ARC News Service reports following the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority‘s (YDNPA) planning committee on 15 April 2025 when the following applications were discussed: Natural England wishing to refurbish Colt Park Barn, Chapel le Dale near Ingleton; housing development at The Boars Head at Long Preston; a barn conversion at Threshfield; and outline permission for a new house at Embsay.
Chapel le Dale
The majority of the committee voted against allowing Natural England to refurbish and develop its National Nature Reserve Base near Ingleton and Horton in Ribblesdale even though the planning officer had recommended approval. Several members were very critical of how Natural England had developed its use of Colt Park Barn ‘out of sight and out of mind’ since 1990 without planning permission.
As the chairman, Westmorland and Furness councillor Ian Mitchell, voted against refusal he believed the decision would be referred back to the next meeting (May 20).
Lizzie Bushby (deputy chair of the Authority) argued that the Authority should support such a nature recovery project. She added: ‘I think it’s really good to see a traditional barn with a use that’s not residential.’
And the chairman of the Authority Derek Twine said that after 30 years of its operation there it was not surprising that Natural England wanted to improve and enhance the facilities at the barn.
North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine, however, noted that the first time Natural England approached the Authority to operate the base legally was in 2023 when it applied for a lawful development certificate for its existing use for the management of the Ingleborough National Nature Reserve and Wild Ingleborough project, storage of all-terrain vehicles, agricultural equipment and materials, an office, workshop, laboratory and meeting point for educational visits by the public.
Cllr Heseltine stated that the members of the planning committee were not informed about that application in 2023 when permission was granted by officers.
He commented: ‘It’s a national body that has been operating out of sight and out of mind and then, when they have got sufficient years under the belt they come forward, not needing planning permission, [and apply] for a lawful development certificate. To my mind and to all other applicants particularly on the agricultural side that stinks – really stinks.’
He understood that the Authority wanted to support an environmental agency but he wasn’t going to turn a blind eye to the use of the barn for so many years without planning permission nor the problem of access.
He said: ‘The access is the most exceptionally sub-standard access that I have ever been asked to make an opinion on. But highway officers back in those days said it was alright. I wasn’t asked. Members weren’t asked. Now they say – no intensification so it’s still alright. Two wrongs didn’t make a right. It’s an atrocious access.’
Both Ingleton and Horton in Ribblesdale Parish Councils had strongly objected. The former had stated that the road junction on Gauber Road (B6479) with the access track to Salt Lake Cottages and Colt Park Barn was dangerous as it was on a blind summit on one side and a blind bend on the other. There had been a collision there in the last five years.
Construction traffic including long vehicles would increase the danger, it said, and would also have to cross the weak bridge over the railway line
Ingleton Parish Council was concerned that the access problems for those living in Salt Lake Cottages could become acute during the construction phase especially as there were water pipes and other services under the track. It stated that there wasn’t a plan to repair potential damage to the track.
Almost all those living along the track had objected to the application especially as they are responsible for repairing it. One said: ‘A short site meeting with both Natural England and a planning officer would be most welcome and a recognition of our responsibilities for the track by considering us “consultees” would be viewed likewise.’
Another said that the amendments to the application did absolutely nothing to address the safety of those using the track. ‘The abundance of passing places which are proposed still do nothing other than ruin the track and pasture. There remains no means of vehicles being able to pass each other in front of [Salt Lake Cottages].’ They added that there was no evidence to support the need for such an elaborate scheme and huge investment all with taxpayers’ money.
The planning officer said the work on the barn would not lead to any intensification of use and added: ‘It is considered that the construction phase can be adequately managed through securing a construction management plan which can involve liaison with the parish councils, local residents and the highway authority.’
Other members were concerned about the impact upon the landscape and wildlife in the area. Libby Bateman said: ‘The [officer’s] report says we are going to disrupt the barn owls. This is Natural England. This is an organisation whose task is looking after nature in the country, and yet it seems okay for them to disrupt the roosts and to disrupt the owls. That really grates on me. I know a lot of people who aren’t Natural England, who don’t have the money or the power, or even the political power they have, who are not allowed to do stuff like this.’
She commented that if a large company had wanted to put in meeting rooms and laboratories in that barn the committee would have said it was an intensification of use. But Natural England already had a certificate of lawful use because it had carried on with such a use under the radar for many, many years, she said.
The planning application included the creation of a new track around Colt Park Farm, the erection of a poly tunnel and an array of solar panels in a wild flower meadow. The committee was told that precautions will be taken to protect four mature trees along the route of the new track but was warned the longevity of the trees might be affected. This also concerned some members.
North Yorkshire Councillor David Ireton said: ‘I have been against many a barn conversion to residential use because [applicants] wanted a new track. And this is the same principle in my view.’
