1

Application: Sproxton Hall Farm – change of use and alteration of farm buildings to form a mixed-use

events and venue

Planning Application No: 20/00695/FUL

Third Re-consultation response from Sproxton Parish Meeting – Wednesday, 23rd June 2021

I write as Parish Clerk on behalf of Sproxton Parish Meeting following the Ordinary Meeting held on

Wednesday, 23rd June by Zoom.

At the meeting, residents were once again re-consulted on the above planning application, following

discussions on the “revised Noise Impact Statement and associated data” and the “applicant’s highways

consultant’s response to the latest highway officer’s comments on the inter-visibility of passing places and

carriageway widths”. These documents can be found on the RDC planning website and were the only issues

discussed following guidance from RDC. Afterwards, the Parish voted upon the following question:

Having listened to the discussions on the most recent amendments to the planning application for “Change of use and alteration of farm buildings to form a mixed use events and venue barn (wedding ceremonies and reception and small conferences etc.) with associated facilities, landscaping and parking” at Sproxton Hall Farm, Sproxton, are you in support of this application?

DISCUSSION AROUND REVISED NOISE IMPACT STATEMENT:

The principle points which were raised at the meeting regarding the revised noise impact statement were as

follows:

1. The applicant’s son stated that the amendments to the noise report are more specific data collected over a

longer time period to capture traffic noise and noise from the village etc., as opposed to last time.

2. No external activities at venue – Ryedale Testing’s response to Apex Acoustics stated: there would be no

external activities, sound would be limited to guests arriving and leaving, the smoking area would be well

screened from Sproxton Holiday Cottages by a wall and building so there would be no noise.

However, parishioners noted:-

No external activities is a change from the original application

Noise to and from the car park and people socialising cannot be stopped

The Noise Management Plan cannot be enforced as there is no contract between visiting guests and

applicant.

3. Data Accuracy – Parishioners queried the accuracy of data produced by Ryedale Testing in light of the

response from Apex Acoustics.

4. Suppression of noise & Enforcement of Noise Management Plan – There are queries about the noise

emanating from Sproxton Hall Farm; physical alterations suggested to suppress the noise may impact upon

the other part of the planning application to do with listed building status. These may be incompatible.

It was noted that Ryedale Testing say that noise management measures outlined in their report are “essential

to noise reduction” e.g. windows, doors, tunnel gate and movement and behaviours of people. It is not made

clear how this Noise Management Plan will be enforced.

The applicant's son stated that as the family would continue to live at Sproxton Hall they would do their

utmost to ensure it was as quiet as possible.

2

5. Traffic noise along village Street - Parishioners were unconvinced that Ryedale Testing’s assessment of

traffic noise at houses such as Keeper's Cottage was a fair reflection of the noise likely to be generated.

The applicant’s wife referred to a speed survey carried out in the village in 2018. Average speeds were well

below 30 mph, so there would not be an issue.

In response Parishioners made the following points:-

The 2018 survey was done in response to a speeding complaint and is nothing to do with the

application.

The survey was of locals used to the road conditions, not people on a single visit and unfamiliar with

the road.

Lack of safe walking routes for pedestrians are a grave concern.

6. Noise from agricultural activity - the applicant's wife stated that there have been no complaints

about agricultural noise even though this can be significant. She felt that concerns about noise from the venue

are getting out of hand and venue noise will not affect people.

Several Parishioners pointed out that they tolerate normal agricultural noise because they live in an

agricultural community. The different character/quality of noise at different times and on a different scale at

the venue would be very different to normal agricultural noise and is therefore unacceptable.

One Parishioner noted that intermittent noise is more difficult to tolerate than continuous noise such as the

grain drier, and is particularly a problem at night.

Several Parishioners noted that there is almost nil night time traffic. This would be very different with streams

of traffic leaving the venue and is unacceptable to villagers.

7. Noise level impact on Sproxton Hall Holiday Cottages and Bransdale Cottage - claims in the Ryedale

Testing report do not match the experience of the owners. Traffic and people talking on the road can be heard

in their bedroom.

