ARC News Service local democracy reports on YDNPA planning meetings in 2017 provided on a voluntary basis by Pip Pointon. Below are reports on the decisions made regarding applications from the following towns and villages: Appletreewick, Arkengarthdale, Bainbridge, Bolton Abbey Estate, Coverham (Forbidden Corner) , Dent, Embsay, Fremington, Grassington, Hartlington, Hartlington Raikes, Hawes, Hebden, Kettlewell, Long Preston, Malham , Maulds Meaburn, Newbiggin-on-Lune, Oughtershaw, Rylstone, Stalling Busk, Swaledale (telecommunications masts,Thoralby, Threshfield, West Witton.
The issues discussed included telecommunication masts in deeply rural areas (see also Swaledale Telecommunication Masts below), and barn conversions. See also the appeal decision regarding an application to convert Tup Gill Lathe near Kettlewell.
There are no reports from the August meeting (due to my wedding celebrations) nor from that in October (as I was ill).
Quote of the year:
At a meeting of Aysgarth and District Parish Council the chairman of the YDNPA planning committee, Richmondshire District councillor Caroline Thornton Berry was asked about inconsistencies in how applications for garages had been dealt with in a Dales village.
Cllr Thornton Berry replied: “You are dealing with humans and the planning officers are all different. They all have different takes on everything. That’s what you are up against. There is no total consistency.”
Transparency and Accountability:
The Association of Rural Communities was very concerned that the planning department was becoming less transparent and accountable. In June it made the following statement to the planning committee:
“At the Full Authority meeting in September 2017 [YDNPA] Members agreed that the functions of the Authority’s Development Management should be streamlined.
“One of the criteria was that the information should already be readily accessible to Members and the general public. It was argued, therefore, that the monthly list of decisions made by officers under delegated powers was unnecessary because there was a wealth of information about planning applications available on the Authority’s website. It was stated that this data could be searched by date and location in any parish.
“The emphasis there should be on ‘in any parish’. There are now 112 parishes in the National Park. We would estimate that it could take two days to carry out an overview of decisions regarding any one issue such as barn conversions. That is not making information easily accessible to either Members or to the general public.
“In fact, the Association of Rural Communities would argue that information is remaining hidden especially as it can be very difficult even for Members to contact individual officers. The standard auto-reply from one officer urges enquirers to contact him by email, stressing how difficult it is to maintain contact by telephone.
“We do understand that the planning service is under-staffed and under pressure – but surely in the 21st century it is possible to generate lists of decisions by officers and to make those available on the Authority’s website? This would greatly improve the transparency and accountability that the Authority has stated it wishes to achieve.”
This request was refused – and so that lack of transparency continues, as it does in other ways.
When studying planning applications it is frustrating that the YDNPA does not make it possible to view all the comments it receives unlike Richmondshire District Council. Residents in Middleham could read all the arguments for and against a proposed glamping site in a field north of Curlew Barn on East Witton Road, Middleham (17/00892), Middleham, compared to what was available about the Forbidden Corner applications on the YDNPA website. The ARC News Service can – and does – report on what is said during the five minutes allocated to objectors at planning committee meetings. The written objections, however, often give far more detail.
Debate about barn conversions at the June meeting
Even strong legal advice about the consequences did not stop the majority of the members confirming that two barns – at Oughtershaw and Hartlington Raikes – could be converted into dwellings.
Parish council representative Ian McPherson told the meeting: “We [the Authority] went to the trouble to get Counsel’s opinion. It is a very thorough and detailed opinion. If we don’t stick to policy … we will be letting ourselves in for the consequences as Counsel sets out.
He added that those members who agreed to approve the applications after such advice were on a different planet to him.
Julie Martin commented that if they breached their own criteria it would be difficult in the future to adhere to the policies in the Authority’s Local Plan and Jocelyn Manners-Armstrong reminded the committee: “Our policy is basically a conservation based policy – and that is our primary purpose.”
Richard Graham, the head of development management, summed up the Counsel’s advice by stating that consideration had to be given to the impact upon the character and appearance of a traditional barn, its landscape setting and upon the historic significance of the building.
Most of the committee, however, did not agree with the planning officer that the conversion of both of the barns should be refused because the proposed alterations would detract from their heritage significance and the landscape. The planning officer also argued that the proposed extension to that at Oughtershaw was significantly too large.
North Yorkshire County Councillor John Blackie pointed out that Counsel had stated it was possible to have a large extension or alteration that did not have a significant effect on a building, just as it was possible for a small extension or alteration to have a significant impact. So just measuring an extension did not reveal if it’s size was significant or not.
He added that the converted barn without the extension to house a utility room would not suit the needs of a young farmer with a family living in such a remote place as Oughtershaw.
Parish council representative Chris Clark said: “If that barn is not converted it will fall down. It is already deteriorating and there are holes in the roof. I would rather see a family in a roadside barn with the extension than have a barn which falls down.Its only a few yards away from Oughtershaw hamlet.”
The planning officer had also argued that the barn at Hartlington Raikes was too far away from the road to be described as a roadside barn.
North Yorkshire County Councillor Robert Heseltine reminded the members that an appeal inspector had overturned the Authority’s decision to refuse a barn conversion at Tug Gill Lathe near Starbotton which was a similar distance from a road.
He did, however, want the Authority to reconsider its policy of allowing dual use of such barn conversions, removing the permission for holiday lets and retaining just that for local occupancy. And he did not like the use of telescopic lenses on cameras when officers were seeking to illustrate what they believed would be the impact upon the landscape.
“It is important to take care of the landscape but also to care for the people who live here,” said Richmondshire District councillor Yvonne Peacock. She added that it was proving very hard to get new affordable homes built in the National Park and so barn conversions were very important.
Appletreewick – February
A planning officer’s recommendation to approve a retrospective application to retain an area of hard-standing near the New Inn in Appletreewick was accepted. This was on condition that there was an approved Management Plan and that only pre-organised groups will have the right to camp at the site.
The Management Plan would include the provision that the field gate should remain shut and locked at all times with only authorised key holders able to have access. This would be in accordance with the requests made by Appletreewick Parish Council. Residents are also concerned about how the security of the site is monitored and the control of litter and noise.
The hard standing was created by Yorkshire Water when it was carrying out work at the sewage works. It was reported that the owner does plan to cover it with earth from the site and then to seed it with grass.
Some residents had questioned the size of the hard standing but the planning officer believed that it was needed to accommodate up to six cars and three larger vehicles carrying equipment when Scout groups were camping at the site.
Arkengarthdale – November
There was unanimous approval for the application by the Upper Dales Community Land Trust Ltd to build four affordable homes for rent in perpetuity on land adjacent to the Methodist Church in Langthwaite, Arkengarthdale.
Arkengarthdale Parish councillor John Watkins told the members that when he bought his home in Arkengarthdale 20 years ago it cost him less than £70,000. Today it would sell for around £270,000. ‘For me that is simply not affordable. Home ownership in Arkengarthdale and indeed the rest of the Dales is now the privilege of the older and the fairly well off. And that’s why our communities are dying off in my opinion. What is badly needed are nice affordable homes to rent such as the ones under consideration here’.
The chairman of Arkengarthdale Parish Council, Stephen Stubbs, said: ‘Arkengarthdale Parish Council is very excited abut the prospect of four affordable homes being built for rent for perpetuity in Arkengarthdale. They’ll be primarily for young people to live in, and will encourage them to bring up their families here and so keep the future bright for our deeply rural communities, because a Dale without the presence of young families does not have a future at all.’
Mr Stubbs and Mr Watkins are both directors of the Upper Dales Community Land Trust. Another director, North Yorkshire County councillor John Blackie, told the planning committee how important the development was to Arkengarthdale and then went and sat with the public and took no further part in the meeting.
