cumbria county council...cumbria county council serving the people of cumbria cumbria.gov.uk yours...

Cumbria County Council

Serving the people of Cumbriacumbria.gov.uk

Information Governance Team � Cumbria House � 117 Botchergate � Carlisle � CA1 1RDT: 01228 221234 � E: [email protected]

E-mail:

17th August 2017Our reference: FOI 2017-0573

Dear

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - DISCLOSURE

The council has completed its search relating to your request for information regarding planning application7/2017/2068, which was received on 25th July 2017

The council does hold information within the definition of your request.

Request

Please could you provide all email correspondence involving staff members of Cumbria County Council,relating to planning application 7/2017/2068 in the Lake District, for which the Lake District National ParkAuthority is the planning authority and Cumbria County Council is a consultee. Email correspondenceincludes internal emails and external emails with staff or councillors from other relevant authorities -including the Lake District National Park Authority, Allerdale Borough Council, Above Derwent ParishCouncil and Borrowdale Parish Council – and any other relevant organisations or individuals. Please couldyou send this in an electronic format via email if possible

Response

Please see attached document. A small amount of information has been redacted as it constitutes thirdparty data

Most of the information that we provide in response to requests submitted under the Freedom ofInformation Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 will be subject to copyrightprotection. In most cases the copyright will be owned by Cumbria County Council. However the copyrightin other information may be owned by another person or organisation, as indicated on the information itself.

You are free to use any information supplied in this response for your own non-commercial research orprivate study purposes. The information may also be used for any other purpose allowed by a limitation orexception in copyright law, such as news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for example bypublishing the information in analogue or digital form, including on the internet, will require the permissionof the copyright owner. Where the copyright owner is the council you will need to make an applicationunder the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005.

For information where the copyright is owned by another person or organisation you must apply to theowner to obtain their permission.

If you are dissatisfied with the way the council has responded to your request you can request an InternalReview. If you would like to request a Review please contact the Information Governance Team using thedetails at the top of this letter.

Further information can be found on the council’s website: http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/council-democracy/accesstoinformation/internalreviewscomplaints.asp


Serving the people of Cumbriacumbria.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Information Governance TeamResources and TransformationCumbria County Council

1

From:Sent: 12 April 2017 15:30To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: RE: 7/2017/2068

Hi Pieter,

As I understand it the ADPC are due to discuss the application at their forthcoming meeting on 19th April. Whilst theBorrowdale PC have supported the application, I do not believe it falls under their remit and as highlighted ADPC arethe relevant Parish Council relating to this application.

From: Barnard, Pieter GF [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 3:18 PMTo: Subject: RE: 7/2017/2068

Hello

I just noted the comments on your website form Borrowdale PC. I am not aware of the Above DerwentParish Council response.

Regards

Pieter BarnardLead Officer - Development Management

Environment and Community Services | Cumbria County Council |Parkhouse Building | Carlisle | CA6 4SJTel - 07768 272394www.cumbria.gov.uk

From: Sent: 12 April 2017 13:56To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: 7/2017/2068

Dear Pieter,

I have recently read your response to the above application for car parking in the National Park. I note that you havetaken the decision not to object to this application and, amongst other things, cite the view of the Parish Council aspart of your reasoning.

On the online planning portal there is a response from Borrowdale Parish Council supporting the application. Is thisthe Parish Council view you refer to in your consultation response? The reason I am asking this question is that Ibelieve the application site falls within the Above Derwent Parish Council area and I am advised that they were due

2

to discuss the application on 19th April before submitting their response. I have not seen any formal response fromADPC relating to the application.

Therefore, if possible, could you please clarify whether you were referring to the Borrowdale Parish Councilresponse or do your comments relate to pre-application discussion with Above Derwent Parish Council? Thank youin advance.

Regards,

1

From:Sent: 12 April 2017 18:45To: Coyle, DougSubject: RE: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, Newlands

How strange. He sent an email to another person working on this campaign at 3.18 pm today.

From: Coyle, Doug [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 6:38 PMTo: Innes, GraemeSubject: RE: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, Newlands

Pieter will be back in next week from leave and will reply to you then.

Thanks

Doug

From: Sent: 12 April 2017 18:00To: Coyle, Doug; Innes, GraemeSubject: FW: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, NewlandsImportance: High

Mr Coyle, Mr Innes.

I have received an out-of-office reply from Mr Barnard which asks that any urgent messages be sent to you. Pleasetherefore see below:

From: Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:51 PMTo: '[email protected]'Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; [email protected]: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, NewlandsImportance: High

Dear Mr Barnard

I have read your recommendation concerning the highly controversial application for a permanent, hard-surfacedcar park on agricultural land at the foot of Catbells in the Lake District National Park. Your recommendation and theapparent support of Borrowdale Parish Council are the only opinions that are visible on the LDNPA Planning website. As a Newlands Valley resident, I have a number of serious issues with that:

The application is for a site within Above Derwent Parish and it is therefore a matter for that Parish Council toconsult its parishioners about and to feed back those views to the planning authority. Borrowdale is not therelevant authority.

Above Derwent Parish Council( ADPC) has not held a public meeting to consider the application. Such a meeting isscheduled for 19th April. However, the agenda for that meeting includes under item 4. Consideration to remove thepublic and press from the meeting and under item 5. Consideration to suspend public discussion during this public

2

meeting. You will also see that the relevant planning application is on the agenda under item 9. You may verify thisinformation at: https://abovederwentparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/april-2017-agenda-parishioner.pdf. Please be aware that ADPC did suspend public discussion concerning another highly controversialproposal and has held a number of meetings on that subject where the public have been excluded. All councilmembers have signed up to the standard code of conduct where they have agreed, as required, to subject theirdecisions to public scrutiny but in practice they have refused to do so. In relation to the previous application Ireferred to, ADPC are a party to a pending judicial review. Furthermore, it is a matter of public record that one ofthe ADPC councillors is also a senior member of the LDNPA Development Control Committee I understand that anumber of ADPC councillors have conflicts of interest with this application and these have not yet been declared asrequired by law. Furthermore, it is also a matter of public record that the ADPC councillor who is also a seniormember of the Development Control Committee spoke with and in favour of a previous application on the samesubject by the same applicant.

I have been informed that the applicant made a previous application for a permanent, seasonal, grass-based ca parkon the same site but this application was rejected out of hand and subsequently withdrawn. I find it strange thatthere appears to be no public record of this matter and even more strange that there is now an application for ahard-surfaced car park that appears to have your support.

