Report to the Development Control and Regulatory

REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND

REGULATORY BOARD – 13TH MARCH 2003

PROPOSED PUBLIC PATH CREATION ORDER

CREATION OF NEW BRIDLEWAYS Y5, Y10 AND Y12

IN THE PARISHES OF SHEARSBY AND ARNESBY

REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

PART A

PURPOSE

1. The purpose of this report is to seek the Board’s approval of part of the above-mentioned proposal.

Recommendation

2. It is recommended that an Order be made under the provisions of Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980, the effect of which will be to create a public bridleway along the same line as public footpath Y5, between the villages of Shearsby and Arnesby, as shown on the plan attached to this report.

Reason for Recommendation

3. That there appears to be a need for a public bridleway along the line of the existing public footpath Y5 between the villages of Shearsby and Arnesby.

Circulation under Sensitive Issues Procedure

4. Mr. D. Jennings CC.

Officer to Contact

5. Mr. Gary Jackson, Chief Executive’s Department, Tel 0116 2656159.

PART B

Background

6. In August 2001 the Leicestershire & Rutland Bridleways Association submitted a petition to the County Council signed by 387 signatories, which called for Public Footpath Y5 between the villages of Arnesby and Shearsby to be upgraded to the status of a Public Bridleway. The accompanying letter from the Leicestershire & Rutland Bridleways Association also called for Public Bridleway Y12 at Arnesby, which is currently a cul-de-sac route, to be extended through to Public Bridleway Z28. The petition and letter were subsequently put before members in October 2001.

7. In December 2001, two further petitions were presented to members which were in opposition to the original petition. They were signed by 214, and 94 people respectively.

8. The proposal would involve the creation of new bridleway rights along Public Footpath Y5 and the creation of a completely new right of way extending the route of Public Bridleway Y12 northwards.

Legal Considerations

9. If the owners of the land over which these paths are proposed to be created were in agreement with the proposal, then the County Council could enter into a Creation Agreement with them under the provisions of Section 25 of the Highways Act 1980. However, the landowners are in this case, strongly opposed to the proposal.

10. Under the provisions of Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980, the County Council has the power to create new public rights of way by a Creation Order. Such Orders can be made without the agreement of the landowners concerned but in such cases compensation may be required.

11. When applying Section 26 of the Highways Act 1980, the Authority should have regard for the following:-

(a) The extent to which the path or way would add to the convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public, or to the convenience of persons resident in the area.

(b) The effect which the creation of the path or way would have on the rights of persons interested in the land.

2 Comments of the Director of Community Services

12. The Director of Community Services has made the following comments:-

13. Public Bridleway Y12

The owners of the land over which Public Bridleway Y12 crosses, namely Mr. & Mrs. Shipman of Manor Farm, Arnesby, have always disputed the existence of this bridleway and have held to the view that it was wrongly included on the Definitive Map. On learning of the proposal to extend this bridleway they submitted a Definitive Map Modification Order dated 6th March 2002, the purpose of which is to seek the removal of this bridleway from the Definitive Map on the basis of historical evidence.

As this bridleway is now subject to this application and was only secondary to the main proposal outlined by the petitioners relating to Public Footpath Y5, I would recommend that this part of the proposal be abandoned at least until such time as the outcome of the Definitive Map Modification Order application is known.

Therefore further comments are limited solely to the proposal to upgrade Public Footpath Y5.

14. The Route of Public Right of Way Y5

Church Lane Shearsby extends northwards from the village square as an enclosed lane for approximately 150 metres, before it peters out and becomes the unenclosed public right of way Y5. At Arnesby an enclosed trackway extends southwards from St. Peter’s Road for approximately 140 metres, before it too peters out and becomes the unenclosed public right of way Y5.

Approximately half way along the public right of way the public path runs between two hedges for almost 55 metres. This section of the path is known to many locals as “Cut Throat Lane” or “Cut Throat Alley”.

The existence of the two enclosed lanes at both ends of the route, together with the enclosed middle section has lead to the view held by several local people, that this path used to be an enclosed lane forming the original road between the two villages, until at some time in the past it was bypassed by the Welford Road to the north east.