DISCUSSION AROUND RESPONSE BY SANDERSONS (applicant’s consultant) TO NYCC HIGHWAYS

LATEST DOCUMENT:

The principle points raised at the meeting regarding the comments pertaining to inter-visibility of passing

places and carriageway widths were:

1. The applicant’s consultant’s response doesn’t address concerns – Parishioners felt that the consultant's

response did not address the issues raised by NYCC Highways, particularly with reference to inter-visibility

between passing places along the village street and carriageway width.

2. Traffic levels will remain throughout the village - it was pointed out that all large vehicles servicing

houses at the far end of the village have to travel the whole length of the village street to turn at the Village

Hall/Sproxton Cottage, so the amount of heavy traffic is same throughout the village.

3. Loss of important village amenity - as well as use by vehicles; pedestrians, dog walkers and riders use the

village street daily and stand and chat to neighbours etc. The amended application does nothing to address this

aspect of highway safety.

4. Regarding creation of passing places - A query was raised pertaining to passing places – how will we stop

these being used as laybys?

After the discussions, Sproxton Parish Meeting voted to determine their status regarding the amended

planning application. The vote was done publically by raising a hand, with each current parish elector

3

physically present at the meeting having one vote. Please note that Yorkshire Local Councils’ Association have

confirmed that this is the correct and lawful procedure required to ascertain the view of the Parish Meeting as

a singular body.

The Voluntary Parish Clerk clarified the question to be voted upon:

Having listened to the discussions on the most recent amendments to the planning application for “Change of use and alteration of farm buildings to form a mixed use events and venue barn (wedding ceremonies and reception and small conferences etc.) with associated facilities, landscaping and parking” at Sproxton Hall Farm, Sproxton, are you in support of this application?

The results of this vote were as follows:

OUTCOME: Sproxton Parish Meeting objects to the planning application at Sproxton Hall Farm, Sproxton.

This is a fair and honest representation of the meeting. Full approved minutes can be found in Appendix A.

Signed ...D. Hazorika-Stéphany......27/06/21

Voluntary Clerk of Sproxton Parish Meeting

Voted upon and objected to by a significant majority (89%). Support: 4 Objection: 32 Abstain: 0

4

APPENDIX A: Minutes from Sproxton Parish Meeting Ordinary Meeting 23/06/21

PRESENT:

Chair: George Skinner

Voluntary Clerk: Doobori Hazorika-Stéphany (minutes),

Joanna & Rob Oliver, Joy Walters, Chris Jenkins & Di Garside, Maureen Skinner, Joanne & Simon Welford, Charlie

Marwood, Elaine & Steve Burgess, Helen & Dave Wells, Fiona & Henry Wainwright, Juliane Schaub, Colin Ward, Mike &

Priscilla McAndrew, Pam & Ross Pattison, Franklin Farrar, Tony Frost, Fliss Murthagh, Bob Roberts, Nancy Roberts,

Mark Balmforth, Brian Mellor, Peta Poole, David & Cath Kershaw, Mathieu Hazorika-Stéphany, Sarah & Jamie

Vandenbroecke.

APOLOGIES: Selwyn Jones, Stewart & Linda Walker, John Rowley, Ann & Philip Blackburn, Mark Wainwright, Ian &

Katie Boddy, Bob & Kate Shaw.

Welcome by Doobori Hazorika-Stéphany, Parish Clerk

Welcome & thank you to Katie & Ian Boddy for once again allowing us to use their yard for this meeting and for

providing hand sanitiser & notices to keep us all safe! Reminder of Coronavirus restrictions & associated risk

assessment on entry to farmyard (Appendix 1).

AGENDA ITEMS:

AGENDA ITEMS

DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS ACTION REQUIRED

BY WHOM/

DATE

OUTCOME

1.Signing off

minutes from

last OPM

(14.06.21) by

Chair, George

Skinner.