Borrowdale Parish Council, according to all their agendas and minutes (https://borrowdale.org.uk/), have notconsulted their parishioners in any public meeting and it follows that the views expressed by BPC are nowhereshown to be the views of their parishioners. Borrowdale’s claims that a car park would relieve the traffic problemsin the Newlands valley are not supported by any evidence, indeed, there is much evidence that such a developmentwould only increase the traffic entering the valley through very narrow and dangerous roads. I understand that thisis also the view of your department and I support that view and observe the results on a daily basis. In any event, asI have already noted, Borrowdale is not the relevant authority.

The only views on the LDNPA’s planning site concerning this application are yours and that of the wrong parishcouncil. I am personally aware of many objections from individuals from all over the world and from highlyrespected organisations but none of these are available to see on the web site. It follows that there is a totallybiased view that in any event is based on incorrect information. This is clearly not in line with the obligations of anypublic body to act logically, fairly, with transparency and by allowing public scrutiny of the decisions of those publicbodies. You will be aware that where these principles are not followed, then any decision is open to challenge in thecourts.

Can I say at this point that the initial part of your report, that Highways would not normally support such anapplication for the reasons you give is perfectly correct. You will receive from other quarters the legal referencesthat are appropriate to such an application and these support and legally endorse your initial views. However, tobase Highways support on a spurious, factually incorrect and geographically wrong parish council’s private views isclearly wrong.

It appears to me that for whatever reason, be it a mistake or misinformation, you have provided support for one ofthe most controversial applications the National Park has ever seen. I ask that you reflect on this and considerwithdrawing your letter of support pending a proper and public discussion in the relevant parish.

I would be grateful if you could respond to this email as soon as practicable as the ADPC meeting is next week.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter carefully.

Yours sincerely

Dear Mr. Richards,

3

A friend who I visit in the Lake District has brought to my attention this proposal for a permanent car park at CupboardField Newlands. Your national parks, like those we have in the United States, are a national treasure. Ken Burnsrecently did a documentary calling our national parks "America's Greatest Idea". I couldn't agree more. Theirunspoiled beauty and serene settings calm both the mind and the body. They cannot be replaced. To considerputting in a permanent car park goes against the whole rationale of having a national park, both for the residents wholive within its boundaries and for visitors like me. Surely there is a better solution than this one. As Joni Mitchell saidin her song Big Yellow Taxi, "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone. They pavedparadise and put up a parking lot." Please don't let that happen to the Lake District.

Sincerely,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr__rRGWVgI

WARNING: Email attachments may contain malicious and harmful software. If this email is unsolicitedand contains an attachment DO NOT open the attachment and advise the ICT Service Desk immediately.Never open an attachment or click on a link within an email if you are not expecting it or it lookssuspicious.


1

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 18 April 2017 14:36To: [email protected]: 'Planning' ([email protected]); Lewis, Adam; Murray, Gavin R; Coyle,

DougSubject: 7/2017/2068 - The Cupboard Field, Newlands

Categories: Egress Switch: OFFICIAL – not protectively markedTrackingTracking: Recipient Delivery Read

[email protected]

'Planning'([email protected])

Lewis, Adam Delivered: 18/04/2017 14:36 Read: 18/04/2017 14:56

Murray, Gavin R Delivered: 18/04/2017 14:36

Coyle, Doug Delivered: 18/04/2017 14:36 Read: 18/04/2017 14:42

Dear Kevin

I have been contacted by various groups about the application and our response.I must admit the wording could have been slightly clearer.

As you are aware the views of Parish Council (or for that matter any other Statutory Consultee) does notaffect our technical highway views . I merely noted it as it is quite unusual to see supportive views fromconsultees.

If I therefore can expand on the comment below:

The site is located in an area very popular with visitors. It is clear that the roads , verges and laybys arewell used and can sometimes be prone to inappropriate parking (double yellow lines and parking conescan be seen in the surrounding areas).

It is anticipated that the car park will not generate traffic , but will reduce the aforementioned inappropriateparking and unwanted vehicular movement ( vehicles driving around trying to find a roadside parkingspace) . The mention below of increased traffic demand will in all likelihood only be for a short time (whilstthe car park establishes itself ) and will not cause capacity or undue safety issues.The number of parking spaces proposed (less than 100) would also mean that there is not a need for aformal Transport assessment.

The application , to make a temporary car park permanent , is therefore acceptable, if the condition belowis included into a permission that you might grant.

Regards



2

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 03 April 2017 12:32To: [email protected]: 'Planning' ([email protected])Subject: 7/2017/2068 - The Cupboard Field, Newlands

Dear Kevin

Thank you for the consultation on the above application dated 20 March 2017.

As you are aware we would not normally support applications for this level of parking in open countryside.As it would be against national and local policy to support more sustainable modes of travel.

Having considered this particular site, the parish council’s view, the layout details and the pre applicationdiscussions, we can confirm that we have no objection to this application. It is however accepted that thisapplication would increase the traffic demand on the local highway network.

We would therefore recommend that the following condition is included in any consent you might grant:

The use of the development shall not be commenced until the access and additional remedial measures asstated within the application documentation has been constructed in accordance with details approved bythe Local Planning Authority.Reason: In the interests of highway safety.To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

Regards



1

From:Sent: 28 April 2017 10:35To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: RE: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, NewlandsAttachments: Letter to 28042017 (2).pdf

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mr Barnard.

Thank you for your email and your apology which is accepted. I note from the LDNPA Planning portal that you havenow slightly changed your views concerning the application. However, I am writing to you again as it appears thatyour views are misguided:

Firstly, the so-called support from Above Derwent parish Council appears to be based on incorrect information andpossible breaches of that council’s code of conduct. You will see from the attached letter that I have today sent tothe council that I am seeking clarification on these matters by asking questions under the terms of the Freedom ofInformation Act 2000. The key issues are:

I understand that the “survey” referred to by the council chairman was NOT in respect of the current applicationand in any event did not involve a majority of the parishioners so is invalid. The “survey” the chairman referred to inthe meeting was, I understand a more general one about the obvious need “to do something” about parking andtraffic problems in the narrow roads of our valley.

The parish council knowingly and deliberately curtailed public participation in the meeting using the excuse thatthey had arranged a guest speaker for the annual meeting of parishioners which followed the council meeting. Asyou will see from the attached letter, this is the second year running that the council have curtailed publicparticipation and in doing so appear to be in breach of their own code-of-conduct as this arrangement meant thatthe council’s decisions could not be scrutinised by the public. Put simply, there appears to be no evidence that thepubic were able to consider the wider picture and it would be unsound to accept the parish council’s views asrepresentative of the parishioners whom they purport to represent.

