Artists told to resubmit planning application for cast iron feather that's been built 40cm too tall
PLANS for a controversial artwork have had to be resubmitted – after someone complained that that it was built 40cm higher than the original proposal.
Artworks in Teesdale had got approval for the cast iron feather and erected it at the lay-by on the B6282, near Middleton-in-Teesdale.
However, it came under fire after critics said it obscured the very view it was created to celebrate. Others defended it, saying art is subjective.
A complaint was made to Durham County Council that its height didn’t match the original plans.
Durham County Council said it was approved at 76cms but has been installed at 116cms. It means that a revised application has been submitted, giving residents the chance to support or object to the artwork.
Stuart Timmiss, head of planning and assets at Durham County Council, said: “It was raised with the council that the sculpture had been installed higher than was approved as part of the original planning application.
“As a result we’ve met with the applicants to discuss the options and, rather than pursuing enforcement action, we have recommended that they submit a retrospective planning application for the installation. This will allow anyone with an interest to put forward their opinions on the new positioning of the artwork before a decision is made.”
Judy Caplin, from Artworks in Teesdale, said: “The original sketch/idea developed over the weeks as the method of construction and installation were finalised. We had meetings with Eggleston Parish Council on site in March and they requested that the trough and standing gatepost on the site should not be affected in any way.
“We also had discussions with highways who would only allow the piece to be sited in that position. The artist had designed the piece to be visible from the road, travelling from Middleton to Eggleston, where it literally points into the heart of Teesdale along the River Tees.
“The plinth had to be slightly higher and narrower than that on the original drawing to avoid the gate post, allow the stone wall to be repaired at the rear of the plinth, and for the artwork to be visible as intended.
“We were asked to submit a revised planning application showing the measurements as it is now, and we were very happy to do so.”
To have your say, visit http://www.durham.gov.uk/planning and search for reference DM/16/02877/FPA