ARC News Service reports of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority ( YDNPA ) planning meetings in 2023 covering: Airton, Arkengarthdale, Austwick, Aysgarth , Bainbridge, Bishodale (Howesyke estate), Buckden, Burtersett, Carperby (Manor Grange Farm) , Chapel le Dale, Dent, Grassington, Grinton, Horton in Ribblesdale including Dry Rigg Quarry) , Kettlewell, Linton, Long Preston, Malham, Middleton, Reeth, Stainforth, Sedbergh, Thorpe, West Burton.
The reports are in alphabetical order according to settlement.

Aysgarth Falls Hotel expansion – see separate post

Farewell to district councillors:
At the end of the meeting in March the four district councillors who were leaving the authority due to the creation of a unitary authority (Cllrs John Amsden, Richard Good, Sandy Lancaster and Carl Lis were thanked by the chair, Neil Swain, and applauded by the rest of the members.

How planning officers use photographs:
At the beginning of the meeting in April the following statement was read by Alastair Dinsdale, chairman of the Association of Rural Communities:
‘At your last meeting members local to Wensleydale and Bishopdale pointed out that the photos shown regarding the Aysgarth Lodges Holidays  application and the temporary chalet at Kidstones Gill Bridge in Bishopdale  (just two photos for each application – see reports below) did not give a true picture of these within the landscape. And yet, when officers have recommended refusing applications for livestock sheds, barn conversions or camp sites, they have shown many photos from all angles and using various lenses to illustrate their argument that there would be a negative impact upon the landscape. This is neither fair nor consistent, nor in accord with the Authority’s obligation to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Yorkshire Dales.’

This was the Authority’s response:
‘Planning officers provide photographs so that members of the committee can see the site from relevant vantage points. It is for members to decide whether they have sufficient information in front of them to make a decision, including whether there are sufficient photographs. Members always have the option of deferring consideration of the application for further information to be provided or alternatively for a committee site visit to be arranged.’

ARC’s comment: It is obviously very important that the members do carefully consider if the photographs they are shown clearly show the impact upon the landscape.

ARC’s additional comment later:
One of the very noticeable aspects of the meeting in March 2023 was how limited the photographs were in what they showed. For the application by Aysgarth Lodges Holidays the planning officer showed only two photos, both from north of the site. One showed the road junction with the A684 and the other of a nice green field with trees in the background. The officer explained that those trees screened the proposed glamping site. There were no photos of the luxury lodge site from the south side of Bishopdale.
For the application about the temporary rural worker’s accommodation at Kidstones Gill Bridge the planning officer showed just a location map and one of the chalet. But no photos to show the area where the chalet is sited.
During one meeting a YDNPA member pointed out that very few photos were shown of Birchentree Barn at Cowgill, Dent.

Airton
April-
The majority of the committee agreed that three local occupancy houses can be built on the north-west corner of Hall Garth in the village even though Airton Parish Meeting had objected and a resident had told members that the access to the site would be too dangerous.

North Yorkshire councillor Simon Myers explained that, although he understood the concerns about traffic and safety, he was also aware that suitable houses were needed in the dales’ villages for young families. He added that the planning committee weren’t able to refuse an application unless it had sustainable reasons. The Hall Garth site, he said had been tried and tested by an inspector when the Local Plan (2015-2030) was being prepared and the Highways Authority had stated it was happy with the access. ‘I can’t see any sustainable grounds for refusing this application,’ he commented.

Airton resident Catherine Coward told the meeting: ‘I cannot overstate the danger of this access. Even if the walls were lowered completely one would not be able to see cars coming out of the dip and up the hill [to the access]. It is a narrow road with no pavement. The photos you have just seen do not show the level of that rise.’ She said that among those walking along that road were children going to the bus stop and added: ‘If this goes ahead there will be an accident – it is just a matter of time.’

She was also concerned about the visual impact of the three new terraced houses on the village. ‘Airton is a beautiful historic village which has remained virtually unchanged for centuries. If building is allowed in this important open space in the heart of the village it will irrevocably damage both the character and the landscape of this lovely village. This development is not appropriate and would not help the community but harm it.’
Airton Parish Meeting also had concerns about road safety and the likelihood of archaeological remains on the site, as well as Hall Garth having been designated on the Local Plan as an ‘important open space’ and so should, therefore, be protected in its entirety. It pointed out that the proposed development would not be completely within the area designated for local occupancy housing.

Charles Richardson, the applicant, told the meeting that his grandfather, John Richardson, had bought Hall Garth in 1935 and the ownership of it now was shared between the grandchildren and great grandchildren. Mr Richardson said: ‘I believe it was called Hall Garth because there was a large residential hall in the field many years ago. In the 1960s there was very very nearly a new school and housing development in the field. I believe the need for the school diminished and as a result nothing happened. So the field continued to be used for grazing as it is today.

His interest in affordable housing, he said, began with reading the Malhamdale Plan in 2005 and then a meeting at the YDNPA office in Bainbridge at which there was a call for building sites in the National Park. He explained that after the site in Hall Garth had been allocated for development in the Local Plan there had then been lengthy discussions with housing associations until finally he had submitted his own application. This was originally for four houses but was reduced to three as the planning officer said that the fourth house would have been too close and would have overlooked an existing property.

She told the meeting that two small sections would be outside the allocated site: a narrow strip on the eastern boundary to increase the size of the rear gardens and a strip to the south so as to create a better access. She believed these modest increases would not impact significantly on the character of the remaining large field.

The Highways Authority had agreed that the visibility from the access would be acceptable once the wall beside it had been lowered. Iron railings will be fixed on top so that it will be similar to the wall further south of the site.
Several members agreed with the proposal to provide local occupancy houses and although there were concerns about road safety, the opinion of the Highway Authority was accepted.

The committee was informed that, as there might be archaeological remains there, the site will be monitored when construction begins. The planning officer assured the committee that it would be kept informed if anything was found.

Arkengarthdale
July-
The majority of the members agreed with the planning officer that the socio and economic benefits of providing accommodation for hospitality staff on the old school playing field in Arkengarthdale outweighed the opposition of the local community.
Arkengarthdale Parish councillor Paul Harker told the committee it was the duty of the parish council to report that the community overwhelmingly opposed the application by Charles Cody to build a one- and two-storey building to provide accommodation for staff working at the CB Inn and the Punch Bowl at Low Row.

He said there was considerable concern about the spring water supply and drainage issues, and building on a greenfield site which had been designated as an important open space. He emphasised: ‘The main objection of the community is the building’s location. It will obscure a very well-known iconic view much admired by local residents and visitors alike. The loss of the view is a material planning consideration.’
In response the head of development management, Richard Graham, said: ‘Public views can be a material consideration. What concerns me in this particular location is that this view across the dale isn’t exclusive to this particular place. You can get that from lots of other locations and you can’t protect all of them.’

Cllr Harker disagreed with the planning officer that while that field afforded a high quality view across the valley a similar one could be gained across the car park between the site and the CB Inn.

The planning officer agreed that the field had been designated as an important open space but said this was done when it was in use by the school. The school, however, had closed in 2019. ‘It is considered that the space is no longer needed and, as such, the proposed development of the site would not represent a significant loss in terms of sporting or recreational assets in the area.‘
He reported that once the school closed the land was offered to the parish council but no alternative community need could be identified adding that ownership subsequently reverted to the applicant’s business.

A resident, Jane Ellis , pointed out that since the loss of the district council the parish council was their only local democratic representative. The planning officer’s recommendation to approve the application showed that, yet again, a decision was being made by a larger organisation which would have, she said, a huge negative impact upon the dale, over riding local knowledge. ‘In a small dale like this we work with the nature of the land not against it, and to protect its inheritance,’ she said.

Another resident, Alison Piet, commented that the Authority’s members and officers should be working with the parish council, businesses and local people as custodians of the Yorkshire Dales. ‘Why would anyone in this room want to spoil the natural beauty of Arkengarthdale?’ she asked.
Like Cllr Harker and Mrs Ellis she accepted that staff accommodation was needed but not with the loss of that view. And like them she asked why the accommodation could not be sited closer to the CB Inn rather than on the other side of the large car park.

Charles Cody, who owns the CB Inn and the Punch Bowl, told the committee that constructing the building closer to the pub was not viable. The accommodation, he said, was needed because there were now far fewer young people living in the dales seeking employment in the hospitality trade. He had tried to buy dwellings to provide accommodation but couldn’t compete in the holiday cottage market.

Parish council representative Allen Kirkbride and North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock supported the parish council and local residents and asked the committee to refuse the application. Both agreed on the necessity of staff accommodation but believed the field was the wrong location.

The planning officer acknowledged that the proposed development did not easily fit with Local Plan policies and that it would ‘cause very limited harm’ to the character and appearance of the Swaledale and Arkenggarthdale Barns and Walls Conservation Area, with the loss of the view across the valley. He concluded: ‘The social and economic benefits of the proposed development are considered to be in line with the business and employment policies of the Local Plan.’

