They say the Devil makes work for idle hands. Some people think that retired people have too much time on their hands and this leads to these retired people getting involved in unnecessary projects. Ones that raise their stress levels with little benefit overall to their well-being. The project below may well come into that category. It’s the one about trying to get change of use for the barn from an artist’s studio to a residential property. As Ry Cooder once sang – the very thing that make you rich will make you poor. Go figure.
I sent this out-pouring of frustration to the planning consultant who I was employing to reduce both my involvement and my stress levels. It didn’t work at this point but it was therapeutic to get it off my chest as they say. Forgive me for sharing my angst with you my readers.
The parts in italics are from the organisations consulted and the rest my heart-felt response.
In order of presentation, my comments on their comment. Use or not as you believe appropriate.
HIGHWAYS
A lot of these comments seem based on the belief that we are going to alter the property and its approach. There will be no alterations either to the building nor unless required by Highways to the drive at the side.
Parking area outside the application site will need upgrading to Standard detail.
We do not own the area of land between road and barn wall. We usually park in the field.
The final surfacing of any private access within 2 metres of the public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway.
The distance between the road and the field is mostly as it was left by last road surfacing exercise.
PARISH COUNCIL
The original application for this property was specifically not as accommodation but for a studio. It is not appropriate place for residential usage. The council has noted people staying overnight already.
There is nothing in the approval for artist studio that precludes overnight stays. We have been staying overnight occasionally for the last 7 years. Nothing will change. We stay to work on the vineyard when necessary.
And while on the topic of the vineyard which is non-commercial and which we checked with the planning department before planting to establish we did not need permission to plant. The vineyard has suffered over the years because we have not been on site. Granting change of use would enable us to stay for longer periods when work needs doing. Thus reducing our carbon footprint when travelling backwards and forwards between Leeds and Lofthouse.
Furthermore as concerns to vineyard this provides employment for 3 local people. Two on an occasional basis and one more or less full-time who carries out maintenance work.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
They appear to think they are being asked about ‘the proposal for the erection of a dwelling house with a garden’.
This is not correct. No changes will be made to the barn or the area outside. I suggest their comments are not therefor relevant.
AONB
The AONB refer to this property being refused three times between 2002 and 2006 before finally being granted on appeal in 2007.
They offer this almost as a badge of honour. In fact I believe their original refusals were a disgrace resulting in a lot of unnecessary expense both to ourselves and the tax payer. Quite unreasonable verging on the bloody minded. At the time I asked one of the officers would they rather it fell down. They replied yes, they would rather it fell down. In which case it would now look, without our intervention and in excess of an expenditure of £75,000, (with no change to the look of the barn itself) like this ruin in the photo which is about 50 yards further down Trapping Hill.
Does this sad ruin (see picture) enhance the AONB? Does this encourage tourism to the area which I understand planners have been instructed to encourage when considering planning applications. And in connection with this tourism promotion ideal, our vineyard is shortly to be included in The Yorkshire Wine Trail website designed to promote both Yorkshire wines and tourism in the featured areas.
Returning to their submission, they further state that a comment from the inspector on appeal in 2007 stated ‘such a use (residential) would require a separate planning permission and my allowing this proposal should not be taken as any indication that residential use would be acceptable in this location’.
Isn’t this the very reason we are making this application. We are in compliance with this request.
Incidentally while addressing past contacts with planners, in about 2010 (exact date available) we met with a representative of the planning department to discuss the likelihood of being granted change of use to a holiday let. The planner in question indicated that the planners would look favourably on such an application. I believe Turleys who accompanied us to the meeting will have a record of this. I’m sure this can be obtained if required.
Please help me to understand how being willing to accept a change of use to a holiday let is different from this application. It would probably cause more disruption in terms of parking and more use than is currently the case
The committee believes that the building and its setting would be changed by residential use and would cause harm to a remote location in a dramatic setting with wide ranging views of one of the AONB’s most renowned landscapes.
As regards the ‘building and the setting and the wide-ranging views’ or the ‘dramatic setting’ and renowned landscape. I note no local objections, (nor any from passing tourists). I repeat all would be unchanged. From the road it would look as it has done for hundreds of years. Perhaps they’re thinking of the barn conversion opposite The Sportsmans Arms which was granted change of use, which made a huge impact on the vista and was radically changed as a building. Why was this approved by the planners given it was so contrary to council policy at that time?
NATURAL ENGLAND
Given my earlier comments about no change of building or area, NE / Site of Scientific Interest raised no objections, which I think is telling.
HSE
I don’t think they’re raising any objections. There will be no building taking place. Presumably if there were any objections from them they would have been relevant at the first change of use application and there were none. I don’t see that a residence should be any safer than an occupied artist’s studio.
Those are my responses.