An ARC News Service report on the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority ‘s ( YDNPA ) planning committee on 25 November 2025 when the following were on the agenda: conversion of Birchentree Barn in Dentdale; car parking access at West Witton; and a new cottage at Linton Falls.
Dentdale – The provision of a home for a local family rather than seeing a barn become derelict were among the reasons that the majority of the committee voted in favour of an application to convert Birchentree Barn near Dent into a two-bedroom dwelling.
The planning officer had recommended refusal because, he said, the work would involve the removal of the roof due to the extent of damage and decay, and the demolition and rebuilding of two principal walls. This he argued would have an adverse impact on the heritage interest and traditional character of the road-side building, and the surrounding landscape.
He concluded: ‘Given the amount of demolition and rebuild involved, the proposed development would be tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling in the open countryside, and as such the proposal is contrary to Yorkshire Dales Local Plan.’
The chairman of the committee, Cllr Ian Mitchell (Westmorland and Furness), questioned the using the word ‘demolition’. ‘This is a rebuild of an existing wall in an existing barn.’ He supported the application stating: ‘This is a barn which has no farming need and, therefore, is bringing a traditional barn back into use. It supports a farming enterprise [becoming] financially viable. It provides a local occupancy dwelling, and it would be a planning gain concerning this building.’
Cllr Andrew Murday (North Yorkshire Council – NYC) commented: ‘ I think in the past when we discussed [some] barn conversions, we have refused them because whole walls [would] have been demolished and replaced. But neither the front or the back wall is being completely demolished, only part of them. I think that probably stretches sufficiently to allow us to overcome that objection.’
The one dissenting voice was that of Cllr Robert Heseltine (NYC) who argued that with the amount of work required it would be a new build in the open countryside with the traditional characteristics of the barn being eradicated. He added this was contrary to policy and stated: ‘Keep to your principles. If you lose your principles you have nothing left.’
In reply Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness) said: ‘The reason we have a planning committee is for those occasions when policy doesn’t tick all the boxes that we would like it to tick. If this heritage property doesn’t have some work done on it in the near future that roof is going to be in in no time. We are just going to end up with a derelict site. What’s the point of that when we want affordable housing? When we want communities to survive? When we want the local school to continue. So, on occasions, we have to go against policy. Not something I choose to do on a regular basis but I will on this occasion.’
Committee member Neil Heseltine added that he was in favour of the application as the applicant, Andrew Brown, was willing to sign a local occupancy legal agreement. He said: ‘I know that Dent Parish Council has been very much against the joint local occupancy or holiday cottage policy and they usually stand against these kinds of applications but they have gone with it on this occasion because of the signing of the [legal] agreement.
In support of the applicant Rebecca Gordon told the committee that Mr Brown’s family had farmed in Dentdale for over a century and was passionate about traditional farm buildings and traditional farming practices. It was likely the converted barn would become home to a young family and so support the viability of the community, she said. ‘[The farmer] definitely doesn’t want to let this building go to ruin. But given the current insecurity in the farming sector he is also unable to invest in its upkeep. This farm, like many small scale dales sheep farms is financially precarious.’
She explained that the walls could be rebuilt as part of the general upkeep of the barn but as it was no longer in use that didn’t seem to be a viable part of the farm business.
Member Libby Bateman, when proposing approval of the application, asked what work could be carried out if it remained as a barn.
The head of development management, Richard Graham, replied: ‘He would be able to take some of the walls down and rebuild [them].’
Mrs Bateman reminded the committee that the primary purpose of the National Park was to conserve and enhance. She stated: ‘If we don’t do something that’s going to stop this building falling down then I think we are guilty of neglecting our primary purpose.’
West Witton – Permission was granted for the creation of a 3.9m wide driveway at a house along Main Street in West Witton even though the committee was told that this could put the future of the village shop at risk.
Philip Payne, who runs the shop with his wife Lucy, said that creating such an access to Ghyll Holme would lead to the loss of two parking spaces on the road opposite Withywood Stores and this would reduce the amount of passing trade.
He explained: ‘Passing trade currently equates to 30 to 40 per cent of our trade on a daily basis, which rises to 60 to 70 per cent during the holiday periods. At half term in October that increased turnover to £1,200. We simply cannot survive on footfall alone.’
‘Withywood Stores is an existing community facility in West Witton. The Parks Authority say that they recognise they have lost lots of village shops and will do what they can to protect the ones that they have. It is in the [emerging local] plan that … a development that would result in the loss of or have an unacceptable effect on an existing community facility will not be allowed.
‘The planning officer claims there is no satisfactory evidence to demonstrate the impact will be significantly detrimental to the viability of the shop. This is an unreasonable assumption to make – with what evidence can you make this claim? We have evidence of how vital our passing trade is.’
West Witton Parish Council had stressed the importance of the shop within the village and its high community value and stated: ‘We are extremely conscious of the potential impact that this proposal may have on the village shop.’
The Paynes were also supported by Cllr Yvonne Peacock (NYC) who said: ‘We need to keep the few village shops we still have in our dales. There is not enough parking in West Witton – we need that [space] to be kept open.’ For the sustainability of the shop and an important community facility she proposed that the application be refused. But no one seconded that.
James Coote told the committee that he and his partner had moved to Ghyll Holme in September from West Yorkshire but he still commuted 160 miles a day six days a week using his electric car. His planning application included provision of a porous block paved area for parking two cars and the installation of an EV charger.
He said that he had, on occasions, had to park almost 250 yards from his home in West Witton as there were cars parked outside Ghyll Holme. Nor could he charge his electric car as the cable would be across a footpath. He agreed with the planning officer that it would not be possible to make a parking area behind their house due to limited space and access.
Committee member Libby Bateman commented that there would actually be a net gain in car parking spaces if two cars could be parked off the road at Ghyll Holme. She said: ‘The average length of a vehicle is 4.4m… and the gateway [will be] 3.9m. You’re only losing less than one space.’
Cllr David Ireton (NYC) agreed. ‘I do take on board what the shopkeeper’s telling us, but I don’t really see there will be a greater loss of parking in that straight section of road by introducing off-street parking.’
And Cllr Murday added: ‘By taking two cars off the road still allows one car to park outside that house – so the net gain is one car less parked on the road.’
Linton Falls – Permission was very quickly granted for a two-bedroom cottage to be built in the garden of a house in Linton Falls.
The only query was by Cllr David Nolan (NYC) who asked about the loss of green space. Richard Graham responded that the cottage would be in place of a large two-storey extension for which permission had already been granted.
Linton Parish Council had objected as it considered that the construction of the cottage would constitute over development and would mean the removal of green space. Nor, it stated, was the cottage specified as a local residency property.
In response the planning officer mentioned the existing permission for an extension and that the applicant had agreed to sign a legal agreement ensuring local occupancy.
He said that although the proposal would not be in accordance with the present Local Plan it would be with the emerging one which was at such an advanced stage it could be taken into consideration.