The planning officer commented: ‘This is an encouraging proposal for community-led housing made by a community land trust that would help increase the supply of local housing for the local community. The proposal would address a proven local need that is supported by the Housing Authority and there are no alternative sites within the housing development boundary that could deliver affordable housing.’
Richmondshire District councillor Yvonne Peacock said that such community-led housing schemes were an excellent way to solve the problem of providing affordable homes.
The YDNPA’s member champion for development management, Jim Munday, said after the meeting: ‘It is very encouraging to see this community-led housing scheme being proposed. The Upper Dales Community Land Trust, led by John Blackie, deserves considerable credit for making it happen.
‘The Authority has been pleased to be able work closely with the Trust, the local community and the housing authority, Richmondshire District Council.’
Bainbridge – February
The committee also approved the application to construct five affordable dwellings on land to the rear of the Rose and Crown.
Bainbridge Parish Council supported this and had pointed out that the real incomes of farmers and those employed in agriculture had substantially declined in the last few years to a point that open market housing was no longer affordable.
“Above all councillors felt that they wanted to be able to keep local people in the place where they want to be.”
But some residents are not sure the proposed development could be described as affordable housing and so set up the Holmbrae 2016 Residents Group. The planning committee deferred a decision in December because this group threatened legal action.
The Authority reported that In a letter from its solicitors this month the Holmbrae 2016 Residents Group reaffirmed its position that it would seek to quash any decision to approve the application by way of judicial review. The letter, it said, reiterated previous objections based around the lack of evidence that the dwellings would be affordable and attached a report that they have had prepared by a consultant. The report disagreed with the need for five affordable dwellings within Bainbridge Parish, argued that alternative infill sites have not been fully considered, questioned the support for discount for sale properties rather than requiring affordable rented accommodation, and disputed the affordability of the proposed dwellings to those in housing need.
The planning officer has recommended that the application should be approved. He reported that even though the area behind the Rose and Crown was outside the housing development boundary it could be considered as an exception site as long as it was a small scale development where all the houses were all restricted by legal agreements to be “affordable” to local residents who were in housing need “on a cascade basis”. There was, he said, a considerable backlog in the provision of affordable homes in the Upper Dales.
He believed the new houses would reflect the character and appearance of other dwellings nearby and would have no negative impact upon the conservation area or on the amenity of other residents.
He stated: “The National Park has a static (potentially declining) and ageing population – a serious demographic problem identified in the Local Plan. The Authority’s Housing Strategy aims to release more land for housing to address this problem and support the social and economic well-being of local communities. The provision of more housing for sale to local people at a price below the market price in Bainbridge will contribute to the strategy and support the sustainability of the community.
Cllr Peacock said that such community-led housing schemes were an excellent way to solve the problem of providing affordable homes.
The YDNPA’s member champion for development management, Jim Munday, said after the meeting: ‘It is very encouraging to see this community-led housing scheme being proposed. The Upper Dales Community Land Trust, led by John Blackie, deserves considerable credit for making it happen.
‘The Authority has been pleased to be able work closely with the Trust, the local community and the housing authority, Richmondshire District Council.’
Bainbridge – November
The committee unanimously approved the application to build five ‘affordable dwellings’ on land at the rear of the Rose and Crown.
Cllr Peacock stated that the term “affordable housing” did not just mean to rent but also to buy. She explained:
“There are many, many local people who want to live and work in the Yorkshire Dales National Park who would not be eligible for property and they cannot afford to rent on the open market, which is now evidently higher than any mortgage. And they cannot afford to buy open market houses. They are in housing need. In the last six months a huge amount of work has gone into making sure that these are affordable houses.”
She was supported by Cllr Blackie who said that unless there was a 30 per cent discount on the new houses many local people would not be able to afford them because of the price increases caused by properties being bought for second homes and holiday accommodation. The committee was told that 30 per cent of the housing in the National Park was now holiday accommodation.
“Bainbridge is thriving but it still needs young families. Without young families your community does not have a future.” he added.
The six month delay in approving this application was due to a review being commissioned by the YDNPA following the threat by the Holmbrae Residents Group (HRG) that legal action might be taken. The HRG questioned that the development at Bainbridge would be in accordance with Local Plan policy in respect of assessing the need for such affordable housing. It added: ‘The Authority has adopted a flawed approach to the question of whether the development can be described as affordable housing taking into account local incomes.’
In his report to the November meeting the head of development management, Richard Graham, stated that, even with the discount, two of the houses would only be affordable to those with the highest earnings available in National Park. With the discount the cost of the three-bedroom houses has been estimated at £185,000, £196,00 and £182,000, and the two-bedroom houses at £147,000 each.
Mr Graham pointed out that the number of private lettings in the Upper Dales has fallen dramatically from a high of 92 lettings in 2012 to just nine in 2017. In the same period the median rent had increased from £477 a month to £594pcm. He reported that most of the cheaper houses which those on low incomes could buy were small stone built cottages that were more expensive to heat and were often in remote areas and had no gardens. He added that insufficient affordable houses were being built each year to fulfil the estimated need.
The new houses at Bainbridge would, he said, be built to modern building regulations and would have adequate parking and garden space for families. In addition to each house being subject to legal agreements which will apply the 30 per cent discount with a local occupancy restriction there will also be a clause restricting purchasers to those in housing need. This would be vetted by Richmondshire District Council as the housing authority.
Mr Graham stated: “The Authority’s Housing Strategy seeks to widen the range of affordable housing to meet the needs of local families and first time buyers and attract younger working households to live in the National Park.” He added that there were no suitable sites within the housing development boundaries of the Upper Dales villages. That at Bainbridge is outside the housing development boundary and so comes under the policy for rural exception sites.
Bolton Abbey – September
It would be a sacrilege to change a 200-year-old barn at Bolton Abbey in any substantial way, Cllr Heseltine, told the committee – and the majority of the members agreed with him.
Lancashire County Council councillor Cosima Towneley, however, reminded the committee that the agent, John Steel, had warned that if permission was refused the Chatsworth Settlement Trustees of the Bolton Abbey Estate would not appeal. “Why should anyone pour any more effort into a building which is absolutely no use?” she asked.
At present all that the public can see of it is the corrugated roof Mr Steel said. He explained that the Estate expected the cost of converting the barn into a two-bedroom holiday let, including using insulated dry lining for most of the interior, to cost just under half a million pounds.
The planning officer commented: “The internal finish …would have the appearance of a modern property. The proposed dry lining of this building would harm its heritage significance and could put the long-term survival of its fabric and features at risk of accelerated decay.” He stated that insulated lime plaster would be better as it was a breathable material.
The Estate, however, believed that if lime plaster was used the barn would not be fit for use as a holiday home, said Mr Steel. He added that the Estate had submitted seven sets of amended plans during its discussions with the Authority and Historic England. One of the biggest changes had been to agree to thatch the roof with ling (heather). “This will be sourced from the Estate as it would have been when the barn was originally built,” he explained.
The planning officer reported that the large threshing barn and adjacent walled-off cow house dated from the 17th Century or early 18th Century and was one of the largest surviving example of its type in the northern English uplands. It has partly reset cruck trusses, low eaves and remnants of heather thatching under the sheeting on the roof. The cow house, he said, had a particularly wide doorway which, it was believed, was widened in the late 18th C to accommodate the famous 1,132kg (312 stone) Craven Heifer.
Historic England assessed the barn and cow shed as a listed building in November 2017 about four months after the Estate applied to convert it. Some of the committee members agreed with the Authority’s listed building officer that conversion to any domestic use, including holiday accommodation, would have a detrimental effect on the high heritage significance of the building.