Nowhere did the parish council consider the wider implications of a car park drawing in additional traffic neither didit consider the National Park’s policy of an integrated transport solution, including park-and-ride that would reduceprivate car numbers entering the park. A policy I understand that you would normally endorse.

There are also some more serious matters concerning the possibility of undeclared conflicts of interest.

You state in your response to the application that once the construction phase is over, the proposed car park willreduce parking on the nearby verges. What evidence do you have that this will be the case? For the two years thata temporary seasonal car park was allowed, car parking on the verges continued as normal. As a further example,Buttermere has two car parks and yet the parking on the verges especially up the steep hill leading to the NewlandsValley has actually increased. Please provide evidence to support your claim. (For the avoidance of doubt, a requestfor information to a public servant is automatically a request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act2000. You are required to provide this information within a maximum of 20 working days from the date of the

2

request). Obviously, under your own code of conduct you are required to submit your decisions to public scrutiny inany event.

You will be aware that the current application is highly controversial and will be scrutinised by a large number oforganisations. Please also be aware that ongoing concerns regarding breaches of codes of conduct by variouscouncils are now under investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman and, depending on the response fromthe Governance Officer of LDNPA, are likely to become part of a judicial review.

Given all of the above, in the first instance, I once again request that you withdraw your comments from the LDNPAplanning portal until the above concerns have been dealt with. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve this matterlocally but please be in no doubt that if this is not the case, further action, including legal action, is likely to follow.

I look forward to your early response.

Regards

From: Barnard, Pieter GF [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:02 AMTo: Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Coyle, DougSubject: RE: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, Newlands

Dear

Thank you for the email below.

My sincerest apology, I was indeed incorrect in giving weight to the incorrect PC view.

I will reconsider as soon as the local Parish Council views are known .

Regards



From: Sent: 12 April 2017 17:51To: Barnard, Pieter GFCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, NewlandsImportance: High

Dear Mr Barnard

I have read your recommendation concerning the highly controversial application for a permanent, hard-surfacedcar park on agricultural land at the foot of Catbells in the Lake District National Park. Your recommendation and theapparent support of Borrowdale Parish Council are the only opinions that are visible on the LDNPA Planning website. As a Newlands Valley resident, I have a number of serious issues with that:

3

The application is for a site within Above Derwent Parish and it is therefore a matter for that Parish Council toconsult its parishioners about and to feed back those views to the planning authority. Borrowdale is not therelevant authority.

Above Derwent Parish Council( ADPC) has not held a public meeting to consider the application. Such a meeting isscheduled for 19th April. However, the agenda for that meeting includes under item 4. Consideration to remove thepublic and press from the meeting and under item 5. Consideration to suspend public discussion during this publicmeeting. You will also see that the relevant planning application is on the agenda under item 9. You may verify thisinformation at: https://abovederwentparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/april-2017-agenda-parishioner.pdf. Please be aware that ADPC did suspend public discussion concerning another highly controversialproposal and has held a number of meetings on that subject where the public have been excluded. All councilmembers have signed up to the standard code of conduct where they have agreed, as required, to subject theirdecisions to public scrutiny but in practice they have refused to do so. In relation to the previous application Ireferred to, ADPC are a party to a pending judicial review. Furthermore, it is a matter of public record that one ofthe ADPC councillors is also a senior member of the LDNPA Development Control Committee I understand that anumber of ADPC councillors have conflicts of interest with this application and these have not yet been declared asrequired by law. Furthermore, it is also a matter of public record that the ADPC councillor who is also a seniormember of the Development Control Committee spoke with and in favour of a previous application on the samesubject by the same applicant.

I have been informed that the applicant made a previous application for a permanent, seasonal, grass-based ca parkon the same site but this application was rejected out of hand and subsequently withdrawn. I find it strange thatthere appears to be no public record of this matter and even more strange that there is now an application for ahard-surfaced car park that appears to have your support.

Borrowdale Parish Council, according to all their agendas and minutes (https://borrowdale.org.uk/), have notconsulted their parishioners in any public meeting and it follows that the views expressed by BPC are nowhereshown to be the views of their parishioners. Borrowdale’s claims that a car park would relieve the traffic problemsin the Newlands valley are not supported by any evidence, indeed, there is much evidence that such a developmentwould only increase the traffic entering the valley through very narrow and dangerous roads. I understand that thisis also the view of your department and I support that view and observe the results on a daily basis. In any event, asI have already noted, Borrowdale is not the relevant authority.

The only views on the LDNPA’s planning site concerning this application are yours and that of the wrong parishcouncil. I am personally aware of many objections from individuals from all over the world and from highlyrespected organisations but none of these are available to see on the web site. It follows that there is a totallybiased view that in any event is based on incorrect information. This is clearly not in line with the obligations of anypublic body to act logically, fairly, with transparency and by allowing public scrutiny of the decisions of those publicbodies. You will be aware that where these principles are not followed, then any decision is open to challenge in thecourts.

Can I say at this point that the initial part of your report, that Highways would not normally support such anapplication for the reasons you give is perfectly correct. You will receive from other quarters the legal referencesthat are appropriate to such an application and these support and legally endorse your initial views. However, tobase Highways support on a spurious, factually incorrect and geographically wrong parish council’s private views isclearly wrong.

It appears to me that for whatever reason, be it a mistake or misinformation, you have provided support for one ofthe most controversial applications the National Park has ever seen. I ask that you reflect on this and considerwithdrawing your letter of support pending a proper and public discussion in the relevant parish.

I would be grateful if you could respond to this email as soon as practicable as the ADPC meeting is next week.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter carefully.

28th

April 2017

By email to:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear

Please acknowledge and respond to the following questions under the terms of the

Freedom of Information Act 2000 in respect of the Above Derwent Parish Council

Meeting of 19th

April 2017.

I understand that at the above meeting the chairman noted that a survey had been

conducted that showed significant support for the planning application for a

permanent, all-year-round, hard-surfaced car park in Cupboard Field at the foot of Cat

Bells in this parish. I am aware of an earlier survey which I understand concluded that

traffic in our valleys was a problem and that “something needed to be done about it”.

Please provide a copy of the “survey” the chairman was referring to and please

specify the response rate to that survey.

Please could you provide me with minutes of any parish council meeting that

discussed the National Park’s policy of refusing additional car parks in favour of an

integrated approach in order to reduce the number of cars in the Park by developing

an integrated transport system including, for example, park-and-ride facilities?

Please could you provide me with a copy of the council’s survey that specifically

considered the current application (7/2017/2068) which was registered on 20th

March

2017?

If no survey was conducted with respect to the current planning application, please

provide copies of the evidence on which the chairman based the claim he made at the

meeting.