Austwick
April –
The committee unanimously approved the application for a housing development at Austwick which will now include properties more affordable to local people.The latest proposal for eight houses to be built in Pant Lane was welcomed by Austwick Parish Council as it felt it was a better mix of housing and would benefit the community.

North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton agreed and stated: ‘[This] very much takes on board what the parish council would have accepted back in 2020. I am of a view that if developing properties in villages the provision of affordable housing should be delivered within that community. We shouldn’t be importing developments on communities, taking the money out and spending it miles away from them.’

The planning officer explained that the application approved in 2020 was for eight open market dwellings with a commuted sum being paid by the developer in lieu of providing on-site affordable houses. She said that the previous developer had, however, indicated that the required commuted sum would make the development unviable.

She said the latest application was by Venturi Homes with a different mix of eight homes: three open market; two shared/affordable ownership and three principal residency dwellings. She told members that the principal residency meant that the owners had to occupy the houses as their principal home and it was estimated this restriction reduced the open market value by up to five per cent.

She told the committee: ‘The original proposal … [was] unlikely to have a direct benefit for the immediate community of Austwick. The commuted sum… would also not necessarily cover the costs of developing four affordable houses elsewhere. The proposed amendment, however, would directly benefit the local community by providing two shared ownership affordable dwellings within the village, subject to a local connection clause which would prioritise those within Austwick Parish. The three principal occupancy dwellings would also provide permanently occupied two and three bed dwellings in the village, ensuring they cannot be second homes or holiday lets.’

Aysgarth – Aysgarth Luxury Lodges are at Westholme between Aysgarth and West Burton.

At the March meeting the site of Aysgarth Lodges Holidays was compared to Blackpool illuminations or Christmas lights.
‘Talk about light pollution, that is absolutely ridiculous,’ Richmondshire District councillor John Amsden told the committee. But that view of the luxury lodge site was not shown to the committee members by the planning officer.

The majority of the committee accepted the planning officer’s recommendation to approve the application by Leisure Resorts Ltd to remove two holiday lodges at the northern edge of the site and to replace them with six glamping pods. The planning officer showed only two photos – see above.

The ‘local’ members – North Yorkshire County councillor Yvonne Peacock, Richmondshire District councillors John Amsden and Richard Good, and parish council representative Allen Kirkbride from Askrigg – objected to approving the application. Cllrs Peacock and Amsden said photographs should have been taken from the other side of Bishopdale.

They also emphasised the road safety issues. ‘It’s disappointing that the narrowness of the road [from the site] wasn’t shown,’ said Cllr Peacock. Mr Kirkbride agreed and added: ‘My main concern is safety. You have to go 300m up the A684 before you get to a footpath and that section is a fast piece of road and it is dangerous.’

Cllr Peacock pointed out the unusual event of two parish councils objecting to an application. In its objection Burton cum Walden Parish Council agreed with Aysgarth and District Parish Council about the hazardous impact of the increase of pedestrian and vehicular traffic along the narrow road leading to and from the site and along the A684.

Like Cllr Peacock Burton cum Walden Parish Council was worried about flooding as there had been so much in the past at Eshington Bridge. The parish council was also concerned about the capacity of the existing cesspit. It stated: ‘We have received reports from local residents walking in the area about the unpleasant smell from this pit and the possibility that sewage is overflowing into Bishopdale Beck. Any increase would make the situation worse. Also, we have never been able to discover how the contents of the numerous hot tubs already on the site are disposed of.’
Commenting on that at the meeting Cllr Amsden said: ‘I am sick of everybody blaming farmers for pollution.’

Aysgarth and District Parish Council had also stated that the site had a long history of providing accommodation for static and touring caravans, as well as tents, with minimal impact on the surrounding area. It added: ‘In 2007 all that was lost to the area with the conversion to use for holiday lodges only.

‘The site … is now more akin to a small urban housing development which, when viewed from across the valley, is lit up like a Christmas tree. The site is already much bigger than the original caravan park and has a detrimental impact on the dark sky initiative. Any further expansion would be an over development of the site and add to that detrimental impact. To maximise return on their investment the owners might be better to look at reinstating some of the touring caravan and camping opportunities that were lost to the area by the earlier development.’

Other members of the committee, however, accepted the view shown to them by the planning officer. North Yorkshire Country councillor Richard Foster said that the site was not high profile, but added that he did not travel that way at night. He, like others, agreed that a wider selection of holiday accommodation was needed these days.

Originally Leisure Resorts Ltd had applied to install a further 11 pods in the field on the western side of the site but that has been withdrawn.

Aysgarth
August-
The application by the not-for-profit organisation, Dream Heritage CIC*, to convert part of the former Methodist chapel in Aysgarth into accommodation for a caretaker, artisans and exhibitors was deferred.

The planning officer reported that it was proposed to convert the former chapel to a mixed use comprising education and residential elements. The residential element would extend to no more than 30% of the gross internal floor area and would comprise a caretaker’s flat with mezzanine floor in what was formerly a meeting room, and a bedroom above the former vestry. The remainder of the building would be used for educational purposes by Dream Heritage CIC which runs educational courses teaching heritage crafts, building conservation and repair and traditional crafts. The proposal includes a workshop/teaching space in the principal room, with ancillary kitchen and toilet. There would be no alterations to the outside of the building.

Aysgarth and District Parish Council had strongly objected. It’s reasons included: ‘The chapel was sold at a reduced price lower than market rate with a restrictive covenant for community use. The community has not been consulted about the potential use for the chapel. Aysgarth Institute provides a wealth of community facilities and does not have the need for accommodation. The committee and local volunteers take care of the building maintenance, cleaning, opening/closing, etc.’

The planning officer told the committee: ‘The applicant argues that the proposed use is a “community use” since their heritage work will be of benefit to the wider Dales community, and is in line with the statutory purposes of the National Park. Further, it is argued that those attending residential courses in the building will stay in local B&Bs or camp sites and thus bring economic benefits to the local community.

‘While the proposal does not represent a community use as defined for the purposes of policy, it is considered to be an appropriate use of the building. However, the application is not supported by appropriate and proportionate independent evidence, including appropriate financial, business planning, options appraisals, marketing and community engagement evidence as required by policy.’

He recommended that the application should be approved stating: ‘The conservation benefits of the proposed development outweigh the loss of a potential community use.’

Cllr Kirkbride proposed that a decision be deferred stating: ‘If a planning application is submitted for the change of use of a community facility the Authority needs to consider whether there is a need for the facility in the area. One way for applicants to try to prove that is for them to advertise the property as a community facility for a reasonable period. With the current application for the chapel the applicants haven’t done that as they believe that the use they are proposing is also a community use.

‘I believe that the applicant should come back with a business plan etc to show how this application is going to work. This has just been put forward without showing its possible to run this sort of scheme.’ Another member emphasised the need to consult with the community.

Two representatives of Dream Heritage ClC listened to the debate and after the unanimous vote to defer a committee member said one of them ‘stormed out’ of the room.

• CIC stands for Community Interest Company.’ CICs are limited companies which operate to provide a benefit to the community they serve’ Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

November:
Permission was granted for what is intended as a caretaker’s flat in part of the old chapel at Aysgarth. The committee had been informed that Dream Heritage CIC wanted to create a centre of excellence in Aysgarth for heritage skills, traditional crafts and youth worker training for the North of England.

Rebecca Watkins, a director of Dream Heritage CIC, told the committee that she had bought the chapel with her own money. She said that a caretaker was needed to ensure a Dream Heritage CIC project would be viable and to ensure the building was regularly maintained adding that the jobs would include traffic management.

She said the centre at Aysgarth was intended to serve not only the wider Dales communities but the community of North of England. ‘My aim is to empower the next generation to be catalysts for positive change, saving their heritage and community.’

In its strong objection to the application Aysgarth and District Parish Council stated: ‘The chapel was sold at a reduced price lower than market rate with a restrictive covenant for community use. The community has not been consulted about the potential use for the chapel.’

The planning officer reported: ‘While the proposed development does not constitute a community use … it is nevertheless considered to represent an appropriate use of the building which would conserve this non-designated heritage asset. The limited amount of residential accommodation to be provided [not more than 30 per cent of the gross internal floor area] is considered to be proportionate. It is considered that the conservation benefits of the proposed development outweigh the loss of potential community use.’

Aysgarth and District Parish Council had said that Aysgarth Institute provided well-used community facilities with the maintenance, cleaning, and other facilities being carried out by the committee and local volunteers. As the Institute did not require a caretaker it questioned why one should be needed at the old chapel to facilitate the provision of community use.

At the meeting Cllr Yvonne Peacock (North Yorkshire) pointed out that none of the local village halls or institutes in Wensleydale needed caretakers.