DHS: prepared minutes for review. GS: Welcome – brief reference to last meeting minutes. GS: Reviewed (referring to matters arising), read & signed minutes after they were agreed by parishioners.

GS to sign 14.06.21 OPM minutes.

Completed Minutes filed in SPM Red Minutes Book.

1b.Matters

Arising

n/a

2.VAT126

feasibility

feedback from

Voluntary

Clerk.

DHS contacted YLCA for advice on 09/06/21 - YLCA responded 17/06/21 to say they had made an error in their initial response, wrongly assuming we were a Parish Council. Unfortunately VAT is not recoverable for a Parish Meeting as we do not fall under the Local Authority.

n/a

3. Notification

of registration

of defibrillator

on a national

Di to ensure we are registered with the new national database, familiarise and file documents and ensure monthly battery checks are completed. (DHS to keep copies of significant documents with Parish Meeting Documents).

Di to meet

with DHS

for

handover

Di to

register

with The

Circuit,

MINUTES

Sproxton Parish Meeting – Ordinary Parish Meeting

Wednesday, 23rd June 6pm – Outdoors at Middle Farm

Courtyard

5

database

called The

Circuit – The

National

Defibrillator

Network

supported by

the British

Heart

Foundation, St

John

Ambulance,

Resuscitation

Council UK

and the

Association of

Ambulance

Chief

Executives.

CPR Training available via contacting Joanne/ Mary Welford. Please see details at the end of the Minutes.

of

documentat

ion

pertaining

to defib.

24.06.21

check

Defib

maintenan

ce, then

scan & file

relevant

defib docs

with

electronic

copy held

by Parish

Clerk.

4.To receive

details of,

discuss and

vote upon

recent

amendments

to the

planning

application for

“Change of use

and alteration

of farm

buildings to

form a mixed

use events and

venue barn

(wedding

ceremonies and

reception and

small

conferences

etc.) with

associated

facilities,

landscaping

and parking” at

Sproxton Hall

Farm,

Sproxton:

https://planningregister.ryedale.gov.uk/caonline-

applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QDYQ6FNOGZT00&activeT

ab=summary GS: Chair reminded electors that detailed information on the plans may be found on the RDC planning portal online (above). Please note that any discussion around planning applications should be objective and based upon material planning considerations. This applies to all planning applications.

Alan Goforth at RDC has advised that we are to discuss the amended

portions of the planning application pertaining to: “revised noise

impact assessment and associated data and also the applicant’s

highways consultant’s response to the latest highway officer’s comments

on the inter-visibility of passing places and carriageway widths.” Chair to facilitate discussion. CW: I am finding it difficult to identify clearly what the recent amendments actually are to the planning application – particularly the noise document but also the highways document (which doesn’t address the concerns that the village street poses – only the bridleway beyond). GS: I believe I can explain the highways amendment – it is to do with the inter-visibility between Bob Shaw’s and Jeremy Shaw’s. MM: I feel that the replies to the Highways queries are not being answered. They are being ignored by the recent amendments to the planning application to the point where there is a picture of a straight bit of road which shows that two vehicles cannot get past. HWainwright: the amendments to the noise report are more specific data collected over a longer time period to capture traffic noise and noise from the village etc. over a longer period, as opposed to last time. JO: the piece that seemed pertinent in the Ryedale Testing response are to do with the statement “We are informed that the guests will not gather in the carpark and will be encouraged to enter the building on arrival. There will be NO external activities and sound levels at the car park will be limited to guests arriving and leaving. The smoking area to the opposite side of the building is to be well screened from line of sight view to Sproxton Hall Cottages by a substantial stone wall and building. I draw your attention to the statement “there will there will be no external activities” which is underlined. This is a