I understand that no councillor declared any conflicts of interest at the parish council

meeting in respect of the consideration of the current planning application. If that is

correct, please supply answers to the following having in mind Section 34 of the

Localism Act 2011:

Has any member or officer of the council ever had any personal, family, employment

or business relationship with the applicant, the Rochdale family, the Lingholm Estate

or the Lingholm Private Trust?

Has any member or officer of the council ever received or entered into an

arrangement for funds, money, benefits, including without limitation, accommodation

or land, wages, salaries, payments or anything of value from the applicant, the

Rochdale family, the Lingholm Estate or the Lingholm Private Trust? If so, please

specify.

Has any member or officer of the council ever previously supported a planning

application by the applicant for a similar proposal either in their role as a member of

the parish council or other public body for example a planning authority? If so, please

specify.

If such support or advocacy was previously given, please provide the evidence that

such support or advocacy was based on.

Was this support or advocacy made as an individual or as a member of a council or

other public body?

I understand that at the parish council meeting concern was expressed by a number of

people from Portinscale that parking in that village was a problem and even

hazardous. I am aware that the Above Derwent Parish Council chairman is on record

in respect of a planning application for a café in Braithwaite as saying that parking

was an issue. Please therefore provide the evidence on which the chairman based his

statement that a car park at Cupboard fields would alleviate parking in the villages

some miles distant.

I note that for the second year running the parish council has run the scheduled parish

council meeting back-to-back with the annual meeting of parishioners and invited a

guest speaker to the latter meeting such that there was no time for public debate in the

former meeting.

Please provide minutes of any

meeting or copies of any advice supporting the council’s decision to limit public

scrutiny of its decisions.

I look forward to your timely response.

Regards

1

From:Sent: 29 April 2017 17:16To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: Fwd: Cupboard Field Without Prejudice

Copy for information Pieter. >> Dear >> I am writing, rather reluctantly, in the spirit of your invitation in your mail of 24 August 2016 to let you know if Ihave any further questions. I am afraid I do.>> As you know, there is an amount of interest in the present application for permanent parking. There is also someconfusion if not unease with regard to the recent history of applications and advice given to after the2016 application, which was publicised and letters of support/objection invited.>> It is understood that LDNPA needed additional information and so asked to provide moreapplication, also advising that he employ an agent to help him with this. It is not clear exactly what additionalinformation was requested but it is assumed that it was not the intention of LDNPA to give advice which wouldresult, not in a clearer application, but rather its withdrawal and replacement with not additional information but anew application for permanent parking, all days all the year round, with hardcore surfacing. Is it not bizzare, to usethe mildest expression I can, that having turned down the last application for seasonal parking LDNPA should haveto be considering a quite new, agent driven proposal for permanent parking which, if granted, would appear toignore many of the provisos the Inspector included in his granting of temporary parking. I am not alone in feeling, atbest in the dark, at worst uneasy about the recent history. Please can you enlighten.>> While I am writing, and again bearing in mind your previous advice that you have to rely on public information inview of the shortage of wardens to do any policing, I am letting you know that parking has continued today, Iassume under the '28 day rule’. There are also at least 5 signs erected directing cars to ‘Catbells Parking’.(Photographic evidence following) I understood from you previously that such signage needed permission/approval.Has got this permission? If not, will LDNPA take enforcement action? Inevitably, if the present state ofplay remains static, the question of observing the 28 day limit will arise again. I appreciate that in August last it wasdecided by LDNPA that no action would be taken (in effect could ignore the 28 rule - which he did)until the application was determined. In the event that was not determined but withdrawn, following LDNPA’srequest for more information. Will the present parking now be monitored and will the Authority be prepared to takeaction if it is exceeded? Or is it, in the crudest terms, to a free-for-all?>> Incidentally, but not irrelevant to the history, you are aware that while there was some admission that the numberof permitted days had been exceeded previously, it has not been admitted that during the temporary permission(ended November 2015) that the maximum number (65 cars) had been exceeded. Ironically, ‘agent’s’ Assessment, in seeking to provide evidence for the need for more parking, writes ‘More than 65 regularlyused the car park at peak times.’ There is no need anymore perhaps for the interested public to draw attention tofailure to respect limits imposed? The issue of numbers as you will know, could have more serious implications if itagain exceeded 100, since that would have ignored the legal necessity for a formal Transport assessment.>> I am copying this mail to Kevin Richards, as a courtesy. Thank you again, in anticipation of your advice.>> All good wishes>>> >

1

From: >Sent: 02 May 2017 12:45To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: FW: PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Letter AND PHOTOS to

Pieter BarnardAttachments: IMG_1860.JPG

Importance: High

From: Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:57 AMTo: [email protected]: PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Letter AND PHOTOS to Pieter BarnardImportance: High

Dear Mr Barnard. Please find attached a legally privileged, private and confidential and urgent letter along with 3photographs concerning the Cupboard Field planning application. The full photographic file referred to in the letteris available on request. Regards.


1

From:Sent: 02 May 2017 12:34To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: FW: PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Letter AND PHOTOS to

Pieter BarnardAttachments: Letter to Pieter Barnard 02052017 photos.pdf

Importance: High

Dear Mr Bernard. A few minutes ago I tried to send you by email a letter along with three digitalphotographs. Although I have obtained an electronic receipt from your file server, the file was not delivered to yourPC as it exceeded the file size limit. Accordingly, I am resending each component by separate email.

Regards




1



Importance: High




1

From:Sent: 02 May 2017 10:22To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Letter to Pieter BarnardAttachments: Letter to Pieter Barnard 01052017.pdf

Importance: High


Dear Mr Barnard.

Please find attached a legally privileged, confidential, urgent and important letter that shows in considerable detailthat the information you have relied upon to make your decision to support a planning application is fundamentallyflawed. As set out in the letter, further evidence will be sent to you under separate cover. In the letter it isrequested that you withdraw your support for the application pending verification or otherwise of the informationyou have relied upon.

Regards


2nd May 2017

Mr Pieter Barnard

Highways Department


By email to: Barnard, Pieter GF [email protected]

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mr Barnard

Planning Application 7/2017/2068 – Cupboard Field, Newlands

In your support of the above application you state that you do so in the belief that it

will relieve the pressure on the narrow roads in the Newlands Valley on the

approaches to Catbells. A claim made by both Above Derwent and Borrowdale

Parish councils.