‘We don’t need a training centre in the middle of Aysgarth… because there’s no parking and there’s no infrastructure.’ She noted that the Dream Heritage courses in such skills as dry stone walling would cost much more than to attend the many already available in Wensleydale.
She also questioned the suggestion that people could park at the National Park Authority’s car park at Aysgarth Falls and walk about a mile to the chapel.

The Authority’s cultural heritage member champion, Cllr Libby Bateman (parish council appointee), said young people travelling to the training centre in Aysgarth could get there by bus or by taxi from Ribblehead Station (20 miles away) if they did not have a car. She challenged Cllr Peacock about the need in the Dales for Dream Heritage’s proposed church support programme stating: ‘We are having a terrible time in Dent with a church building.’

Cllr Peacock had told the committee ‘[Dream Heritage] are coming because [they say] we are not keeping our churches correctly. In actual fact the churches have a professional team behind them.’

In its business plan Dream Heritage stated that among the problems and needs its centre in Aysgarth would solve were for church buildings and church congregations to be supported and guided into how best to look after their buildings, congregations and communities. ‘The maintenance of such buildings is somewhat left to unskilled and unknowledgeable clergy or lay people, and thus inappropriate or absent repairs and maintenance are done on the church building,’ it said.

Cllr Peacock pointed out that as the chapel had been bought by Ms Watkins there was nothing to tie its use to Dream Heritage or its business plan. She asked if there could be a legal agreement tying the caretaker’s flat to either the business use or for affordable local housing. Richard Graham, the head of development management, replied that the conditions on the proposed approval covered this. These are: permission solely for specified mixed use and residential accommodation tied to main use.

Cllr Peacock asked the committee to refuse permission for the application but the majority of members went on to approve it.

Bainbridge
August –
An old engine shed in what was the Station Yard at Askrigg can be converted into a four-bedroom house to provide accommodation for Bainbridge Vets Ltd even though planning officers had recommended refusal.

A senior planning officer reminded members that business sites were scarce in the National Park so they needed to be strongly protected. She said: ‘It is departing quite significantly from our employment strategy by using part of the site for non-employment use. In the officer’s report it does recognise that a case can be made for some provision on the site but just whether at this scale and if this is the right way to achieve it.’

The applicants, vets Davinia Hinde and Michael Woodhouse, had stated there was a need for onsite accommodation for the supervision of hospitalised animals, supervision of junior staff, site security such as costly equipment and medicines, out of hours support for staff, overnight accommodation for staff and students, and to reduce the need for journeys through Askrigg during out of hours duties.

Askrigg and Low Abbotside Parish Council had stated that the vet’s business was an asset to the local community and an important employer. But it did not believe that the need for overnight presence on the site justified creating a large detached four-bedroom family house.

Parish council member Allen Kirkbride, however, said converting the old engine shed would be a planning gain given the condition it was in and the veterinary practice provided employment with good wages to local people. He reported that the two other businesses on the site (a coal yard and a brewery) supported the application. ‘They were always worried about security and safety in the area. Vets living on site in a reasonable sized place would help.’ He added that there were two other possible business development sites in Askrigg.

Parish council member Libby Bateman commented: ‘There is a real need – this business can accommodate its employees, its trainees, its next generation, and that it’s also able to do that on a site that’s near to where the business is and be able to be on call and near to the surgery if people need to bring animals in late at night.’

The majority of members agreed but asked for a legal agreement tying the converted building to the veterinary practice.
The senior planning officer said that, as the decision to approve was against officer’s recommendation, the head of development management will consider if it needs to be referred back to the next meeting.

Bishopdale – Kidstones Gill Bridge

March-
The possible support of the Authority’s planning officers for the construction of an rural worker’s cottage in Bishopdale was described as a ‘bit contradictory’ by Cllr John Amsden.
The majority of the members agreed temporary permission could be granted for 12 months for a chalet at Kidstones Gill Bridge while Robert and Helen Brown, who own the Howesyke estate) worked with the planning department on an application which would include a permanent rural worker’s cottage there.

Aysgarth and District Parish Council had strongly objected to extending planning permission for the chalet partly because the time allowed for a temporary dwelling had long expired. Cllr Yvonne Peacock told the committee: ‘The problem with this application is that it should have been enforced long before now. What has happened to the fact that they [Mr and Mrs Brown] were given permission for two cottages at Howsyke and they have never materialised?’

The planning officer explained that permission was granted in 2017 for two rural workers’ cottages at Howsyke in Bishopdale as part of the development of that site. She stated: ‘The case presented in the 2017 application was that the applicants [Mr and Mrs Brown] would live in the farmhouse at Howesyke and the business would be grown to increase ewe numbers from 100 to 1000. Suckler calves would be purchased each autumn.’

She added that planning permission was granted for the temporary accommodation at Kidstones Gill Bridge in 2019 and that expired in December 2020. ‘The siting of the chalet and its occupation has been unauthorised since that date. The intention was that the occupant would move back to Howsyke upon completion of the permanent dwelling, ’ she said.

Mrs Brown (who, with her husband, do not live at Howesyke) told the committee: ‘There have been huge changes made with our farming enterprise which has made us take stock. Our aim is to relocate one of the worker’s cottages we have permission for at Howesyke to Kidstones Bridge. If the temporary planning is not extended there is no alternative accommodation for the two [living there].’

When asked about the plan to have one of the cottages at Kidstones Gill Bridge the head of development management, Richard Graham, said: ‘There is an argument to have one permanent dwelling there …. our agricultural consultant is happy to go along with that rather than two at Howesykes. It is a large holding and a lot of land.’

Wensleydale farmer, Allen Kirkbride, who is a parish council representative on the Authority, commented: ‘They [Mr and Mrs Brown] had planned lots of sheep but it is more into game and wildlife than it was. They should have started at least one of the cottages at Howesyke.’

North Yorkshire County councillor Robert Heseltine and Cllr Amsden agreed with him that they did not want to see a new house built at Kidstones Gill Bridge. Cllr Amsden compared this to a farmer not being allowed to convert a barn which was in the middle of the field. ‘A bit contradictory I think,’ he remarked.

Cllr Heseltine asked how much acreage was being farmed at Howesyke and how much at Kidstones Gill Bridge. The planning officer replied that the rural worker was employed to manage 700 acres of land and 1400 acres of woodland and the work included the maintenance of the hydro-plant which is housed in a new barn beside the chalet.

As Kidstones Gill Bridge and Howesykes were only two miles apart neither Cllr Heseltine nor Mr Kirkbride could see any justification for a new dwelling at the former. And, like Cllr Amsden, Cllr Heseltine felt that a barn conversion would be more appropriate.

North Yorkshire County councillor Richard Foster, like others, felt he could approve a 12-month extension for the chalet especially as there was no other accommodation for the worker and his partner. And Jim Munday commented that enforcement action should be taken after a year if things weren’t sorted out.

At the end of the debate North Yorkshire County councillor David Ireton asked if this would be the final extension for the chalet. He did not receive an answer.

Buckden
May –
‘Should rural residents be denied what other areas enjoy?’ North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine asked when the committee debated the application to construct a 4G shared communications mast above Buckden. The majority of the members agreed and the application was approved.

The planning officer told the meeting that the 25 metre high lattice tower would have some significant landscape and visual impacts but this had to be assessed in relationship to the need for it. He explained that the 3G mast which presently provides limited mobile phone coverage for Buckden and Hubberholme will be switched off by Vodaphone later this year.

He quoted Buckden Parish Council that the removal of the 3G service would leave the area without any coverage and the proposed new mast would benefit residents, businesses, community services, visitors and future generations. It had also been pointed out that the provision of the new mast was part of the Shared Rural Network initiative between the government and operators that would not be repeated in the near future.

Member Mark Corner (who is a trustee of the Friends of the Dales), however, stated: ‘ Our purpose is to conserve the landscape and the natural beauty of the area and this undoubtedly damages it. Our socio-economic [purpose] should be second to that, although I do think the parish council made a very vigorous, in-depth analysis.

The parish council recognised the need for line-of-sight for signal coverage but said this meant the mast would be visible. It emphasised that the lack of mobile phone coverage would have an impact upon the quality of life and the sustainability of the social and economic community of the parish.

It added that the lack of effective mobile coverage was already having an impact upon the safety of those walking in the area, and access to health services and such cost-saving facilities as smart meters. In addition, the electric vehicle charging station in the YDNPA’s car park at Buckden was only usable by 20 per cent of users at present – and by none when the Vodaphone mast is switched off. It was concerned about the access to the site when the new mast was being constructed and the electric supply to it.

The planning officer said that the equipment for the mast would be delivered by helicopter. The applicant, Cornerstones, will also first have to obtain approval for the power source for the mast. Members were told this might be solar panels and/or a diesel generator.

