Download 6 Buttermere Crescent, Barrow-in-Furness

PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
PLAN NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
DATE RECEIVED:
2007/0179
Mr G King
07/02/2007
WARD/PARISH:
CASE OFFICER:
8 WEEK DATE:
Hawcoat
Ian Sim
01229 876384
03/04/2007
LOCATION:
6 Buttermere Crescent, Barrow-in-Furness
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a front bedroom extension incorporating an extended hall.
LOCAL PLAN:
POLICY D21
In determining all applications submitted to it the local planning authority will have regard to the
General Design Code set out in paragraph 5.4.27 of this plan.
In towns and villages, proposals shall relate to the context provided by buildings, street and plot
patterns, building frontages, topography, established public views, landmark buildings and other
townscape elements. Proposals that do not respect the local context and street pattern or the scale,
height, proportions and materials of surrounding buildings and development which constitutes over
development of the site by virtue of scale, height or bulk will not be permitted, unless there is specific
justification, such as interests of sustainability, energy efficiency or crime prevention.
Development proposals in the countryside shall respect the diversity and distinctiveness of local
landscape character. New farm buildings will, in general, be required to be sited within or adjacent to
an existing farm building complex or in other well screened locations and to be subject to a
complementary design and use of materials, with, where necessary, a ‘planting’ scheme.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:
The proposed extension to the front of the bungalow would project forward approximately 1.8 metres
from the existing front extension however this does not raise any significant planning issues.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
REPRESENTATIONS:
The Occupiers of 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12 Buttermere Crescent, Barrow in Furness all informed.
Page 1 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
The Occupier, 8 Buttermere Crescent, Barrow
‘Further to your letter of 14th February 2007 as the occupier of the above property I feel an erection
of a further bedroom to the front of the adjoining property number 6 Buttermere Crescent would
seriously encroach on the original building line.
Having viewed the plans the light into the room I use for sewing and knitting would be greatly
reduced and also the view from my window would not be enhanced by a high protruding brick wall.
This proposed development would also be detrimental and out of character to the overall front
appearance of both properties and Buttermere Crescent in general and I strongly object to this
proposal. I wish to express the option to address the meeting”.
The Occupier, 2 Buttermere Crescent, Barrow-in-Furness
“Further to your letter of 14th inst., we feel that the erection of the proposed extension to number 6
Buttermere Crescent will aesthetically have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the two
adjacent pairs of semi-detached bungalows, nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8 Buttermere Crescent.
We would also suggest that this may, in the future, set a precedent for the proposal and possible
granting of similar front extensions on the said properties which could consequently have an
adverse effect on the re-sale value of these properties”.
Agent’s Supporting Statement
“Further to the Council meeting held on Tuesday 20th March 2007 at which time Councillor
Richardson requested further detailed information be added to the plans regarding the light and
ventilation to the existing bedroom.
Please find enclosed 3 copies of amended plans now incorporating the requested information
for a velux window. Please note this amendment will have no detrimental visual impact on the
front elevation as the velux window has been located in the north valley roof”.
CONSULTATIONS:
OFFICERS REPORT:
The proposal was deferred at your last meeting due to concern being expressed with regard to
natural lighting and ventilation to the centrally located bedroom.
The applicant has taken account of your observation and has amended the scheme accordingly. The
roof light would be located on the northern facing roof slope and would not be readily visible to the
occupier(s) of the attached property and would not impact significantly upon the street scene. My
original report follows on:
The application site is a semi-detached bungalow on the western side of Buttermere crescent which
is a cul-de-sac. The bungalows No.’s 6 and 8 are a mirror image of each other.
Page 2 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
The proposal is for the erection of a bedroom to the front elevation. It has an indicated footprint of
approximately 3.4 metres by 3.7 metres with the ridged roof giving a height of roughly 3.8 metres.
The proposed extension will project forward of the existing lounge by an indicated 1.8 metres. This
would, taking into account the ‘building line’ formed by No.’s 2 and 4 Buttermere Crescent at the
entrance to the Crescent give a projection forward of this ‘line’ of about 0.5 metres. It is also
proposed to extend the entrance forward to the front elevation of the existing lounge by 1.6 metres,
this will help, with the use of matching external materials to reduce the visual impact upon the street
scene (plans are on display).
With regard to privacy, it is protected through distance and design and with the proposed extension
being to the north of the attached neighbour (No. 8 Buttermere Crescent) there is no significant
impact upon natural light or sunlight. Off street parking provision remains unchanged.
I have considered the representations received and the scheme is similar to an application at 7
Borrowdale Gardens (2006/0102) which received consent on 16th March 2006 and warrants a
favourable recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Standard Duration Limit and
the following conditions:
Condition No. 2
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without
modifications) no opening of any kind shall be made in the south eastern wall facing (adjacent to
No. 8 Buttermere Crescent) of the permitted extension without the prior written consent of the
Planning Authority.
Reason
In order to protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties from overlooking or
perceived overlooking.
The reason(s) for the grant of planning permission are as follows:
The development, subject to conformity with the stated conditions, will not cause any material harm
to an interest of acknowledged importance and will not conflict with Barrow Borough Local Plan
Review 1996-2006.
Page 3 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
PLAN NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
2007/0134
Mr & Mrs D Frith
Mr Anthony Atkinson
Acorus Rural Property Services
WARD/PARISH:
CASE OFFICER:
DATE RECEIVED:
Dalton South/
Dalton and Newton Parish
Council
Ian Sim
01229 876384
31/01/2007
STATUTORY DATE:
27/03/2007
LOCATION:
Land off Newton Cross Road, Newton-in-Furness, Barrow-in-Furness
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a stable block and associated storage.
LOCAL PLAN:
POLICY D1
The Borough’s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural
resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside only where there is a
demonstrable need that cannot be met elsewhere. Where necessary development is permitted any
adverse effect on the rural character of the surroundings should be minimised subject to the
development’s operational requirements.