On Sunday 20th

April 2017, a bank holiday weekend, I set out by bicycle, armed with

a high quality camera to see if this claim was true. I took 12 photographs between

1.39 pm and 2.09 pm. The photographs are date and time stamped. You can verify

the date and time of each photograph by right clicking on your PC mouse and looking

under “properties” of each photograph file. The photographs are high resolution and

due to the file sizes, it would not be possible to send them to you in a single email.

However, with this email, I am attaching just 3 of the photographs to illustrate the key

points. I will provide the complete file on request. I have also set out below the

location of each of the photographs with a brief summary of what they show.

From the photographs and from my summary of their contents, you will see that the

claim that the Cupboard Field car park will relieve car parking pressures elsewhere is

unsound. Any recommendation based on that claim would also be unsound and any

planning decision based on a false claim would be subject to challenge through the

courts.

mailto:[email protected]

Photographs:

1.39 pm. At junction of Stair/Portinscale/Grange roads. Cars parked on verges

approximately ½ mile from Catbells and “car park” which was open and with spare

spaces at that time. It follows that the “car park” was not stopping cars parked on

verges even though occupants would have to walk ½ mile to Catbells. This junction

is a short distance from possible alternative car parking sites as set out in my email

earlier today to you.

1.41pm. At junction of Grange Road and private road to Applicants Residence. A

total of 17 cars parked on both sides of the road at a double bend on a steep hill. A

total of 4 cars were actually parked on double yellow lines. This photograph clearly

shows a sign showing that “Catbells parking” is 300 metres away. Clearly, the car

occupants preferred to park on the verges, in some cases dangerously and illegally

rather than pay for parking. Please note that at this point, because of parking on both

sides of the road, neither buses nor emergency vehicles would be able to pass.

1.42 pm. A close up of the previous photo showing the parking sign more clearly. I

have been advised that the applicant does not have planning permission for these

signs and has been asked to remove them at least once and has clearly failed to do so.

You will also be able to see for yourself that the applicant advertises the “Catbells Car

Park” on Google. Perhaps this might explain why the parking problem has become

much worse this season. Many tourists now use their smart-phones to locate and find

out about a spot. The Google advertisement is drawing in much more traffic to the

area.

1.44 pm. Looking back at the same bend. Please note that the first three cars on the

left are parked illegally on double yellow lines, the white van partially blocking the

road. At this point, the open “car park” was less than 200 metres away and spaces

were available.

1.48 pm. Just past the “car park” outside Gutherscale Lodge. Despite the sign on the

gate, this car is clearly blocking access to that house.

1.51 pm. Showing that the Catbells “car park” was clearly open and spaces were

available.

2.01 pm. Approaching Portinscale from the Swinside direction, just before the

entrance to Nicholl End Marina. Cars are parked even before reaching Portinscale

Village. Please note that this road is part of the C2C cycle way. The councillor from

Portinscale claimed at the parish council meeting of 19th

April 2017 that the Catbells

“car park” would alleviate parking problems in Portinscale. This claim is clearly

false. During my journeys between Catbells and Portinscale I could find no evidence

that those who wished to climb Catbells were parking in Portinscale.

2.01 pm. Close up of the previous shot showing that when cars are parked

continuously along one side of the road, it is not possible for cars to pass in both

directions simultaneously and one car must reverse into the path of pedestrians and

cyclists who are unprotected.

2.06 pm. In Portinscale approaching The Chalet café showing the same problem as

the previous photograph and also showing how a reversing car could easily run into

clients sat at the tables outside the café.

2.07 pm. The same spot clearly showing how difficult it is for traffic to pass when

cars are parked continuously along this road. Please note that at this point, the driver

of one of the parked cars opened his door immediately in front of my bike almost

causing an accident. Next weekend, over 2000 cyclists will be on this C2C route

during an event.

2.09 pm. The car parking in Portinscale forms a continuous line from before the

Chalet to almost The Farmer’s Arms making it very difficult for cars to pass. Please

note the family with the push-chair on the right of the photograph. There is no

pavement at this point and this family were exposed to danger and had to seek safety

in a private drive.

2.09 pm. The family with the pram are now fully exposed to traffic from the other

direction and it can be seen clearly that there is only sufficient space for one car, or

pedestrians, not both.

Nowhere can it be shown that the proposed Catbells “car park” would alleviate traffic

problems and dangers on the narrow roads as claimed by the applicant and the parish

councils. Furthermore, the claim that somehow the proposed “car park” at Catbells

would alleviate traffic problems 2 miles away in Portinscale is clearly false.

Accordingly, please would you add this information to that I sent you earlier today

and withdraw your support for the current application as it is based on false and

misleading information.

Regards

Attached – photographs 1857/1858/1860 others available on request

2nd May 2017

Mr Pieter Barnard

Highways Department



PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Mr Barnard


I am sorry that I have had to write to you again so soon, however, detailed

information from multiple credible sources appears to show that your decision to

support the above application is based on incorrect, false or misleading information

that has not been verified. It follows that any decision based on this information

could be fundamentally flawed and unsound and therefore subject to legal challenge. I

will set out below in some detail the current situation. I am sure that I do not need to

remind you that you have agreed to the code of conduct of your employer, which inter

alia, requires that you deal fairly and objectively with matters concerning the public,

and that you will submit all your decisions to public scrutiny. As I have previously

noted, in common with all public servants, you are obviously required to uphold the

law including the requirement to provide responses to competent Freedom of

Information requests.

You will see that this letter is marked both “Private & Confidential” and “Without

Prejudice”. The reason for this is that some of the parties involved in this and related

matters are the subjects of enquires by The Local Government Ombudsman and an

application to the High Court for a judicial review. Some aspects of the case may

involve breaches of both civil and criminal laws and accordingly it would be

inappropriate to disclose certain matters publically as this might interfere with the due

process of the law.

Of particular concern is information that appears to show that a number of

councillors have vested interests in the outcome of this application, including


financial interests and these and other real or perceived conflicts-of-interest

appear not to have been declared. Of even greater concern is the fact that one

parish councillor was witnessed as stating in the meeting dated 19th

April 2017

that it was not just one car park the parish council supported but “this one

would be the first of many”. Clearly this application is highly controversial and

if it were to be allowed this would set a precedent for many other applications.

Indeed, we have been informed that one councillor has recently bought a plot of

agricultural land in the National Park solely for the purpose of turning this into

a car park for substantial personal financial gain. For all of these reasons, it is

vital that any decision is based on accurate and verified information.

I understand that you made your decision to support the above application based on

information you received in good faith, that the application is strongly supported by

local parish councils who have consulted their electorate on this matter and that, in

addition, the proposed application will relieve the pressures on local roads and verges

and will also solve some of the parking issues in nearby villages such as Portinscale.