6

change from the original application. RO: The noise reports are very technical. Independent sound experts, Apex, queried the ability of Ryedale Testing to produce accurate data and there may be further comments required upon this report. RO: There are queries about the noise emanating from Sproxton Hall – alterations suggested to supress the noise may impact upon the other part of the application to do with listed building status. These may be incompatible. MM: With regard to Noise Assessment – there is an admission that cars passing at a particular point means that cars cannot pass at 30mph otherwise the noise at Keepers’ Cottage would be too high to be permissible, therefore the suggestion is that the cars travel at no more than 25 mph in order to keep the noise level acceptable and under the limit at Keepers’ Cottage. They then state that the road is too narrow for two cars to pass therefore this is the case in any case – let alone 100 cars passing. These statements are at odds with each other. Either two cars cannot pass due to narrowness or cars can pass and will therefore cause noise disturbance over the accepted level when travelling at 30mph. FW: Please could I refer to last meeting minutes where the NYP Speed survey in 2018 found that the average speed was well under 30mph. (DHS Read out the 2018 sound complaint statement from the previous meeting’s minutes). CW: How is this previous speed (that of Villagers and local, familiar traffic) comparable to the strangers who are visiting as one-off to this unfamiliar village (wedding/conference guests). They will not know the dangers of this road and their behaviours will be different to local traffic. They are unlikely to ever visit this location again. The lack of safe walking routes for pedestrians concerns me hugely. This road is not compatible with these numbers of unfamiliar visitors. RO: The reason for the 2018 survey was done so there is no redress for the speeding complaint and has nothing to do with this application. MM: Our village street is not primarily used by cars there are many more pedestrians, dog walkers, riders using the village street daily, standing chatting to neighbours etc. This will not be the case when this venue adds hundreds more vehicles. The use of the village street will not be able to continue as it has. The amended application does nothing to address this. CW: How do the really large vehicles who service the houses further up the village beyond Middle Farm and beyond turn? They continue down the road all the way up to the Sproxton Cottages/ Village Hall to turn as it is not possible to do a U-turn. Therefore the amount of heavy traffic down the road from the church right up to the village hall is the same. There is no reduction of traffic further up the village. HWells: There are comments regarding physical changes to amend the levels of noise. Many of the measures are subjective to those managing them, e.g. management of the gate and the people attending of the venue. We were disappointed that there were no comments on how exactly these external noises are to be managed/ enforced and not giving enough serious thought to the management of the people at the venue. MS: Ryedale Testing say many of these requirements that Helen mentions are “essential to noise reduction” (according to the amendments) but these are not clearly defined as to how the noise management plan will be enforced. HWainwright: We clearly live at Sproxton Hall so it is important for our family to ensure it is quiet as possible as well so we will do our utmost to ensure this. We don’t want it to be noisy. CW: the activities/ or no activities in the field by the carpark and the fact that the smoking area has been moved to the back) the noise of people travelling across to the bridleway will not be limited. How on earth will you restrict people from going out into the paddock on a summers’ evening, from going back and forth to their cars etc., chatting in the car park? I cannot see how this