The planning officer told the members that until a few weeks prior to the meeting the officers had hoped to come to an agreement with the Estate but then there were problems concerning what type of interior wall covering to use and the proposed car parking and curtilage area. He said that an alternative parking area had been suggested which the Authority and Historic England believed would have a less damaging impact upon the historic layout beside the barn.
“Because the applicants are not prepared to change [these] we reluctantly recommend refusal,” he stated.
Cllr Allen Kirkbride, the parish member for the Upper Dales, commented: “I am very disappointed there hasn’t been agreement between the two parties. It is a historic building [and] what has been done to the roof is criminal.”
He voted in line with Bolton Abbey Parish Council which had not objected to the proposal but the majority of the members accepted the officer’s recommendation.
Middleham Town Council did not object to Bell Barn being re-developed to provide catering facilities beside the Saddle Rooms but pointed out that this was yet another retrospective application, requested more conditions and suggested that the owner should be asked to pay towards the cost of repairing the road to this tourist attraction.
It stated: “Council notes that this is a further retrospective application and is unhappy that this appears to be an established practice by this applicant [Colin Armstrong]. The important contribution of the site to the local economy is fully recognised by the council, indeed we include the Forbidden Corner within our Middleham business forum and wish to support them as we do all other local businesses and enterprise.
“It is disappointing always only to be able to comment in retrospect, when construction has been undertaken without any permission. Planning rules apply equally to all businesses and residents.”
The council is also concerned about the road conditions around Forbidden Corner. It pointed out that there would be an inevitable increase in traffic levels along the narrow roads through Middleham and past the Low Moor racehorse training gallops. These, it said, were not maintained for heavy use and the surfaces deteriorated rapidly.
It added: “The council wishes the planning authority to consider placing a condition that the applicant should contribute towards the additional costs of retexturing the road, particularly from West End, Middleham to Tupgill Park entrance, including taking account of the surfacing needs for use by ridden, shod horses.”
It also asked for a condition which will protect racehorses on Low Moor. It stated: “Council asks the planning authority to take account that there is no vehicular right of access … across Low Moor to the northerly entrance to Tupgill Park. The Moors are held in trust by the council and leased to Middleham Trainers’ Association. The route is clearly signed as a private road and Public Bridleway only.”
It was now, however, being frequently used by large goods vehicles and delivery vans going to and from the Forbidden Corner. As a result it was very worn and damaged causing considerable risks to valuable racehorses and their riders.
It continued: “Council objects strongly to extending opening hours for the altered structure: business hours for the Forbidden Corner have been restricted on grounds of the potential danger to ridden horses and disturbance created by vehicles moving through Middleham at night and during the morning training hours from dawn to 1pm.”
The opening hours considered acceptable for Bell Barn by the planning officer are 12am to 11pm Monday to Saturday, and 12am to 9pm on Sundays and Public Holidays.
While the YDNPA’s visitor services manager commented that the re-development of Bell Barn was positive in terms of local employment, local services and produce, and the wider tourism economy, the senior listed building officer was less impressed.
The latter stated: “The application has failed to adequately take into account or conserve the heritage significance of the site or of the recently demolished stable block. The replacement building includes details which imitate traditional features, but without any demonstrable historic context, and is likely to give a false impression of the site and its historic development.”
The planning officer’s recommendation to approve was accepted by the committee.
He reported: “The re-development of the courtyard building which has occurred has created an additional indoor visitor facility at an existing visitor attraction and has potential benefits for the local community.
“Although the development has resulted in loss of part of an undesignated heritage asset the former stables are not considered as having been worth of retention for their own sake.
“The siting, design and appearance of the redeveloped courtyard building is considered to be acceptable and has not caused significant harm to the landscape, residential amenity or highways safety.”
Coverham – June
Yet another retrospective planning application for a site connected to Forbidden Corner at Tupgill Park, Coverdale drew an exasperated sigh from Cllr McPherson.
But a planning officer said that as most of the application site was hidden from view the work which had been carried out would have little impact upon the landscape. The committee, therefore, accepted his recommendation to approve the application for permission for grading and drainage channels on land to the rear of the Ashgill buildings, the provision of rear access, parking areas, construction of an oil tank compound, planting, landscaping an ancillary works. The application was described as part retrospective as not all the work had been completed.
Cllr McPherson commented: “Whenever I see an application with Tupgill Park on it my heart sinks, simply because I know it’s going to be retrospective. I would like them to know we really have had enough.”
The planning officer explained that there had been a significant development in the working relationship between the owner of Tupgill Park and the YDNPA. The Authority had received one application (for the demolition of Ashgill Cottage) prior to work starting, and another for an extension to Ghyll Cottage where work had only just started. The application to demolish Ashgill Cottage and replace it with a building containing four self-catering holiday units had been withdrawn, he added.
The Ashgill complex, he reported, was on the hillside above the Forbidden Corner and consisted of the main house, several cottages, stable buildings, yards and a horse walker. It was, he said, a commercial race horse training and equestrian centre.
Middleham Town Council informed the Authority that it had several concerns about the application. These included the “piecemeal development on a large site with no coherent design strategy”, the consistent pattern of retrospective applications and the use of the private road to the north of the site.
The Council stated: “There is ongoing vehicle traffic from the site across Middleham Low Moor owned by this Council and leased to Middleham Trainers’ Associaition. It causes undue wear on a private road and affects the horses under training and crosses a bridleway. The operators of the Forbidden Corner make no attempt to restrict this.”
In response the planning officer observed: “The proposal is a comprehensive solution to the access, parking and drainage issues affecting a definable area of the Ashgill complex.
“As the private road [is] owned by Middleham Town Council they would know who has the right of access and can control it accordingly. The National Park’s Access Ranger notes that the right of way is indirectly affected but has not objected.”
Dent – November
A small barn next to the Stone Cross in Main Street, Dent, can be converted into a three-bedroom holiday let even though Dent Parish Council strongly objected.
The majority of the planning committee agreed, however, that it was better to let it be converted than for it to fall down.
South Lakeland District councillor Ian Mitchell told members that the parish council’s main argument was that converting the barn into a holiday let did not meet the YDNPA’s policy on sustainable development.
The parish council had stated: ‘Increasing the number of properties in Dentdale that are available as holiday lets does not contribute to the sustainability of the community. There are already holiday lets in the village which are under utilised (some being empty for many months including during the summer). There is a need for housing for local occupancy and the constant sale of property to be converted to holiday lets means there are less opportunities for local housing.
“If something is not done about this now, the community will die. The loss of the primary school would be a tragedy in this community and without housing for families this will happen. The Census revealed that the population has stopped growing for the first time since 1970.
“The existing open market housing stock remains very attractive to people wishing to retire to the National Park, while this external demand pushes up prices beyond the reach of many local families and first time buyers. The Census also revealed that 22 per cent of housing is now second homes or holiday lets.”
In response the planning officer said: ‘While the views expressed by the parish council are understood and it is recognised that there is an acute need for more local occupancy dwellings across the National Park generally, it is important to remember that the conversion of traditional buildings (acceptable uses) policy is a conservation orientated policy not a housing policy.
“The aim of the policy is to secure the long term future of traditional buildings in a manner that conserves their intrinsic value in locations able to accommodate the intensity of the new use.”
The committee agreed with Embsay with Eastby Parish Council that a raised patio in Brackenley Lane would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbours.
Embsay with Eastby parish councillor Judith Benjamin told the meeting that those standing on the 60cm (almost 2ft) high patio could look directly into the garden and a private room next door. She said that this would be a breach of the Authority’s own guidelines to avoid any tall extensions along a boundary which would be overbearing or dominating if viewed from a neighbour’s window or sitting out space.
She added that the two metre high fence proposed with the approval of the planning officer would not remedy this, and that the fence would be overbearing and over-shadow the neighbour’s garden. “The only logical solution would be a reduction in the height of the patio.”