As you will see below, the information you have received has not been verified and

appears to be false and misleading:

Above Derwent Parish Council (ADPC), the relevant parish council, and Borrowdale

Parish Council (BPC) both claim that they consulted their electorate and carried out

surveys to determine the level of support and that this support was substantial. Despite

extensive and detailed searches, no evidence has been found to show that either

council carried out any survey or significant public consultation on the current

application. Under Freedom of Information questions, both councils have been given

the opportunity to provide evidence to verify their claims. We await their responses.

ADPC’s response to LDNPA’s planning authority (see planning portal for document)

states that the council supports the current application as it is the same as an earlier

application (7/2012/2214). This is factually incorrect. The earlier application was

for a temporary, seasonal, grass car park which is very different to the current

application. In any event, you will see from the planning portal that this far less

controversial application was rejected.

ADPC refused in writing parishioners’ requests to include discussion on the current

application on the agenda of the council meeting of 19th

April 2017. Furthermore, the

council severely curtailed the public session at this meeting on the grounds that they

needed time for a guest speaker. ADPC refused parishioners’ requests to postpone

the guest speaker session in order that sufficient time might be allowed to discuss the

current application.

In ADPC’s response to LDNPA’s planning authority, as outlined above, the parish

council also claims that the application is in line with the community plan. You will

find the plan on the following site:

https://abovederwentparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/newlands-valley-

community-plan.pdf

From this you will see that the plan is based on a survey that was conducted in 2012

and that one of the principals behind the survey was an ADPC councillor who stands

https://abovederwentparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/newlands-valley-community-plan.pdf

https://abovederwentparishcouncil.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/newlands-valley-community-plan.pdf

to gain financially should the current application be approved (see above). Another

was Becx Carter of BDC who has written to you claiming that there is overwhelming

support for the current application. The survey was not carried out by independent

persons.

Any claim that a survey, carried out in 2012, by some who appear to have a

vested interest, demonstrates overwhelming support for the current application

cannot be justified. If you examine the survey and the ensuing action plan you

will find the following:

The number of households in Above Derwent Parish, according to the census

data available at the time, was 516. The report notes that 70 questionnaires

were delivered and that 26 were returned. I make that a 5% return, not the

37% claimed by both parish councils. ADPC use the terms “Community”

“Newlands”, “Above Derwent” interchangeably. If the survey was only

conducted in Newlands, then it could not be representative of the views of

Above Derwent parishioners. I live in the Newlands Valley and did not

receive a copy of the survey. In any event, the survey was for such a small

sample, any results were statistically meaningless.

There is no question in the survey asking if the respondents would support a

car park on the site of the current application and there was no question asking

if respondents would support a permanent, all-year-round, hard-surfaced car

park on that site. If no such questions were asked, then nowhere can it be

shown that there is majority support for the application.

Amongst the general concerns expressed by respondents, a small number

remarked that public transport and parking in the parish/Newlands/the

community (it is unclear which) was insufficient. A small number of

respondents supported a car park at Catbells and a small number of people

who did not receive the questionnaire (?) asked the consultant to note that

they did not support a car park at Catbells.

Similarly, a small number of respondents thought that public transport should

be improved whereas others did not want the noise of more buses.

Amongst the conclusions of the report on the survey (written by Becx Carter) were:

“One of the questions asked in the Newlands Valley Community Plan

Questionnaire was what did the respondents like most about the valley, I feel

this is a valid place to include these findings as it sums up the Newlands

Valley in the words of the residents. The majority of questionnaire

respondents stated that the peace and quiet, views and beauty were the

things they liked most about the Newlands Valley, other strengths that were

raised were the quality of life, the community and its people, the low crime

rate and of course the Pub!” Clearly the report on the survey identifies the

most important issues that concern parishioners. The report also notes that the

survey related to Newlands and not Above Derwent Parish. Nowhere is it

shown in the report that there was strong support for the current

application from Above Derwent Parishioners, indeed the application

would destroy what the “majority of respondents” liked most about the

valley – peace, quiet, views and beauty.

Any additional parking needs to a (sic) balance between need for parking and

protection of natural landscape.” Nowhere is it shown that the current

application will protect the natural landscape.

“It is crucial that in actioning any of this questionnaire that a balance be

maintained between residents needs and tourists needs.” Nowhere is it shown

that the current application would protect what residents value most –

peace, quiet, views and beauty.

“Investigation to be undertaken on potential parking solutions elsewhere in the

Newlands Valley Area”. – There is no evidence that alternative sites were

ever investigated. We have very quickly found three more suitable sites

where parking would not destroy visual amenity or grazing land. See

below.

“For any potential solutions to the parking issues, a full consultation with local

residents should be undertaken to ensure a consensus is achieved, and that

everyone has their chance to air their views about specific proposals.” – There

is no evidence that any consultation has taken place. Indeed, as set out

above, ADPC actually supressed consultation.

Nowhere is it shown in the above that there is overwhelming support for the current

application. The questionnaire did not ask this question, the number of respondents

was insignificant and information from the survey has been quoted out of context and

other information has been withheld. The reports on the survey are misleading by

omission. Conversely, the responses to the survey show that what the “majority of

respondents” treasure most, peace, quiet, views and beauty, would be destroyed if the

current application were to be approved.

Turning now to councillors’ vested financial interests in the outcome of the current

application and seemingly undeclared conflicts-of-interest, I will shortly send you, in

confidence, a copy of further questions under the Freedom of Information Act which

ADPC are required to answer. Based on information received, additional Freedom

of Information questions will now be asked of LDNPA and its planning authority

which the applicant’s stepfather, Lord Rochdale, chaired for a number of years.

Finally, addressing the claims made by ADPC and BPC that the current application

will solve traffic problems in the valley, near Catbells and in nearby villages such as

Portinscale, I will send you under separate cover a large file of photographic

evidence, date and time-stamped, showing that when the car park is open and with

spaced available, there is no reduction in traffic problems near Catbells, the

surrounding roads or in Portinscale. There appears to be no evidence that validates

the parish councils’ claims in this regard. From the evidence I will send you, you will

see that the car park does not solve any of these problems and appears to make them

worse. Indeed, the applicant’s advertisements for the car park, including those on

Google, appear to draw more cars into the area. LDNPA Planning has yet to answer

whether it has approved these advertisements or if not, why it has not ordered them to

be removed.

In conclusion, from all the information we have, there is no evidence to support the

claims made by either of the parish councils, claims that you have, in good faith,

relied upon to make your recommendation to support the application. From all the

evidence we have before us, it appears that any decision based on what appears to be

factually incorrect, false, misleading or incomplete information would be

fundamentally flawed and open to challenge through the courts.

