Objections to planning applications NP/K/0317/0323 & NP/K0317/0324 & NP/K0137/0325 & NP/K0137/0326 Greave Farm & Bartin Holmfirth

Traffic Issues.

Neither Bartin nor Greave Farm are on the road network. The only connection they have to the local road network is via 2 Public Bridleways namely Holmfirth Public Bridleways 68 & 189. The applicant does not mention this in the application neither is there any mention of this fact on the planning authority’s website. Public rights of way are a material consideration in planning applications and no information is provided in the applications as to the effects on these bridleways. If the applicant has not provided the information the planning authority should be asking for it so that the publics’ views can be properly considered.The bridleways are maintainable at public expense being recorded on the Kirklees Definitive Map & Statement. The surface is therefore vested with the highway authority.

Greave Farm is some 1400 metres along the bridleways. Bartin is some 2236 metres along the bridleways. These are significant distances. The bridleway surfaces are of an unsealed stone macadam construction and show some damage from water erosion. The bridleways are poorly drained, walled on each side for most of their length and of narrow width.

Unauthorised works carried out on Holmfirth Bridleways 68 & 189. Already the character & integrity of this unspoilt bridleway is being damaged ahead of planning permission. The effect of the works is to create a faster surface for motor vehicles and conflict with users of the bridleway.

It has been noted that some inappropriate remedial works have very recently been undertaken on the bridleways, namely resurfacing of areas with limestone on a sandstone surface. This work has been carried out without consent of the local highway authority.

Holmfirth Bridleway 189 showing original stone macadam surfacing and vulnerability to damage from intensification of vehicular usage. The image also illustrates the poor drainage on the bridleway with standing water on a downhill section.

The bridleways are a valuable landscape feature in themselves and have largely remained undamaged or changed by development or agricultural practices. This is rare in Kirklees where many similar ways have been resurfaced with inappropriate materials such as road plannings, concrete, rubble or tarmac as a result of vehicle damage.

The bridleways are subject only to infrequent agricultural use and to access a shoot. This again is rare in Kirklees where many similar ways have suffered from intensification of vehicular traffic - domestic, industrial and agricultural rendering them less attractive and much less user friendly to the public and ruining their character and amenity value to the public.

In contrast Holmfirth Bridleways 68 & 189 have remained largely unspoilt and retain much or their original character and surfacing from the time of original construction. They are of high amenity value to the public.

Walkers enjoying the unspoilt character and traffic free nature of Holmfirth Bridleway 189. Other such bridleways in Kirklees have lost this through development.

There is a lack of safe off road routes for cyclists and horse riders in Kirklees and Holmfirth Bridleways 68 & 189 are both rare and high quality routes for such uses.

As such the bridleways are very popular with a wide range of users from a wide cross section of society including many locals and visitors to the area. The bridleways are used for quite walks, horse riding and mountain biking and general enjoyment of the national park in a safe traffic free environment

The planning applications lack any recognition of the bridleways status, use and heritage and amenity value or place in the wider landscape setting. There is no study in the applications to ascertain how much vehicular use these new dwellings will generate. The applicants do not appear to have contacted the local highway authority for informal advice on the appropriateness of the applications from a highways perspective. The bridleways are not shown within the red line site boundary even though they are adjacent to each site and the only access available. Consequently there is a lot of information missing from the applications which should properly be in there for the public to make informed comment on how these bridleways will be affected.

It is my view based on being a regular user of the bridleways and also having some 35 years’ experience of working in countryside access that any intensification of vehicular use along the bridleways will result in considerable damage to the unsealed macadam surface resulting in subsequent water damage and loss of the original surfacing. The current surface was not constructed for regular use by modern motor vehicles whose speed, weight and tyres break up unsealed surfaces and allow water damage to occur. (This fact seems to have been acknowledged by whoever has carried out the unauthorised and inappropriate recent repairs).This damage will result in the loss of the character of these unspoilt bridleways and amenity value to the public users. There is a lack of such safe off road routes in Kirklees and the few available should be fully protected from further development.

The bridleways being narrow and walled are barley wide enough for a single motor vehicle. Two vehicles meeting each other on the lane cannot pass. Any intensification of vehicular use would lead to severe conflict between motor vehicles, pedestrians, riders and mountain bikers/cyclists. This would spoil the public’s enjoyment of the bridleways and lead to potential circumstances where users could be injured or frightened by fast moving vehicles on a narrow lane.

The design & access statement states that “Vehicular access to the building is adequate. Turning space is available at the property for emergency vehicles to approach and leave in forward gear.” However this is not the case as can be seen from the image below of Greave Farm there is currently no vehicular access off Bridleway 189 and into the site. A deep verge creates a change in levels and this is shown as being outside the red line boundary of the site. There are no details in the access and design statement regarding this. It is clear from the image that no emergency vehicle could turn into the site at this point.

Access at Greaves Farm. Note the verge and change of levels are outside the planning applications redline boundary. There is no vehicle access from Bridleway 189 into the site. There are no details in the application addressing this issue which would involve work on a public highway. Any such access would lead to damage to the bridleway from turning, braking & accelerating vehicles. The visibility for any emerging vehicle is poor due to the farm building itself, stone walls and change in levels. There is no reference to this in the planning applications.