She also asked that the width of the patio should be decreased so that it did not reach up to the neighbour’s boundary.
The planning officer had stated “The construction of the raised patio is unfortunate as it is an un-neighbourly development which gives the neighbours a perception that their privacy is more greatly affected that would be the case if the patio was at ground level. Nevertheless it is considered that the patio does not afford a greater degree of overlooking … The proposed two metre high fence will screen views from seated patio users and will help to reduce the perception of overlooking.”
Cllr Heseltine agreed with the parish council that the patio was an un-neighbourly extension as people would stand there and so be able to see much more.
When the majority voted to refuse the application Mr Graham commented that this could lead to enforcement action. He said the decision would have to be ratified at next month’s meeting.
This decision was confirmed at the meeting in May. The members agreed it was high enough to have a significantly harmful impact upon the privacy and residential amenity of a neighbour.
Fremington – Dales Bike Centre
The new management plan for the Dales Bike Centre must be enforced Cllr Blackie told the committee.
Like the rest of the committee he fully approved of the plans put forward by Stuart and Brenda Price to double the size of the Dales Bike Centre at Fremington in Swaledale. But the committee had heard that some residents were unhappy especially as the Bike Centre had not complied with the planning conditions included with the original permission ten years ago.
Paul Evans, on behalf of the residents in Low Fremington, told the committee that, contrary to the original planning conditions, the café was not only being used by cyclists but by other day trippers who arrived by car. He said that residents had not complained about breaches in planning conditions and any disturbances because they had tried to be good neighbours.
He continued: “This new proposal will result in a much large scale 24-hour a day operation which we are told we now have to police by the way of a telephone number – and the impact will increase dramatically.
“Very limited steps have been taken to relieve our concerns. The best we are offered is a six-foot wooden fence that may be better than the previous screening which was never delivered.
“This is a huge development dwarfing the village and creating a tourism hub in a residential location. It has been claimed this will have no impact on either the landscape or local amenity. However, we would say this view has been influenced and skewed by the potential economic gain.”
He asked if the car parking area at the Bike Centre could be moved away from nearby properties and a high stone wall in place of the wooden fence.
Mrs Price said: “We have made every effort to minimise the impact and considered how to manage the expanded business. We are deeply passionate about our community and take an active part in it. “We felt our home village of Fremington was an ideal location to tackle the emerging cycle tourism market. It’s been an amazing time. We have been part of a huge explosion in cycling and cycle tourism in the Yorkshire Dales.
“Our development will provide the vital infrastructure to support the Swale Trail and capitalise on the legacies of the Tour de Yorkshire whilst allowing us to be at the forefront of cycling in Yorkshire.”
Cllr Blackie said how grateful he was for such entrepreneurs who supported the local economy and local communities as well as providing so much pleasure and enjoyment for visiting cyclists.
Cllr Peacock agreed stating: “This application is spot on. We have got to try and encourage people and this is a good way to do it. They [Mr and Mrs Price] have done a wonderful job.”When members asked about the original planning conditions not being kept they were assured that the new management plan would be secured with a section 106 legal agreement.
Grassington – March
There was a unanimous vote in favour of allowing New Dyke Barn on Hebden Road near Grassington to be converted into a three bedroom dwelling for either local occupancy or a holiday let.
Grassington Parish Council had originally objected to the application because of concerns about the safety of the access onto Hebden Road. “Traffic leaving the access is doing so blindly and this could cause numerous accidents. There was a fatality there a number of years ago and the concern is that if that access was opened and used again another could occur,” the parish council reported.
“The access to the site is currently to the east of the barn which has been identified as unsafe,” the planning officer said. She told the meeting that the proposal now included a new access and parking area on the western side and this had resolved the issues raised by the parish council.
She reported that if any new electricity supply to the barn was required it should be installed underground.
Hartlington Raikes – May
“I don’t want to see that again,” Cllr Heseltine told planning officers at the meeting.
He was referring to the second reason a planning officer had given for recommending refusal of an application by Matt Mason for a barn to be converted at Hartlington Raikes.
The officer had stated: “The applicant has not entered into a legal agreement that would restrict the use of the building to short term holiday lets and/or local occupancy use and as such, the proposal would not contribute positively to the economic/tourism benefits or to the housing mix of the National Park and would therefore be contrary to … policy.”
Both Cllr Heseltine and Cllr Blackie said they had never seen such a reason for refusal like that before. Cllr Peacock pointed out that usually planning permission was granted first with a condition that a legal agreement was required.
The planning officer replied: “It’s simply a procedural matter. If it [the application] were to be refused today and it was appealed against, the inspector considering the appeal would see that there wasn’t a legal agreement entered into. When it goes to appeal the only thing that can be considered is what is on the reason for refusal, so the inspector wouldn’t be considering whether it would be a local occupancy at all. He would say the Authority hasn’t objected to a lack of a legal agreement, therefore, I don’t need to require one. That’s why it’s on the recommendation.”
Mr Mason was the first to compare his application with Tug Gill Lathe near Starbotton. In late March a planning inspector overturned the planning committee’s decision to refuse permission for Tug Gill Lathe to be converted into a local occupancy home. In the appeal decision summary the inspector disagreed that the converted barn would have a negative impact upon the landscape and also recognised that the Authority’s policy which allowed roadside barns to be converted required local occupancy or holiday let legal agreements.
Mr Mason told the meeting that the planning officer had questioned the proximity of the barn at Hartlington Raikes to a road. But this barn, he said, was closer to a road than that at Tug Gill. He explained:
“I submitted this application in January 2017 to convert this roadside barn to a family home for my daughter. We would happily sign [a Section 106 agreement] and comply with all the regulations.” On his application he had written that the converted barn would be subject to either local occupancy or holiday let restrictions.
Julie Martin agreed with the planning officer that converting the barn at Hartlington Raikes would detract from the landscape character of the National Park and commented: “I was very concerned about the Tug Gill Lathe decision which, to me, didn’t seem to be the correct interpretation of our policy. In what circumstances can we actually refuse roadside barns?”
Cllr Peacock, however, stated: “It is a judgement as to whether we think that is a roadside barn or it isn’t. Tug Gill Lathe has now been passed so I personally believe that our policies say that this is okay.”
At the June meeting the majority of members confirmed the decision to approve this application – see “Debate about barn conversions” above.
Hartlington – July
An application for a pay station machine and control barriers at the seasonal car park at Wharfe House Farm, Hartlington, was turned down due to the chairman’s deciding vote.
The members were equally divided between those who agreed with North Yorkshire County councillor Gill Quinn that it was a well thought out scheme which would enhance traffic management, and others who felt that the pay station and control barriers would be too intrusive within the landscape.
The applicant, Michael Daggett, explained that the field had been used for seasonal parking since the early 1970s and, on occasions, had provided a facility for up to a thousand visitors at a time, including young families who could then picnic beside the river. This was especially important as there were so few car parking spaces in Burnsall.
The planning officer reported that the field was only open when it would not be damaged by cars being parked there. This temporary use of the land should be no more than 28 days in a calendar year. In 1974 permission was granted to build a toilet block there.
She stated: “The high visual quality of the landscape around Burnsall and the fact that it is unspoilt by unsightly modern development is one of the ‘special qualities’ of the National Park and the reason why so many people visit the area. Although this proposal is small in scale it is development of this nature which has a negative impact that erodes the visual quality and farmed landscape character of the area.”
Hartlington Parish Meeting told the Authority: “There have been some slight concerns about the impact of visible barriers in an agricultural field. Also regarding having a system where vehicles are backed up onto the road waiting to enter whilst collecting a ticket.
“Any system allowing cars freely into the car park and charging upon exit or at a discrete ticket machine would be a major improvement on road safety and congestion. Whether this could be achieved without visible barriers…does appear to appease more residents.”
