An ARC News Service report on the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority‘s planning committee on October 14 2025 when the following were on the agenda: a barn conversion at Cowgill, Dent; the conversion of a small workshop at Gunnerside; and the partial rebuild of a barn at Great Asby.
Dent
In all the years I’ve been reporting on YDNPA planning committee meetings I have never before heard it said that a decision had to be deferred because of the officer’s report being inaccurate.
At the October meeting the head of development management, Richard Graham, told the committee concerning an application to convert Birchentree Barn at Cowgill, Dent, for residential use: ‘Unfortunately, the report was written on a misunderstanding that the proposal was the same as the previous application in so far as it included a holiday let element. That means that there are a number of factual inaccuracies at different points in the report including the second reason for refusal. So whilst I can apologise for that mistake, the key point is that the report is factually incorrect and it is recommended that the application is deferred to the next meeting so that we can bring an accurate report and a correctly justified recommendation.’
Gunnerside
The conversion of the Old Stable Coach House at Gunnerside into a one-bedroom dwelling was opposed by the majority of the members because of lack of parking, the impact upon the amenity of neighbours and the very limited space even for one person.
Cllr Yvonne Peacock (North Yorks Council – NYC) said: ‘I’ve had meetings with Melbecks Parish Council – they have such problems with parking because it is a tourist area for walkers. So I wasn’t surprised when I read what the highways had said because they have the experience of trying to find ways of preventing people parking in such a way that blocks the road which then, of course, ends up in preventing even the school bus getting to school.’
Cllr Robert Heseltine (NYC) commented: ‘The design and layout would be inconsistent with recognisable standards required for human habitation. The application is clearly detrimental to the quality of living of the neighbours.’
But another member, Mark Corner, said the Old Stable Coach House could have provided a home for someone struggling to find a home in the dales.
He added: ‘I am a bit concerned about apparent inconsistencies in the [officer’s] report compared to what I have just heard from the agent about which way the doors open and where the route is for walking. I am more open minded about the opportunity for someone to live in the area, albeit small, if they are prepared to live there in a low cost accommodation.’
The applicant’s agent, Dan Gracey, told the committee that the conversion would meet national standards for a single-person dwelling. He added:
‘Neighbours and the parish council have objected to the folding doors opening directly onto the highway. They will actually be opening inwards. Currently there are large double doors opening outwards onto the highway. If planning consent is not granted for residential use the applicant intends to continue with the current use of the building as a workshop with the attendant noise, doors opening onto the highway and vehicles loading and unloading. Clearly residential use will have less noise impact than the existing workshop use with hammering and power tools.’
He said the applicant had arranged for parking in a space 250m away. Nor would there be any need, he added, to walk along the road as there was a direct footpath into the village.
He concluded: ‘This is a small and attractive traditional building in the heart of the village. The proposed conversion to residential use is more appropriate than the current workshop use as it is surrounded by houses. The senior listed building officer is supportive of the application which will ensure the care and conservation of the building.’
The planning officer had recommended refusal of the application to convert the Old Stable Coach House for local occupancy or tourist accommodation.
Great Asby
The impact of an existing enforcement order altered the course of the debate about a proposal to rebuild a partially demolished listed agricultural building at Great Asby
A proposal to refuse the application was withdrawn after Richard Graham explained to the committee: ‘Planning enforcement in the case of demolition of listed buildings is quite a serious matter and can lead to prosecution. If permission is granted there is still the option for the current owners or future owners to apply for the demolition of the building. So all those options would be open. If you refuse this application you are left with a ruin and you are also left with a live enforcement case.’
The planning officer had stated: ‘Works were carried out to the building between 2023 and 2024 to remove the corrugated roof sheeting and underlying modern roof structure, and the gable walls to either end (facing southwest and northeast) were also reduced in height. These works did not benefit from prior listed building consent and, although it is understood that there were concerns from the applicants regarding the structural condition of the gable walls and the condition of the roof structure, it is considered by officers that the works constitute unauthorised work to / partial demolition of a listed building.’
The late 18th to 19th century milking parlour is within the curtilage of a grade II 17th century farmhouse and so is also listed. The enforcement notice was issued in July 2025 and is in abeyance due to a planning application being made.
The planning officer recommended approving the application for listed building consent to reduce eaves to height of existing building and to reinstate pitched roof with a natural slate roof covering; to remove existing rendered lean-to at north east corner and to install new timber doors and windows in existing structural openings. This was accepted by the majority of the committee even though Asby Parish Council had very strongly objected.
Cllr Garret Fitzpatrick, the chair of Asby Parish Council, told the committee ‘The parish council believes that rebuilding the structure is not in keeping with the existing village landscape and has got no architectural, aesthetic or environmental merit. The remains of the agricultural building should be demolished to reveal the views of the grade II listed farmhouse and byre which are the real reason for the property being listed.
‘The applicants have confirmed that the building suffered roof damage and had to be made safe after a storm. They cannot use the building in its current perilous uninsurable state. The agricultural building detracts from the village scene in both its original and proposed forms and is a blot on the main route through the village.’ He described the proposed rebuild as a modern pastiche and added: ‘The parish is united in its objections to this poorly judged planning application that would continue to block the views to an interesting farmhouse and byre.’
The Senior Listed Buildings Officer was, however, concerned that the demolition of the barn would result ‘in the irreversible loss of historical fabric’ and added ‘The building is of traditional construction, is within the curtilage of the listed building, and contributes towards our understanding of how the site was used and developed over time historically, in order to meet the evolving needs of the farm. It contributes towards the significance and the setting of the listed building.
‘The justification given for its demolition is to open-up the southern aspect of the main part of the listed building and improve ventilation and natural light to the main house and byre.’ But this could be partially achieved by the reinstatement of a lower pitched roof and would be a much less harmful option in terms of the loss of historical fabric and character, the officer stated. A view affirmed by Derek Twine, the chair of the Authority.
Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness Council) said: I don’t think there’s an easy way forward for this. I can understand it from the parish council point of view – they’ve been looking at an eyesore for some time now. And it would be a lot better if they could get rid of it.
‘On the other hand, there’s an enforcement on it. The owner is in a care home. This property is going to come up for sale. You will not sell it with an enforcement notice on it. So the logical thing to do, to resolve the situation, is to approve the planning permission according to the officer recommendation and then whoever ends up owning this property can move on with it, whether that’s a new application to remove it or change the use of that building or whatever. But it solves the problem.’