POLICY G13
For the quiet enjoyment of recreation activities such as walking, cycling and horse riding the Borough
Council will protect the following designated routes from development taking place on; or in the
immediate surroundings where an interesting or visually pleasing view would be adversely affected:The Cistercian Way
Haematite Trail
Cumbria Coastal Way
Public Footpaths
Any existing right of way joining the rights of way network
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES:
The building would appear as an isolated and prominent feature in the open countryside.
NON MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Page 4 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
REPRESENTATIONS:
Advertised on Site
The Occupiers of 7-9 Miller Close, 43 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness, Barrow in
Furness all informed.
The Occupier, 9 Miller Close, Newton-in-Furness
“With reference to this planning application on a field adjacent to mine, I wish to say that I
have no objection to the proposal”.
The Occupier, 43 Newton Cross Roads, Newton-in-Furness
“We must strongly object to any such building being erected as it would dominate the surrounding
areas. This proposed stable is situated on the brow of the field and will be visible not only by
ourselves but also as you enter the village which is approx quarter of a mile from the field. The field
slopes up out of the rear of the village. Planning permission was refused on this field approx 3 years
ago”.
The Occupier, Newholme Farm, Newton, Barrow-in-Furness
“We support the above application for a stable block at Newton Cross Roads. There are stables on
the opposite side of the road and 6 more in the immediate vicinity. This block would be less visible
than the ones on the roadside entering Newton and the ones on Park Road which have been recently
built. This application would be shielded by a high hedgerow and the access is set back off the road
unlike the aforementioned ones. Taking the above into consideration we hope the application is
successful”.
The Occupier, Cavalier Cottage, Newton Cross Road, Barrow-in-Furness
“I am writing in support of the above, I have one of the adjoining fields and also own horses.
Mr Frith’s field is well screened by a tall hedge, he also has a good access so he will not be causing
any obstruction of the highway. With screening to the side of the proposed stables they will not
cause a problem to anybody”.
The Occupier, 8 Miller Close, Newton in Furness
I recently contacted your office in relation to application 57/2007/0134.
I didn't receive notification of this application however was made aware if it by a neighbour.
Information from your office does suggest a letter was sent to me.
I wish to object to this application for the following reasons;
•
I am led to believe that previously application for building stables on this land has
been refused. Previously a storage container was left at the entrance to the field which
generated numerous complaints. The council directed that this be removed.
Page 5 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
• The elevation drawings show the building to be positioned on the slope. It shows the height
of the building to be 3812 taking into account a slope of 0.5m. The building will have to be at
the top of the slope or else it would flood. From looking at the slope, I am of the opinion, it is
well in excess of this ( 0.5m ) therefore the total height of the building will increase.
•
Irrespective of this increase, as it stands, the building is as high as a bungalow and over
twice as wide as my house which is close by. ( in fact it is longer than both my house and my
semi-detached neighbours combined ) In its current position this will be an extremely large
building which will not fit in with its surroundings. This can not be negated by simply planting
a hedge around it, as it too will look out of place, as well as taking many, many years to grow,
in order to create any effect at all.
• I recently applied for a dormer extension to my house and was told it would be refused as it
would be an eyesore to members of the public using the public footpath through the field. T his
is the same footpath which runs alongside the intended stable building. This building will
create an even greater eyesore on the horizon. !t will be obvious on the approaches to Newton
in Furness a mile away. With this in mind I do not see how it can be approved.
• I have had planning permission for windows to a second floor which have now been built (
in last 6 months ) and are looking out onto the field in question. This stable would, as already
described, be a large structure in the context of its surroundings. It would not in any way merge
with the surroundings. I am not sure as to whether the field is owned in its entirety and
therefore should this planning application be accepted other stables could also be built.
•
The number of stables and storage will generate the use of several vehicles. The parking
is extremely limited and the entrance to the field is on a sharp bend prior to entering the
village. There are already stables on each side of the village which generate horses and riders
using the village as a through route. The road at the end of the village where this stable is
planned is narrow and already a hazard. Further traffic will compound this. The entrance to the
field ( on the severe bend ) and surrounding area are not lit and its const ant usage will be a
danger to all road users. There is already a stable entrance almost directly opposite which
creates a hazard for the same reasons.
•
For the reasons listed I am opposed to the planning application being approved. I can expand
on these reasons if so required”.
The Occupier, No. 1 The Green, Long Lane, Stainton with Adgarley
“With reference to the above planning application for a stable block at Newton in Furness on
behalf of Mr D Firth, as a neighbouring owner, we offer our support for its development”.
Letters received after the publication of the Committee Report 20th March 2007
Supporting Letter from applicant received 19.3.07
“Thank you for your correspondence dated 09.03.07 regarding the above application. It would
appear that your reasons for refusing my planning application have not been influenced by any of the
objections raised by two of my neighbours. However I feel that there are certain issues raised in the
letters of objection that I should address prior to the meeting as they merit more than a 5 minute airing.
I should also like to offer written comments on the reason that you have used to refuse the application.
Page 6 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
I have enclosed the following items by way of support for my application and would appreciate you
taking the time to study them.
Enclosures:
3 photographs on 1 sheet showing visual impact from south west Newton Site location plan options 2
and 2 Photograph of unusual roof in village
A petition which was carried in the village without my prior knowledge.
A letter from Mrs O'Hare who carried out the petition.
View of the window at 8 Miller Close from the field (also location of stable corner points.)
4 photographs on 1 sheet of road access and parking
4 photographs on 1 sheet of existing stables in Newton 4 photographs on 1 sheet of other stables in the
area
3 separate photographs of stables of the type we would like.
A letter from Mrs T Helme (ex resident of Newton)
A letter from my niece.
Copy of documentation from Acorus rural services
Introduction to Fudge (one of the future residents of the stables) and Natasha
Extract from DEFRA research document Rt. Hon. Alun Michael MP minister for the Horse
Objections raised by the occupants of 43 Newton Cross Roads, Newton:
Objection: The building being erected will dominate the surrounding areas.