Burtersett
August : The committee considered two applications regarding changes to Ingledene at Burtersett. The first included extending the living accommodation into the existing domestic outbuilding/store; erection of a first floor extension to create an upstairs en-suite and erection of a large detached garage and store. The second was for converting the existing garage and an outbuilding into a one bedroom holiday let with hot tub. The first application was approved and the second was deferred.

Cllr Peacock told the meeting that both the house and the holiday let would use the same parking which, with the turning areas, will be close to two neighbouring houses. She expected that both dwellings would be used as holiday lets and commented: ‘All of a sudden you don’t just have one or two cars. You can end up with five or six cars.’ Several parish councils had reported that this was a problem with holiday lets, she said.
Both she and Cllr Kirkbride pointed out how narrow the road was through Burtersett and said there had been more traffic using it since North Yorkshire Highways had signposted it as the route to Semerwater. Due to the parking and more cars accessing the properties from the narrow road they asked for the applications to be refused.

Cllr Bateman, however, commented that it was not possible to predict how the house would be used. She also said that the building did need improving.

Cllr Foster felt the application was okay as long as there wasn’t an application to turn it into a holiday let. The planning officer reported that the garage will be large enough to accommodate a campervan and neighbours had been concerned about its impact upon their amenity.

There was more concern about the proposed holiday let as it was reported that the door would open directly onto a narrow roadside verge. Cllr Peacock said this would mean visitors would have to walk along the road to where their car was parked. Some might then decide to park on the road.

‘I think there is a better option here – why can’t they park round the back of the house?’ said Cllr Bateman. And Cllr Foster commented: ‘As it stands at the moment we are actually sanctioning people to walk out … into the middle of the road. I think we can refuse this on access and ask [the applicants] to come back with another suggestion.’

The majority, however, agreed with North Yorkshire councillor David Noland that the decision should be deferred so that the applicants could find a better solution for parking and access.

Cllr Peacock requested a legal agreement to protect the railings so that none could be removed to provide access onto the village green.
The planning permission conditions include ‘hours of construction’. The parish council had asked that there should be strict times of access through the village during the period of work to reduce disturbance. The parish council was also very concerned about the potential increase in the volume of traffic through Burtersett.

At the November meeting it didn’t take long for the committee to approve the application.
The planning officer explained it was originally intended to gain access to this via an existing doorway which opened on the narrow roadside verge. There was concern at the committee’s meeting on August 22nd about the impact of this upon road safety.
The applicant had, therefore, submitted amended plans showing access via a door which faced into the main house of Ingledene, with the doorway onto the road being blocked off.

‘Pedestrian access can easily be gained through the site, past the main houses to the proposed holiday cottage without the need for visitors to walk on the road,’ the planning officer said. He added that permission had been granted at the August meeting for a parking place to be allocated for that holiday let beside the proposed new garage.

Carperby

April –

At the April meeting the committee was informed that it had been decided it was inexpedient to carry on with enforcement action concerning the unauthorised use of an agricultural building for residential purposes at Manor Grange Farm, Low Lane, Carperby. This was registered in June 2018. The reason given for the delay was: ‘Delayed decision due to the sale of Yore Mill, Covid and owners’ personal circumstances.’

Chapel le Dale

October –

Cllr David Ireton (North Yorkshire Council) got a measuring wheel and measured the visibility splay from Green Slack Barn on the B6255 near Chapel le Dale himself just to be sure he had the correct information for the committee, he said.

He disagreed with the Highways Authority that the visibility splays from the access to the barn from the B6255 were insufficient. The Highways Authority and the planning officer had recommended that the application to convert the traditional barn for local occupancy or short-term holiday lets should be refused because the required visibility of 215 metres onto a 60mph road could not be achieved when looking in either direction. Cllr Ireton said he had measured 186m in one direction and 166m in the other.

He said: ‘This is an existing access. It has been used for years and there have never been any accidents. In fact, the biggest danger on that road is sheep. The applicants worked very hard with our officer to get a satisfactory design. I honestly do not think that access is a danger to the public .’
Cllr Robert Heseltine (North Yorkshire Council) commented that the committee had approved the conversion of roadside barns with much shorter visibility displays than this one had.

But Member Mark Corner said: ‘In my mind the visibility isn’t acceptable – If the barn was occupied full time and the occupants knew the road I think the risk would be lower [than if a holiday let]. This area is also visited very frequently by high speed motor bike riders who come tearing along this road. To me it doesn’t feel like a safe proposition.’

Cllr Richard Foster (North Yorkshire Council) suggested that if the access was levelled it would make it easier for vehicles to make a faster and safer exit. Cllr Ireton and the majority of the committee agreed that the decision should be delegated back to the planning officer to have further discussions with the applicant about the access.

Dent

March –
By a majority of just three votes the committee agreed that planning permission could be granted for the conversion of Birchentree Barn at Cowgill, Dent, for residential use. But this was against officer recommendation and Richard Graham said the decision would be referred back to the next meeting as he had significant concerns about the validity or soundness of the reasons put forward for approving it.

Three of those who voted to approve the application were district councillors Amsden, Good and Lancaster who will no longer be members of the Authority once the North Yorkshire unitary authority comes into existence on April 1.

The planning officer had recommended refusal because, he stated, the proposal would involve significant alterations and major structural work which would have an adverse impact on the heritage interest and traditional character of the building and the surrounding landscape. He said: ‘Given the amount of demolition and rebuild involved, the proposed development would be tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling in the countryside and, as such, contrary to the … Local Plan.’

Mr Graham told the committee that the policy to allow roadside barns to be converted was to secure a heritage asset and the demolition of two walls would not ensure that. He also said that there had been 13 barn conversions in Dentdale and there were two sites for new housing in Dent listed in the Local Plan.

South Lakeland District councillor Ian Mitchell said that those sites were never going to be developed for financial and legal reasons. He had asked that the planning committee should discuss the application as he wanted to see the building brought back into use rather than falling down and so help to provide housing for local people. He added: ‘I am sure this Authority can put conditions on the materials used to make sure it retains its traditional character.’ And Cllr Peacock observed that when rebuilding walls modern insulation could be installed.

Cllr Foster pointed out that a wall was likely to fall onto the road so something had to be done. Cllr Amsden commented: ‘If the wall fell on the road they would blame the farmer and his public liability would go through the roof.’ Instead, he said, the Authority should be aiming to bring the barn back into use and at helping the next generation to stay in the National Park.

Mr Graham said there was funding available to help farmers restore barns. This led to North Yorkshire County councillor Andrew Murday asking if a barn was restored to its original structure could the owner then apply to convert it into a dwelling. Mr Graham replied that would depend upon having retained the structural and heritage integrity of the barn. “It just seems to me to be a bit illogical,’ responded Mr Murday.

Mr Graham said that a rebuilt barn would become a modern building and no longer a traditional one.
The parish council had recommended that the barn, when converted, should be restricted to local occupancy with a legal agreement. Mr Graham said that the Authority’s policy was that barn conversions should be for local occupancy or holiday let. ‘It’s not reasonable for the Authority… to restrict to local occupancy,’ he stated.

The planning officer had also recommended refusal because the Highways Authority had advised that there wasn’t sufficient visibility from the access due to the location of the barn on a bend on the unadopted road. Several agreed with Cllr Mitchell that the problem could be solved by installing a mirror on the opposite side of the road – a solution used by many others living in the dales.

When listing the suggested material considerations put forward to allow the members to approve the application against planning policy, the legal officer, Clare Bevan, added ‘I am not sure how’ regarding overcoming highway concerns. The other reasons were: to improve the condition of an abandoned building and bring it back into use; and the development providing additional housing for the village of Dent. Cllr Peacock asked that supporting local farmers should be included.

Dent

July –
‘How can we possibly pass something if we haven’t got the final plans?’ asked Westmorland and Furness councillor Ian Mitchell regarding the application by Network Rail to allow rail cutting stabilisation works to be carried out near Dent.

Cllr Mitchell emphasised that they had to be sure the plans were right for the sake of the landowners, the parish council, those living nearby and the landscape. It was unanimously agreed, therefore, to approve the application on the condition that Network Rail works with the planning officers, the landowners and Dent with Cowgill Parish Council to finalise the plans.

The application is for urgent stabilisation work to be carried out on a cutting near the hamlet of Stonehouse where there is evidence of instability. Network Rail has permitted development rights to carry out work on its land but some will extend into neighbouring farmland.  The planning officer reported that the objective was to avoid a landslip onto the track. When such an event occurred in 2019 the line had to be temporarily closed for emergency works, he said.

The work this time will include the installation of a new ‘crest ditch’, designed to capture any surface water and take it to an outfall at Arten Gill Beck to the north. This new ditch requires the installation of crossings to allow the farmer quad bike access to the moor.

The clerk to Dent with Cowgill Parish Council, Scott Thornley, said it recognised the importance of the work for the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway but, as a statutory consultee, it had not received the full and final set of plans. He told the meeting the parish council had not been invited to a drop-in session organised by Network Rail in June this year.