7

noise management plan will be enforced. There is no contract with the guests themselves so how can those managing the noise manage it. FW: The noise report is very technical and microphones have been placed all around the farm and we have 1200 pigs, a corn dryer on all summer long (HW: it’s on 14 hours a day), machinery etc. and we haven’t had complaints about this noise from the village, even when the noise generated by the farm is significant. Even our neighbours have never complained about this – even squealing pigs at 5am in the morning. I feel that the concerns about the noise from guests are getting out of hand. I cannot see that the noise from wedding guests will interfere with people. RO: The farm is noisy and this noise pertains to agricultural noise. This is true, but this planning application pertains to change of use. Normal agricultural use is tolerable – people living in the village accept this. The change of use will produce an entirely different character/ quality of noise. This would not be normal agricultural use. In the last planning committee at RDC the spokesman for the planning application made comments about the Wedding venue being a wedding destination “Mecca” venue and bringing big business to the area. This certainly isn’t what villagers expect as normal agricultural use. FW: I can’t understand what the problem is – there is farming noise all the time. JO: We accept farming noise. Not cars and people. JW: I don’t understand the difference between the noise quality of farming and wedding noise. MM: There is a noise management plan with the planning application – how at 1am is the noise control going to be enforced? HWells: The time of the noise (early hours of the morning) is very different from a wedding venue to a farm venue. Intermittent noise is more difficult that continuous noise from say, a grain dryer. It causes more of a problem, especially in the night. We do hear cars passing from our bedroom; this is a fact and it does wake us. JO: Are the farm giving up agriculture altogether? I thought it was just the pigs? Are the other arable and cattle farming continuing? HWainwright: Yes, the rest is continuing. DW: Because of how Ryedale Testing have done their testing, they are saying that we can’t hear noise in our cottage. This is simply not true. We can hear cars in our cottage and even people talking as they walk past. The time of day and the quality of noise will affect our sleep. CW: There is almost nil traffic in the early hours currently (I’m often up) so we are going from no traffic whatsoever to streams of traffic departing from this venue. This will have significant change on the village street and the environment and sound quality will be entirely different this is not acceptable to the villagers. RP: Friday, Saturday, Sunday evenings are quiet as a mouse around here. I often sit in my room above the garage. There is almost no traffic whatsoever. CW: One point on highways pertaining to passing places – how will we stop these being used as laybys? Chair: Thank you for your contributions.

5b. Vote to decide the status of Sproxton Parish Meeting as a consultee on the above planning application

The question to be voted upon will be: Having listened to the

discussions on the most recent amendments to the planning application

for “Change of use and alteration of farm buildings to form a mixed use events

and venue barn (wedding ceremonies and reception and small conferences etc.)

with associated facilities, landscaping and parking” at Sproxton Hall Farm,

Sproxton, are you in support of this application?

Yes/ hands up - would indicate an elector is in support. We will then

take objections and abstentions for completeness. CJ & JW to count

votes.

DHS to

summarise

discussion

and vote

outcome to

send to

RDC.

8

Time meeting ended: 19.09

Voted upon and objected to by a significant majority (89%).

Support: 4

Objection: 32

Abstain: 0

OUTCOME: Sproxton Parish Meeting objects to the planning

application at Sproxton Hall Farm, Sproxton.

Confirmation

regarding

checking of

minutes.

DHS (Clerk) requested minute checking volunteers.

Minute checkers for today’s meeting: DG & SW

DHS to

sent on

24.06.21.

Queried

and

verified by

25.06.21.

AOB a) YLCA Chairmanship Training (2 parts via zoom) completed last week

costing £22.50 (small council discount).

GS: Outlined the course & usefulness – thanks to the Parish.

b) New Chairman email address set up by George Skinner for Parish

Business. Please continue to bring the parish business through the

sproxtonclerk@btinternet.com email address, however, following advice

from YLCA.

c) Queen’s Jubilee celebration June 2022 – bonfire beacon/ Big lunch

ideas etc.

Elaine Burgess, Priscilla McAndrew & Joanna Oliver – happy to help GS

& DHS organise. Anyone else to please email DHS.

d) CPR & Defibrillator Training – Joanne Welford and her daughter

Mary, who is a qualified senior community nurse, once again are kindly

offering CPR and Defibrillator training sessions. However due to the

Covid-19 restrictions this has been held back until deemed safe. Please

contact Joanne to let her know if you are interested and get your name

on the list. Tel or text: 07972614125.

e) If there are any members of the Parish electorate who would like to be

added to the Parishioner email contact list, please send an email to

sproxtonclerk@btinternet.com giving permission for your details to be

held by Sproxton Parish Meeting and used for Parish Meeting business.

DHS to pay

invoice to

YLCA for

part 1.

George

Skinner to

fund part 2.

DHS to

forward

initial email

regarding

celebration

to those

who are

interested.

GS paid

YLCA

23.06.21

for part 2.

DHS sent

emsail info

23.06.21

9

APPENDIX 1

Risk assessment template

Company name: Sproxton Parish Meeting Assessment carried out by: D Hazorika-Stéphany

Date of next review: 31/06/21 Date assessment was carried out: 22/05/21

What are the hazards?