Another county councillor, Yvonne Peacock, agreed with him. ‘We have got to start thinking about being consistent and being fair to all.’
The planning officer responded that there was an established, existing use of the track to the barn and only a small section would be realigned to avoid going through the yard of the farm. She believed that although there would be some minor impacts on grassland and the landscape the realignment of the track would be a positive thing to do. She had reported that the new track avoided all limestone outcrops and so would not affect the limestone pavement feature of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Mark Corner and Mr Twine were among the members who supported the application. Mr Twine agreed with Mr Corner who commented: ‘If we open a new track and reinstate the old one the position is the same amount of grassland. I think we are getting a bit over excited about the impact.’
The planning officer said a relatively small amount of neutral hay meadow, which had not been identified in the SAC citation, would be permanently lost due to the proposed polytunnel and solar panel array.
It is proposed to use the poly tunnel as a nursery for trees to be planted elsewhere on the Reserve so as to improve the sustainability of the nature reserve.
The Wildlife Conservation Officer did not support any trees being planted on the upland hay meadow east of the barn. They asked for a review of the long term plans for the nursery, and whether Natural England expected to retain the area as good condition hay meadow.
The officer reported that there was evidence of barn owl roosting but not breeding in the barn, and that the roosts of a small number of two species of bats would be lost but that could be mitigated and not affect the local conservation status of Daubenton’s bats or Common Pipistrelle.
The committee was informed that an European Protected Species Mitigation license would have to be obtained from Natural England for destroying any bat roosts. Two of the tests for that license are that the development has to be for overriding public interest including those of social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and there was no satisfactory alternative to achieve the same overriding public interest and benefit.
The planning officer stated: ‘It is considered that the refurbishment of the barn would improve the facilities for the Reserve base and would ensure the long term use of the barn. Therefore there are significant public benefits to the proposed works to the building.
‘It is unlikely that the barn would function adequately in its current use or that there are long term alternative viable uses of the building which would have less impact on roosting bats.’
In their objection one of those living along the track to the barn commented that building and site constraints made the barn virtually inaccessible for those with poor mobility. ‘It is difficult to see how this development sits with Natural England’s aims for wider public involvement in conservation issues,’ they said. Some suggested another location should be found.
The application is for: refurbishment of the existing traditional west stone barn with additional windows (including aluminium framed glazed rooflights along most of the west elevation of the roof) and the replacement of existing doors and roof replacement as well as improvements and reconfiguration of internal space; external recladding of the modern (east) barn, replacement of door openings and installation of internal mezzanine; installation of ground mounted photovoltaic panels with an associated battery storage structure; erection of a poly tunnel; realignment of the access track; and installation of service and associated works.
Long Preston
The committee did approve the application to convert the former Boars Head public house at Long Preston into three dwellings and to erect two new houses in the car park but only after some members had questioned how the BNG – bio-diversity net gain – could be monitored for 30 years.
It is now mandatory that most new housing sites must deliver a BNG of 10 per cent so that there will be a more or better quality natural habitat than before the development. The habitats created or enhanced on-site or off-site must be maintained for a minimum of 30 years (www.gov.uk – biodiversity and ecosystems).
North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton asked: ‘Who is responsible to make sure that that net gain is actually being done over the 30 year period? And who pays for that? How’s it going to be managed?’
The planning officer responded: ‘It’s been quite a new process and quite a learning process for us. We will have [legal] agreements for the BNG provision, off-site or on-site.’ She explained that the developer will have to provide a management plan covering the 30 year period and the Authority would not issue the legal agreement until it was satisfied with it. It would be for the Authority to monitor that.
North Yorkshire councillor Andrew Murday said: ‘The issue of bio diversity net gain is extremely difficult and I think we need a reasoned debate as to how we are going to monitor it. In 30 years time who is going to actually even know to ask whether that’s been [done].’
An officer explained: ‘It is something we are giving serious consideration to.’ She said the enforcement team would monitor this but they were awaiting the advice of an ecologist. Cllr Heseltine said this was a new situation nationally and was going to cost a fortune to monitor and enforce.
Long Preston Parish Council had informed the committee that it, and many local residents, had several concerns with the development, including the amenity of neighbours. It asked if the landscaping on site could include additional screening between the development and neighbouring households.
Matthew Stroh told the committee that the over-riding concern seemed to be to shoe-horn as many dwellings into a small space and that had not encouraged quality, innovation and how the new houses would fit into a dales village. He added: ‘It’s unfortunate that the [Authority’s] design guide has not been referred to more frequently which is taken to be a material consideration when evaluating a planning application and there is very little focus on the economic and the social and even the environmental sustainability aspects of this project.’
He, like the parish council, queried how the public house business had been evaluated, or how the new development would add to the services available in the village.