The parish council, he said, was concerned about flooding due to the increase flow of water in Arten Gill Beck during heavy rainfall. ‘The parish council has worked closely with the Highways Authority for two to three years repairing flood damage and work to mitigate local flooding and it would be remiss of the council not to prevent further flood risk in the parish.’

The planning officer stated that the plans included fitting the new ditch with baffles to slow the movement of water and so reduce the risk of flooding.

The parish council was also concerned about heavy vehicles using a narrow single track road, the possibility of dry stone walls being removed and the impact upon the residents of Stonehouse.

The planning officer said that there was the potential of residents being affected by noise, dust light pollution and heavy construction traffic. Network Rail would, therefore, be asked take measures to reduce such impacts and to limit construction hours to between 8am and 6pm on weekdays and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. The company had, however, stated work may have to be carried out sometimes from 10pm on Saturdays to 8am on Sundays when trains were not running.

Emma Richardson, a local landowner, said: ‘Whilst we support the work, it needs to be done sympathetically towards us landowners. We need to work here, we have to have access to the fields and fells for the livestock.’ She was especially concerned about the location of the crossings.

The application includes the construction of an improved access and temporary work compound plus a haul road from the compound up to the cutting.

Dent
August-
Geslings Barn, Deepdale Lane, can be converted into a dwelling for local occupancy or short term holiday let even though there were questions about the access track which was included in the application.

When Cllr Heseltine asked if it was a roadside barn the planning officer explained that it was part of an existing group of [two] buildings. The application to restore one of these, a grade II listed uninhabited farmhouse, had been already been approved and that included the access track of over 124m from Deepdale Lane.

Cllr Heseltine commented: ‘Prior to that there is no access track to anything – you are stretching my imagination.’
And Cllr Kirkbride said: ‘I can hardly believe this up for approval. The number of barn conversions we have had which have been turned down on a matter of 10 or 20 metres off the road.’

A senior planning officer repeated that it had been recommended due to being part of a group of buildings rather than as a roadside barn.
Cllr Bateman, the Authority’s cultural heritage champion, described the farmhouse as a fantastic building which needed to be re-used as a residence. She added: ‘I would like to see the barn stay up. There’s no point in keeping the house and allow that to fall down beside it.’

North Yorkshire councillor David Ireland said he supported the application as the track to it had already been approved. And Mr Munday agreed stating that the work on the barn could then be carried out at the same time as that on the farmhouse.

Dent Parish Council’s objections included: concerns about the feasibility of guests getting to the property if it is used as a holiday let as any track up to the property would be steep and narrow. This may lead to vehicles being parked on the highway which would cause an obstruction as this is a narrow single track road. In line with its own policy the parish council also objected to the converted barn being used for short term lets. It stated: ‘Given the need for housing for local families in the dale, the council would prefer to see this property used as a long term let in order to help sustain the dale and its residents, businesses and school.’

The planning officer, however, pointed out that the present Local Plan allowed for the conversion of traditional buildings to either holiday let or local occupancy or both. The Authority, he said, was required by law to follow the policy ‘unless and until the policy is changed’.

Dent
October –
The application for a new farm building at Cherry Tree Farm at Greenwood How near Dent was approved.
Cllr Heseltine remarked during the debate that the farmyard there brought farming into disrepute.

He, like other members, accepted the new building could well be used to tidy up the farmyard but there were critical comments about the application being retrospective. Cllr Foster commented: ‘Here again someone has done something without our permission and it’s really starting to annoy me because we either have a planning process or we haven’t. is there a better location on that site for this building?’

‘Yes, it is annoying. It is just as annoying for officers as it is for members,’ replied Richard Graham. He said officers preferred to enter into negotiations to get something better before anything was built.

Cllr Heseltine said that although he didn’t like anyone going ahead without planning permission the building was now there and he believed the situation could be improved if strict conditions were applied for landscaping.

Cllr Ian Mitchell (Westmorland and Furness Council) believed the main reason Dent Parish Council had objected was to highlight the fact that the planning process hadn’t been adhered to. ‘There seems to be more and more of this happening – when people just do thins and then come back retrospectively.’

The parish council had told the Authority: ‘Whilst the council recognises that the approval of this building may lead to the clearance of the farmyard (something which the council has been working with the enforcement officer on for many months), the council feels that the barn is in the wrong location and is a bit of an eyesore as you approach the village from the West. Furthermore, the council believes that the building is far too big to be a sheep barn and is more likely to be used to store machinery and hay and should be recognised as such.

The council objects to this application in the current location and suggests that the building would be better placed further to the east of its current location, tucked under the shoulder of the hill where it would be less visible.’

Mr Corner asked if they had any control over the mess on some farms. Mr Graham replied that they did have the power to serve notice to tidy up but that was separate from the retrospective application.

The majority accepted the officer’s recommendation to approve. She explained: ‘The proposed development is justified and serves the agricultural needs of the agricultural unit. The building is set on the edge of the existing building group of traditional buildings. The solar array will form a sustainable renewable energy source and the proposal will only have a limited impact on the character and appearance of the locality.’

Grassington
May-
Approval was quickly given for extensions to be erected on the side and rear of 1 Hardy Grange at Grassington.
The planning officer explained that this had to brought to the planning committee as the applicant was employed by the Authority and there had been an objection by a neighbour.

She said the dwelling was described as a non-designated heritage asset and was within the Grassington Conservation Area. A neighbour believed that the boundary wall had monastic origins linked to Fountains Abbey but the Authority’s senior historic environment officer said there was no data on the Historic Environment Record to support this.

The planning officer concluded that the extensions would complement the property and not have a harmful impact on the residential amenity of neighbours or on historic assets.

Grassington Parish Council reported that it could not unanimously agree on comments on this application. There was no debate at the planning committee meeting and the application was approved unanimously.

Grinton
July –
Approval was given for a barn at Grinton to be converted into a short-term holiday let even though the Highways Authority and the parish council objected.

Cllr Kirkbride agreed with Grinton Parish Council that Swale Hall Lane was very narrow. And the Highways Authority stated that, due to the limited visibility at the access on to the road, it considered this development unacceptable in terms of highway safety. Cllr Peacock said the road was part of the Swale Trail and so there were a lot of walkers.

She supported the parish council in its request for an affordable occupation dwelling rather than a holiday let. She said anyone living there permanently would know the road well and so there would be less danger at the access.

The planning officer, however, stated that a one bedroom holiday let was unlikely to generate a substantial number of vehicle movements onto a road which had been shown to be very lightly trafficked. There would be a turning area on the site so that cars could exit onto the road in a forward direction, he said.

Cllrs Kirkbride and Peacock supported the parish council’s argument that this was not a roadside barn in accordance with the Local Plan. Cllr Peacock said the present track to the barn was created in 2012 after the field with the original track was sold. Planning officers, however, put the emphasis on the track being in existence after 2012.

The application included the erection of a new barn to replace a modern one near that to be converted. The latter was described by the planning officer as being of simple, traditional construction.

Horton in Ribblesdale – Dry Rigg Quarry
April-
Permission was again granted for a lateral and deepening extension of Dry Rigg Quarry until December 2034 after the planning officer argued that, despite having a detrimental impact upon the landscape, there was a regional and national need for the aggregate quarried there. Quarrying was due to end at Dry Rigg by December 2021

The application by Tarmac Aggregates Ltd was first approved in June 2021 with the legal agreement completed in February 2022. This was quashed by the High Court in February this year following a Judicial Review which upheld the view of a local resident, Kate Smith, that the officer’s report had not expressly demonstrated exceptional circumstances for permitting a major development, that it did not expressly afford great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty, and that the harm to the landscape was only considered in terms of visual impact.

Both Austwick and Horton in Ribblesdale Parish Councils objected to the latest application due to the lack of dust suppression and the impact of dust pollution on local residents. The Friends of the Dales objected to the apparently never ending postponement to the end of quarrying and restoration of the site; the impact of significant HGV movements; and the proposed lateral extension of the extraction area.

Member Mark Corner, who is a vice president of the Friends of the Dales, left the room before the application was discussed to avoid any potential bias, he said. He explained: ‘Before I became a member of the Authority in July 2020 I was an active trustee of the Friends of the Dales and was involved directly in their submission of objection to the original proposal in May 2020.’

In his lengthy report the planning officer quoted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that the exceptional circumstances for approving a major development within a National Park included a national need. He stated: ‘It is acknowledged that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the visual quality of the landscape as a result of the creation of 140m of new quarry face [on Moughton Nab]. However, the effect of these works on the wider landscape character is less tangible and less severe as the character of the Ribblesdale landscape is typified by geology and natural features but also by human influence upon it in terms of settlement, farming and, critically, quarrying. The several historic quarries, including Dry Rigg, form a dominant visual presence in the landscape and are undeniably part of the landscape character of Ribblesdale.’

