ARC News Service reports from the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority‘s (YDNPA )planning committee on May 20 2025 when the following were discussed: the erection of buildings as part of an arts and cultural centre at Thorns Farm near Countersett, Raydale; the refurbishment of a barn near Chapel le Dale by Natural England; an application for a new build to replace a barn in Dentdale; the provision of accommodation in a gallery at Sedbergh; and the conversion of a traditional barn into a dwelling at Gayle.
Countersett
A planning officer recommended approving a planning application for a development which will include two new buildings at Thorns Farm near Countersett, but the majority of the committee agreed with member Alan Kirkbride that there should be a site visit first.
He said: ‘It is a development in open countryside and we have got to be very, very careful if we approve this that we aren’t setting a precedent.’
The application by Jonathan Reed, who lives at Wood End near Countersett in Raydale, is for the conversion of two conjoined agricultural buildings to be used as a gallery studio for craft, art and cultural events, and the erection of two new buildings. One will be for a workshop, staff and guest accommodation, and the other for two more two-bedroom self-contained short stay visitor accommodation units. All the buildings will be around a courtyard. The application includes a car park with 14 spaces.
The planning officer, Katie Towner, told the committee that the work already carried out included the modification and conversion of the agricultural buildings, access works and hard-surfacing.
She told the committee that parts of the planned development were not in accordance with the Authority’s Local Plan but said the application needed to be considered as a whole as a provision of a new arts facility which would meet a number of the objectives in terms of national and local policy.
She said it would support the expansion of business in rural areas and enable the re-use of modern agricultural buildings. It would also provide a facility for artists to understand the special qualities of the national park and share that with others, she added.
In its objection the Friends of the Dales stated: ‘We are concerned to read that the proposed facility is described “potentially world class” in the officer’s report. This description is entirely subjective and, of course, irrelevant as not a planning consideration. We urge members not to be influenced by this description or the business interests of the applicant which are equally irrelevant to a planning decision.’ (See below for what another planning officer included in his report regarding Low Hall Farm Barn in Dentdale about granting permission for new build in the open countryside.)
Unlike other planning applications discussed that day there was no report from the Highways Authority concerning the access to Thorns Farm.
North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock told the committee that in the past farm traffic could easily be seen using the access. ‘There’s never been a problem and it is a narrow road,’ she said.
She continued: ‘I think this is a very exciting application. I was fortunate about a year ago that the applicant took me round [to see] what he had done at Wood End …and explained what he was hoping to do. Artists are going to come and paint and enjoy our lovely countryside.’ She was pleased that the agricultural buildings would be put to some other use than being converted to dwellings and praised the high quality of workmanship on the Wood End Estate.
Some others agreed with her. But Mr Kirkbride questioned giving approval as there wasn’t a farmyard or farmstead at the proposed development site.
A farmer in Raydale had told the Authority: ‘I object to most of the work that has been carried out and to all that is planned. The rear shed… has been raised in height and a large glass window installed. Is this going to be [a] rule changer? Can we all now have large vast windows?
‘As for having a court yard of buildings and houses – this is not in keeping with the local area. Housing for staff shouts “I’m not hiring local people”. They have already completed the gallery and have art in it.’
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster commented: ‘If someone decided they were going to site a slaughter house would members be so keen. We are opening up a site with some living accommodation and it is in open countryside.’
He wondered if they would be giving permission without good reason for buildings that weren’t for farm use. ‘I know it’s being well screened but we are fighting farmers who want to put up buildings in the countryside. I am just worried that we have little bit of double standards here because it sounds a twee project that we want to get on board with. I’d like to know what conditions we can put on to make sure it’s going to deliver what it’s supposed to deliver or what we think it’s going to deliver.’
The head of development management, Richard Graham, replied that this was a fairly unique proposal. ‘What happens if it doesn’t take off? As far as accommodation is concerned I think if we were giving permission for something that was akin to a house then we would be far more sceptical about it. The accommodation proposed here is not for permanent occupation. I think it’s unlikely … a planning application will come to us [for a] permanently occupied dwelling because it is a complex of units.’ He added that the Authority would have control as any future change of use would require a planning application.
