Meeting 5 of 2008 – 9 NOT YET CONFIRMED
The Parish Council met at 8.00pm on Monday 1st September 2008.
Present: Mr Ian Smith in the Chair, Mr Ian Shaw, Mr Bryan Braithwaite-Exley, Ms Kate Smith, Mr Robert Cooksley and the Parish Clerk.
5.1 Conflict of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest.
5.2 Apologies for Absence
There were no apologies for absence.
5.3 Minutes of Meeting 4 2008-9 (July 22nd 2008)
The minutes of Meeting 4 2008-9 were presented and accepted as a true record of the proceedings.
5.4 Matters arising from the Minutes
The Clerk gave a brief summary, for information only, of progress with various issues arising from Meeting 4 2008-9.
5.4.1 Cross Streets. The Clerk has received an e-mail from Ian Swain, Planning Enforcement Officer at Craven District Council, advising that the application to change the existing dwelling into a children’s care home has not yet gone before the planning committee, but that as there are objections to the proposal it will have to go through the 7 day notice procedure, whereby a copy of the report and recommendations will be sent to Ward Councillors and the Planning Committee Chairman. They have 7 days to decide whether the application goes before the full Planning Committee.
5.5 Conservation Area Status
The public meeting held on July 22nd 2008, at which Don McLellan, Conservation Area Officer with the YDNPA, had given an illustrated presentation on the suitability of Austwick and the surrounding area for consideration as a conservation area, produced numerous questions relating to planning policy and regulations within conservation areas which Mr McLellan was not equipped to answer. To rectify this, Lisa Bartlett, Senior Planning Officer with the YDNPA, was invited to the meeting to take questions on planning related issues.
Following a welcome by the Chairman, Ms Bartlett explained that conservation area designation accepts that an area has a character and features that are worth preserving and raises the bar on what constitutes acceptable development or alteration within that area.
Conservation area designation introduces control over the demolition of part, or all of any buildings within the area, and assessment of applications is essentially the same as that for listed building consent.
There may already be some restricted permitted development rights if a conservation area is within the boundaries of a National Park and planning permission would also be required for micro renewables such as solar panels.
If during the appraisal procedure existing architectural or historical features were deemed to be significant then Article 4 Directions would apply to any proposals that affected those features. The effect of such a Direction is to remove permitted development rights, thereby necessitating a planning application to be made.
In general planning terms, conservation area policies would be given weight. This is not a matter of preventing development, but ensuring that any development proposals are suitable and sympathetic with the area in question.
Some trees within conservation areas will already be the subject of tree preservation orders. In view of the contribution that trees can make to the overall character and appearance of a conservation area there is special provision for trees in conservation areas that are not covered by TPO’s. Anyone proposing to cut down, top or lop a tree in a conservation area must give six weeks notice to the local planning authority. There are penalties for non compliance, which may include the requirement to replant, and are similar to those in place for TPO’s.
Such restrictions apply to all trees over 7.5cm diameter (or 10cm if cutting down trees to improve the growth of other trees, ie thinning operations) at a height of 1.50 metres. In addition, within a conservation area, additional TPO’s may be issued to cover significant specimens not already included.
Questions from the floor and responses:
Q. What are the advantages of conservation area status?
A. The conservation area appraisal is a robust document that highlights what is important in the village and affords significant weight to any appeals process, as detailed in Policies B8 and B9 of the National Park Local Plan 2006.
Q. Do National Park policies not already cover these planning aspects anyway?
A. Yes, but such a document is a more robust and consistent approach to outlining what is worth preserving in an area.
Q. Do conservation areas have to be contiguous?
A. The designated area does not have to cover the whole village, but can focus on areas of specific significance from a historical or architectural point of view.
Q. Do restrictions relating to cutting down trees also apply to overgrown Leylandii hedges?
A. Leylandii and any tree of any species would be covered within the prior notification procedure, (subject to the exemptions)although in reality the tree officer is unlikely to object to the removal of aggressive species such as Leylandii.
Q. Kettlewell have decided not to have satellite dishes visible from the road. Could Austwick decide on its own criteria for the imposition of restrictions?
A. In this case Article 4 Directions would come into play and decisions could be made on specific criteria that would require planning permission. Although items can be ‘added’ to Article 4 Directions, they can not be removed from the basic regulations currently in force. For example, yellow lines on the road are compulsory where the highways authority deem they should be.
Q. Who decides what items can be added to Article 4 Directions.
A. The National Park Authority, in conjunction with the Parish, and the Secretary of State.
Q. Solar panels have recently been installed at Orchard Leigh. How would these be affected by an Article 4 Direction?
A. They cannot be removed retrospectively.
Q. If the proposed conservation area included the area around Austwick and Wharfe, how would this affect existing issues such as quarrying rights on Oxenber, the removal of stone walls or tree plantations?
A. It is unlikely that large swathes of land or tree plantations would be considered for conservation area status. It is difficult to designate large areas and more important to focus on the built environment with a significant architectural or historical heritage. Although features such as lynchets, which are widespread in the area, are of historical importance, they are not in any danger of removal by current agricultural practises and therefore their protection would be deemed unnecessary.
Q. How would the conservation area be defined and who controls the decision making process?
A. The actual area would be defined by the conservation area officer as part of the initial appraisal process and would be confined to a fairly tight area with a distinct character. The designation of a conservation area needs the support of the Parish Council and the local populace, so the Planning Committee would want to see that there was considerable local support for the proposals before agreeing to a new designation.
Q. A major concern in Austwick is the loss of gardens and green spaces to development as a direct result of National Park planning policies. Would conservation area status change this?