He stated that the quarry was one of the few in the country and of which there are only four in the north of England that produce the gritstone with the high polished stone value used for road and runway surfacing due to its high skid resistant properties. He said Tarmac had demonstrated the need for that aggregate and that the scope for mining it outside the National Park was extremely limited.

He also stated that quarrying at Dry Rigg supported 36 jobs and the local businesses that supplied it. He said: ‘In local terms 36 jobs represents a medium sized local employer making a significant contribution to the local economy and to the economic health and vitality of communities within the National Park. The proposal would guarantee the economic benefit for a further 13 years.‘It is considered that great weight should be given to these national and local economic benefits.’

Stephen Cowan, who spoke on behalf of Tarmac, was accompanied by many of those who work at the Quarry. He said these included someone whose father and grandfather had worked there, one for 42 years. The owners of the quarry, he said, had a record of community involvement and funding large and small projects in the dales as well as working with Natural England and the Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust. ‘We feel we are part of the National Park and part of its heritage,’ he commented.

Commenting on the presence of the employees North Yorkshire councillor Steve Shaw-Wright stated: ‘This does actually show that there is local employment with what I would term proper jobs with proper pay and prospects rather than minimum wage summer-time jobs.’
And North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine said: ‘Agriculture and quarrying are the two traditional employment industries in the National Park.’ Like many other members he accepted the planning officer’s assessment of the national need and that approval of the application would be in accordance with the Authority’s policy.

Another North Yorkshire councillor, David Ireton, stated, however: ‘I voted against this application last time and there is nothing in this application that has changed my mind.’ Referring to the NPPF that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the scenic beauty of the National Parks he said: ‘I don’t see how this [application] does that. It completely ruins what we’ve got.’

North Yorkshire councillor David Noland agreed with him – and also with Kate Smith who had addressed the committee earlier. Cllr Noland said: ‘I don’t see how this delivers sustainable development. I don’t see how it conserves or enhances the landscape, or protects the special qualities of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. There is plenty of scope for [the aggregate to be quarried] elsewhere – and not in the middle of this glorious National Park. I think we are all aware of the damage being done to the environment.’

The conditions of the approved application include: restoration to be completed by December 2035; the hours when HGVs must not enter or leave the site or when blasting can take place; and a comprehensive scheme of controlling and monitoring dust.

Regarding the latter the chairman of the committee, Neil Swain, asked after the vote: ‘Can we monitor the road conditions between these two quarries to make sure they are kept clean because they have been known to be in a disgusting state at times. So please make sure they are monitored.’

Horton in Ribblesdale
May –
Members approved the latest application for a development at Rowe Garth in Horton in Ribblesdale because they wanted to see some affordable homes built there.

North Yorkshire councillors Yvonne Peacock and Richard Foster spoke of the need for sites that were socially and economically viable even if the provision was less than originally expected.

Parish council representative member Allen Kirkbride also emphasised that new open market houses should be for permanent residence and not be used as holiday lets. And Cllr Foster commented: ‘We need to make sure the properties are built and are lived in.’

In November 2019 the committee had approved an application for a development of nine dwellings which would include four affordable homes provided by the then Craven District Council acting as the Registered Provider. By June 2022, however, Craven District Council, had informed the YDNPA that it could not do so. Without a Registered Provider the applicant stated the development would be unviable and was given permission to pay a commuted sum in lieu of providing affordable housing on the site.

This year the applicant informed the YDNPA that this was not viable either and put forward another scheme. This involves providing two First Homes, one Principal Residency, and dividing one of the dwellings to create two affordable rent flats.

The planning officer explained that First Homes had to be discounted by a minimum of 30 per cent of market value and sold only to those meeting the First Homes eligibility criteria. She said this would provide four affordable housing units which would be made available on a ‘cascade’ basis, first to Horton In Ribblesdale parish, then to adjoining parishes within the National Park, then to the entire National Park and finally to the whole of the local housing authority area.

A dwelling restricted by a principal residency condition, she said, usually led to a reduction in the market value by up to five per cent. The barn on the site will be converted to create a local occupancy dwelling.The planning officer stated that the applicant had provided sufficient site-specific evidence to support this latest application.

Kettlewell
July-
An enforcement notice will be issued to stop fields at Low Hall Farm, Kettlewell, being used as a permanent camping and caravan site.
An enforcement officer told the committee that the caravans on the site were clearly visible not only to those living nearby but also from a distance.

Member Derek Twine commented: ‘[Recently when] I was walking down into Kettlewell it was clearly visible with large and numerous white caravans and campervans and this significantly marred the enjoyment of the view and the heritage view.’

The enforcement officer showed photographs of how close these were to some residences. She stated: ‘The unauthorised use of the land as a permanent caravan/camp site has introduced a more intensive use than had previously taken place. Photographic evidence shows that there are times when the site accommodates a large number of caravans and campervans.

‘Clearly this level of usage generates a significant degree of noise and activity arising from vehicles arriving and leaving the site and activity from visitors on the site setting up camp and enjoying meals outside sometimes until late hours. Given the close proximity of residential properties, in many cases only separated from the campers by a low stone boundary wall, this level of noise and activity would undoubtedly be disturbing to a level exceeding what residents would reasonably expect.

‘Furthermore the stationing of caravans and campervans against the wall separating the site from resident’s gardens clearly undermines privacy enjoyed by residents in their gardens and homes. The unauthorised use adversely affects residents enjoyment of their gardens and properties to a high degree and is a significant increase in what had been the case previously.’

She reported that the application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a permanent seasonal camping and caravanning site had been refused and that an appeal had been lodged. The owners’ agent had requested that no formal enforcement action be taken until that had been determined.

She continued: ‘Waiting for the outcome of the appeal will mean that there is potential for this site to continue to cause harm for residents for another year. If a [enforcement] notice is served it is open to the owners to also submit an appeal against the notice and potentially the Planning Appeal and Enforcement Appeal can be dealt with at the same time.’

She said that as an unregistered site it could still be used, under permitted development rights, for caravan rallies that last no longer than five days, and for camping and caravanning for 28 days in a year. The majority of members voted for an enforcement notice to be served.

Linton
August-
It was agreed that green fields at Catchall Barn near Linton can be transformed into a business site.
Linton Parish Council had objected to the application by Diving, Survey & Marine Contracting (DSMC) of Threshfield to using the barn as an office, the erection of four storage buildings and a covered internal storage area for shipping containers off Lauradale Lane near the junction with the B6265.

Linton Parish councillor Sarah Hill told the meeting a primary concern was that the junction with the B6265 was a dangerous one and there had been accidents there. In addition, she said: ‘The scale of the proposed development with four new large industrial storage units and 18 parking spaces is inappropriate for this site which is the gateway to some beautiful scenery.’

She reminded the committee that the fields had not been identified in the Authority’s Local Plan as a business development site and the parish council was concerned about how a change to industrial use might lead to further applications in the future. The parish council had stated earlier: ‘The preservation of the statutory protected landscape must take precedence over DSMC’s expansion plans.’

Charlie Bayston told the committee that DSMC, which he founded in 2014 and has been based at Threshfield since 2015, carries out commercial diving often using robot operated deep water vehicles, as well as its ‘bread and butter’ work on reservoirs, flood defences, rivers, culverts and bridges including in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

He said he currently employs ten local staff and could employ ten more. ‘Catchall Barn has the potential to provide us with bespoke under cover facilities with more space in which we can operate and grow. As well as offering jobs in general administration, accounting and support roles, we can teach local young people skills in hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics and engineering. Skills that will provide them with well-paid careers allowing them to live here. As a resident here I recognise the need to protect the character of the area and I am convinced that this application will achieve that.’

The planning officer explained that compared to a previous application which had been refused the proposed buildings had been reduced in height to have as minimal impact on the landscape as possible and there would be a significant number of trees and bushes planted to screen the site. She said: ‘The proposed development … is supported by a raft of wider, more strategic Local Plan policies underpinned by current government guidance. The Local Plan aims to encourage businesses to sustain the local economy and to widen the range of businesses on offer expanding out from the traditional agricultural and tourism sectors to provide a more diverse and resilient economy.’

She said the buildings would house a number of shipping containers which would be moved out in the spring and be returned in the autumn so that the equipment used for oceanographic surveys, monitoring and surveying the seabed, could be maintained, cleaned and repaired. She added that Mr Bayston had sought several times to base the business in Threshfield Quarry but the site managers were reticent in allowing developers into it.

Member Mark Corner commented: ‘I am very supportive of the business investing in the dales but my concern is the site and location. It’s a real shame and waste of resources to dig up this green field when we have existing facilities available to use.’