I have looked into this matter to determine if there is any documentary evidence to support this view. The Welford Road follows the pattern of an ancient ridgeway route following high ground with villages set down slope to either side. (In this case the villages of Foston, Arnesby, Shearsby, Mowsley and Knaptoft). Many such ridge roads date back to the Iron Age and beyond, and it is likely that the Welford Road is at

3 least as old as the surrounding settlements if not older, and therefore it is unlikely to have “bypassed” the route in question.

I could find no conclusive evidence to suggest that the public path between the two villages is anything other than a footpath. It does not appear on any of the antique maps of the county and there is no evidence in relation to the path included in Tithe or Enclosure Awards.

I suspect that as with many local “legends” there is some truth in the idea that this path used to be an important road or trackway between the two villages. The surviving landscape features definitely lend themselves to this interpretation. However, it would appear that it has not been used for anything more than a footpath for several hundreds of years.

There is only one small piece of evidence currently available which points to the route being more than a footpath. The route of Church Lane is described as “the road leading from Shearsby aforesaid to Arnesby”, within a conveyance of land between Walter Wingfield Nuttall and John Gregory Elliot, dated 1st July 1914. This would suggest that the whole of the path between the two villages was considered to be a road at this time, but on its own it is not strong evidence and in my opinion, would not be sufficient to warrant a Modification Order to have the route upgraded.

Therefore, if this route is to become a recognised public bridleway it will have to be by means of a Public Path Creation Order rather than because of any historic bridleway use.

Site Survey

15. A survey of the route was made on 15th January, 2002 and a plan prepared indicating the works that would be required to make the path suitable for horse riders. (Survey Document No.1 - Copies are available for inspection in the Members Rooms and the Members Library.)

Consultations

16. The following parties have been consulted and have made no objection:-

Harborough District Council Harborough Highways Partnership

Leicestershire Footpath Association The Association has stated that they do not object to the proposal in principle, but do have concerns over the surface of the route. For instance in the first field past Arnesby Church, this is usually ploughed and cropped and is very muddy during winter months. Therefore some form of material would need to be placed on the ground for multi use of

4 riders and walkers, and would urge the County Council to consider an all weather surface for the majority of the route. The footpath between Arnesby and Shearsby is used regularly by local inhabitants, although it is understood there is considerable feeling against the proposal.

The Association accept the observation concerning lack of bridleways through the area and the upgrading would be beneficial to riders in the area.

Fisher German Chartered Surveyors (acting for Esso Petroleum Co. Limited and Mainline Pipelines Limited) Severn Trent Water Limited East Midlands Electricity Environment Agency Energis Communication Limited Transco The National Grid Company Plc

17. The following letters of support have been received:-

22 letters of support have been received and are listed below:- (Letters of Support Document No. 2 - Appropriate copies are available for inspection in the Members Rooms and the Members Library.)

H. Maeers, Manor Farm, Peatling Magna B. Maeers, Manor Farm, Peatling Magna Mrs. E.K. Winterton, The Limes, Church Lane, Shearsby Mrs. L. Cotterill, 15 Hallcroft Avenue, Countesthorpe Mr. & Mrs. T.J. Freeman, The Walnuts, St. Peters Road, Leicester Miss P. Elliott, Burdetts Paddock, Fleckney Lane, Arnesby A. Elliott, Burdetts Paddock, Fleckney Lane, Arnesby S. Elliott, Burdetts Paddock, Fleckney Lane, Arnesby. A. Elliott, Burdetts Paddock, Fleckney Lane, Arnesby Mr. D.C. Winterton, The Limes, Church Lane, Shearsby E. Winterton, The Limes, Church Lane, Shearsby K. Winterton, The Limes, Church Lane, Shearsby L. Winterton, The Limes, Church Lane, Shearsby Mrs. E.J. Vostani, Bank House, The Bank, Shearsby Mr. & Mrs. J. Winterton, The Cottage, St. Peters Road, Arnesby A. Wood, Peatling Saddlery, The Barn, Wistow Rural Centre, Kilby Road, Wistow Mr. G. Parker, 10 Glaisdale Road, The Meadows, Wigston Mr. A. Butler, Arnesby C.E. Primary School, Mill Hill Road, Arnesby Mr. & Mrs. Freeman, The Walnuts, St. Peters Road, Arnesby Mr. & Mrs. P. Sanders, Bean Hill House, Church Lane, Shearsby M. Jeffery, Elmsbrook, Fenny Lane, Shearsby B. Maeers, Manor Farm, Peatling Magna

5 18. The following letters of objection have been received:-

38 letters of objection have been received and are listed below:- (Letters of Objection Document No. 3 - Copies are available for inspection in the Members Rooms and the Members Library.)

