Our Ref SGB/AB Nathan Puckering Hambleton District Council Civic Centre Stone Cross Northallerton North Yorkshire DL6 2UU 12th November 2019 Dear Mr Puckering Re: Proposed Enclosure of Registered Village Green, Great Smeaton, DL6 2EP 19/02204/LBC I write further to the above listed building consent application which you have received from the occupant of East House, Great Smeaton who is seeking to enclose and obstruct part of the Great Smeaton registered Village Green (VG127). On behalf of the Parochial Church Council of Great Smeaton with Appleton Wiske, within the Wiske Benefice of Leeds Diocese, I wish to register a formal objection to this application. The proposal is contrary to Section 12 of the Inclosure Act 1857 and contrary to Section 29 of the Commons Act 1876. The former gives rise to a criminal offence and the latter makes it a statutory public nuisance to fence in a registered green. North Yorkshire County Council as the appropriate commons registration authority for the area have confirmed the fact that the area in question constitutes registered Village Green and therefore having regard to the above Acts and Sections, it is clear that it would be unlawful for the Council to entertain the applications proposed. It is my understanding that it would be ultra vires for the Council to seek to grant planning permission for this proposal. From a procedural perspective, we also believe that the application is defective in terms of its depiction of the correct state of land ownership. We consider that the ownership has not been correctly identified – the red line needs to enclose only that area of land affected by the proposals but more importantly a blue line should be clearly delineated showing other land which is within the ownership of the applicant. The applicant is understood to own a greater extent of land adjacent to the site than has been suggested. It is accepted that this is a minor point, when compared to the above fundamental reasons, but it does seem to highlight that the proposals have not been correctly made to the Local Authority. Notwithstanding the above points, if, for any reason, the Local Planning Authority were to consider determining the above application, we would draw their attention to paragraphs 184 to 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework, relating to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Specifically, we would cite the contents of paragraph 193 which requires the Authority to give great weight to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether the proposal causes substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. In this particular case, the heritage assets whose significance would be affected by these proposals include St Eloy’s Church, The Old Rectory and East House itself – all of which are Grade II Listed Buildings as well as the Great Smeaton Conservation Area within which the proposals lie. East House itself being the historic manorial house for the village is set in its own curtilage, surrounded by a distinctive boundary, composed of part-fencing and lower brick wall. This is a distinctive architectural feature and separates the building from the registered Village Green onto which the property faces. The proposals, which seek to provide an additional layer of enclosure, would provide a cluttered and confused boundary treatment which is at odds from the present setting of the house. The proposed fencing would appear alien and incongruous in the context of the Conservation Area, which has, as its distinctive characteristic at this point, the unrestricted appearance of the Village Green, complete with its grass swathes and open character. The proposals would certainly give rise to harm to both the setting of East House, the setting of the church and, to a lesser extent, the setting of The Old Rectory. The greatest harm would be to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Whether the proposals cause substantial harm or less than substantial harm is a matter of some debate. The view may well be taken that less than substantial harm is caused to the significance of The Old Rectory, but it is contended that substantial harm would be caused to East House and the church. Substantial harm would certainly also be caused to the character and appearance of the existing Conservation Area. As paragraph 195 of the Framework makes clear, where a proposal will lead to substantial harm to the significance of a Designated Heritage Asset, Local Planning Authorities should refuse consent. The secondary test of substantial harm being permitted where it would lead to substantial public benefit, clearly does not apply to these proposals which offer up absolutely no public benefit to anybody beyond the occupant of East House itself. From a practical point of view, the proposals would also cause significant harm to the way in which the public of Great Smeaton have been able to enjoy their registered Village Green and alongside this, the benefits of having an established church within their community. As a vocal point for village life, the church is used for ceremonial occasions such as weddings and funerals for which purpose vehicles cross the established tracks across the green as they have done for several centuries. Larger vehicles, such as a hearse, have to take a circular route around the green, pausing to deliver the coffin at the church, before passing over East House Road to get back onto the public highway. By preventing the access of such ceremonial vehicles, the proposals would lead to highly dangerous manoeuvres consisting of reversing along the tracks and undertaking multiple point turns amidst a congregation of mourners or celebrants, before trying to reconnect with the public highway. I am sure that if this practical point is drawn to the attention of the Highway Authority, they would express a very clear view that such a proposal was seriously detrimental to the safety of users of the highway, as well as resulting in a highly undignified manoeuvre in a difficult set of circumstances. For centuries, properties fronting on to the green as well as the church have enjoyed free access around and over the tracks that are embedded within the Village Green. To seek to curtail those access rights would cause significant difficulties to all concerned. Ceremonial use of the church would be restricted. Local residents would find themselves in conflict with the church, from time to time, with their access being blocked by users of the church. The problems would not be restricted solely to the use of the church – the adjacent informal car park area is heavily used in association with the operation of the village school and provides a safe area for parents to pick up their children. If they find their ability to manoeuvre restricted by the proposals, this will lead to dangerous manoeuvres taking place on the highway such as vehicles reversing into the highway – all of which appear to flow from a scheme which offers up no public benefit whatsoever. It appears that the applicant has put forward these proposals in the mistaken view that because they own the land title to the area in question, this brings about a right to restrict public access over the land. Many areas of public highway have similar ownership arrangements – but owners do not have the right to develop the public highway simply because they own the land underneath it. So too is the case here where ownership of part of a Village Green does not convey any ability to restrict access over it which has been enjoyed by parishioners of Great Smeaton and Hornby for centuries. Following on from the above points, the proposals would also need to be considered against the policy Framework that has been established in the Development Plan and specifically policies in the Core Strategy and Development Plan Documents would be relevant to these proposals. Policy CP1 in the Core Strategy makes it clear that development that would significantly harm the natural or built environment of the district or result in adverse traffic impacts will not be permitted. Clearly the proposal, for all the reasons cited above, will conflict with this policy. Policy DP28 in the Development Plan Document provides more detailed focus on development affecting the historic heritage of the district. It requires new development to preserve and enhance listed buildings as well as identifying, protecting and enhancing conservation areas. The proposals clearly achieve none of these objectives and are therefore manifestly contrary to the policy. In the absence of any overriding justification to the contrary, the proposals conflict fundamentally with Policy DP28. The applicant of both the planning and listed building application is clearly under a misapprehension that because he owns the title to the land in question, this confers with it, the right to restrict public access over the registered green. In the light of the clarification provided at the start of this letter, it is presumed that the Planning Authority will wish to draw the applicant’s attention to the legislative references provided and invite them to withdraw the application. Failing that, the application must be refused for its conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework references set out above and the conflict with the key Local Plan policies identified above. Following the refusal or withdrawal of the application, there are then two further issues that arise from the situation. In the first instance, it is understood that the applicant has erected unauthorised signage on the Village Green, which needs to be removed. We trust that the LPA would address this matter? Secondly, the applicant has taken to parking his vehicle on the Village Green, thereby restricting access across the track to other parishioners.