Lindsey Lightowler Dear Ms Clowes I Am Very Aware
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lindsey Lightowler From: Edwina Ashton <[email protected]> Sent: 13 September 2020 23:52 To: Planning Cc: june merrie Subject: Objection: planning application R/52/65E. East Hill Top Barn, Countersett Dear Ms Clowes I am very aware of Yorkshire Dales National Parks' impressive and sensitive drive to enhance biodiversity across the Dales. It is remarkable and utterly commendable. Because of this, I had to write to object to this application. It is impossible to see how this planning application can do anything other than damage the biodiversity of the land to the edge of Countersett. The area is very special: just above a Site of special Scientific Interest and with a wide lake, it is almost unique in the county. It has very low population and is entirely farmed. It is one of the last outposts of many rare and declining species ( lapwing, curlew, etc) John Drewett, in the very interesting and thorough Bat Survey, writes that the surrounding habitat (trees, many streams and unusually a lake) is ideal bat territory, and on his most recent and earlier surveys he noted many species of bat and a bat roost. However he writes that because the barn is being used by a farmer and therefore contains sheep dung, it was impossible to carry out a full survey. Is this really good enough for The Yorkshire Dales National Parks, especially since there are grave penalties for even unintentionally and unknowingly injuring or killing bats or damaging their roosts? Equally with such evidence of bat activity, isn't there a huge problem re light pollution? Lighting from this new development would have to be absolutely limited. As a holiday let, a constant stream of people, unfamiliar with the terrain, would have to negotiate it in darkness. Lighting would have to be absent from the parking area and the steep driveway and even then it would be difficult to suggest that this would not adversely effect bats and other wildlife. As the application will contribute to light pollution, habitat destruction and have a completely negative impacts on biodiversity in the surrounding area, it is highly objectionable. There is now greater understanding of the tipping point we may have reached with the natural world, and therefore I hope that Yorkshrire Dales National Park authority on this occasion, will reject this application. Thank you yours with very best wishes Edwina Ashton 1 Lindsey Lightowler From: Ryszard Pietras <[email protected]> Sent: 13 September 2020 21:03 To: Planning Subject: Objection to planning application R/52/65E. East Hill Top Barn, Countersett Dear Madam, I frequently visit Hilltop and West Hilltop in Countersett which neighbours East Hilltop. During my visits, I am always struck by how the farmers are still working the land in Raydale and how unspoilt the Dale is, but if the Yorkshire Dales National Park planning department allow barns in fields to be converted into holiday accommodation this will all change. The barn at East Hilltop lies outside the cluster of historic, domestic housing and its conversion will dramatically change the landscape, indeed within a decade it is easy to see how a holiday cottage village could be allowed above Semerwater. This conversion is unsympathetic to the landscape (eg the limestone chipping parking area and velux windows) and it will not benefit the Dales or the local community. The conversion will do nothing to further the need for affordable local housing backed by local and national Government; indeed it seems to be a conversion purely driven by the value of property. Should you approve this planning application as you did in 2017, I would urge you to put rigorous conditions in place which ensure the barn is screened from the road to Bainbridge and the roads around Semerwater. Such screening would require established native plants to be planted and maintained. Similarly the light pollution needs tight control if bats and other wildlife known to inhabit the area are not going to be adversely affected or displaced. I think this conversion is entirely inappropriate for such a beautiful and unspoilt area and I urge you to reject it. Yours sincerely, Ryszard Pietras 1 Lindsey Lightowler From: Merrie Ashton <[email protected]> Sent: 12 September 2020 16:16 To: Planning Subject: Letter of objection to planning application R/52/65E. East Hill Top, Countersett Dear Michelle Clowes, Despite receiving no official notification of this application from yourselves, I chanced upon the public notice, it was not easily visible having been pinned to the inside of a post having subsequently read the application R/52/65E I am writing to object to planning application R/52/65E for the following reasons. The proposed development is outside Countersett and is visible from footpaths around Semerwater. It will permanently urbanise an area of beautiful and unspoilt landscape. As the bat survey, submitted with the application, states ‘the buildings are on a rise above Semerwater and with several tree lines nearby connecting the site with vegetated corridors’ (8:1) . The Google Earth map, also submitted, shows that the barns sit isolated beyond the cluster of domestic houses, which historically form Countersett. The proposed parking area is particularly inappropriate. Limestone chippings is a suburban material (why not turf and matting?). This suburban feature can only be detrimental to the historic landscape. Moreover the proposed parking area is for two cars. Surley this is unnecessary for a one bedroom property/ holiday let, as previously noted when the application was submitted in 2017. The proposal is for a holiday let. According to the planning application this fits the ‘market housing’ criteria as opposed to ‘affordable home ownership’ or ‘social, affordable or intermediate rent’. However this does not support the Government's Yorkshire Dale's own or Bainbridge parish council’s drive to provide local, affordable housing. Within my objection I would also like to raise the following questions: Why is there is no provision for areas to store and collect waste or recyclable waste (see planning application) ? How does the Yorkshire Dales National Park propose to ensure that the ex-garth/ orchard remains undeveloped (as stated on the plan) because this parcel of land slopes towards Semerwater and is visible from it, so any domestication would jar with the landscape which is wild, historic and is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty ? How are building contractors are going to access the site should the proposal be approved ? The application states there will be ‘no altered vehicular access proposed to the public highway’ and in the heritage statement ‘there is not an existing hard surface track from the village road.’ Are they proposing to make the track across the field, which is barely used, fairly steep and often muddy, tarmac-ed? Are the applicants planning to use the driveway I share with them, which is unfit for such a purpose being narrow, grassed and with a stream running alongside. Will there be a review of the structural engineering report? The extent of the groundwork for this proposal required, raised concern for the parish council in 2017. The report submitted with this application is dated August 2016. Within the curtillege of the development are two charming Dales outhouses, which sit in full sight of Semerwater. The 1 structural engineer’s report recommends that these are entirely demolished and rebuilt. What is the intention for these buildings? Is the applicant intending to sympathetically restore them? I feel very strongly that Yorkshire Dales National Parks should have explicit details of what is planned. In addition to the above objections I would like to note that this proposal is inconsistent and contradictory: The heritage statement refers to ‘a small lean-to storm porch proposed on the N-E elevation’. However this is not included on the plan and was to my understanding removed from the previous 2017 application, as it was out of keeping with a traditional Dales barn. May we have clarification on this ? The planning application says the barn was last used pre-1992, a view supported by the heritage statement. However the bat survey notes ‘the building is used for occasional agricultural purposes, so a thorough search of the interior for bat droppings was not practical due to the presence of sheep dung’. Ss we know a local farmer continues to use it and the barn is not redundant. Should this application be approved, a traditional part of Countersett will be lost for ever, I therefore urge you to reject it. Yours sincerely, Merrie Ashton Hilltop & West Hilltop, Countersett Sent from my iPad 2.