Marrons Solicitors (acting for Mr. and Mrs. Barnacle of Willowbrook Farm, Shearsby) Shearsby Parish Meeting Arnesby Parish Council Peatling Magna Parish Meeting The Ramblers Association Mr. D. Lewin, The Firs, Mill Hill Road, Arnesby Mrs. R. Sawyer, East View Cottage, Mill Hill Road, Arnesby Mr. D. Lenton, South View, Saint Peters Road, Arnesby Mr. J.G. Mawby, Two Hoots, Church Lane, Arnesby Mrs. E.M. Lenton, South View, Saint Peters Road, Arnesby M.A. Boyle, Holmleigh, Saint Peters Road, Arnesby Dr. & Mrs. K.O. Lee, Spring Cottage, Church Lane, Shearsby Mr. A.P. Coupland, Langdale House, Lutterworth Road, Arnesby Mr. & Mrs. R. Cox, Meadowcroft, Church Lane, Shearsby Mr. D.E. Webster, Mundsley Robert Hall Road, Arnesby Mr. & Mrs. C. Wallace, Westleigh, Chestnut Lane, Anesby Mr. P.A. Singleton, 4 Church Lane, Arnesby Mr. P.E. Cole, Sycamore Cottage, South Close, Arnesby Mr. & Mrs. P. Elliott, Manor Farm, Welford Road, Arnesby Mr. V. Robinson, 3 Mill Hill Road, Arnesby K. & D.G. Davies, Stepping Stones, Mill Hill Road, Arnesby Mrs. A. Dickens, The Old Stables, Main Street, Peatling Magna Mr. & Mrs. R.C. Kent, The Old Barn, School Lane, Peatling Magna Mr. N.J. Cundy, Westfield Cottage, Church Lane, Arnesby Mrs. E. Lucas (e-mail) Mr. F.W. Baker, Seals Farm, Main Street, Bruntingthorpe, Lutterworth Mrs. E. Cundy, Westfield Cottage, Chestnut Lane, Arnesby M.N. Bown, Gable End, Mill Hill Road, Arnesby Resident of Arnesby Mr. J.C. Baker, Grange Farm, Bruntingthorpe, Lutterworth Mr. B. Morris, Newstead, Fenny Lane, Shearsby Mrs. B. Garner, Jigsaw Cottage, Back Lane, Shearsby Mrs. I. Burbidge, The Cottage, The Bank, Shearsby Mrs. L. Tipler, Hillside View, Fenny Lane, Shearsby Mr. B. Labram, New Farm, Peatling Parva, Lutterworth Mr. & Mrs. J. Timms, Wheathill Farm, Church Lane, Shearsby Mr. R.B. Charles, 3 Welford Road, Shearsby Mr. & Mrs. N.C. Timms, Reads Farm, Church Lane, Shearsby

6 19. Supporting objection documents received from Mr. and Mrs. A. Barnacle of Willow Brook Farm, Church Lane, Shearsby (Landowner). (Supporting Objection Document No. 4 - Copies are available for inspection in the Members Rooms and Members Library.)

• Letters to and from the Soil Association

• Letters to and from C.R. and A. Pattison, Elmhurst Organic Farm, Bow Lane, Withybrook, Nr. Coventry, Warwickshire.

• Landwise Report - Willowbrook Farm.

• Veterinary Health Plan for Willowbrook Farm, Shearsby.

• Premium Cattle Health Scheme - Technical Document.

• Livestock Articles.

20. The following parties have also been consulted but no reply has been received:-

Mr. D. Duran, Bean Hill Farm, Church Lane, Shearsby. Mrs. M. Jeffery, Elmsbrook, Fenny Lane, Shearsby British Telecom Plc The Royal Mail The Leicester Group of the Endurance Horse and Pony Society of Great Britain Loughborough and District CHA Rambling Club Byways and Bridleways Trust Powergen Property Department Cyclists Touring Club NTL East Midlands The British Horse Society The Leicestershire and Rutland Land Rover Club

Arguments in favour of upgrading Footpath Y5 to the status of Bridleway

21. There have been several arguments put forward to support the proposal by the petitioners, in basic terms they are as follows:-

(a) “The upgrading will provide an important link in the bridleway network.”