Who might be harmed and how?

What are you already doing to control the risks?

What further action do you need to take to control the risks?

Who needs to carry out the action?

When is the action needed by?

Done

Contracting or spreading coronavirus by not washing hands or not washing them adequately

Chair Clerk Electorate Property owners Property Users

Provide hand sanitiser for the occasions when people can’t wash their hands (K Boddy & G Skinner)

Put in place monitoring and supervision to make sure people are following controls (ask somebody to do this task) Put signs up to remind people to wash their hands Identify how you are going to replenish hand washing/sanitising facilities (K Boddy has spares)

Volunteer tasked by D Hazorika-Stéphany

24/05/21

Getting or spreading coronavirus in commonly used or high traffic areas Put in place monitoring and supervision to make sure people are following any

Chair Clerk Electorate Property owners Property Users

Identify: • areas where people can congregate – around bard/ at gate • areas where there are pinch points that mean people can’t meet the social distancing guidelines – up drive • areas and

Put in place monitoring and supervision to make sure people are following any controls you have in place, including social distancing guidelines.

Volunteer tasked by D Hazorika-Stéphany

24/05/21

10

controls you have in place, including social distancing guidelines.

equipment where people touch the same surfaces, such as gates • areas and surfaces that people touch frequently but are difficult to clean eg. chairs Agree the combination of controls you will put in place to reduce the risks. • reorganising facilities in communal areas by spacing out chairs • putting one-way systems in place

Getting or spreading coronavirus by not cleaning surfaces, equipment and workstations

Chair Clerk Electorate Property owners Property Users

Identify surfaces that are frequently touched and by many people. gate, door handles or other shared equipment. Wipe pens with Covid wipes after each use Participants bring own chairs Hand sanitiser at gate with volunteer attendant. Reduce as far as possible the need for people to move around. Provide more bins and empty them more often (K Boddy)

Put in place monitoring and supervision to make sure people are following controls (Gate attendant volunteer) Provide information telling people who should clean something and when (K Boddy, before & after event) Provide instruction and training to volunteer attendant. Include information on: the products they need to use precautions they need to follow the areas they need to clean Identify what cleaning products are needed

Volunteer tasked by D Hazorika-Stéphany

24/05/21

11

Put in place arrangements to clean if someone develops symptoms (K Boddy)

and where they should be used. Identify how you are going to replenish cleaning products. (K Boddy & G Skinner)

Contracting or spreading the virus by not maintaining social distancing

Chair Clerk Electorate Property owners Property Users

Follow guidance on social distancing. Identify how you can help people maintain social distancing in the first instance. • using marker tape on the floor • using one-way systems; Where maintaining social distancing isn’t possible, implement risk mitigations. This can include: • placing markers on the floor to indicate where people should stand and the direction they should face; • placing workers back-to-back or side-by-side rather than face-to-face when working • Personal protective equipment (PPE) may be needed to protect from the risk of coronavirus.

Put in place Volunteer (Mat Stéphany & I Boddy) to monitor, supervise and make sure people follow social distancing guidelines. Provide signage.

Volunteer tasked by D Hazorika-Stéphany

24/05/21

12

More information on managing risk: www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/risk/ Published by the Health and Safety Executive 09/20 – amended by D Hazorika-Stéphany for Sproxton Parish Meeting 22/05/21

Poorly ventilated spaces leading to risks of coronavirus spreading

Chair Clerk Electorate Property owners Property Users

Hold meeting outdoors, under cover

Ensure people do not huddle to close/ congregate closely

D Hazorika-Stéphany

24/05/21

Increased risk of infection and complications for workers who are clinically extremely vulnerable and those in higher- risk groups

Chair Clerk Electorate Property owners Property Users

Hold meeting outdoors, under cover

Remind attendees that some of the electorste may be highly vulnerable and to respect social distancing and H & S guidelines.

D Hazorika-Stéphany

24/05/21