Reply: The Stable block is of a fairly standardised design and size required for the safe humane and
practical care of horses and equipment. The house at 43 Newton cross Road is in my opinion the most
prominent feature of the village due to its size and colour and I think it would remain so even if the
stable block were not screened. As we have indicated we intend to plant native trees or hedgerow (we
would take your guidance) and the addition of these would greatly reduce the visibility of the stables. I
have attached a page showing 3 photographs of the site as viewed from the road to the south of the
village. In my opinion this view point is where the stables would be most prominent. The photographs
show a reasonable scale representation of how the size of the stable would compare to the rest of the
houses etc.
This property has very limited views over the field as it already sits below a raised garden wall.
Objection: Planning permission was refused 3 years ago
Reply: I believe that the planning permissions that were refused were for agricultural buildings of
greater proportions in different parts of the field, not a stable as our application.
Please note that whilst investigating these previous planning applications I have discovered that the
recent extension to 43 Newton Cross Roads appears to extend past the boundary of the local plan.
I have indicated on the attached copies of my site location plans (options 1 and 2) the local plan
boundary as indicated on maps on your planning portal. I have also marked where the extension
appears to be, this is not to scale as I obviously have measured the extension.
Objections raised by the residents of 8 Miller close.
Objection: Previous planning applications have been refused
Page 7 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
Reply: As stated above previous application on the field were for agricultural buildings of greater
dimensions in a different area of the field. Not stables as in our application.
Objection: Previously a storage container was left on the field
Reply: The mention of storage containers is not relevant in any way to our application as the
placement of the said container was carried out by a previous owner of the land and not us.
Objection: The elevation drawing shows the stable on the slope etc (Please refer to planning
documents for full text)
Reply: The stable is shown at approx the mid point of the field in terms of height. I did ask my agent to
submit the plans showing the stable block showing an optional alternative position rotated 90 degrees
as per the site location plans attached to this document. The Measured fall over the length of the stable
as shown in location plan option 2 is .5mtrs. There would obviously have to be some groundwork's
undertaken to create an area of level ground for the construction. The excavation along with the careful
placement of spoils from work to reduce the gradient of the access will give the effect of reducing the
overall height of the construction. The final position would still be well above the lowest level of the
field and natural drainage will stop any flooding. If the stable were to be flooded I would assume that
the lower lying houses would be submerged.
Objection: Irrespective of this increase, as it stands the building is as high as a bungalow etc (Please
refer to planning documents for full text)
Reply: The Stable block is of a fairly standardised design and size required for the safe humane and
practical care of horses and equipment.
Whether the building fits into its surroundings is a matter of personal opinion. I feel that it is perfectly
normal to see a stable or agricultural building in the country side. There is a bungalow in the village
that has recently had alterations to the roof, (see attached photo) Many people have said that it is ugly
and out of character but I am sure there will also be people who think that it is a marvellous piece of
architecture.
The use of trees and hedges to screen projects is not uncommon. How many projects could not be
undertaken if it was deemed that the foliage would not grow fast enough?
We are quite willing to discuss the position of the proposed stables with representatives of the council
and local residents, many of whom have already expressed there support for the stables. (Please see
attached petition and accompanying letter)
Objection: I recently applied for a dormer etc. (Please refer to planning documents for full text)
Reply: I have every sympathy with the occupants of 8 Miller close in there not being able to install a
dormer extension, however the opinion as to whether a dormer extension or a stable is unsightly is
again a personnel one. I obviously do not find the sight of a well constructed stable unsightly but as a
gesture of good neighbourliness I am quite prepared to discuss with interested parties the placement of
the stables to cause the least impact to all.
Objection: I have had planning permission for windows to a second floor etc: (Please refer to planning
documents for full text)
Page 8 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
Reply: The windows referred to can just about be seen in the attached photograph. The view from this
window must be very restricted already by the existing trees Also to accommodate the installation of
these windows the occupants of 8 Miller close have had the roof raised making there property more
prominent but more importantly effectively reducing the visibility of the stables from the road as you
drive through Newton. I can't believe that someone can buy a house that looks onto a field and not
expect to view what is natural in the countryside. I would gladly swap my house to live at 8 miller
close.
The boundary of ownership is indicated on the submitted plans which are available for inspection. The
field has an area of 3.5 acres which is enough to support three horses. Hence the application for three
stables.
Objection: The number of stables and storage will generate the use of several vehicles etc. (Please
refer to planning documents for full text)
Reply: There is no reason to anticipate any greater vehicular movements as a result of the construction
of the stables other than during the construction period. I currently visit the field two or three times a
day.
The access to the field is on a straight portion of the road and adjoins the highway at an angle rather
than at 90 degrees. There are clear lines of sight both for traffic on the road and vehicles leaving the
field as can be seen in the attached photographs. The gradient is rather steep but we anticipate reducing
this to a more acceptable level. This would not alter visibility in either direction. There is currently
enough off road parking for at least 3 vehicles. In point of fact the access from both the front and rear
of Miller close are more unsighted than the access from the field, also the road is often reduced
adjacent to the property at 8 Miller Close by cars parked on the public highway. Again this can be seen
in the attached photographs.
After speaking to many local residents some of whom have lived in the village for many years it is
apparent that horses have been a part of the village lifestyle for a long time. The amount of horse
traffic will not be directly influence by the construction of our stables as the horses are already grazing
the field and are ridden in the village and surrounding areas, The access to the field like most other
field access in the area is not lit. This is not unusual but there are road signs around the village warning
drivers of the presence of horse and rider combinations. Most Riders including our family wear HI VIS
clothing when needed.
Consultations
With regard to the county archaeologist report. I was totally unaware of the lime kiln and as stated
above will be more than happy to position the stables accordingly. I would like to name the building
"Lime Kiln Stables" to make sure there was a reference to it.