Access at Bartin is on a long slope where rain water flows down the bridleway. Again the access involves cutting over the bridleway verge which is outside the red line planning boundary. Surface water erosion still occurs dispite the cleared out drain. Surface water combined with vehicles turning and accelerating/braking as they exit/enter the property would lead to extensive damage on the bridleway surface. None of this is addressed in the

planning application.

The narrow nature of the bridleways does not allow two vehicles to pass or pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists to safely pass a motor vehicle. There would be a clear conflict with public users who currently enjoy a mostly traffic free bridleway. There is no reference to this aspect of traffic conflict or safety for other users in the planning applications.

Mr R P Brown the Planning Inspector in the 1999 Public Inquiry into an application to redevelop Bartin acknowledged the traffic issue and conflict with the bridleway in his decision and these points are still relevant today. “Nether Lane is paved in part with old causey stones, whilst elsewhere it has a sandy/stoney surface. I am of the opinion that sustained and regular vehicle use would be damaging to these materials, and this adds weight to the judgement above.” Mr Brown also said in his judgement “The latter would result in increased traffic along Nether Lane, sections of which are of single track width between high stone walls. In such locations, I consider that vehicles would be in conflict with walkers and riders. Not only would such a situation be harmful to their enjoyment of the area, but it could also give rise to issues of safety”. These points were made when turning down an appeal for development at Bartin. Today we have 4 planning applications for Bartin and Greave Farm and no information provided as to level of traffic generated by the proposed developments. These properties generate zero traffic at the moment and have done so for 70 odd years so the increase is likely to be very significant. The type of vehicles used are likely to be 4x4 / SUV vehicles so it is a much bigger increase in traffic generation and size/weight of vehicles involved and subsequent damage caused to the public bridleway.

In 25 years of walking these bridleways several times a week I have come across an agricultural vehicle perhaps once or twice a year. The bridleways are currently largely traffic free in character and allow a deep enjoyment of the surrounding landscape. It would be in the greater public interest for this to continue.

Traffic free Holmfirth Bridleway 189 and Bartin

2. Impact on Landscape

Greave Farm and Bartin were purchased by the water authority and closed when Digley Dam was constructed in the 1940’s. They have been uninhabited in modern times and form part of the wider landscape character of the unspoilt Digley Valley.

Bartin and Greave Farm uninhabited since the 1940’s form part of the unique unspoilt landscape character of the Digley Valley. As can be seen the valley is free from modern developments and traffic.

There has been no development beyond water catchment in this valley which remains a quiet place where a deep enjoyment of the landscape and its natural history can be enjoyed without the distraction of modern development. Looking down on the valley from the moors above, Bartin and Greave are barely noticeable. Walking past the sites the buildings currently form part of the landscape as they are slowly being taken back by nature. The proposed developments are inappropriate in this rare and unspoilt landscape.

Mr R P Brown noted the quality of the surrounding landscape and the place these buildings have within it when he said in his reasons for turning down the previous Bartin application that “Because this section of the Bradshaw Valley has been uninhabited for such a long period, to my mind it has now acquired a bleak and somewhat desolate appearance. Although it may not have the scale and grandeur of some of the more remote areas of the Lake District or Snowdonia, I consider that this appearance and character provides a valuable recreational resource. Evidence presented to the inquiry confirmed that people from the surrounding metropolitan conurbations of West and South Yorkshire, and indeed further afield, visit the area to experience and enjoy the silence and solitude.” I think his words are poignant some 18 years later. Like a good whisky this landscape has matured through those intervening years into something richer, deeper and rarer. Its qualities are appreciated quietly by many and the developments as proposed would sour the landscape and peoples enjoyment of it.

The developments with associated vehicles, noise, light, driveways and domestic clutter would blight the landscape quality and the public’s enjoyment. The damage done to the landscape in bringing back into use these two sites far out outweighs any positives associated with saving the buildings. The buildings are not being brought back as they were or even something close to that but as modern properties without the inherent agricultural character and place in the landscape of the original farmsteads.

Greave Farm. Part of the landscape.

The Digley Valley and Greave Farm. The landscape here has been unaffected by modern developments.

3. Failure to follow proper procedure.Peak District National Park as Planning Authority are required by Article 15 (1) (c) of the town and country planning (development management procedure) (England) order 2015 to advertise on site and in the press planning applications affecting public rights of way. The notices displayed on site at Bartin and Greave refer only to Article 13. There is no information on the notices to advertise the fact that public rights of way are affected by the applications and Article 15 is not mentioned at all.

Public rights of way are a material consideration in the planning process. The applicant has provided no information as to the effects of the applications on 2,300 metres of popular public bridleway. The Peak District National Park has taken no steps to require the applicant to do so. As this information does not exist within the decision making process the public rights of way cannot be properly considered by the planning authority and proper procedure is not being followed.

Holmfirth Bridleway 68. Unspoilt & traffic free.