He continued: ‘We treated the application very much as a business proposition rather than anything else. It’s part and parcel of a much larger estate wherein a lot of work has been done to improve the landscaping and to improve the use and management of the land in so far as how it’s affects Semerwater, which is a triple SSSI. The proposal has been looked at in terms of it being a business that would support those other good things that have been done on [Wood End] estate.’
North Yorkshire councillor Steve Shaw-Wright questioned if the application would be recommended for approval if it was just for holiday lets. ‘I’m not against arts – I’m not against barn conversions – but this seems too nice.’
Member Mark Corner commented: ‘I think it is potentially an exciting development but it has the danger of setting a precedent for other developments in the open countryside.’
And North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine added: ‘We must remember that this application would commercialise something in the open countryside. I can’t think of a more idyllic piece of landscape – right on the side of Semerwater. I would have refused it today but go and have a look.’
………..
National Planning Policy Framework regarding new build in the open countryside:
‘Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:
a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;
b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;
c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;
d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential building; or
e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:
i. is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and
ii. would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.’
Chapel le Dale
The committee unanimously approved the amended application by Natural England to refurbish Colt Park Barn at Chapel le Dale following a report by the planning officer, Katherine Wood.
She said: ‘At the April meeting members resolved to refuse this application… on two grounds. The first was the loss of the wild flower meadow due to the realignment of the track and the second was the impact upon wild life particularly bats and the barn owl roosts… in the traditional barn.
‘The application was deferred from that meeting to bring this report back to committee to advise members on the validity and soundness of the reasons they put forward before a final decision was made.’
She said that since the April meeting Natural England had removed the proposed change to the existing track. ‘It is therefore considered that this reason for refusal is no longer relevant.’
She stated that bat roosts within the barn would be lost when it was re-roofed and roof lights were installed. She added: ‘The advice from the Authority’s wildlife team has [consistently] been that this would not affect the local conservation status of the two species recorded and that’s due to the small number of bats involved.’
She said there was evidence that the barn owl nesting box had not been used for a while. She concluded: ‘It is considered that providing there is adequate mitigation for the loss of bat roosts and opportunities for nesting birds, including barn owls, the development proposed should not adversely affect the local conservation status of bats and owls (and other nesting birds).’
Alan Kirkbride said he had voted against approval at the April meeting but was now satisfied with the amendments, especially as there would no longer be a track through a wild meadow field and there would be sufficient provision for barn owls and bats.
North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton highlighted the objections of Ingleton Parish Council concerning the access of the track from the barn onto the Horton in Ribblesdale road. He said that, although the Highways Authority had not objected, it was the most dangerous access onto that part of the main road.
Dentdale
An unusual barn built during World War II has become a key part of the heritage of Dentdale the committee was told.
A young local couple had applied to demolish it and build a three-bedroom dwelling that looked like it so that it could become their home. But the planning officer, David Jones, recommended refusal.
The couple’s agent, Ali Mudd, told the committee that Dent with Cowgill Parish Council supported the application. She said: ‘Local people value this landmark and its contribution to the history of the dale. The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has chosen not to value this history, and as the barn is not of stone construction, to consider it as a negative impact.’
The committee, however, agreed with the planning officer and refused the application. Cllr Heseltine commented: ‘I find the design to be inappropriate anywhere in Dentdale and the national park.’
Mr Jones stated: The building [at present] comprises a central part that is the equivalent to two storeys in height, and its upper storey walls and roof are constructed with metal sheets, that have a varied rusted patina. There are two single-storey elements to the building, to the rear and to the east side. Other than the metal sheeting, the building is constructed of a variety of materials, including brick, blockwork, render, and non-metal sheeting.
‘The position, footprint, height and form of the proposed dwelling would mimic that of the existing agricultural building, including having a central two-storey element with single-storey rear and side elements. The proposed external materials are lower storey walls of local stone, while the upper storey walls and the roofs would be profile metal sheeting in “Van Dyke” brown.’
He added that the applicants had not shown there was a need for new housing for rural workers outside of a settlement.