Highways.
I know that the highways said that they had no objection in principle and I whole heartedly agree with
their recommendations. I had in fact already spoken to a local contractor with a view to reducing the
gradient and as mentioned I would be looking to use the spoils as additional screening and
landscaping.
Page 9 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
Consideration of previous applications.
I feel it is unfair to consider the previous application in conjunction with mine as they were for
different types of buildings in different areas; also the previous owner appears to have been less than
co operative with either yourselves or the residents of Newton. Please do not tar me with the same
brush.
With regard to the officer's recommendation:
Reason: Unduly intrusive and isolated etc:
Reply: The Stable block is of a fairly standardised design and size required for the safe humane and
practical care of horses and equipment. It is very similar to many other stables in the area.
The location is less isolated than existing stable developments in the village and in surrounding areas
(photos enclosed)
1. The south of the village near to the school
2. 2 sets of stables on the approach to Newton opposite Newholme farm
3. 4 sets of stables on Park Road
4. stables on the opposite side of Newton cross road
There is a demonstrable need for the stables. They are required by us to be used by us and horses
owned by us on land owned by us.
I have enclosed some photographs of the type and design that we would prefer. I hope you will agree
that even though these are semi permanent buildings they are by no means unattractive.
Although there is a public right of way passes through my field and beyond the development would
not adversely affect the views from as it will be screened. As this footpath passes through the next 2
fields each field has a building visible from the footpath, Also people walking in the countryside will
realise and accept that they will see animals, and rural buildings (farm buildings and stables), This is
the joy of the rural scene.
One of the reasons for having the stables is to enable us to store safely and tidily the items that you
may call paraphernalia.
The access track from the gateway to the stables would be lower than the existing grassland by virtue
that we would be adopting the advice of the highways and reducing the gradient of the access.
Conclusion
I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this letter and extend an open invitation to meet
with any members of the planning committee for a site visit to discuss and be advised on my
application”.
Petition sent by applicant directly to members in favour of the application and signed by 17 persons (
though this may not be complete).
Page 10 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
The Occupier, The Gate House, Abbey Road, Barrow in Furness
“1 have known Mr and Mrs Frith for a long time, they are hard working decent, people, who
:just want a stable for Fudge their daughter Natasha's horse, and a place where Natasha can go inside
and be dry, warm, and safe, to be able to groom fudge without getting soaking wet, freezing, and cold.
Natasha doesn't even have anywhere where she can go to the toilet! I am sure you would agree that it
would be highly un appropriate for a young girl of Natasha's age to relieve herself in the field in
question. And unfortunately there are no public toilets in Newton. Fudge in the past has been in
different stables, all of which unfortunately either closed down or just stopped taking horses. Mr and
Mrs Frith have been looking for land for a long time, when they bought the field in Newton. The local
farmers in the area (although not as many now) were not interested in the land.
Before I lived on Abbey Road, l live in Woodbine for over 20 years then I moved to Newton. And in
that time I use to be involved with the many horses that was stables in Woodbine and New-ton. I also
use to baby sit for the local blacksmiths, at Smithy Cottage. I know the land and people that live at
Newton very well. They are very caring genuine people, who live in the village because they like a
country life, and in that country life they accept the animals, whatever they are, and the animals needs,
whether that be food, care, or shelter.
I know that Mr and Mrs Frith are decent people who keep their word, who like clean tidy places, and
have really been taken too by the villages, and getting this stable passed means everything to them
because without it Fudge will have to be out in all weathers, including, if it snows, and snowdrifts can
reach as high as 5 ft sometimes in the winter at Newton, as I have experience those when I use to live
there and at the moment it is bitter cold, not just for the horse but far Natasha who stays there with her
horse for as much time as she can.
After reading the planning report and the stables being recommended for refusal. I wanted to support
them as much as I can so without Mr and Mrs Frith asking me too, I went round Newton Village on
Thursday evening 15t" March 2007 with a picture of what the stable would look like, details
describing exactly where the field is and roughly where the stable would be in the field and a petition
to sign. I knocked on 33 doors, as a lot of people were not at home from work, and a lot of houses are
now holiday cottages. Out of 33 houses 29 people signed in support, but they did not just sign the
petition, they were really interested in Fudge and Natasha, they all knew who she was as they have
seen Natasha and her dad Mr Frith over the last year who has to go to the field twice a day to feed
Fudge, as there is no place to store food in the field at the moment. Everybody I talked too was in huge
support of the stable and wanted it for Fudge and Natasha. Quite a few people mentioned how good
the stable plans looked, compared to some of the more not so pleasing stables around the village. And
out of the 4 that said no, 1 never signs petitions, 1 was selling his house soon so did not see the point,
and two said no because they don't like horses. As it's the villages that will be most affected with the
stables surely their signatures saying "Yes we want the stable here in that field in our village" must
account for something. I hope you look at the enclosed petition before you make your decision. Mr and
Mrs Firth's stable in question is no different in position that any other stable that is already been built
between School Waters Crossroads and Woodbine and Newton is, has, and always will be a horse
Village. And 1 know Mr & Mrs Frith are more than happy to work with your selves and the planning
officer to alter the plans if needs be and do whatever is needed to get the stables passed. After all the
villagers of Newton has welcomed them and want the Frith family to succeed what more proof do you
need than the enclosed petition?”