Although this letter is primarily about the reasons why the proposed application

should not be supported, as noted above, there are at least three sites within a few

hundred yards of the current application site that might be more suitable, subject of

course to the necessary consultations and approvals. These are:

Within the Lingholm Estate itself. The applicant appears to have a genuine concern

about the safety issues caused by inconsiderate and illegal parking near Catbells. If,

instead of directing cars to pasture land that has been unchanged for centuries and

open to view by all, he could simply direct traffic to elsewhere on his estate, down his

own drive to the large, relatively flat area of grass just inside the symbolic rather than

functional gates to Derwent Bay. This area is surrounded by mature trees so none of

the parked cars would be visible from the public road or even from the summit of

Catbells. The visual amenity of the iconic spot in the current application would not be

lost. It is quite normal for the owners of large estates to allow parking on their land,

indeed, the adjoining estate, Lingholm, now under new ownership, has provided

plenty of car parking spaces and even a café where tourists can safely park away from

and out of view from the public roads and perhaps have a coffee and wander by the

lake before climbing Catbells. These new owners have even invested in a new pier so

tourists can park in the purpose-built Theatre by the Lake car park and then take a

boat to one of the jetties nearest to Catbells. This journey was well promoted by

Wainwright and is still promoted by Julia Bradbury, all of course with the support of

the local community and planning authorities. Indeed, the new owners of Lingholm

are very aware of the need to be good community citizens and they have done an

excellent job. Although moving the application to elsewhere on the applicant’s estate

might result in a small loss of visual amenity for the applicant, that of other residents

would not be destroyed as would be the case under the current application.

The applicant also owns two other potential parking sites that he may consider more

suitable. Both are on the Portinscale road each a short distance from its junction with

the Catbells road, a junction at which there is photographic evidence that tourists

already park. Taken together, these two sites are approximately the same size as that

in the current application, they are already covered in gravel and each has a wide

entrance with double gates. These sites are typical of those that are given permission

for parking elsewhere in the National Park. Both sites are used very occasionally for

timber operations and for the applicants pheasant shoot. They are, effectively, already

car parks, albeit private ones. Apart from the obvious advantages that these sites are

already suitably surfaced car parks and would require no additional expenditure by the

applicant, they are also both on the much wider and straighter Portinscale Road so

access would be much easier and safer than for the current application which is on a

very narrow, hilly road that is not straight. There would be no loss of visual amenity

for residents. Photographs of these possible alternative sites are available on request.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to ask. However, in

the light of the information you now have and your fiduciary duties, please would you

confirm at your earliest opportunity that you have withdrawn you support for this

application until you are in a position to verify or otherwise the information you have

relied upon?


Regards

1

From:Sent: 09 May 2017 11:10To: Barnard, Pieter GFCc: Information GovernanceSubject: Letter to Pieter Barnard 09052017Attachments: Letter to Pieter Barnard 09052017.pdf

Importance: High

Please find attached an important and urgent letter for Mr Pieter Barnard and The Information Governance Officerat Cumbria County Council


9th May 2017

Mr Pieter Barnard

Highways Department



Cc [email protected]

Dear Mr Barnard


I wrote to you on 28th

April regarding the above. In my letter I asked you questions

under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and pointed out that you have a legal

obligation to respond. Most local authorities, including Cumbria County Council,

provide written acknowledgment of FOI requests and confirm the date by which a

response will be made. As I have previously noted, a response has to be made within

20 working days at the latest.

As I have received neither an acknowledgment nor response date from you I am

writing to remind you of your legal obligations. You will see that I have also copied

in your Information Governance Department. If you are unsure of the procedure, I

suggest you speak with them. May I point out that I have electronic received/read

receipts from you for all my emails? For your information, the latest response date

under the Act is 29th

May.


Regards



1

From: Information GovernanceSent: 11 May 2017 12:14To: Barnard, Pieter GFCc: Hatcher, Alison; Coyle, DougSubject: RE: FOI 2017-0353Attachments: RE: Re planning application 7/2017/2068 Cupboard Field, Newlands

Importance: High


Hi Pieter

Thanks for your email. The FOI relates to the applicant’s email to you on 28 April 2017, which I‘veattached. The only FOI request for Cumbria County Council within that email that I can see is in paragraph7. It sounds like they are requesting copies of evidence to support the view that the proposed car park willreduce parking on the nearby verges. Would you agree, or do you think we should ask the applicant toclarify their request?

Many thanks

Information Governance TeamResources & Transformation | Cumbria County CouncilCumbria House | 117 Botchergate | Carlisle | CA1 1RDt: 01228 221234e: [email protected]

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 10 May 2017 17:30To: Coyle, Doug; Information Governance; Hatcher, AlisonSubject: FOI 2017-0353

1

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 24 May 2017 09:48To: [email protected]: 7/2017/2068

Hello Kevin

I notice the above site is still on my records . Do you still need an response from us?

I looked at all the new things on the website. We have nothing further to add to our originalcomments.

Regards


Environment and Community Services | Development Management and Flood Team | CumbriaCounty Council | Parkhouse Building | Carlisle | CA6 4SJTel - 07768 272394www.cumbria.gov.uk

1

From:Sent: 18 July 2017 17:32To: Barnard, Pieter GFCc:Subject: CUPBOARD FIELD PLANNING APPLICATION

Importance: High

Dear Mr Barnard.

You will have seen from my previous email that Above Derwent Parish Council have, in a response to a Freedom ofInformation Request, confirmed that they did not, as previously stated, conduct a survey to gauge support for thecurrent application for the car park at Cupboard Field. Your letter of support for the application is primarily basedon the support supposedly shown in the Parish Council’s survey. It follows that your support is based on falseinformation.

Separately, we have offered you time and date stamped photographs that verify that when the car park is open itactually increases the volume of traffic and parking on the surrounding verges as visitors seek to find freeparking. You have to-date not accepted our offer to provide you with this verifiable evidence. Furthermore, LDNPAhas confirmed that the applicant has no permission to erect advertisements for the car park, either on the roadsideor on the web. Despite this, he persists in doing so. This too increases the volume of traffic.

LDNPA have today confirmed that you may withdraw or alter your letter on their site.

As I have pointed out in my previous email, to use false information to influence the outcome of a decision by apublic body renders that decision void. Furthermore, to knowingly use false information for that purpose is fraud inpublic office for which the penalty is a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.

In the light of the above, you may wish to reconsider your position.