North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster, however, spoke for the majority of members when he said: ‘This is a difficult one for the parish [of Linton] but this is a successful business. It isn’t tourism, it isn’t agriculture. It is paying more than the minimum wage to its staff. For me – this is keeping people living in the local area. It is for local young people and its helping to provide infrastructure for the nation.’ As the staff came from Grassington and Threshfield he did not feel they should have to travel to somewhere such as Langcliffe Mill which had been suggested as a more suitable alternative site.

Member Jim Munday agreed: ‘What we need are careers which can actually help people to live here.’ And North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine commented that the buildings would not look much different to those on a farm. North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock said that there was a shortage of business sites in the National Park and this business was needed.

Long Preston
November:-
The committee approved the outline planning application for ten new homes at Long Preston.
Cllr David Ireton (North Yorkshire) commented: ‘This application seems to tick all the boxes for what we would expect on this site.’

The planning officer stated there would be two ‘First Home’ affordable houses, two apartments for affordable rent, six open market houses on land at Grosvenor Farm on Main Street. The two apartments would be transferred to a housing association to ensure they would remain available in perpetuity. And one of the open market houses would have a Principal Residence restriction requiring the home owner to occupy it as their principal home. She explained that the site had been allocated for new housing development in the present Yorkshire Dales Local Plan with a capacity of nine houses.

Long Preston Parish Council had objected to the application for several reasons. These included the loss of green space and wildlife; inadequate provision of car parking spaces within the proposed development; access to the footpath which crosses the site; and concerns about the speed of traffic along Main Street.

It stated: ‘The parish council would welcome traffic calming measures to be installed on the main road to make it safer to enter and exit the proposed development. In addition the site line for the proposed entrance does not take into account the change in gradient immediately to the west, rendering the site dangerous to road users and residents.’

Cllr Allen Kirkbride (parish council appointee) asked about speed limits along Main Street. Mr Graham replied that this was a matter for the highways authority. Various issues will be considered when a full application is submitted.

Malham
November –
Retrospective permission was granted for a line of mirrors along the south boundary of Holme Farm in Main Street.
These had been installed to assist with teaching and training at the horse riding school. The planning officer stated that the mirrors had very little visual impact from within the riding area as they simply reflected the arena and stables. The 20m long and 2.4m high metre fence on which they are mounted was visible, she said, from the public car park and the picnic area of the Visitor Centre. She did not believe this would harm the visual character of that part of Malham.

Kirkby Malhamdale Parish Council objected to the application because it was very concerned about the leylandi hedge which had been planted. It wants to see this completely removed and replaced with a hedge of local species trees and bushes. It had, however, been informed that the hedge was not a planning matter.

Middleton
May –
There was another very close vote following the debate about allowing four camping pods to be sited at High Fellside, Middleton near Carnforth – but this time the application was refused.

The applicant’s agent told the meeting that the camping pods would increase the variety of visitor accommodation; extend the tourism season and help to reduce the pressure on housing stock being used for holiday lets. The pods would be sited alongside an existing small woodland to minimise their impact on the landscape and there would be more trees planted to provide screening he said. He added that the landowner also aimed to introduce wild flower meadows to increase bio diversity.

The planning officer told the meeting that the proposal was for four luxury camping pods in an isolated location at High Fellside close to Middleton Bridge. Each would be clad in larch with an artificial AstroTurf roof and have patio doors opening out onto timber decking. The decking would be enclosed with stained timber balustrades. She said there would be a track for vehicles and a parking area in an adjacent field.
Several members said it would be against policy to approve such a development in the open countryside and member Jim Munday commented: ‘It’s wide open country and a super landscape… with long views.’

Parish council representative member Libby Bateman, however, said that after five years the impact upon the landscape would be minimal due to the growth of the new trees. ‘Why can’t people from away benefit from the enjoyment of this iconic landscape?’ she asked.

Reeth
March
Orton Works at Reeth was an eyesore and the majority of residents were looking forward to getting the site tidied up, Richmondshire District councillor Richard Good told the meeting.

He also commented that, at his last meeting as a member, the committee was considering the most controversial application from his area since he had joined it. He said that some residents in Hill Close were understandably concerned as their homes would overlook the new development. Orton Works, which had been a builder’s yard until 12 years ago, is accessed via Hill Close.

The committee unanimously voted to approve the application to demolish the existing buildings and to construct three local occupancy dwellings. The planning officer told the committee that the original application had been for four houses but this had been amended.

The height of two had been increased, however, so as to accommodate a third bedroom in each roof space. Reeth, Fremington and Healaugh Parish Council was concerned about this additional height and some residents were worried about their homes in Hill Close being overlooked causing loss of privacy. The planning officer said that care had been taken to reduce opportunities for overlooking, overshadowing or loss of light to neighbours.

She added that if the site returned to being a builder’s yard or similar use the level of noise or disturbance to those living nearby would be unacceptable. The replacement of an employment site with local occupancy dwellings was, therefore, considered justifiable.

Reeth
July-
Amendments to the plans for a hair salon and beauty treatment centre next to the business park at Reeth led to the parish council supporting the application by Hannah Allison of Swale Health Spa.

The planning officer explained: ‘The application proposals have been amended so that the building has been turned 90 degrees and positioned as close to the south west corner of the site and the existing buildings of the Reeth Dales Centre as possible.

‘As the main elevation and entrance now face north this is away from the houses on Arkengarthdale Road rather than, as originally proposed, facing directly towards them.’ This, he said, would restrict the impact on residential amenity.

Lisa Bridge, the clerk of Reeth, Fremington and Healaugh Parish Council, said that the parish council had initially objected to the proposal due to its likely impact upon neighbours and as most of it would be on a greenfield site. It changed to supporting the application after it had been amended and because the council wanted to support a local person who was seeking to expand her business. This was supported by Cllrs Kirkbride and Peacock.

But some residents did not agree. Speaking on their behalf at the meeting Dr Jackie Alexander said the building would sited on a wonderful pastoral meadow, would be visible for miles and miles and would harm the quality and intrinsic character of the landscape. She added: ‘The building is the wrong style, the wrong size, the wrong colour and the wrong height.’

This, she said did not fit with the Authority’s Local Plan, but rather that the planning officer was shoe-horning it into policies. Trees and bushes would be lost and it would have a negative impact upon dark skies. She, like other objectors, believed the new facilities for the hair salon and therapy centre should be in the town centre.

Ms Allison told the meeting her business had outgrown its present premises in Arkengarthdale Road and they very much needed toilet and storage facilities plus disabled access. She said she had found it difficult to find a suitable property in the centre of Reeth. The committee unanimously voted to approve her application.

Stainforth
October –
‘There’s too many of us old farmers,’ commented Member Allen Kirkbride. He and the majority of the committee agreed that a young family should be encouraged to develop a new farm at Sherwood Brow near Stainforth.

The applicant’s agent, Sarah Ettridge, said a survey showed over 85 per cent of those currently working in farming were over 45 years old and added that the next generation needed to be encouraged to ensure that the industry remained viable.

The retrospective application for a static caravan for a full-time worker at Sherwood Brow was approved. The planning officer had explained that the agricultural enterprise was relatively new and the long-term financial viability of the business could not be demonstrated at this stage. She said that the siting of a residential caravan there for three years would provide the young couple with an opportunity to establish the farm and then apply for a rural worker’s dwelling. The caravan must be removed after three years.

A local vet had stated: ‘As a young couple, and a progressive local business that is sympathetic to the traditions and culture of the Yorkshire Dales, every effort should be made to support them and their business – and by providing 24-hour provision it would not only benefit the health and welfare of their stock. It would be a positive contribution to their health and welfare – allowing them and their business to function to its full potential and thereby contributing to the Yorkshire Dales National Park.’

Cllr Heseltine pointed out that, although lambing and calving would be at Sherwood Brow, the vast majority of the farm land was far away. Other members regretted that this was a retrospective application and asked the young farmer to ensure he used the planning process in the future.

Stainforth Parish Council had objected on the basis that it would set a precedent in allowing static residential caravans on agricultural land and ‘creation of farms wherever they want’. This was not accepted by the head of development management, Richard Graham.
The caravan, however, will have to be moved to a less obvious position and clad in timber. The conditions included a landscaping scheme and suitable biodiversity enhancement.

Sedbergh
July –
The quality of a housing development in Sedbergh should not be downgraded for the sole financial benefit of the developer, Sedbergh Parish Council told committee.

At the meeting members were asked to agree to Broadacres changing its approved proposal for 49 dwellings on land off Station Road by relocating the electrical substation, amending the infiltration basin and road surface colours, changing the landscaping and removing the stone window and door heads to the rears of 27 houses.

The parish council informed the Authority that it had no objection to the majority of the amendments but added: ‘[Parish council] embers, however, strongly object to the down grading of the quality of the scheme by the removal of stone window/door heads to the rears of plots 16 to 42.

‘The scheme has already changed In terms of its provision of affordable housing and to now lower the quality of the build for the sole financial benefit of the developer would deliver in perpetuity to the community of Sedbergh housing below the specification originally envisaged and agreed.