Page 11 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
The Occupier, 23 Quantock Green, Barrow in Furness
“Until recently I lived in Newton for just over 40 years, two of my three children are
Newtonians having been born in our family home at Woodbine. Over the years I have seen many
changes to the village, some good some bad, but one thing that has never changed is the interest and
love that the locals have in the horses in the village and surrounding areas! If you start in
Woodbine, you start with stables and horses at Barrow House Farm, and then down the lane the late
Mrs Jackson use to breed Shetland ponies and they had stables, then at North Stank Farm they have
horses with stables, then you walk down the lane towards Newton from Woodbine and you pass
more horses on your right at Braiwood stables, then on your left more horses and stables then next
to these stables is the field in question for planning. As you go out of the village on the left by
Newton School on the bend towards Stank more stables and horses, and if you turn around and walk
towards The Village Inn leaving the village there is a horse sanctuary called Fairfield, with a
mixture of different horses with stables. Then on your right just a little way further out of the village
more horses and a stable on your right, then you walk towards Half Way House on the left and they
have horses and a stable. Walking towards School Water Crossroads by Muttons Farm on the left
again there are stables and horses next to Billingcoat Farm.
Barrow House Farm, and North Stank Farm, at Woodbine have always had horses and stables
because they were farms, and they could afford to. North Stank Farm opposite my family's home on
a Sunday often held Gym Karnes and horse jumping competitions, Newton/Woodbine was well
known and very popular for the shows. At Smithy Cottage opposite the Farmers Arms was the local
Blacksmith and riders and their horses would come from far around to have their horses hooves
clipped and re shoed. Newton is a lovely village and a major part of that are the animals. I think it is
wonderful that a couple like Mr and Mrs Frith put as much time and effort into their daughters horse
like the other horses/stable owners there, and are willing to work with the planners in the design of
the stable. I know they do not want to upset any locals, and are only trying to do what is best far
their daughter's horse Fudge, and also their daughter Natasha so she is safer then what she is now
being in a field with nowhere to go. Natasha and her horse are the only ones in Newton who do not
have a shelter. And as the occupier of no 8 was complaining of a blue container, which had nothing
to do with Mr and Mrs Frith or any of the previous other planning permission, it was the field's
previous owner. Where do they put there hay and equipment that they need for Fudge? Taking into
account all the other stables in the village, bar one that I have mentioned they all the can be seen
from the road side and I can not see the problem with it. Animals, muck, smells, shelters, stables, its
all part and parcel of living in the country. Occupiers of No 8 said they do not want to look out of their
window and look at a stable(A window which I may add that was not in the original barn they now
live in and had to get planning permission for). Well as I understand it nobody has a right to a view, so
they don't have a right to moan, they don't own the view, and if they hadn't put the extra window in
they would not see the stable anyway. And why should there be any extra traffic? Mr and Mrs Frith
will not be doing anything different than what they do now. And in all my years at Woodbine nobody
has ever had a accident on that hill tap, not even in the hay making season when my late husband
worked for Mrs Woods at Baldwin Farm. How many cars are there at the Miller Close Houses, and
have they had accidents, with the increase in traffic that they have brought to the village? It is a quiet
country lane, not a racing track.
Page 12 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
Now that more people are able to afford horses and also more and more farms are being closed and
turned into housing estates, and in turn loosing the very heart and look of a village farm. A very good
example of this is Baldwin Farm now known as 43 Newton Crossroads, as it has been changed, and
extended, beyond belief, and it now does not look anything like The original Farm House once owned
by Mrs Woods, even the field next door to it is now been changed to make a bigger garden for the
house. Also can be said to the barns in the farm which some now look like a housing estate from
Holbeck hardly any limestone in sight, all white and plastered, instead of being built to resemble a
beautiful little hamlet, full of history. What I am trying to say is that I have wrote this letter to give you
some knowledge/history about Newton to support Mr and Mrs Frith, as the village/houses has changed
so much in the last 40 years, I do not see how a stable can spoil the countryside, when all the houses
have been changed in one way or another looking nothing like the village 40 years ago, when it was a
thriving village with a Post Offices, a Village Shop, a Church.
I hope you will take the time to read my letter and give it some thought when deciding the outcome for
Fudge and Natasha”.
Mr & Mrs Frith’s 8 Year Old Neice
“I am Mr & Mrs Frith’s 8 year old neice.
I have gone to Newton with them lots of times to help with Fudge. Fudge’s owner is my 14 year old
cousin Natasha. I think my auntie and uncle and Natasha work hard looking after Fudge but Fudge
is getting old now and needs shelter there are lots of horses and stables in Newton and I think it is
unfair that Fudge doesn’t have a shelter.
When I go there with Natasha it is dark and cold because there is no shelter there. There is no
toilets and Natasha has to take Fudge’s food in a bucket every day. Natasha also has to carry her
saddle every time she wants to ride Fudge which is very heavy because Natasha has nowhere to put
Fudge’s things Natasha cant go to see Fudge unless someone drives her there.
I may be only 8 but I understand some complicated things and to me it does not matter when the
stable is built all that matters is that fudge the horse gets some shelter and Natasha get somewhere
safe to put her things”.
Petition received supporting the application and signed by 29 persons. Note letter of
retraction from occupier of 11 Newton Cross Road below.
The Occupier, 2 Miller Close, Newton in Furness
“I was not involved in the initial consultation and had not seen any signs in relation to this application.
I have now been made aware of this application and wish to register my opposition to planning
permission been granted for the following reasons:
I have viewed the application plans and can only say the building is vast and will look totally out of
place sited as it is on the side of the hill. This is an open field with a public footpath through and the
view will be spoiled. I am aware that it will be screened however this will also detract from the natural
views in the area. It will not be in keeping. There are lots of other stables in the area but none are
nearly as big or obvious as this one is proposed. It will be clearly seen from the other side of the
village as well as from the road.
My house is short distance away from the proposed site at the bottom of the hill. There is regularly a
lot of running water from the field. It runs down the road and along the front of my house continuing
Page 13 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
into the village. If the stable is built this water will mix with horse feacies and urine and then run down
the hill. I believe this will be both smelly and a health hazard.
There are many other less obvious fields in which to build stables and I can not see why this one is
appropriate.
I wish to register my objection to this application”.
The Occupiers, Rose Cottage, 44 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness
“I refer to the above planning application. In the first instance we object to the lack of a letter
informing of us of this as the site is in full view of our house & garden constituting an eyesore.