A. That is a valid comment. Conservation area status will not necessarily protect green spaces within the village any more than the current Local Plan policies do. It usually comes down to a subjective decision made by a planning officer, taking into account the individual circumstances of the application.
Q. The parish Council are in the process of updating the Parish Plan. Would a well defined plan, setting out specific criteria relating to development control and the loss of green space carry any weight with the planning authority?
A. Not necessarily, because planning officers still have to work within the policies as laid down in the Local Plan. However, such a statement of intent from the Parish could not be ignored by the National Park and account would have to be taken of Parish Council opinion on specific matters. There would be a need to inform the wider community, local bodies, developers and so on that such a document had been produced.
Q. Are any changes to the current housing development boundary being proposed?
A. The new Local Development Framework for the National Park is a work in progress and no decisions have been made at this stage.
Q. If the proposed conservation area included Wharfe, could derelict barns be converted for residential use?
A. The designation would not affect other issues that planning currently control and any barn would have to be within a settlement designated as H3. Although Wharfe is not currently classified as a settlement, new H3 settlements can be designated.
Q. What would be the position in regard to street lighting within the village/conservation area?
A. This would come under the remit of the highways authority and the National Park would only become involved if new lighting for a large development could be deemed to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area and residents.
Q. How long would it take to achieve conservation area status?
A. About 12 months, possibly less.
Q. There do not appear to be any clearly defined benefits to having conservation area status. Is this a fair assessment as far as Austwick is concerned?
A. Within the Yorkshire Dales National Park, most of the restrictions that control planning and development issues are already in force.
Q. Given that fact, and the very real concerns of residents about the control of excessive development and the loss of green space in the village, what can be done if conservation area status will not achieve our aims?
A. It is disappointing to hear that concern. A well thought out appraisal with strong objectives will help considerably, together with the support of the local planning officer. The Planning Committee is also there as an additional safety net, but there is no guarantee that they will not overturn officer’s decisions on specific issues.
Q. There are a number of conservation areas in the National park, can we speak to some of them to gauge opinion on the merits and problems associated with such a designation?
A. A good idea. The Clerk and Chairman will pursue the matter in time for the next meeting.
Q. What is the Planning Officer’s attitude towards possible future development in Austwick?
A. It is important to control secondary alterations to previously approved plans. If the Parish Council have approved an application for development it is unreasonable to allow significant changes to that application without a re-submission. Infill is permitted in the Local Plan, but it must not be allowed to affect the architectural, environmental or historical integrity of the area. Piecemeal development can have a cumulative impact and should be considered with this fact in mind There should be good lines of communication between the Planning authority and the Parish Council and any concerns should be expressed and discussed.
Q. What is the National Park’s approach to double glazing in listed buildings?
A. In a listed building any replacement glazing must be secondary glazing.
Q. How can residents meet with the Planning Officer to discuss planning issues.
A. There is a planning surgery at Settle starting at 2.00pm on Thursdays, by appointment.
Q. There is a need to review the Local Needs assessment process within the National Park. This Parish Council has tried to get involved in determining the validity, or otherwise, of local need applications, but the National Park seem reluctant to pursue this line of thought. How can the council become more involved in the process?
A. That type of consultation is not practicable at present, but the process is likely to be reviewed in the future.
The Chairman concluded this agenda item by thanking Ms Bartlett for answering questions and said that members of the Parish Council would have to consider the matter further before coming to any conclusions on conservation area status.
5.6 Finance
5.6.1 The balance on the current account with HSBC at 31st July 2008 of £2307.84 was noted.
5.6.2 Payment for the hire of the hall for this meeting (£6) was approved.
5.6.3 Payment to Andrew Lodge of £ 24 for cleaning the bus shelter for 6 weeks to September 1st 2008 was approved.
5.6.4 Payment to David Dewhirst of £28.81 to reimburse out of pocket expenses for the 2007-8 financial year was approved.
5.7 Austwick Parish Plan
Councillor Kate Smith told the meeting that work was currently in progress to review the Austwick Parish Plan. Responses to the questionnaire sent out with the January Parish Newsletter had identified some key issues that residents felt the parish Council should focus their attention on. They have been summarised as follows:
Planning control, future development & loss of green space.
Road safety
Footpaths, bridleways & verges
Housing
School & shop
Public transport
Wheelie bins
The new plan will be as succinct as possible and will identify which statutory bodies are responsible for carrying out any necessary works (including individual contact details to shorten communication lines); what the current position is with the issue in question; what aspirations have been identified for that issue; who will carry out the work and within what time scale.
Public participation is vital to the success and effectiveness of such a plan and a draft of the Parish Plan will be presented to residents in the early part of 2009.
5.8 Correspondence
5.8.1 A letter has been received from Relate, based in Keighley, detailing the work they do and asking for a contribution from the Parish Council. It was agreed to let their request lie on the table.
5.9 Date & Time of next meeting.
The next meeting of the Parish Council will be held on Monday 20th October 2008 at 8.00pm in the Parish Hall.
5.10 Any Other Business
5.10.1 Ms Kate Smith expressed concern that the generator being used by the snack bar on the A65 at Harden Bridge was leaking fuel near the Austwick Beck, with a risk of contamination. The Clerk will discuss the matter with the National Park and the Environment Agency as a matter of urgency.
5.10.2 Mr Bryan Braithwaite –Exley raised the matter of the earth mounds at Cross Streets and asked for a site meeting with Craven District Council planning officers to discuss what can be done. In the absence of any response from CDC we should be informing local County Councillors of the problem and gaining their support to have them removed. The Clerk will pursue the matter once again and report back asap.
There being no further business, the meeting closed at 9.32pm