This is correct. A network of public bridleways and minor unclassified county roads link the settlements of Mowsley, Knaptoft and Shearsby to the south and the settlements of Countesthorpe, Peatling Magna, Foston and Arnesby to the north. The absence of a bridleway between Shearsby and Arnesby is clearly a “missing link” in the chain of bridleways in the area.

7 (b) “It will provide a safer alternative route to the A5199 for horse riders, and cyclists.”

This would seem to be a reasonable argument. There is no pavement along side the A5199 Welford Road between Shearsby and Arnesby, and only a relatively narrow grass verge, which is incised at intervals by drainage grips. The County Council’s Highways Transportation and Waste Department holds considerable data on road traffic incidents, and from this it is clear that the Welford Road between Arnesby and Shearsby is susceptible to accidents, particularly at the junctions with Bath Lane Shearsby and Lutterworth Road Arnesby. I am not aware of an accident involving a cyclist or horse rider on this stretch of road. It is likely that cyclists and horse riders avoid using the A5199 because of the perceived dangers.

It is therefore my view that the provision of a new bridleway between Shearsby and Arnesby would provide a safer alternative route to the A5199 for horse riders and cyclists.

If the footpath is converted into a bridleway, then this will mean that existing stiles will be replaced by gates and therefore access for those with some disability will be improved.

(d) “It will provide a valuable boost to the rural economy.”

It would appear that many of the signatories to the petition are connected with riding and livery stables. If the bridleway network is improved this may have some positive effect on local equestrian business.

The development of improved access for horse riding as a means of encouraging and supporting equestrian industry, is included in the County Council’s Equestrian Strategy Policy Document.

(e) “It will enable children to cycle to school in safety.”

Several local people have stated that while they would not allow their children to cycle to school along the A5199, they would be happy to allow their children to cycle along a bridleway to school during the spring autumn and summer months, when the journey could be made in daylight.

The Arnesby Church of England Primary School, have stated that they are in support of the proposal, because it will enable children living in Shearsby to cycle to school in safety and to more easily take their bicycles to school to attend “Cyclewise” training.

8 I would therefore agree with this argument. However, it would have to be borne in mind that the route is not surfaced and apart from the driest periods of the year when the ground is hard, the new route would only really be suitable for use by children with Mountain & Hybrid Bicycles.

(f) “It has been requested by a significant number of local people who consider that it will add to their convenience and enjoyment.”

I consider that the petition of 387 signatories does indeed demonstrate that the creation of this bridleway link, would significantly add to the convenience and enjoyment of a substantial section of the public and to the convenience of persons resident in the area.

Arguments against the proposal

22. There have been several arguments put forward against the proposal by the counter petitioners, in basic terms they are as follows:-

(a) “The extra width required for a bridleway will result in a loss of land for agricultural use.”

This is correct. The standard width that the County Council requires for a new field edge footpath is 1.5 metres, while for a bridleway it is 3.0 metres.

I do not believe that it would have any significant effect on the viability of the farms concerned. The creation of a bridleway would of course, affect the value of the land concerned and therefore it is likely that compensation would be required.

(b) “The proposal would be detrimental to Organic Farming.”

Mr. and Mrs Barnacle are converting their farm to Organic Status and have expressed strong concerns about the bio hazards which would arise from having horses on their land. Their fear is that horses could carry diseases on their bodies and in their faeces, which might be transmitted to their stock and because of this risk, their farm’s organic status would be put at jeopardy.

If these concerns were well founded, then It is my view that the County Council would have a responsibility to consider such a significant impact on Mr. and Mrs. Barnacle’s farm extremely carefully, before agreeing to create a new bridleway.

The Soil Association have been contacted and were able to confirm that,“So long as the right of way is used for its intended purpose it would have no effect on the organic or in-conversion status of an individual field or holding”.

9 The Soil Association also stated that, “horses pose less of a threat to bio-security than that posed by dogs" (dogs are a lawful accompaniment on both public footpaths and public bridleways) and also, “The status of the land whether organically managed or not, should not influence the decision as to whether this proposed bridleway should be granted or not”.

In the circumstances, I am quite happy to be guided by the views of the Soil Association on this matter.