A previous application for the same field was objected to by us & so we presumed an
information letter would have been a matter of course.
Granted a horse needs a shelter-no problem there. However the site & size of the proposed
building caused apoplexy! Our main objection is the principal of a building of the proposed
position & size. We also feel that if this application is granted it then gives open house for
others to apply which may lead to Newton being surrounded by stables & buildings which
could then be used for other purposes. We have lived here for over 26 years with open
aspects & do not relish the thought of a rash of buildings which in time could be converted
to dwellings leading to expansion of the current building line.
The applicant has also apparently discussed renting his stables out or opening up a riding
school. We are therefore anxious for this application to be refused. The problem is not just with
the applicant-we can identify with his problem. However if the application is granted & he sells
his field & stables-what then?
A young lady was visiting residents of Newton to curry favour for the application to be passed.
She did not give the full story however in order to obtain signatures for a petition. She had
stated that the plan was for a stable for the applicants' horse-a very different picture to that
shown and the application I think you will agree!”
The Occupier, Tranquil, Newton Cross Road, Newton
“I love horses in fact my family have horses but I feel if this application goes through
there could be a serious accident. Currently there is a 3 block stable (for sale) opposite the
entrance to the proposed 3 block stable. If this application was to receive planning approval this
would mean that there could be on occasion 6 horses coming in and out of their fields on the
brow of a narrow country lane, with an `s' bend. This road is frequently used by families and
children; it's an accident waiting to happen.
My house is sited adjacent to a public right of way and the view from that right of way would be
adversely affected. This Stable is far to large for the position on a open hill side and much bigger
than any other stable in the area.
I oppose this application”.
Page 14 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
The Occupier, 11 Newton Cross Road, Newton in Furness
“In late January or early February 2007 I signed a petition regarding the building of some
new stables in the Newton in Furness area. At the time I signed a petition I was under the
impression that the stable would be a small construction in a field some distance from the village. I
can’t remember the exact conversation but I know this is how it was portrayed to me.
Having now seen the plans for the construction of the stable I can see that I have been misinformed. I was told it was for one horse but the plans clearly show three stables and the building is
considerably bigger than I was led to believe.
It is also very close to established dwellings in the village. Again this contradicts what I was led to
believe. I now consider this to be unacceptable and would clearly effect the standard of living of the
people living in the properties.
I would like to make it clear that I no longer support the petition that I signed and oppose the
building of the stables as proposed”.
The Occupiers, Newton View, Newton in Furness – dated 24th March 2007
“We are once again writing to object to the proposed stables adjacent to our home.
We have made enquiries to friends of ours who own horses, with regards to the proposed s tables,
and they expressed great concern as the building will only be approx 40 meters from our family
home. They stated that the foul smell from the horses' urine would permeate the air constantly
and we would be unable to have our windows open.
We find it hard to understand why Mr &Mrs Frith knowingly bought a field which had recently
been refused planning and expect to have stables for there horses' on the grounds that the horses'
have a right to housing, what of our rights to fresh air?
If this application was to be passed it would open the flood gates to others, placing their horses on
the surrounding fields of our village for a year then requesting stabling for them. If this current
application was to be passed it would stand as a president for others”.
The Occupier,1 Miller Close, Newton in Furness
Having very recently been informed of the above planning application there are a number of issues I
wish to draw to your attention.
Firstly may I express my displeasure and disappointment that as a resident I received no formal
consultation, or saw any public consultation displayed regarding the development of a building with a
footprint of 90 square metres in such close proximity of my property. A discussion with other local
residents has brought to my attention a number of submissions to the planning committee in which I
feel I may have been misrepresented and after examining the plans for this development I feel that I
must object to this application for a number of reasons.
The construction of any form of building on the hillside will have a negative visual
impact on the surroundings. The building as proposed will be screened by a proposed hedgerow, but
to successfully obscure the development from the hillside when travelling from Stank would require
this hedgerow to be maintained at a height in excess of 4 metes.
Page 15 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
In his letter to the planning committee (dated 19th March by your department) Mr. Frith states,
"Whether the building fits into its surroundings is a matter of personal opinion. I feel that it is perfectly
normal to see a stable or agricultural building in the countryside." At face value this statement cannot
be disputed, but it should be remembered that the vast majority of buildings form developments
known as farms; they do not stand individually in every field as we look across the landscape. Quite
often any isolated buildings that do exist are substantially built from local building materials, not
artificially stained wood with a plastic coated steel roof. On this basis it is my suggestion that should
the development be approved it should be specified that it be constructed from local limestone with a
slate or tile roof in keeping with other buildings in the vicinity.
Judging by comments in Mr. Friths letter with regard to the degree of groundwork required during the
development it is reasonable to assume that the desired objective would be to develop in line with
plan labelled 'Optional layout 1' as this would require the least excavation to take place at the expense
of a building that will stretch across the site. In terms of visual environmental impact it would be
preferable for the arrangement shown in the plan labelled 'Optional layout 2' to be adopted as this
would allow for the building to be more closely rated with the existing hedgerow at the expense of
groundwork to make good a fall of 2m over the length of the building. It is also noticeable that in the
enclosed photographs Mr Frith illustrates 'Optional Layout 2' using careful camera angles to ensure
the proposed development looks as small as possible and the haylage bales in the background are less
than half of the overall height of the proposed stables.
Mr. Frith and his agents both draw attention to the fact that the building is to be located on a hillside.
Although not readily visible on the supplied the plans the actual gradient of the hillside is approaching
10% at times of even moderate rainfall considerable surface water runoff from surrounding fields
makes it's way onto the public highway and runs into the village, at times of high rainfall this flow can
cover the entire metalled road surface. It cannot be argued that this water is just that falling on the
public highway as it is bright red showing a high level of top soil being carried. Given that the keeping
of any animal creates a substantial amount of waste material this will either need to be stored on site or
removed. If waste products are to be stored on site then the development proposal makes no reference
to where or how this will take place, or any measures to be taken to ensure that material is not carried
by surface water. DEFRA list Cryptosporidium as an infection that can be spread from animal faecal
matter and can cause acute illness in humans.