Hawes – July
The likelihood of a 40mph speed limit being introduced on the A684 on the eastern approach to Hawes led to approval being given to a young local couple to convert a barn into a three-bedroom home.
The committee unanimously approved the application by artist Stacey Moore – and Mr Graham said that even though this was against the recommendation of the planning officer the decision would not have to be ratified at the August meeting.
Steve Calvert, Miss Moore’s partner, told the committee that both of them had been born in Hawes and most of their families were still living and working there. He worked full time in a local builder’s merchants and Stacey had returned from university to open her own business in Hawes.
He explained: “The house prices in Hawes are extremely high for first time buyers and I don’t believe that is an affordable option for us.” They could, however, afford to convert a barn which the Moore family owned. “It will make an ideal family home with three bedrooms and allow us to stay in Hawes for the rest of our lives. We love the Dales and can’t imagine living anywhere else.”
Cllr Blackie told the committee about the proposal to introduce a 40mph limit. Both he and Cllr Peacock emphasised the importance to the local communities of retaining young people and young families.
Julie Martin congratulated the couple on putting forward such good plans for a barn conversion.
The planning officer had pointed out that the barn could not be described as a roadside barn as its curtilage did not adjoin the road. But there was an unsealed track leading to it and the barn was already well screened, so there would not be a negative impact upon the landscape.
Hebden – November
A family home cannot be constructed at the Longthornes Haulage Depot at Hebden, because the site proposed would be too cramped for a modern dwelling, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority’s planning committee decided on Tuesday November 13.
At the October meeting the application by Mr and Mrs J Longthorne had been approved but that decision had to be confirmed at the November meeting as it was against officer recommendation. During the following month several committee members, including Jim Munday who is the YDNPA’s member champion for development management, decided they could no longer support the application. Last week he was one of the nine who voted for refusal with just five supporting the Longthornes.
Mr Munday explained that the Authority had already approved a planning application to convert a listed barn beside the proposed site. That barn, he said, would be totally dwarfed by a new four-bedroom house with the latter having very limited curtilage.
Mr Graham stated that the proposed new house would be on what would have been part of the historic curtilage for the barn conversion and would be an over-development of the site. Julie Martin asserted that this would create a new sub-standard family home with no garden.
Cllr Peacock, however, pointed out that the affordable houses near the YDNPA’s office in Bainbridge also had very limited curtilage. ”Nobody seems to mind that somebody on benefits lives in a house with very little garden.” She added that it would be in line with government policy to build as many houses as possible on a site with each having very limited curtilage.
“Here we have a local businessman in the National Park who employs people. Now that is something I wish we had more of,” she commented.
She reminded the committee that this would ensure that another family would remain in the National Park. The Longthornes had stated they wanted the house for a grandson who is required to be on the site so that he could respond immediately to requests to provide gritting and snow clearance during the winter. He would also be there to help ensure the security of the site.
Cllr Heseltine asked how the committee could ignore the public service that the Longthorne family was providing.
And Cllr John Blackie pointed out that the family had requested a legal agreement that would tie the house to the business.
Mr Graham, however, said that such a legal agreement required evidence that the house was necessary to the business and that had not been provided.
Hebden Parish Council fully supported the application because of the local need for affordable housing so as to keep up school numbers.
Kettlewell – June
There were no divisions when members discussed the proposed alterations at Scargill House near Kettlewell – and members unanimously voted in favour of the application made by the Scargill Movement.
This includes demolishing several buildings including the Three Peaks complex which was carefully designed in the early 1970s to not only reflect the topography of the site but also to help provide a fitting setting for the Grade II* chapel designed by George Pace in the early 1960s. The complex was described by a planning officer as being a highly valued non-designated heritage asset.
English Heritage has stated, however, that the complex as well as the Aysgarth building and the dining room will not be listed.
During a site visit some members were told that the Three Peaks buildings had been poorly constructed and were in a bad state of repair. The high steps and different levels also made it unusable.
The Scargill Movement is keen to provide disabled access, en-suite accommodation and a more sustainable site. To do this the dining room and the Aysgarth building (a much altered traditional barn) will be demolished and new ones erected to allow easy access between them and the new Three Peaks as well as better facilities within well-built, thermally efficient buildings.
Dave Lucas, the operations manager, told the meeting: “Our intention with this scheme is to ensure the long term future of Scargill…so that it will continue it’s work [as a Christian centre] in a sustainable way and continue to contribute to the economic and social fabric of our local communities in the Yorkshire Dales. Also that the chapel will continue to be used for its intended purpose and to be properly looked after.”
English Heritage has given listed status to the distinctive Marsh Lounge, built in 1965, which was described as a rare example of Pace’s secular design. It’s roof will, however, have to be altered as it leaks.
A planning officer pointed out that most of these buildings were, and would be, well screened by the large area of ancient woodland, from which the steeply rising roof of the chapel with its large windows appears “to grow out of the dale”.
The present residential block, built in the 1970s and 1980s, is less well screened. It is intended to demolish this and construct a new block with natural stone but using a contemporary design and having an undulating grass roof. The Scargill Movement no longer plans to construct a large building on the car park. It is expected that it will take 15 years to complete the scheme.
It was agreed to delegate authority to the head of development management regarding the ongoing discussions about such issues as the lighting schemes, the materials to be used, the hours of construction, a travel plan for the management of visitors’ arrival and departures, and a legal agreement to tie the woodland management plan to the development.
Kettlewell – November
The photographs shown to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority’s planning committee did not give a clear representation of the parking problems in Sally Lane, Kettlewell, Cllr Clark told the members on Tuesday November 13.
Both he and North Yorkshire County councillor Gillian Quinn asserted that converting a small barn in Sally Lane into a one-bedroom holiday let would increase car parking problems. Cllr Quinn said that on many occasions vehicles were double parked there.
This amounted to a material consideration for refusal, said Mr Clark, especially as Highways North Yorkshire (with the support of Craven District Council) had objected to the application because parking was already extremely tight there. Kettlewell-with-Starbotton Parish Council had also objected for the same reason.
The YDNPA planning committee, therefore, confirmed its decision to refuse the application even though a planning officer had recommended approval. He stated: “Should the application be refused and the applicant lodge an appeal, officers consider that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the use of a one-bedroom cottage for holiday use would result in such a level of highway disruption that the impact on the highway network would make it unsafe for the users of the highway.”
Members were also concerned about the complete lack of any curtilage around the barn. Both Craven District councillor Carl Lis and Cllr Quinn queried that district council workers would, for a fee, empty an externally accessible bin store.
Long Preston – November
Approval was given for an agricultural storage building to be constructed at Megs Croft in Green Gates Lane, Preston.
Long Preston Parish Council had objected because it felt this would lead to over intensive use of the land as there were two agricultural buildings there already.
The applicant, Roy Newhouse, told the committee that he had been born on a farm and had worked for many years in agricultural services. “What I want to do [now] is build up a small farm for my son,” he said.
As he had amended the plans he submitted since last year the planning officer accepted that the timber-boarded building would serve the needs of the smallholding. One of the conditions is that when it is no longer used for the purpose for which it will be installed it must be removed from the site.
Malham – April
It was agreed that a mast on the National Trust’s Malham Tarn Estate should be capable of not only serving the Emergency Services but also provide mobile phone communications.
The application for a 15 metre high lattice mast was made as part of the Home Office’s Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme. The planning officer reported that such masts are used to provide voice and data reception for the emergency services as well as sending patient details to a hospital to enable staff to prepare for their arrival, video recordings of arrests from police officers’ body cameras and live streaming to nearby officers.
He said that for this one use a monopod mast would be sufficient. As this would have less impact upon the landscape he recommended that the application for a lattice mast should be refused.