It is possible that if the route is opened up to horse riders, then some of them may trespass out on to the field where once it would have been physically impossible for them to gain access. The County Council has occasionally received complaints in the past from farmers, who have had problems with horse riders straying from existing bridleways. While such behaviour may be possible, I do not consider it sufficient reason not to proceed with the creation of the bridleway.

(d) “Extra use of the path by horse riders and cyclists will cause surface wear and tear and will make the path very muddy.”

This is a reasonable argument, as it is likely that the passage of horses’ hooves and bicycle wheels may well have a detrimental effect on the surface of the path. The route is generally well drained and well compacted except for the short cross field section near Arnesby. It is therefore difficult to prejudge how significant such damage would be. There are several existing public bridleways in the locality which cross similar soils, which do not get unreasonably muddy in winter. If the route does become more muddy and rutted, then this would be to the inconvenience of the existing footpath users.

If the proposal were to proceed, the County Council would need to monitor the condition of the path’s surface carefully and may need to consider repairing the surface with suitable materials if necessary. The only location where an all weather surface would need to be provided as a matter of course to enable the route to be made available to horses, would be at the approach aprons to a new bridleway bridge over the brook.

(e) “The change of status will cause the route to be misused by four wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles.”

It is unlikely that the creation of a bridleway would lead to misuse by motor vehicles. I am not aware of such problems occurring on the existing bridleway network in the locality. However, if the landowners were agreeable the County Council could install motor

10 cycle barriers at each end of the path to reduce the possibility of misuse to the bare minimum.

(f) “There are already other safe routes between the villages available to horse riders and cyclists.”

This is true, but they are all considerably longer and less convenient than the proposed route and all involve using lanes that although quiet, still carry the inherent dangers of coming into conflict with motor vehicles.

(g) “The new bridleway would only favour horse riders using the route for recreational and business purposes and would be to the detriment of everybody else.”

It is true that horse riders would receive the greatest benefit from the creation of a bridleway. This benefit does need to be weighed against the dis-benefit to current users of the path. In my view the benefit to the public at large does out weigh any dis-benefits. With regard to the type of use expected, it is quite reasonable for horse riders to use a public right of way for recreational purposes.

Indeed, the primary use of most public rights of way is for recreation. It has been asserted that this is in some way not legitimate because this is not what the rights of way were originally created for. This is not correct.

While much more use was made of public rights of way for people to go to and from work or church in the past, they have always been used for recreation as well. Evidence for this is provided from historical resources and from popular literature of past centuries. In Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice published in 1813, Eliza Bennett uses a public footpath across agricultural fields simply for the pleasure of doing so in order to visit her sister in the neighbouring parish, despite the path being very muddy and alternative means of transport being available.

As regards use of the path by riding stables which may benefit commercially, of course all public highways are open to commercial use. The highway network has always been essential to the economic activity of the country and continues to do so. The development of improved access for horse riding as a means of encouraging and supporting the equestrian industry is included in the County Council’s Equestrian Strategy Policy Document.

(h) “The new bridleway would disturb the peace and quiet of Shearsby.”

No evidence has been put forward to support this assertion.

11 (i) “It would lead to parking problems because it would encourage people to park their horse boxes in the area.”

There would appear to be no evidence to support this assertion.

(j) “The original petition is not valid and does not represent the views of local people.”

It is argued that the majority of signatures come from people who frequent livery stables, riding stables feed retailers and tack shops and that therefore this is unrepresentative. It would seem perfectly reasonable that if the views of horse riders are being sought, then such a petition would be made available for signing at such places where horse riders are likely to frequent.

It is also argued that some of the signatories were only children. It is true that children might be persuaded to sign a petition that they do not understand. However, as this particular proposal has implications for children who might wish to avoid cycling or riding on the A5199, then it is not unreasonable to expect some of the signatories to be children. I do not think that the children’s views and concerns should be discounted simply on the grounds of their age.

It is alleged that some of the signatures have been forged. However, as far as I am aware there has been no substantiation of this allegation.

Finally, it is argued that many of the signatories are not local people and that the petition represents people who do not live in the area, also that it does not represent the views of local people.