Mr Frith makes reference to the 'off road' parking available at the site and goes to great length to
illustrate how considerately people visiting the site may park. The enclosed photographs are a great
example of what can be achieved but the day to day reality is somewhat different. In the winter months
it was not uncommon to be blinded by the headlights of a car parked at the top of the hill, even at
times left on main beam. On one occasion the car was parked in the middle of the road causing
a complete obstruction with the driver showing complete reluctance to move until their passenger
had finished whatever they were doing. Even today it was noted that a silver pickup truck was parked
half on the verge and half on the road while a gentleman had a conversation with the occupants of a
black jeep style vehicle which had stopped completely on the highway while facing in the wrong
direction. It should also be noted that the area, which Mr Frith draws attention to, is in an area
governed by the national speed limit, whereas the parking adjacent to 8 Miller close is in an urban area
with a 20 mph speed limit
Mr Frith also finds it necessary to state that "The amount of horse traffic 011 not be directly influence
[sic] by the construction of our stables ..." It is a constant amazement to myself as a responsible dog
owner that I am expected to clean up after my animal and yet there are always a number of deposits
from horses in the village. Even at this stage of the year there is considerable evidence of this, rising
to extreme levels in the summer months. This is a situation that should be controlled and if
Page 16 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
necessary the number of horses in a given area or their owners responsibilities with regard to faecal
matter need to be legislated for.
Much use is made of stating, "Development will be permitted in the countryside only where there is
a demonstrable need that cannot be met elsewhere". This application cannot be justified on this basis,
the pony in question was obviously kept elsewhere before the field was bought, and obviously it was
acquired in the full knowledge that there was no stable. In this case it is natural to assume that Mr Frith
and his family have made a conscious decision to move the animal from its previous location and
away from any facilities that may have been available. Given the fact there are at least two farms
within 2 miles of the location offering livery services it is impossible to claim that the'... need
cannot be met elsewhere."
Mr Frith goes to great length to tell us all about the one pony that they own and yet is requesting to
build three stables. He does state that they intend to allow the pony to run with a stallion in the spring
that could account for one of the extra stables. Surely if extra capacity is available the temptation to
recoup some of the capital outlay for this development will be great in effect changing the use of the
land from pure agriculture to that of a livery business or even given the admitted breeding
aspirations of the owners to that of a stud. If the proposal is approved some form of condition
should be enforced that the stables are for personal use only.
In passing this application a precedent will be set to allow the construction of similar buildings
in every field owned by someone who has a horse.
Mention has been made of a petition in favour of the development. I did not see t his, and had I
seen it I would not have signed in support. Having since seen a copy of the petition I cannot see
how around 30 names can constitute a positive representation of the community. For it to be
represented that the majority of Newton residents are in favour of the development when
extensive effort was not made to canvas their support must therefore render the entire petition
invalid.
As someone with more than 4 generations of involvement with agriculture and farming I feel
strongly that it is our vocation to act as stewards of Britain's greatest asset. Great lengths are
made to proclaim how the horse has always been an integral part of the rural landscape (usually
by those that think the countryside is a nice place to go to). However, one does won der if a
proposal to build a workshop to restore tractors (also an integral part of the rural landscape for
the past 70 years) in a similar situation would be seriously considered.
With Barrow and Dalton both striving to develop their own tourist industries it is the job of the
planning department and all residents to ensure that visitors see what is beautiful about this
area, not a mass produced stable with a steaming muck heap and rusting horsebox in every
field. In rejecting this proposal the committee can make a small step towards maintaining our
unique landscape and promoting thoughtful land use and management”.
CONSULTATIONS:
County Archaeologist – dated 13 February 2007
“Our records indicate that the proposed location of the stable is the site of a lime kiln (Historic
Environment Record No. 16182). The Kiln is described as ‘old’ on the first edition OS map and
therefore must date to at least the early 19th century. While the remains of a kiln are not of such
significance to raise an objection to the application, they are of sufficient merit to attempt preserving
them it at all feasible. I therefore recommend that the proposed location of the stable is altered to
preserve the remains of the kiln in situ. The kiln is a discrete feature and repositioning the stable a
Page 17 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
minimum of 10 metres in any direction should avoid the remains. I trust this recommendation is
acceptable”.
Cumbria Archaeologist – dated 23 March 2007
“Further to my letter dated 13 February 2007 concerning the above site, I am writing to inform you
that the applicant has provided photos indicating that the proposed stable will narrowly avoid a
series of surviving earthworks that are likely to be associated with the limekiln. It seems that the
limekiln will not be affected by the proposed development and I therefore do not consider the
repositioning of the stable necessary as originally recommended”.
Cumbria Highways
“There are no objections to the principle of the development though I would like to see an
improvement in the access to the field. At present the graded access to the field is very steep and
will clearly result in surface water being discharged onto the highway. The applicant should ideally
provide a bound surface and arrange to have the access regraded and/or some type of drainage
measure across the access to prevent the run off.
The access to the field is existing and is clearly used to store and ride horses and visibility is
acceptable onto Newton Cross Road.”
Dalton with Newton Town Council
“The Town Council have no objections.”
OFFICERS REPORT:
Since your minded to refuse resolution a further 7 letters of objection have been received. These
have been included above with one exception, a further letter from the occupier of 8 Millar Close
which, due to its length and date of receipt is attached as Appendix A. This letter, amongst other
matters, responds to comments attributed to the Chairman to the effect that he was in favour as the
majority of the village were in favour.