The committee chairman, Westmorland and Furnish councillor Ian Mitchell, said: ‘From my personal view as a resident of Dentdale it’s always been there. People know that landmark. It’s pictured a lot. It’s not a very attractive building but people do know where it is. You have also got to take into account what the parish council has said. That’s not just one voice. There’s the voices of a number who are also saying this is an important local landmark. So, in my opinion it is, but I don’t know how you justify it.’
Mr Graham commented: ‘This maybe a local landmark because it’s a prominent building in the landscape. It’s also a building that will have a finite life. If it’s not being used for agricultural purpose it’s very difficult to find a new purpose for that building that would be viable for it. ‘
‘Crucially this application doesn’t achieve that. It demolishes the building and replaces it with something that is a pastiche of the building that is there at the moment. It’s not actually preserving [it].’
Sedbergh
Approval was given for the basement and ground floor at the west side of Main Street Gallery in Sedbergh to be used as a local occupancy dwelling.
The planning officer, Nicola Dinsdale, explained that a large proportion of the retail units would be retained. She said the retail units had been marketed by two separate estate agents over a two-year period but there had been no offers to buy and there had been only limited interest in renting them.
She added that as there would continue to be a retail unit over two floors the provision of a one-bedroom local occupancy dwelling would not harm to the economic vitality of Sedbergh.
In its objection to the application Sedbergh Parish Council stated: ‘Whilst members empathise with the current owner and acknowledge that the retail unit has been for sale for some time, they believe that a change of use would potentially leave the remaining retail space no longer viable for the future.’
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster commented: ‘I understand the parish council not wanting to lose retail space in the middle of the town, but I think it’s a minor change in use and, in actual fact, a smaller retail space may be more lettable.’
Gayle
Approval was given for a large traditional barn with two lean-tos at West Shaw Farm on Beggarman’s Road, Gayle, to be converted into a dwelling even though both the Highways Authority and Hawes and High Abbotside Parish Council were concerned about the safety of the access onto the main road.
The agent for West Shaw Farm, Jo Steele, told the committee: ‘I have driven this road on many occasions. My speed [at the farm] has been around 19 mph. Why? Because the road’s alignment between these buildings [means] that speeds approaching 60 miles per hour are unachievable.’
The Highway Authority had recommended refusal because the speed limit on Beggarman’s Road is 60mph and the visibility splays from the proposed access could not be achieved.
The planning officer, Nicola Dinsdale, stated: ‘The road narrows as it passes between the buildings of West Shaw Farm and is estimated to have an approximate width of 4.5 metres at this point. Although it is likely that vehicles will need to edge out gradually to obtain visibility, due to the narrow and winding nature of the road and the close proximity of the buildings, the speed of approaching vehicles will typically be well below the national speed limit.’
Several members agreed with her but North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine asked why there weren’t ‘Slow’ signs painted on the road at either end of the farm buildings if that section of highway was considered to be so dangerous. Another member questioned how it could be proved what speed cars were driven at past those buildings if there hadn’t been a speed survey.
Mr Graham, replied: ‘In the majority of cases we obviously follow the recommendation of the Highways Authority unless there is a very good reason not to do that. In some cases though the Highway Authority, as in this one, has applied standards that match the speed limit on the road and don’t necessary take account of the context. In those situations we usually ask the applicants to produce a speed survey to prove that lesser standards can be applied. But not all applicants are willing to do that and so in those cases we have to apply our own common sense and experience to come to a judgement as to whether the access is safe or not.’
He added that no two sites were exactly the same and for that reason they brought such applications to the committee for a decision. He also noted that the access already existed as it had provided access for farm vehicles to a yard and a sheep fold.
Member Mark Corner asked if the Authority was close enough to introducing its new Local Plan to be able to insist upon the barn being used just for local occupancy. ‘I am disappointed that this … could end up as a holiday let rather than a permanent residence for local occupancy.’ He also argued that those living there permanently would be more aware of the difficult access as compared to those on holiday.
Mr Graham said that no weight could be given to the proposal to remove holiday lets from the new Local Plan as there had been objections to it.
The committee was told that a bat survey had shown that there was a common pipistrelle day roost in the barn but was unlikely to support a maternity roost. The mitigation and compensation measures expected included new roost creation and the introduction of bird and bat boxes.