Neil Swain declared a personal interest as he was acting as the landlord for the National Trust site. He had asked the committee to consider the application because, he said, mobile communications were at the very forefront of the needs of modern families and, therefore, a key element in trying to attract more families to live and work in the Park.
Eden District Councillor Valerie Kendal and North Yorkshire County councillor Richard Welch said that the mast on Malham Moor should be strong enough to be shared with commercial operators who could provide mobile phone coverage sometime in the future rather than having a proliferation of masts.
Cllr John Blackie pointed out that masts were proposed for Keld, Muker and Arkengarthdale. He wanted to ensure that these were lattice masts so that those Dales’ communities would have 21st century communications.
Jim Munday, however, commented: “This is is almost in the centre of the National Park. It is totally unspoilt.” He pointed out that in other parts of the National Park there was talk about getting rid of pylons rather than installing new ones. Julie Martin agreed with him that the lattice mast would be considerably more intrusive than a monopole.
This time, when the majority of members voted in favour of a lattice mast contrary to the officer’s recommendation, Mr Graham told the committee that the decision would not need to be ratified at the next meeting.
Malham – September
“We are letting very good schemes go by the board simply because of dogmatic policies,” Cllr Towneley angrily told the committee.
The committee had just – by one vote – refused permission for Cawden Barn at Malham Raikes, Malham, to be converted into a local occupancy or holiday let.
The members were told that the applicants wanted to use it for agricultural accommodation from January to March each year as the family had 500 sheep at Malham which lambed in the open. It would then be used as holiday accommodation. The agent, John Steel, said that although the barn was outside the village boundary there were dwellings within 25 to 40 metres of it.
Kirkby Malham Parish Council supported the application “in principle” as it wanted the barn to provide “local occupancy” living accommodation. It added: “It should not be for the purposes of holiday letting and be restricted by a local occupancy condition.”
The planning officer reported that back in 2006 the historic barn had been in a ruined state. It was then heavily restored using non-traditional construction methods, including a distinctive arch, and enforcement action was pursued. The planning committee had approved a retrospective application in 2009 for the barn to be used for storage but not all the conditions have been complied with he added.
He said the latest application did not comply with the Authority’s Local Plan and would be a new dwelling in the open countryside. The barn, he said, was not a traditional building of heritage significance as it had been erected in 2009.
Cllr McPherson stated: “Unless we stick to our policies the whole thing becomes a lottery – there’s no certainty. This is contrary to local policy.”
Cllr Peacock, however, retorted: “If we cannot go against policies and put forward material considerations then it is just a waste of time for us sitting here. A planning committee is here to judge a planning application and we cannot sit here and say ‘this is against policy so we are not doing this’. We can say ‘Yes, we understand it is against policy’ …but we can put forward material considerations whether or not they are good enough. This is the reason we have a planning committee.”
Cllr Towneley agreed with her and added: “Policies are there but we are not here just to be ruled by policy.” She asked the members to consider the benefits to the community of having more young people living in the Dales and added: “Are we seriously saying that because of a dogmatic policy we are going to fail to allow this chance of use and to allow sustainability?”
Maulds Meaburn – November
Eight unauthorised changes to way Snow Drop Barn in Maulds Maeburn in Eden District was converted into a dwelling amounted to a shocking act of vandalism, the YDNPA’s member champion for cultural heritage, Mrs Martin, told the meeting.
She described the Maulds Maeburn as an outstanding village in landscape and historical environment terms. The barn, she said, was on its northern edge and played a key and very visible part in the setting of the village and the conservation area. She added that as it was so visible from both the northern and western approaches to the village the conversion had seriously damaged the historic assets of Maulds Maeburn.
Cllr Peacock commented: “It makes a mockery of the planning committee. We’ve got to make sure that everybody realises that this is wrong.”
Cllr Blackie agreed and stated: ‘The applicant has totally ignored our concerns. Frankly, what they’ve done is nothing short of criminal. It does seem a very, very dramatic breach of planning regulations.’
The committee unanimously agreed that a retrospective application for the change of use of land to form a garden, retention of excavation of land and the construction of retaining walls should be refused and that enforcement action should be taken.
Members particularly commented on the way the appearance of the barn had been changed by sandblasting the exterior and re-pointing with pink mortar.
The other unauthorised works were: a much larger curtilage to the side and rear of the building; significant excavation works to the rear of the building and hard surfacing of that area; construction of a large blockwork retaining wall; conversion of the detached outbuilding and installation of roof lights; reconfigured internal arrangement; different window and door arrangements; different and larger roof lights in different locations to those approved and a new opening in the gable.
A Maulds Meaburn resident, Judith Fraser, told the committee: “Every day we are going to be looking at an inappropriate development.”
Members were informed that the applicant had been told in May this year to stop the works on the site, and was warned on several occasions that any works carried out would be at their own risk. But the work had continued.
The enforcement notice will give the owner six months to secure the removal of the retaining walls and reinstatement of the land to the north and east of the building line, and the removal of all the timber sheds which have been installed on the site.
Permission was refused for the erection of a garage cum store, an incubator shed and four chicken huts.
Newbiggin-on-Lune – July
The committee refused to remove the local occupancy condition Hill Top Barn in Newbiggin-on-Lune even though they were told it was not fit for purpose and would not meet statutory legal tests.
The condition was imposed by Eden District Council in 1997 when it allowed what was known as The Stone Ban to be converted into a workshop and dwelling. Since the National Park was extended the YDNPA follows the Upper Eden Valley Neighbourhood Development Plan for that area.
Ravenstonedale Parish Council informed the Authority: “Current policy makes no provision for such a condition and it is noted that in recent months no less than three similar applications in the same locality of the extended National Park have had no such condition applied. It is considered that the re-application of this Local Occupancy condition is now unreasonable.”
The planning officer, however, maintained that retaining the local occupancy condition was consistent with national and local policies. “[It] forms part of the local planning authority’s strategy for tackling on-going challenges with regards to sustainability. To remove the condition would facilitate its sale as open market housing possibly as second home thereby hampering sustainability,” he stated.
Cllr Peacock said that the Authority was trying hard to extend the number of houses available to local people so as to make Dales’ communities more sustainable.
Cllr McPherson (a retired solicitor) commented that the original condition should have been more precise and accepted that the applicant’s agent, Kayleigh Lancaster, had made a very strong case for it to be removed.
Due to the bad sound system it was not clear what else he said – nor was it possible to hear what Ms Lancaster told the committee. She has kindly provided a copy of the statement she read at the meeting:
I am a chartered Town Planner, with both Local Authority and Private Sector experience. We were asked by the applicant to consider this condition, and advise on the wording and criteria of the condition. This is application is a re-submission of an earlier application which was also recommended for refusal by the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority earlier this year.
This application has been submitted on the basis that the occupancy condition is not fit for purpose and would not have met the statutory legal tests for a planning condition, nor would it today.
As you will be aware, the planning condition states that Hill Top Barn “shall only be occupied by a person or persons (including dependants, widow/widower) who in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority satisfy an identified local housing need”.
Whilst we do not question the aim of the 1996 Eden Local Plan at the time, we do question how this has been executed in the form of this poorly constructed condition. There is no definition of what is meant by ‘identified local housing need’, nor is there sufficient information provided to enable an occupier to establish whether they would comply with this condition.
As an example, I would draw your attention to the local occupancy conditions which are regularly used by this authority. Your approach is robust and clear for all to understand, both the criteria and the locality are clearly defined. In addition to this, the use of the phrase ‘in the opinion’ is not considered to be precise for the purposes of a planning condition.
