ARC News Service reports from the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority‘s (YDNPA) planning meeting on September 10 2024, when the following were discussed: an application for an agricultural building at Kettlewell; car park barrier at Hartlington (near Burnsall); a telecommunications mast at Cam Houses, Oughtershaw; and the conversion of a garage into an office at Hawes.
Kettlewell –
After over four years of discussions and applications Nigel Lambert of Fold Farm Shorthorns at Kettlewell has finally been given planning permission for an essential barn for a farming enterprise focussed on environmental land management and preservation of native breeds. (Above: the application site near the sewage treatment works)
At the North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine said: ‘The farmer needs this building – it is a necessity.’
A planning officer had, however, recommended refusal stating: ‘It is recognised that there are difficulties faced by the applicant with regards the storage of agricultural equipment and feed but it is considered that the scale, form and location of the proposed development would have a truly significantly harmful impact on the landscape of this part of the National Park.’
Member and Askrigg Parish councillor Allen Kirkbride pointed out that the Authority’s senior farm conservation officer supported the application not just because there was a genuine need. That officer had stated: ‘It is understood that the planning officer has objections to the siting of the building, however, given the fact that the intended location is adjacent to the sewage works and other man-made structures, it seems logical that this should be the preferred option rather than siting it away from the farm and village which would cause additional farm traffic travelling to and from the site.’
Both Cllr Kirkbride and North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock (Cons, Upper Dales) said that the proposed site would be well hidden. This was due to the mature trees by the sewage works and as more trees will be planted.
Lizzie Bushby (deputy chair of the Authority), however, said the barn would be seen from some views across Wharfedale and Derek Twine (chair of the Authority) asked for further conditions to ensure it didn’t have a negative impact upon the landscape.
Cllr Kirkbride warned that if they put too many conditions on such a small farm it could fail. As the majority of members accepted the site location the head of development management, Richard Graham, said the planning department could work with the applicant and his agent, Gemma Kennedy, on the conditions regarding the materials to be used and tree planting.
Ms Kennedy told the committee the applicant had been seeking approval for a new agricultural building since March 2020. As a planning officer was concerned about the visual impact that application had been withdrawn. In 2022 Mr Lambert applied to convert and extend an existing roadside building beside Conistone Road with part of it being set aside for use by Duke of Edinburgh campers. That was also withdrawn due to concerns raised by a planning officer.
He then submitted a pre-application inquiry which led to planning officers suggesting a site very close to that which has now been approved. But Mr Lambert was concerned that site was over a water main.
In June 2023 approval was given for him to convert the roadside building to provide facilities for the DofE campsite.
Ms Kennedy said that in the past three years she has considered all possible locations for an agricultural building with Mr Lambert and a planning officer to try and find a location that would have the least visible impact yet allow the farm to be run efficiently and sustainably.
She explained: ‘All other locations on the holding that have been considered and dismissed would have a far greater visual impact than the application site, not to mention constraints including narrow accesses, sloping sites and historic field lynchets, making them unsuitable to pursue. (Below: the view from the field with lynchets suggested as possible site for the barn by a planning officer.)
‘The applicant’s farming system – keeping native breed cattle on Biodiversity Action Plan hay meadows, epitomises what the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority heralds as its vision. Denying the necessary facilities to operate would be counter intuitive.’
The present application was for a smaller building than that suggested in 2022 with a five metre clearance from the water main. ‘We acknowledge that the building will be subject to public views, but so too are the majority of agricultural buildings in the National Park,’ Ms Kennedy said.
Cllr Peacock commented: ‘Wherever you put a building in the National Park it will be seen by somebody, somewhere.’
Hartlington –
Edwin Williams of Burnsall Parish Meeting pleaded with members of the planning committee not to start enforcement action against the owner of the private seasonal car park near Burnsall.
A planning officer stated that the installation of a stone entrance ‘island’ and metal boxes for the barrier at White House Farm car park at Lower Hartlington were not in accordance with the planning approval made by the planning committee in May 2021.
The approved scheme called for two simple cabinets to be clad in a timber housing and for the car park entrance to be screened with trees. A hedge has been planted instead and the planning officer said: ‘The development, as built, is a highly over-engineered approach to the issue of streamlining access and payment for the car park.
‘The landscape is a highly pastoral one providing an iconic setting to Burnsall. The application site is highly visible from the village, the historic bridge and from one of the key entry points to the village. The area around Burnsall has great scenic value which is appreciated by thousands of visitors every year.’
She, therefore, recommended refusal of the retrospective planning application to vary the conditions of original approval and for enforcement action to bring the development in line with that.
Mr Williams told the committee: ‘When the application was passed in 2021 we were so grateful because the traffic in Burnsall had been horrendous since Covid. On one day the village was blocked for four hours – you couldn’t get a vehicle in or out.’
