Pip’s Patch

ARC News Service – Decisions made at the November 2011  meeting of YDNPA concerning: Proposed new campsite at Kettlewell; Spen House at Askrigg; proposed bunkbarn at Austwick; and The Shetty at Gayle. See YDNPA – planning committee decisions October 2011 for the earlier discussions about the campsite at Kettlewell and Spen House at Askrigg.

Kettlewell campsite: The planning officer left the members of the YDNPA planning committee in no doubt about how they should vote when they reconsidered the planning application to create a new camping site at Kettlewell. At the October meeting they had voted by a narrow margin to approve the site but this had to be ratified.

In her report the planning officer  reminded them of the two purposes of a National Park: to conserve and enhance the landscape and to promote opportunities for people to come and understand and enjoy its special qualities. If there was a conflict between these two then the Authority should apply the Sandford Principle: to attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park.

She stated that the development of the proposed camping site “would interrupt the ancient field pattern to the south of Kettlewell to the extent that the landscape quality for a wide area is severely compromised.”  And she added: “..the duty towards the economic well-being of Kettlewell cannot be used to justify development at the expense of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the landscape.” She concluded that the proposal would amount to a significant and permanent landscape detractor. And if that wasn’t enough she added that if the members granted permission the matter would be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the Authority’s adopted policy. That has very  rarely been stated in an officer’s report.

The chairman of the committee, Graham Dalton, explained that this planning application had split the community of Kettlewell and he gave a summary of the arguments for and against.

For: There was a need in the vicinity of Kettlewell to provide a camp site for Duke of Edinburgh participants, Dales Way walkers, cyclists, young people and families. Camping was the cheapest way to come and enjoy the Dales – and the Authority had a duty to promote the enjoyment of the National Park for everyone. The applicants had provided a management plan and offered a tree planting scheme. And he added about the sustainability of Kettlewell “The money which the campers bring in goes into the shops and the pubs and the income supports the working population and in turn the working population provides the children for the school and so you have the virtuous circle of sustainability”.

Against: The proposed site was very open and set within a landscape that was famous both nationally and internationally. The application did not meet many of the conditions that the YDNPA had formulated for campsites – that the impact upon the landscape should be minimal; there should be appropriate  screening of the site at the time of the application; and that it should be close to residential buildings. As this campsite was not  close to the village it could not be monitored all the time. He again reminded members of the Sandford Principle.

As compared to last month the majority of the members voted to accept the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application. County Coun John Blackie, however, said he had not changed his view that the site should be approved.  He felt that the sustainability of Kettlewell was an important material consideration and that the impact upon the landscape would not be so significant especially as campers did not leave  irreparable marks upon a field.

Spen House, Askrigg: The officers were just as forceful about the application to make alterations at Spen House. This is a listed building. And Coun Roberts repeated that the YDNPA needed to be consistent with its decisions. Officers explained that to replace 18th and 19th Century windows with double glazed units would be contrary to government policy regarding the preservation of listed buildings.

Mr Richard Middleton, the applicant, had offered to donate the windows with cylinder glass to the YDNPA. But during the debate an officer said that it would not be acceptable to replace them with even the slimmest double glazed units available as that would still make a significant change to the windows.

Carl Lis, who is the chairman of the Authority, commented: “I can’t believe that in this day and age we can’t produce double glazing windows that would satisfy all requirements.” Several committee members obviously felt that the emphasis should be on energy conservation these days.

When asked why the owners of some listed buildings had been allowed to install double glazed units an officer explained that the windows that had been replaced were not (as at Spen House) the originals but dated from the 20th century. The majority of the members accepted the officers’ recommendation and voted against giving planning permission.

Austwick – Officers recommended that an application to convert a disused barn at Austwick into a bunkbarn which would accommodate up to 24 people should be refused because it would not be supervised 24/7. This was supported by the parish council which was concerned that any large groups staying there could be involved in anti-social behaviour.

The applicant, Mr Taylor, told the committee that the bunk barn would mainly be used by horse riders and supervised groups of scouts and school children. Coun Richard Welch commented: “This makes good use of a disused barn and I think (this application) deserves a chance.”  Other members agreed that Mr Taylor should be given an opportunity to resolve the issue of supervision. There was therefore a majority vote in favour of approving the application but this will have to be ratified at the December meeting.

The Shetty, Gayle - The “local needs criteria” applied to this building in 1991 included clauses to ensure that only someone living within 10 miles of the house could move into it. The owner argued that this had made it difficult to sell and had asked for the S106 agreement to be removed . Such clauses are not included in “local needs” agreements now.  The majority of the members and accepted that the restriction  should be removed.