In imposing this condition, Eden District Council have attached ‘Notes to the Applicant’ which refer to an affordable housing section of the Local Plan, despite the original application not being for affordable housing – we would therefore question its relevance but can only assume it was referred to in an attempt to provide some support for the condition – this has no legal standing.
We would question how reasonably the Authority could assess whether someone could comply with the condition. There is a significant amount of uncertainty created through its imposition and we would contend that it is unenforceable in its current form.
This point is further illustrated in a letter sent by EDC in 2002, in which they attempt to retrospectively clarify what was intended by this condition. I must stress that the contents of this letter and the note to applicant already referred to cannot legally be relied upon in the enforcement of a planning condition. The planning condition itself must be precise and enforceable, which in this particular case the condition is not.
Whilst we acknowledge the YDNP have been put in a difficult position in trying to defend a poorly worded condition which was imposed by another authority and we also acknowledge the importance of Local Occupancy Housing in the NP, the decision taken today must be based on an assessment of the legality of the existing condition and other such factors should not cloud your judgement.
In refusing this application the YDNPA must be entirely satisfied that the original condition, meets the statutory planning condition tests which are to be reasonable, relevant to the development, relevant to planning, precise, necessary and enforceable. As we have already stated, the condition is ambiguous and therefore cannot reasonably be considered to be precise or enforceable.
Finally, I would ask you, as Members of this Committee to consider whether you consider this condition to be fit for purpose and to consider whether you would be able to make a robust assessment of identified local housing need in the absence of a criteria and defined locality. If your answer to this is not a definitive yes, then the authority should grant approval for the removal of this condition.
Oughtershaw – March
How to define “a significant extension” and the difference between a holiday let and local occupancy when a farmer was trying to plan ahead for the day when his son would join the family enterprise became pivotal issues at the meeting.
Nigel Pearson had applied to convert a roadside barn at Oughtershaw to create a local occupancy dwelling or holiday let. The planning officer stated that Mr Pearson’s son might or might not become the local occupant in five years time and so the conversion had to be considered as a holiday let which did not require an extension.
Mr Pearson explained that it might take four years for the family to finance the conversion and that any use of it as a holiday let would only be until his son needed it.
He added:”The barn is on the small size and if you are a dual worker you need a place to take off your boots, shower and clean up. You also need space in the utility room for a large freezer and fridges for food and storage. In such an isolated place you can’t pop to the shops every day – you need ample supplies of food. An extension is needed so that we can accommodate this need.”
The planning officer, however, pointed out that the extension represented 47 per cent of the original floor space in the barn. North Yorkshire County councillor Robert Heseltine warned: “If we back this today it’s a coach and horses through a policy – a precedent that will come back to haunt us.”
“The size of the extension is the main issue,” he added.
Cllr Kirkbride, however, pointed out that there were numerous barns in the dales which had extensions and Buckden Parish councillor Cllr Clark, who lives at Oughtershaw, commented:
“What Oughtershaw needs is more vibrancy, more people and more families. Even though there is an extension I believe the barn will still maintain its agricultural integrity. I think we should go for it.”
Both Cllr Blackie and Cllr Peacock reminded the committee of the need to encourage young people and families to live in the dales.
“If we can encourage this young man [Mr Pearson’s son] to finish his schooling, to go to agricultural college and come back to work this land we should. Let’s face it, if we didn’t have the farmers working this land it would be an eyesore and tourists wouldn’t want to come,” Cllr Peacock said.
And Cllr Blackie added: “We need to put our money where our mouth is. If young people express a desire to continue in that industry they should be afforded that opportunity without having to push those who preceded them out of their homes.”
He said that although in the policies regarding barn conversions “significant” was not defined the proposed extension should be reduced in size.
The majority agreed and a decision was deferred to give Mr Pearson time to amend the plans.
Oughtershaw – April
A new bench mark could be set for the conversion of traditional roadside barns in the Yorkshire Dales if the plans for a small one at Oughtershaw are approved. This was the warning given by a planning officer at the meeting on April 10.
And when the majority of the committee voted in favour of Nigel Pearson’s application Mr Graham said that the decision would be referred back to next month’s meeting as there were some fundamental points on policy to be considered.
He explained that there should be strong material considerations for deviating from the Local Policy and if there weren’t a precedent would be created.
In his report a planning officer stated: “If approved, the proposal would set a new bench mark for barn conversions whereby all applicants would wish to have a kitchen off the main building with a fully glazed screen wall that represented a 33 per cent increase in floor space.”
At the meeting he said that the extension could be half the size of that proposed and warned: “Officers consider that to allow this proposal due to its size and function would result in a clear precedent that would seriously undermine the existing policy. It would be likely to generate numerous new applications.
“While officers would have to try and resist such proposals it would represent a green light for the addition of bright, modern fully glazed airy kitchen and dining rooms for all new barn conversions and applicants would ask to have these considered by the committee rather than by officers. Any such subsequent approvals would further erode the policy and efforts of officers to negotiate sensitive conversions schemes.
“The final and fundamental tenet of the planning system is that applicants should be able to expect consistency in decision making.”
Cllr Blackie expressed concern that the officer had over stepped the mark in his presentation – and for doing so Cllr Blackie was rebuked by both North Yorkshire County Councillor Robert Heseltine and the chairperson, Richmondshire District Councillor Caroline Thornton-Berry who stated after the vote : “I would ask members if they would respect officers who are doing their best – they have got very clear guidelines.”
Even so the majority accepted Cllr Blackie’s argument that the plans should be approved as it would provide accommodation for a rural worker in a very isolated area where additional storage and utility space was required especially in winter. He explained that Mr Pearson had reduced the size of the extension as suggested at the March meeting and no longer wished to use the converted barn as a holiday let until his son wanted to live there.
The planning officer stated: “While officers would have to try and resist such proposals it would represent a green light for the addition of bright, modern fully glazed airy kitchen and dining rooms for all new barn conversions and applicants would ask to have these considered by the committee rather than by officers. Any such subsequent approvals would further erode the policy and efforts of officers to negotiate sensitive conversions schemes.
“The final and fundamental tenet of the planning system is that applicants should be able to expect consistency in decision making.”
At the June meeting the majority of members confirmed the decision to approve this application – see “Debate about barn conversions” above.
Rylstone – July
The application for an extension to Fox House in Raikes Lane, Rylstone, was refused because the applicant had decided not to go ahead with an amendment agreed with the planning officers.
At the planning meeting in May members had deferred making a decision so that officers could discuss amending the plans. The original application was for an extension above the existing kitchen to form a bedroom which would result in a dual-pitched roof. The officers felt that a mono-pitched extension with roof lights would have less impact upon what they viewed as a building (a former Quaker meeting house) of significant historic interest.
The applicant, however, decided against amending design partly, the officer reported, because the sound of rain on the roof lights would disturb those sleeping in the bedroom. A different amendment was discussed but then the applicant decided to stay with the original plans for a pitched roof, the officer said.
Stalling Busk – July
Cllr Blackie wanted an enforcement notice on a holiday let to go to appeal to clarify whether or not Hilltop at Stalling Busk had been sub-divided into two dwellings.
An enforcement officer said that a two-bedroom attachment to Hilltop was being run and advertised as a fully self-contained holiday let with its own kitchen and bathroom. There were doors connecting it to the main property on the ground floor and upstairs but guests did not need to use these for access to the holiday let.
He argued that Hilltop had been subdivided to make two separate dwellings contrary to the Authority’s housing strategy.
The owners were, therefore, advised to either cease using it as a holiday let and make it part of the main building again; submit a planning application for a local occupancy dwelling for one of the dwellings; or operate a Bed and Breakfast business using two of the five bedrooms and remove the separate kitchen.