‘Members noted the implication that this had been pre-agreed with the planning officer. We feel that such a decision should not be dealt with by delegated powers but should be for the developers to prove their case in front of YDNP members at planning committee.’
The planning officer said that Broadacres proposed to reduce the number of road surfacing materials so that the main circulation route was mostly tarmac.

Westmorland and Furness councillor Graham Simpkins commented: ‘They are actually making considerable savings with the road covering because tarmac is a lot cheaper to lay.’

The majority of the committee, therefore, agreed to approve most of the application, but not that for removing the stone window and door heads.
Sedbergh

November: Several members expressed their frustration that lintels had not been installed to the rears of over 20 houses being built at Station Road, Sedbergh.

Cllr Simpkins described it as a joke that this had gone ahead even though the committee had, at its meeting in August, refused permission for this alteration to the original plans.

The principal planning officer, Katherine Wood, explained that subsequently Mulberry Homes (a subsidiary of Broadacres Housing Association) had informed the Authority that construction had gone ahead without installing the lintels on the rears of the houses on plots 16 to 42 before the August meeting. Lintels were being installed to the front of the houses.

She reported that Mulberry Homes did not want to affect the building programme as the properties were already under construction. As it had gone ahead without planning permission the committee was asked for its view on enforcement action.

She recommended that it was inexpedient to pursue enforcement action as public views of the houses would not be affected especially as trees would be planted to increase the amount of screening. She said all the houses affected would have a rendered finish and added that there wasn’t a strong precedent in Sedbergh for exposed stone lintels on rendered properties.

‘It is, therefore, considered that the minor changes to the original design will not dilute the overall quality of the design of the housing development within the context of Sedbergh,’ she stated.

Sedbergh Parish Council had objected to the removal of the lintels as it felt this would down-grade the quality of the scheme. Cllr Robert Heseltine agreed stating that this would undermine the aesthetic value of the houses.

Cllr Foster said they needed to ensure a developer did not do something similar in the future. But he agreed with other members that they did not want to hold up construction.

‘I am very frustrated … but we really need these houses,’ said Cllr Ian Mitchell (Westmorland and Furness). And so the majority voted to accept the recommendation not to go ahead with enforcement.

Thorpe
May –
By just one vote it was decided not to accept the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application to convert Dowgill Barn at Thorpe into a holiday let or for local occupancy. But that means it has been referred back to the planning committee meeting on July 11.
Cllr Foster was among those who argued that converting the barn into a holiday let would not only save it from falling into disrepair but also help to keep Dowgill Farm viable. Cllr Heseltine commented: ‘These are desperate times for tenanted farmers.’

Hannah Schindler, on behalf of her family, explained how the viability of the farm had changed recently. She said three generations of her family had farmed there using traditional methods. They wanted to conserve the beautiful barns and protect the wild life but needed to diversify, she said.

Cllr Foster told the meeting that although the barn was not visible from the road he believed there would be less impact upon the countryside if it was converted for holiday use only. ‘This is a good way of keeping a heritage asset and keeping a local farm viable – and the parish supports it.’
Other members, however, pointed out that the application was ‘far against present policy’. The planning officer told the meeting that the barn was 40m from the B6160 and there was no existing track to it. This meant that converting it was not in accordance with the Authority’s roadside barn policy. She did accept that converting it into a camping barn might be.

That decision was overturned at the meeting on July 11.

North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster had successfully argued at the committee’s meeting in May that Dowgill Barn should be converted into a holiday let even though it is 40m from the B6160 and there is no track to it. He repeated at the meeting on July 11 that the barn could not be seen from the road and it needed to be converted not only to stop it from decaying but also to support the viability of the farm.

In support, Cllr Kirkbride said: ‘This is farm diversification – and farm diversification should be most welcome.’

The previous decision was referred back so that officers could assess the validity or soundness of the reasons for not accepting the planning officer’s recommendation to refuse the application. At the July meeting the head of development management, Richard Graham, told members: ‘I am very concerned this would be a departure from Local Policy.’

North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton commented: ‘We have a very good policy for barn conversions. I don’t see how this barn can fit into the policies that we members adopted. It’s too isolated in that landscape.’

The planning officer stated: ‘There are other options for the reuse of the barn with a less intensive use such as a camping barn ( i.e. basic bothy accommodation / a “stone tent”) which would suit this isolated location, and therefore see the retention and repair of the barn. ‘The property, whether a holiday let, or permanent dwelling would require a safe off-road parking area. The proposed parking area would involve the removal of a length of wall to create an entrance, the stone boundary wall will be lowered to 1.0m towards the east to create the necessary visibility splays of 2m x 45m. This …would have a harmful visual impact on the rural unspoilt character of this stretch of roadside.’

She added: ‘Many businesses within the National Park are facing difficult times at the moment owing to the current economic crisis, and uncertainty over the single farm payments and the move to a post Brexit agricultural economy are affecting farming in particular. ‘The applicant currently farms 250 acres of land in sheep and beef cattle, but this has recently been reduced from 340 acres as the landlord has sold off a portion of land. The applicant’s family wish to carry on the family business when the applicant retires in the future and this holiday let would assist in ensuring the viability of the farm.’

These, she said, were personal circumstances and as such could only be taken into account if they were very exceptional. ‘These reasons do not apply specifically to this applicant and the circumstances, whilst compelling, are not an exception,’ she said.
The majority of the members accepted her recommendation to refuse the application by John Schindler.

West Burton
November –
Michael Bell won the support of the majority of members for his application to convert a barn on his farm near West Burton into his family home. But Mr Graham said that, as he had significant doubts about the reasons given for going against the officer’s recommendation to refuse it, the decision would be referred back to the next meeting (December 19th)

Mr Bell told the committee that his family had farmed in the area around Eshington Lane for over 100 years. He now had a successful sheep business which he hoped to increase. He and his partner with their two children, however, lived in Leyburn.

He said: ‘The converted barn at Eshington would provide us with a family home close to the farm. I am sometimes driving to and from Leyburn two to three times a day.’  He added that he had lost sheep over the years due to not being there or arriving too late and added that it was particularly difficult during the dark nights of winter. He explained that as he had grown up in West Burton he had tried to buy a suitable property in that village but the prices had always been too high.

Burton cum Walden Parish Council supported his application stating: ‘Mr Bell… reassured the council that his concerns regarding problems with the provision of services such as water, electricity and telephone connection had been overcome satisfactorily. ‘Mr Bell also mentioned that this traditional, but now partly derelict, barn would not be significantly altered but would, in fact, be restored to its original appearance. The council was again assured that vehicular access would be restricted to the area of the new [agricultural] building in the field near the roadside of Eshington Lane with only a small footpath up to the barn.

‘In supporting this application, the council also took into account Mr Bell’s personal circumstances, in that he would be moving his young family back into the Dales, something that we understand is now an aim of the National Park Authority. The council felt it would also be better for the environment by reducing the numerous daily runs from Leyburn that Mr Bell needs to make to attend to his sheep, and also thereby reduce his overheads.’

Cllr Peacock asked the committee: ‘How many times have we been here trying to help farmers have somewhere to live where they can work in the middle of the night. He needs to be there.’ She said the application was well thought out, including storing waste bins in the agricultural building and continuing to use the parking space beside the agricultural barn.

The planning officer had stated: ‘This part of Bishopdale is aesthetically attractive, a beautiful pastoral landscape that is enjoyed by many visitors and residents. The landscape setting of the barn would be diminished significantly by this proposal due to changes to the appearance of the barn, the land around it and from light emanating from the building and site.’

Cllr Peacock pointed out the barn was close to a luxury holiday lodge site which was lit up like the Blackpool illuminations at night. For that reason the conversion of the barn would make little difference to view seen from the other side of the dale, she said.

Other members, however, argued that to approve the application would be against the Authority’s policy. They agreed with the planning officer that the barn was not within a settlement or a building group, nor could it be described as being ‘roadside’ being either close to a road or linked to one via an unsealed track.

Cllr Richard Foster (North Yorkshire) commented that approval had been given for barn conversions that were further away from roads.
And Cllr Graham Simpkins Westmorland and Furness) said: ‘I appreciate that it doesn’t fit with policies but that’s why we have a planning committee. If we follow policies to the letter there is no need for a planning committee. When we have policies that don’t quite fit we can discuss them and make sensible decisions based on particular facts, and this is one of those occasions when she should be looking at what the [result is] to the community.’

He mentioned the desperate need to bring young families back into the Dales and that the agricultural building was close to the road with a short footpath to the barn. He said he would prefer to see the barn retained as a heritage asset than left to fall down.

Cllr Bateman agreed because she felt that at some time in its history the barn had been a house. Mr Graham, however, said there was no evidence for that.
This decision was referred back to the first meeting in 2024 – and was reversed.