flooding and root damage. The section close to Longrigg, the former residential centre, floods deeply after heavy rainfall. Exit from the hamlet in that direction (towards Frostrow ) is not always possible in winter, and is at all times of year difficult for parents walking with children having to crowd into the hedge as vehicles and trailers pass.
3/ The third issue is more general in that the local plan makes reference [SP4] to Millthrop as a service village to Sedbergh, the service centre. I would like to point out as regards sustainability that the C-road into Sedbergh which Millthrop Lane joins at the bridge is also the main route between Dent and Sedbergh and is quite busy. This road has no footpath and pedestrians, including parents with prams, have to walk in the road to get from Millthrop up to Sedbergh. There are only 3 streetlights. In winter and night-times it is necessary to walk with a torch, and is often quite dangerous. Yet these proposals make reference to family housing and the support for the local school in Sedbergh. A development able to serve these purposes should be in one of the more viable sites in Sedbergh itself.
David Coren B.Sc. C.I.H.C.M
Millthrop
LA10 5SJ
REDACTED BY YDNPA
Ms Michelle Clowes (via email)
Planning
YDNPA 27 April 2020
Objection to Planning Application: S/03/704 land opposite Derry Cottages, Millthrop, Sedbergh
Full planning permission for erection of 8 No. dwellings, associated accesses, parking and landscaping
Dear Ms Clowes
Friends of the Dales objects to this proposal. We believe such development for Open Market housing, even with a commuted payment, would do little to solve the housing problems in the Dales. We recall that this site was previously allocated for affordable housing, and would therefore expect a substantial proportion of the housing to be made affordable in perpetuity.
Millthrop is a small village with no services of any sort, and whatever development were to take place would inevitably increase the amount of traffic using the narrow Sedbergh-Dent road. If development is to be permitted, we ask that this be conditional on provision for public transport and for safer pedestrian access towards Sedbergh as far as the beginning of the pavement at Loftus Hill.
Yours sincerely
REDACTED BY YDNPA
Dr Malcolm Petyt, Chair of Policy Committee
Friends of the Dales is a working name of the Yorkshire Dales Society which was founded in 1981 and is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. Friends of the Dales is free of political and financial affiliations. We work to ensure that the Government, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, and other relevant agencies deliver their obligations to care for the special qualities of the Yorkshire Dales, an internationally important area. We do this by considering major planning applications and policy development affecting the Yorkshire Dales and adjacent areas. We offer a year round programme of walks and talks so that everyone can enjoy and learn more about this beautiful area and why it needs protection. We have a membership of around 1,300 individuals, families, businesses and organisations.
Friends of the Dales, Canal Wharf, Eshton Road, Gargrave, North Yorkshire BD23 3PN Telephone 01756 749400 www.friendsofthedales.org.uk Charity number 515384.Company limited by guarantee number 1822908 Gail Dent
From: Planning Sent: 27 April 2020 13:56 To: Michael Hughes REDACTED BY YDNPA Subject: RE: Housing allocation Millthrop - S/03/704 Attachments: Hughes.pdf
Dear Professor Hughes
Thank you for your email to Peter Stockton, which has been passed to Michelle Clowes, for her attention. A formal acknowledgement is attached.
Many thanks.
Gail Dent Planning Support Officer
Working hours: Mon | Tue | Wed
Direct: 01969 652309 Switchboard: 0300 456 0030
www.yorkshiredales.org.uk
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Yoredale | Bainbridge | Leyburn | DL8 3EL
From: Michael Hughes REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 23 April 2020 08:51 To: Peter Stockton;REDACTED BY YDNPA Subject: Re: Housing allocation Millthrop
Dear Peter,
Having reviewed the application for a major housing development at Millthrop application S/03/704) I must now inform you that I do not believe the YDNP Authority has processed the application in line with the relevant legislation. One notice has been put up by the site (though wrapped round a pole in a way that makes it difficult to see and read). Nor has the Authority notified neighbours as set out in relevant legislation that requires 'serving the notice on any adjoining owner or occupier.' As you know, I also have grave concerns about proposals for such a major development being submitted during a period of 'lockdown' when the community cannot meet to discuss such a major application (which I believe is not in line with the YDNP Plan 2015-30). I believe the Government has issued guidance on how planning matters should be handled at the present time and that the Authority should have considered whether progressing the application at this time is appropriate.
I must therefore now inform you that the planning application for development at Millthrop must be halted and recommenced in line with the relevant legislation. If the Authority proceeds with the application without serving notice then it will be acting unlawfully and the matter will be referred to the Local Authority Ombudsman. You will appreciate that members of the authority will not wish to put themselves in a position where they are knowingly acting in an unlawful manner. This email constitutes a formal statement to the Authority about the situation.
1 Please acknowedge receipt of this email by return. It is copied to the local MP Mr Tim Farron who will be briefed separately on the issue.
Professor MJ Hughes, BA, MSc, PhD, FHEA,FRHist.
2 Gail Dent
From: Jean Jones REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 22 April 2020 13:37 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
Reference the above application. As near neighbours we have not received any notification regarding the above, and no notices have been posted locally. We have only been informed by word of mouth. We have reservations regarding increased traffic along our narrow lanes. We have experience of this during the winter when Millthrop Bridge was closed due to damage. The junction at the entrance to the village is narrow and blind. We are also concerned that the new houses could become second homes or holiday rentals – we already have many of these in Millthrop and they do not contribute to village life. We hope you will consider our reservations. Adrian and Jean Jones 1 Riggs Cottage Millthrop
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1 Gail Dent
From: brenda horsley REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 21 April 2020 15:10 To: Planning Subject: Comment on application: S/03/704
Narrow lane not suitable for more traffic,Lane is also regularly subjected to flooding in heavy rain.This has already been turned down once. Sent from my iPad
1 Gail Dent
From: REDACTED BY YDNPA Sent: 21 April 2020 12:37 To: Planning Subject: S/03/704 Millthrop,Sedbergh
Fao Michelle Clowes Dear Ms Clowes Regarding the above planning application there has been no notification notice on the property, as this went on the website this morning no one in Millthrop has been aware of the planning application and thus there is a reduction in the timescale in which people can make comment on the proposed works. Please could you arrange for the situation to be rectified. Thank you Your sincerely Joe Dawson
Sent from my iPad
1