In order to determine where the majority of the petitioners live in relation to the route concerned, I have carried out a simple spatial analysis. The distribution diagram indicates that 39% of the petitioner’s addresses fall within a 2.5 mile radius of the proposed bridleway and 52% of them fall within 3.5 miles. 74% of the petitioner’s addresses fall within a 5 mile radius of the route and 90% fall within 7.5 miles.

(k) “Two petitions against the proposal demonstrate that local people do not want it.”

Those individuals against the proposal who have signed the two counter-petitions total 308, while those who have signed the petition in favour of the proposal total 387.

However, to be fair to the counter-petitioners this matter has to be considered on the basis of the overall benefit that would result from the upgrading of the route to a bridleway when balanced

12 against the dis-benefits, rather than on a simple count of the numbers of people for and against.

A significant number of local people are against the proposal, but on the other hand many other people who live within the wider locality, earnestly believe that a new bridleway would add significantly to their convenience and enjoyment.

Those in opposition to the proposal have attempted to show that a new bridleway would be undesirable, unnecessary and would cause an inconvenience to residents. However, they have not in my view, put forward any good evidence to suggest that those seeking the new bridleway would not find such a route beneficial to their convenience and enjoyment. Nor have they demonstrated that the proposed creation of a bridleway, would have an unreasonable or unacceptable effect on the rights of persons interested in the land.

Therefore, although their views are sincerely held and have been made forcefully both in the form of letters and petitions, it is my view that they have not furnished the County Council with any sufficiently good reason, not to proceed with the creation of the requested bridleway.

Policy Documents & Policy Framework

23. (a) Leicestershire Milestones Statement 1998

This document sets out the County Council’s aims and objectives with regard to the management of the County’s rights of network and outlines the authority’s policies and priorities with regard to achieving these aims and objectives.

The County’s key objective is “to maintain and improve the public rights of way network and promote its responsible use”.

Policy 39 (f) states that the Council’s priority will be to “develop a programme of countryside access enhancement to include new rights of way and other forms of access…..”

Policy 40 states, “In particular links will be formed (either as Definitive or permissive routes) where possible to create substantial horse riding facilities using the existing fragmented bridleway network.”

(b) Leicestershire County Council Equestrian Strategy 1999

Two of the primary objectives of the County Council as set out in the Leicestershire County Council Equestrian Strategy are:-

13 • “To promote the development of local equestrian and rural businesses”

• “To encourage provision of improved access for riders and assist the development of off road-routes”

Financial Implications

24. The following are the estimated costs involved in the creation of the bridleway:-

8 Bridlegates @ £188.00 £1,504.00 Bridleway bridge (full construction) £9,000.00 Compensation to landowners £1,000.00

Total £11,504.00

These costs would need to be born by the Department of Community Services’ Rights of Way budget. If the proposal were to proceed I am informed that these costs could be met.

Conclusion

25. The proposed creation of a bridleway between Shearsby & Arnesby would to a significant extent, add to the convenience and enjoyment of a substantial section of the public and to the convenience of persons resident in the area.

The proposed creation of such a bridleway would not have a significant detrimental effect on the rights of persons interested in the land, if they were adequately compensated for the minimal loss of land available for agriculture.

The Creation of such a bridleway is in line with County Council policies and would be a reasonable means of implementing such policies.

Most of the arguments put forward against the proposal can not be substantiated in fact, but some are worthy of serious consideration. However, I am of the opinion that the benefits of creating a bridleway out weigh the disadvantages.

Equal Opportunities Implications

26. None.

Background Papers

27. Correspondence on file PTEPO/610.

gj783mk

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD - 13TH MARCH 2003

PROPOSED PUBLIC PATH CREATION ORDER

CREATION OF NEW BRIDLEWAYS Y5, Y10 AND Y12 IN THE PARISH OF SHEARSBY AND ARNESBY

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED

SURVEY - NO. 1

LETTERS OF SUPPORT - NO. 2

LETTERS OF OBJECTION - NO. 3

SUPPORTING OBJECTION DOCUMENTS - NO. 4

gj783mk

SURVEY - NO. 1

gj783mk

LETTERS OF SUPPORT - NO. 2

gj783mk

LETTERS OF OBJECTION - NO. 3

gj783mk

SUPPORTING OBJECTION DOCUMENTS - NO. 4 RECEIVED FROM MR. & MRS. A. BARNACLE, OF WILLOW BROOK FARM, CHURCH LANE, SHEARSBY

gj783mk