Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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