Regards


1

From:Sent: 18 July 2017 17:17To:Cc: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: RE: Freedom of Information Request (1)

Importance: High

Dear

From your response to one of my Freedom of Information requests, you have stated that Above Derwent ParishCouncil did not, as previously stated, conduct a survey to gauge public opinion about the current planningapplication for a permanent, all-year-round, hard-surfaced car park at Cupboard Field:

“QUESTION 3. Please could you provide me with a copy of the council’s survey that specifically considered thecurrent application (7/2017/2068) which was registered on 20th March 2017?“ ANSWER “No such survey exists.”

However, the Parish Council, as a statutory consultee, has formally written to LDNPA supporting the application onthe grounds that the results of a survey show that the current application is widely supported. Furthermore, theChairman of the Council stated in a recent public council meeting that this was the reason the Council wouldsupport the application. As there is no such survey, it follows that the Council’s support for the application isunsound and knowingly false. You will also be aware that the Chairman refused to put discussion of this matter onthe agenda and that there was very limited time for the public to contribute to this debate as the Council, for thesecond year running, had chosen to run the annual meeting of electors back-to-back with the regular councilmeeting, against the guidelines of CALC and NALC. Furthermore, the Council, in breach of its code of conduct, hassystematically refused to submit its decisions to public scrutiny.

LDNPA Planning Authority have been made aware of this incorrect information and have stated that ADPC mayremove or alter its recommendations for this application.

Please be aware that CCC Highways, a statutory consultee, has “reluctantly” supported the application based on thestrong support from the local community as evidenced by the Council’s survey.

You will be aware that to make false statements with a view to influencing a local authority decision can renderthose decisions void. To knowingly make false statements for that purpose is fraud in public office for which themaximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

Please would you ask the CouncilLORS to consider their position and withdraw any recommendation that is basedon incorrect or false information.

Separately, I am aware that a number of councillors have failed to declare interests in this matter. Please would youensure that they do so without further delay?

Regards

1

From: Coyle, DougSent: 19 July 2017 09:40To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: RE: CUPBOARD FIELD PLANNING APPLICATION

Peter

Happy for you to go back copying in that our position on the matter remains unchanged.

I assume highways traffic have no concerns either. (making sure it’s a one team reply?)

Thanks

Doug

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 19 July 2017 09:33To: Coyle, DougSubject: FW: CUPBOARD FIELD PLANNING APPLICATIONImportance: High

What to do ??? Last paragraph.

I am comfortable with our decision / response.I did make it clear in my second response that the view of the PC is not material in our decision.

Regards



From: Sent: 18 July 2017 17:32To: Barnard, Pieter GFCc: Subject: CUPBOARD FIELD PLANNING APPLICATIONImportance: High

Dear Mr Barnard.


2





Regards


1


Wow.

Thanks

Doug

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 19 July 2017 13:41To: Coyle, DougSubject: RE: CUPBOARD FIELD PLANNING APPLICATION

I did check

It is our 2 official emails to the planners , so already on their website.

Regards




Pieter

Please be more careful in sending on e-mails with a long history within in them.

I do not think should have that detail.

Thanks

Doug

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 19 July 2017 13:32To: Cc: ; Coyle, DougSubject: RE: CUPBOARD FIELD PLANNING APPLICATION

2

Dear

I can confirm that we do not have nothing to add to our original responses, apart from attachinghereto an email from the Traffic Team at CCC about this matter.

I trust you find this acceptable.

Regards



From: Sent: 18 July 2017 17:32To: Barnard, Pieter GFCc: Subject: CUPBOARD FIELD PLANNING APPLICATIONImportance: High

Dear Mr Barnard.






Regards

1

From: Davis-Johnston, Steph RSent: 19 July 2017 13:15To: Barnard, Pieter GFSubject: RE: 7/2017/2068 - The Cupboard Field, Newlands

I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks

Steph Davis-JohnstonTraffic Management Team Leader – West Area | Highways, Transport & FleetEconomy and Highways Services Directorate | Cumbria County CouncilHighways Depot | Joseph Noble RoadLillyhall Industrial Estate | Workington | CA14 4JH

T: 0300 303 2992M: 07879 666 811F: 01946 506537E: [email protected]

From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 19 July 2017 13:06To: Davis-Johnston, Steph RSubject: FW: 7/2017/2068 - The Cupboard Field, NewlandsImportance: High

Steph

Please see below. Can you please confirm that Traffic is happy with the approach taken below.

Thank you



From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 18 April 2017 14:36To: [email protected]: 'Planning' ([email protected]); Lewis, Adam; Murray, Gavin R; Coyle, DougSubject: 7/2017/2068 - The Cupboard Field, Newlands

Dear Kevin

I have been contacted by various groups about the application and our response.I must admit the wording could have been slightly clearer.

2

As you are aware the views of Parish Council (or for that matter any other Statutory Consultee) does notaffect our technical highway views . I merely noted it as it is quite unusual to see supportive views fromconsultees.

If I therefore can expand on the comment below:

The site is located in an area very popular with visitors. It is clear that the roads , verges and laybys arewell used and can sometimes be prone to inappropriate parking (double yellow lines and parking conescan be seen in the surrounding areas).

It is anticipated that the car park will not generate traffic , but will reduce the aforementioned inappropriateparking and unwanted vehicular movement ( vehicles driving around trying to find a roadside parkingspace) . The mention below of increased traffic demand will in all likelihood only be for a short time (whilstthe car park establishes itself ) and will not cause capacity or undue safety issues.The number of parking spaces proposed (less than 100) would also mean that there is not a need for aformal Transport assessment.

The application , to make a temporary car park permanent , is therefore acceptable, if the condition belowis included into a permission that you might grant.

Regards



From: Barnard, Pieter GFSent: 03 April 2017 12:32To: [email protected]: 'Planning' ([email protected])Subject: 7/2017/2068 - The Cupboard Field, Newlands

Dear Kevin

Thank you for the consultation on the above application dated 20 March 2017.

As you are aware we would not normally support applications for this level of parking in open countryside.As it would be against national and local policy to support more sustainable modes of travel.

Having considered this particular site, the parish council’s view, the layout details and the pre applicationdiscussions, we can confirm that we have no objection to this application. It is however accepted that thisapplication would increase the traffic demand on the local highway network.

We would therefore recommend that the following condition is included in any consent you might grant:

The use of the development shall not be commenced until the access and additional remedial measures asstated within the application documentation has been constructed in accordance with details approved bythe Local Planning Authority.Reason: In the interests of highway safety.To support Local Transport Plan Policies: LD7, LD8

Regards

Pieter Barnard

3

Lead Officer - Development Management


cumbria county council...cumbria county council serving the people of cumbria cumbria.gov.uk yours...

Documents