Cllr Blackie said: “There is absolutely no intention by these owners to want to create a separate dwelling. Our Local Plan is very strong on bringing visitors into the Dales to spend money in the local economy, to provide employment. My advice to [the owners] is that they should go to an enforcement appeal. I am going to ask the planning inspector what his opinion is… if it is, in planning terms, a sub division or whether it is an informal use of part of the property which is in no way self-contained because you can [get to] the property both upstairs and down.”
The majority of the committee agreed that an enforcement notice should be issued, with a six months compliance period of six months, for the cessation of the use of the building for residential purposes as a separate, self contained dwelling house for use as a holiday let.
Swaledale Telecommunication Masts – June
A 12.5m high lattice communications mast which could also provide mobile phone coverage in Upper Swaledale will be installed at Crow Tree Farm, Gunnerside, as part of the Home Office’s Emergency Services Mobile Communications Programme.
Muker Parish Council had strongly objected to the original application which was for a “telegraph pole” mast. It had stated: “The possible erection of this mast within an Upper Swaledale landscape is at best controversial. The erection of this mast without the potential facility for commercial network coverage for both residents of the parish and visitors alike is not acceptable to the Council.”
The planning officers, therefore, asked the Secretary of State if that application could be amended – and it was. The meeting was told that a monopole mast will, however, be erected at Crook Seal Barn on Birkdale Common 6Km west of Keld.
A planning officer explained: “There is no resident population included within its range. The light traffic on the road [B6270] and the small number of game keepers and seasonal shooters means it is highly unlikely there will be any commercial interest in providing a service to the public at this location. However, EE, the installing company for the Home Office, could switch on their apparatus system [for public use] but that would be their commercial decision.
“This is a completely different situation to that at Crow Tree Farm. The predicted coverage for that shows that there is a substantial resident and visitor population in Swaledale between Thwaite and Gunnerside. A lattice mast…would be capable of accommodating a number of commercial operators. That mast will be substantially bulkier than is needed at Crook Seal.”
Cllr Blackie stressed the need for 4G coverage in such remote areas (see below) and said it was likely that, once lattice masts were installed as at Crow Tree Farm, there would be campaigns to get mobile phone coverage in those deeply rural areas.
“This is an essential opportunity to bring communications up to the 21st century in the more remote areas,” he said.
Eden District councillor William Patterson told the meeting that there was a monopole mast on his farm erected by BT Cellnet and onto which Vodaphone had bolted its equipment to provide a public service. “Monopoles are far less obtrusive,” he said.
Jim Munday wasn’t so sure. He commented: “I am extremely uncomfortable with the alien poles on the landscape. It is wrong, it is out of place and it is horrible.” He emphasised the need to ensure that when the masts were no longer required that the owners of the equipment should remove them and reinstate the sites.
The planning officer had received the following advice from the Home Office via Entrust Services.
“A public user on an 800 MHz LTE capable device will be able to make a 999 call on the EAS (Emergency Alert System) network provided that the device is VoLTE capable. Users from other Operators with similarly capable devices will not be able to establish a connection.
A public user on a non 800Mhz LTE capable device will not be able to make a 999 call on the EAS network. As the only coverage available in the EAS areas will be 800 Mhz LTE, non 800Mhz capable devices, will not be able to establish a connection.”
There are 4G devices that do not support LTE 800Mhz and also 4G LTE 800Mhz devices that don’t support VoLTE.
Approval was given for a large slurry store to be installed behind trees above Heaning Hall at the east end of Thoralby. This will be nearly 41 metres in diameter and five metres in height with a capacity of 6,005 cubic metres. According to the YDNPA this will be the largest circular slurry store in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
Michael Lancaster told the committee that there had been detailed discussions with planning officers about where to locate it so that it would have minimal impact upon the landscape. He said its location will also mean that there will be a reduction in the movement of slurry wagons through Thoralby, will allow him to store slurry for six months, and enable him to increase efficiency and grass production on the farm.
It was a significant investment, he said, and was the next step in the improvements he had made since taking over the farm from his father 11 years ago.
Cllr Blackie commented: “If you want to see the Upper Dales continue in dairying you have got to recognise and give support to farmers.” He added that the site above Heaning Hall was much better than that originally proposed by Mr Lancaster. That had been at the west end of the village near the farm buildings but in a much more visible location. Mr Lancaster had withdrawn that application.
Threshfield – March
A new dormer extension on a house in Threshfield must be removed within three months the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority’s planning committee decided on March 13.
An enforcement officer reported that the dormer at High Winds, Threshfield, did not comply with the plans as approved by the committee in February last year. That approval had been subject to several conditions to ensure that the roof, walls and window materials matched those of the existing building.
The officer found that the dormer was larger than had been approved and that the roof pitch was much flatter. The window arrangement had also been altered. She described the dormer as now being a dominant and unsightly feature.
Cllr Heseltine asked if enforcement could be deferred to give time for the applicant, Andy Gould, to make a planning application for the dormer as it is now but this proposal was rejected by the other members.
In a letter to the committee the Gould family explained that they had sought not to spoil the appearance of the house any more than it had been due to other extensions being added prior to their acquiring it.
“We were determined to make sure the dormer was the best for the house and the best in the area. The dormer may have altered during build, but only due to circumstances whilst it was being built.”
One of those factors was that building regulations dictated that an emergency exit had to be incorporated into one of the windows. The inclusion of a suitable larger window then had an impact upon the slope of the roof, the family stated. They said they had chosen different but better materials to match the colour of the house. They added:
“The dormer is certainly not an unsightly feature. We don’t consider it to be visually prominent and don’t believe it is harming the character or appearance of this part of Threshfield.”
At the meeting Cllr Welch commented: “It is totally out of character. We are talking about setting an example.”
The committee gave authorisation for an enforcement notice to secure the removal of the unauthorised dormer extension and to reinstate the roof slope using tiles to match those on the existing roof. There is a compliance period of three months.
West Witton – May
The number of children at West Burton primary school might not have halved in six years if the housing development at West Witton had gone ahead earlier Cllr Blackie told the meeting.
He pointed out that the site had been listed as being available for affordable housing at the Local Plan inquiry in 2004.
“We’ve taken 14 years to get from a landowner wanting to contribute to the need for affordable housing to actually getting a scheme on the ground. Is there any wonder that young people are voting with their feet to leave the National Park?” he asked.
He told the meeting that the Authority had jibbed and jibbed about how many houses were needed on the site but recently had become more supportive. He added:“Houses on that site in West Witton are within the catchment area for West Burton primary school. The school has gone down in six years from 44 children on the roll to 22. It may not have been in this position if that scheme had come forward quicker – rather than having to go through the bureaucratic log jam that it has.”
Cllr Peacock said the Authority’s planning officers had worked with the developer and the district council to make sure that the right application was made.
A planning officer reported that there will be 17 houses of which six will remain “affordable” in perpetuity by always being sold at 70 per cent of their market value. Two others will be affordable rental properties retained by the developer, Swale Valley Construction, and managed in conjunction with Richmondshire District Council as long as the latter provides financial support.
“We do need affordable housing to rent but we do now know we need affordable housing to buy as well. A lot of work has gone into this – we have actually got a perfect site and the perfect application,” Cllr Peacock said.
Cllr Blackie explained that when the Authority had approved the application for a second housing development behind the Rose and Crown at Bainbridge it had set a precedent for discounted market properties for sale in perpetuity at 70 per cent.
“I think this is the way forward if you are going to be able to provide houses to purchase rather than to rent, although there is still a need for housing to rent as well,” he remarked.
Cllr McPherson noted that some residents in West Witton had objected to the application but that West Witton Parish Council had supported it.
The parish council had accepted there was a proven need for affordable housing but was concerned that there was no provision for single person accommodation and about the potential for the future development of the field. It has asked if a matrix sign could be sited at the bend in the A684 at the western entrance to the village just before the entrance to the development.