May I remind Committee that planning applications need to be determined on the basis of planning
considerations. The number of names on a petition or for that matter the number of letters is not a
planning consideration, and can be misleading i.e. the number of letters of objection which have
since been received. The issue is whether this development will be unduly intrusive thereby
harming the landscape and the undeveloped rural character of the area. An appeal decision relating
to a similar case is attached as Appendix B.
Were consent to be granted I would advise that the conditions listed below are attached. For the
permission to be valid, the reason for granting consent also needs to be given. In deciding on the
wording for this account should be given to the previous decisions to refuse consent for similar
development in the vicinity, a relevant legal judgement is attached at Appendix C.
Page 18 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
Condition No 1
Prior to the commencement of any development a landscape scheme for the site, showing existing
and proposed planting together with details of any phasing of such a scheme must be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted on a plan not
greater that 1:500 in scale and shall contain details of numbers, locations and species of plants to be
used. All planting and subsequent maintenance shall be to current British Standards. The approved
scheme must subsequently be implemented by the end of the first planting season following initial
beneficial occupation of the development or by such a programme as may be agreed in writing. Any
trees or shrubs removed, dying being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five
years of planting shall be replaced by the landowner with trees or shrubs of a similar size and
species to those originally required to be planted.
Reason
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
Condition No 2
The stable shall only be used for non-commercial activities associated with the keeping of horses
and for no other purpose including for any other purpose in Class D2 of the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
Reason
In order to control any future Change of Use.
Also included above is the correspondence sent directly to Members by the applicant after the
production of the previous report.
My original report follows on:
The application site is the 1st field on the right when leaving Newton via the Farmers Arms. The
field’s northern boundary runs along Newton Cross Road where the field begins as rising ground. It
then falls steadily to the south where it levels out to become part of the flat area on the southern
edge of the village.
The proposed stable block and associated storage has an ‘L’ shape measuring an indicated 8.2
metres for the shortest section and 15.4 metres for the longer section. It would have a ridged roof
structure giving a height of roughly 3.8 metres. The external materials are of a timber construction
and to be timber clad, stained dark brown with the roof to be clad in corrugated sheeting being black
in colour. It would be located at an almost mid –point on the northern boundary in close proximity
to Newton Cross Road with some screening provided by the existing hedgerow. The applicants
field size is approximately 1.63 hectares.
Planning Policy for the countryside can be summarised as promoting the rural economy while
protecting the natural beauty and undeveloped character of the landscape. This approach results in
the promotion of proposals which involve the re-use of existing buildings for appropriate
commercial uses while avoiding the countryside being scarred by isolated development.
Page 19 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
The proposed building would occupy an isolated location in the open countryside. It would
represent a conspicuous feature being overlooked by the southern part of the village. This arises
from the flat nature of the intervening ground. The building will also be visible closer to from the
public right of way which crosses the applicant’s field. This forms a continuation of a public right
of way (reference 602003) and links Dalton via Newton to Dendron.
There has been a tendency for agricultural land to be owned in smaller parcels, for example, single
fields. Were planning permission to be granted on relatively small parcels then the character and
appearance of the countryside would be harmed by a plethora of isolated buildings. Were
permission to be granted it is likely that there would be some external paraphernalia which would
further detract from the Village setting, as would the likely need to construct an access track to the
building, any track would be visible from the village this too would have a harmful effect.
Two past decisions should be noted. Firstly the refusal to grant planning permission to a former
owner of this field under reference 98/0301 and 2004/0103. This was for an agricultural building
located on the rising ground in the small field immediately to the north east of the applicant’s field.
This was refused for the following reasons:
1998/0301:
Reason No 1
The hay store would occupy an isolated and elevated location within an undeveloped open
countryside. In such a location it would appear as a sporadic feature to the detriment of the
open, uncluttered character of this drumlin field landscape.
Reason No 2
The built form is of a concentrated pattern both in terms of settlements and farmholdings.
Approval of the proposal could set a precedent for a more fragmented development pattern
with a resultant of cluttering of the landscape.
2004/0103 - (this was for an application within the application site)
Reason No. 1
The proposed building due to its size and location would appear as an unduly intrusive and
isolated feature to the unacceptable detriment of the open countryside. Approval would
therefore conflict with local and national policies including Policy D1 of the Barrow
Borough Local Plan Review 1996-2006. The adverse impact identified above would be
likely to be further harmed by external paraphernalia and the means of access.
With regard to the agricultural building which was approved in the corner of the adjacent field.
That building was smaller but importantly less prominent due to an intervening field boundary
hedgerow. The applicant is proposing to carry out landscaping as part of his proposal however this
will take time to have any appreciable effect. In addition I note the erection of a stable block 120
metres to the north east, however this approval (1990/0311) pre-dates the Local Plan. A number of
stables have been built within the vicinity of the application site but in discreet locations. The
current proposal would not be discrete and it would appear prominent in views from Newton Cross
Road and other publicly accessible land.
Page 20 of 21
PLANNING COMMITTEE
10th April 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
Reason No. 1
The proposed building due to its size and location would appear as an unduly intrusive and isolated
feature to the unacceptable detriment of the open countryside. Approval would therefore conflict
with local and national policies including Policies D1 and G13 of the Barrow Borough Local Plan
Review 1996-2006. The adverse impact identified above would be likely to be further harmed by
external paraphernalia and means of access.
POLICY D1
The Borough’s countryside will be safeguarded for its own sake and non-renewable and natural
resources afforded protection. Development will be permitted in the countryside only where there is
a demonstrable need that cannot be met elsewhere. Where necessary development is permitted any
adverse effect on the rural character of the surroundings should be minimised subject to the
development’s operational requirements.
POLICY G13
For the quiet enjoyment of recreation activities such as walking, cycling and horse riding the
Borough Council will protect the following designated routes from development taking place on; or
in the immediate surroundings where an interesting or visually pleasing view would be adversely
affected:The Cistercian Way
Haematite Trail
Cumbria Coastal Way
Public Footpaths
Any existing right of way joining the rights of way network
Page 21 of 21