A decision about the application was deferred at the February meeting so that a site meeting could be held. At the April meeting Libby Bateman commented: ‘What I did see [on site visit] was an incredibly sorry old building. Not a lot of investment has gone into it.’
Cllr Peacock said: ‘It is very sad when you see any pub closing but at the site visit there was no question … it is in a bad state. To run it as a pub again would be extremely difficult, but it’s still very sad.’
The planning officer had informed the committee that evidence had been provided that demonstrated that the business was not commercially viable and no alternative use or operator was available.
Like others Cllr Peacock was very concerned that it had taken so long for the highways authority to answer questions about the access and the future private road status of that proposed for the site. The planning officer said that the highways authority had stated there was sufficient visibility display at the access which already existed for the pub and accommodation for the manager and guests.
North Yorkshire councillor David Noland said he couldn’t vote for approval without seeing a detailed highways report. He also felt that the two additional houses were being shoe-horned into the space and commented that in general the design of the development was pretty poor. He added that, even with the local occupancy restriction, the prices would not be for an ordinary person living in the dales.
The parish council was also very disappointed that there wouldn’t even be one affordably priced property. The planning officer reported that there was no affordable housing requirement on sites of up to five dwellings. The original application had been for six dwellings and this would have required a commuted sum payment in lieu of affordable housing. The number of houses on the site had been reduced from three to two to ensure, she said, that the historic 19th century pub retained its dominance and to protect the amenity of neighbours.
She added: ‘Without a viable commercial operation, traditional buildings such as the Boars Head can suffer from neglect and can eventually be lost. This building forms an important part of the character of the Long Preston Conservation Area and allowing for its conversion to residential use will ensure its preservation in perpetuity.’
Some members asked why renewable energy sources such as solar panels and air-source heat pumps had not been included, plus more EV charging points. The planning officer said that solar panels would have to be evaluated in the context of being within a conservation area.
Threshfield
All but one of the members voted to approve the application to convert and extend a small traditional barn to create a one bedroom holiday let or local occupancy dwelling at Old Hall Farm in Threshfield.
The planning officer had recommended refusal because, she said, the conversion works and proposed extension would individually and cumulatively have a significant adverse impact on the character and significance of the traditional building. She believed that the alterations were not necessary to bring the barn back into viable new use nor would there be any clear public benefits associated with ‘the particularly harmful interventions’.
The applicant Tom Harrison told the committee he ran an environmentally friendly farm which was one of the few in the dales still making small bale hay on wild flower meadows. ‘Although I am a traditionalist … small farms like ours have to change to survive.’
He described the difficult economic times being faced by such farms and why he wanted to use the small barn as a holiday let. ‘Without the planned extension the project would be economically unviable. In this day and age guests expect minimum requirements that must be met for them to feel comfortable. The extension I have proposed has been kept to the minimum, placed on the site of a previous extension.’ The new extension, he said, would be smaller than the original.
He added: ‘This small one-bedroom conversion is the future of farming business and, therefore, we have voluntarily proposed a [legal] agreement to tie the building to the farm.’
The committee was told by David Duthie, clerk to Threshfield Parish Council, that the parish council had enthusiastically supported this application. Its reasons included that conversion and extension would have no detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area nor the residential amenities of other residents. And the addition of a holiday let would help to support the pubs, cafes and shops in the area. Mr Duthie said the parish council also wanted to see such old buildings preserved and this one was in need of care and attention.
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster supported both the application and said: ‘The Harrison family are the conservationists in the local area but they need help.’
Cllr Peacock said the beauty of the national park depended upon the farmers but they still had to make a living. She noted that Mr Harrison had a son who wanted to come back to the business after studying at agricultural college. She agreed with the parish council that the proposal would improve the building and also provide more income for the farm.
Embsay
The chair of Embsay and Eastby Parish Council, Cllr Judith Benjamin, was assured that North Yorkshire councillors would help with any request it made for more road signage on an estate in Embsay.
The committee did approve an application for outline permission to build a new house on Rockville Drive. It was asked by Cllr Benjamin that, if it did so, it would it make a requirement that there should be signage and even white lines at the junction of Hill Top Close and Rockville Drive.
The parish council had explained that the new build would be close to a four-way junction where there were already concerns about road safety. The planning officer, however, informed the committee that the Authority could not include a condition for an off-site feature. It would pass on the request to the highways authority. County councillors David Noland and Richard Foster said they would support any request to the highways authority by the parish council
The parish council also had concerns about the impact upon neighbouring properties. The planning officer, however, stated that the new house could be accommodated on the site without resulting in an adverse impact upon neighbours. She added: ‘Careful consideration would need to be given to the scale of the property and the siting of the openings… to ensure the amenity of the surrounding occupiers is protected.’