The barrier system at the car park, he explained, had stopped cars being backed up across the bridge and into the village. ‘So please do not remove these barriers. I plead – I beg – I go on my knees – please do not.’
He said that the appearance of the barriers was minimal – and North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine agreed with him.
Cllr Heseltine described the car park entrance and barriers as a very discreet solution, visible for only a short distance, which had solved the vehicular access problems in Burnsall. ‘We should welcome and congratulate this farming family for commitment over many decades to actually supporting our [the Authority’s] statutory duty.’ (To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park.)
North Yorkshire councillor Andrew Murday (Lib Dem) said: ‘I find it very difficult to understand why we would refuse this when it would make things so much worse.’
Two committee members, however, believed it was wrong to approve a retrospective planning application when the applicant had ignored what the committee had previously approved.
The majority of the committee did approve the latest application with the condition that the present metal boxes were covered in timber cladding and that some trees were planted to screen the entrance. ARC News Service.
Cam Houses, Oughtershaw –
The committee agreed with a planning officer that the impact upon the landscape around Cam Houses at Oughtershaw of a 20m lattice telecommunications mast with three radio antennas and three 600mm dishes would be too significant.
Twine said this was a situation where the first purpose of the National Park to protect and conserve the landscape came into play. ‘There is not much more iconic than this remote area,’ he added. It was also described by members as an important open area with spectacular scenery.
The planning officer said the mast would breach the skyline in what was a highly sensitive, exposed and relatively wild landscape seen from Ribblesdale. He explained: ‘The proposed development would prejudice the public’s enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by introducing a prominent and incongruous structure that would result in significant harm within an iconic landscape of outstanding natural beauty that is currently enjoyed by numerous visitors.’
The installation of the mast above Cam Houses would include fencing, two telecom cabinets, and hard standing, plus the possibility of an unmetalled grass 250m long track from the Pennine Way.
It was reported that the applicant, Cornerstone, considered the mast to be critical to provide a line of sight to others such as those at Buckden and Coverdale.
When asked if there was an alternative solution the planning officer replied that it had been suggested the fibre optic network in the area could be connected to the mast at Hubberholme. He added: ‘ The coverage on the tops of the hills won’t be as good without this proposal but, certainly in the habitable areas of the valley, there appears to be this alternative proposal.’
Buckden Parish Council had told the committee: ‘The application has significant implications for mobile network provision in Buckden Parish. We are … supportive of improved 4G coverage in remote rural areas.’ It added that communities without mobile coverage were becoming increasingly disadvantaged and the provision of 4G coverage was a pre-requisite of the YDNPA vision of ‘strong self-reliant communities’.
In addition, it said, the funding available under the government’s Shared Rural Network was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide remote communities with a service that has been available to much of the country for more than a decade.
It stated that the mast at Raikes Wood, Buckden, would not provide effective coverage in the Oughtershaw area and one at Cam Houses would benefit residents as well as walkers using the Dalesway and Pennine Way. The parish council was particularly opposed to increasing the height of the mast at Raikes Wood to compensate for not having one at Cam Houses.
The planning officer said the objections included impact upon landscape, impact upon the ecology, and some strong concerns relating to the health and safety of such masts, and how those affected human health and wildlife, in particular insects.
The committee was clapped by members of the group: Dales Commoners – Keeping the Dales Natural, wild and free of 5G.
Hawes –
The demolition of a garage and the construction of a two-storey office building beside Bear Interiors at Hawes was approved even though the parish council was very concerned about the impact upon parking and access to a residential area.
Member Allen Kirkbride said the single storey garage would best be replaced with a single-storey building. North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock questioned if another office building was needed in Hawes and she told the meeting:
‘This is a very busy part of Hawes. I can see this [creating] great difficulties for all the residents who park there. We are putting a work place right in the middle of a residential area.’ Like Hawes and High Abbotside Parish Council she was concerned that having an office there would make parking in the town even worse.
The members who attended a site meeting heard residents’ concerns that the private roads on either side of the garage might be blocked when the office was being built, including the only access to Wards store which deals with delivering gas bottles.
At the committee meeting member Lizzie Bushby asked if a parking strategy could be drawn up but Richard Graham, head of development management, responded that was not practical when no parking space was allocated to the garage. The planning officer reported that the owner of the garage did not own the small piece of land in front of it.
She stated: ‘There is no parking on site, so the offices could only be accessed by foot. However, the site is close to many public parking spaces. The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposed development. Questions regarding access over private land are matters for the individuals concerned and not material planning considerations.’
She did not believe the new building would overlook or overshadow neighbouring properties or cause any loss of privacy. Permitted development rights would be removed so that planning approval would have to be obtained for any change of use.
She said that replacing the old garage with an office block built with traditional materials in keeping with conventional architecture would ‘represent a minor enhancement of the street scene’.