ARC News Service reports of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority ( YDNPA ) planning meetings in 2024 covering: Appersett, Aysgarth, Bishopdale (including Howesykes and Kidstones Gill Bridge), Blea Moor (Network Rail), Bolton Abbey, Cams Houses in Oughtershaw (including statement by a campaign group about telecommunication masts) , Devil’s Bridge, Dentdale, Giggleswick, Grassington, Hartlington, Hawes, Hudswell, Kettlewell, Kilnsey, Linton Camp, Maulds Meaburn.

Appersett
March: The detailed designs for an agricultural worker’s dwelling at Woody Bank, Appersett, were unanimously approved.
The application was determined by the committee as it had been made by a member of the Authority’s staff. Outline permission was granted in August 2022 and the latest application included details of the external appearance, site layout, scale of development and landscaping.
Member Neil Heseltine commented: ‘I really like the contemporary design and materials.’
In his report, the planning officer stated that two trees had been removed for safety reasons and that a tree planting scheme had been agreed.
Cllr Peacock told the committee she had visited the area recently and that the remaining trees would provide sufficient screening between the new house and a neighbouring one.

Bishopdale
March: ‘We are supposed to be preserving nature but what we are doing here is bypassing nature,’ commented Westmorland and Furness councillor Graham Simpkins during the discussion about the retrospective application for the installation of a drainage pipe in a field near East Lane Farm buildings in Bishopdale.
The planning officer reported: ‘At the top of the field, a stone-lined trough has been formed adjacent to the gill, serving as the water intake. From here, an HDPE [high density polyethylene] pipe sits within a (now covered), trench. The pipe runs below ground adjacent to the lower portion of the gill for 140 metres, before joining into the existing culverted system, which is piped into the existing highway surface water drainage system.
‘Whilst the design solution has worked, it has been carried out without the benefit of Land Drainage Consent having been sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority [North Yorkshire Council], and without the benefit of planning permission. It has also extended the amount of straight-line culverting; by-passing the lower part of a gill that would likely have assisted in “slowing the flow” of surface water into the existing piped drainage system.’
She concluded that the work was minor in scope, had negligible landscape impact and did not adversely affect biodiversity.
The committee did approve the application in accordance with her recommendation but with an added condition about a drainage management scheme being agreed with the landowners to ensure that water will continue to flow down the gill and that the pipework only took any excess rainwater.
The applicants, Robert and Helen Brown, had informed the planning officer that water flowed down the field into the farm buildings when the gill could not take the volume of water.
North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock said they should have applied for planning permission first so that a full assessment could have been made before work started. She had asked the committee to discuss the application because a lot of people in Bishopdale had reported seeing the gill being filled in.
One of those residents had told the Authority that the retrospective nature of the application bypassed crucial stages in responsible development including a prior assessment of changes to a natural watercourse and wildlife habitats.
The Authority’s wildlife conservation officer had initially objected on the grounds that the work amounted to the infilling of a natural gill. After a visit to the site, however, the officer stated the gill still existed and added: ‘It is clear that the watercourse cannot flow all of the time or even for lengthy periods because there are substantial trees growing in the stream bed. There is material (e.g. old pipes, wire, farm waste) that has been deposited into the watercourse, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much was dumped by previous owners or tenants and how much was deposited when earth was spread over the top of buried piping/culverting most recently.’
Member Allen Kirkbride said: ‘I am not complaining about the pipe, but what I would like to say is that the water [should be] still running down the gill but at a smaller rate and the overflow is made to go down this big pipe. So we are getting the best of both worlds.’
The head of development management, Richard Graham, commented: ‘One problem is that work has already [been] carried out.’ He said that, as far as he understood it, the pipe was there to take the water when the gill couldn’t cope and the excess rainwater then flowed onto the highway.
After the meeting when I asked for the wording of the additional condition Mr Graham informed me: ‘The decision notice for this application has not been issued yet as we have asked the applicant to produce the drainage details that the committee asked for. When we have satisfactory details the permission will include a condition that requires the works to be carried out and maintained thereafter.’
He also asked if the Authority could have waited for the LLFA report on the drainage before bringing the application to the planning committee. To which he replied:
‘The Lead Local Flood Authority (North Yorkshire Council) confirmed that it had no comments to make on the application but noted that the landowner would have needed Land Drainage Consent and that they would contact the landowner to discuss culverting the watercourse. Whilst this non-committal response did not help this Authority consider the issues raised by the planning application it is not a reason to withhold determining the planning application for an indefinite period. A fundamental tenet of the planning system is that planning authorities should not try to duplicate the role and remit of other separate consent regimes.’
…..
On the YDNPA’s Citizens Portal there were some carefully considered objections including this one: ‘The management of water is of high priority in a changing climate, and the management of upland water is critical to rural and urban areas alike.
‘The replacement of a natural gill with a plastic water pipe will cause major problems locally and downstream. At a time when various organisations, including the YDNPA, are experimenting with brush and wool leaky dams to slow the egress of water from higher moorland, it seems short sighted and extremely problematic to then allow a development which will significantly speed up the flow of water from the moors.
‘This development, if permitted, would increase localised flooding at the base of the pipe due to the inability of local drainage to deal with the increased flow, and also downstream as water from the moorland would enter the Bishopdale beck at a greater rate leading to an increased risk of downstream flooding.
‘The national park should be encouraging natural water channels with the obstacles and baffles naturally inherent, to try and slow the entry of water into lower watercourses. As the climate becomes more uncertain, this risk will be increased, and once the original gill goes out of use it will undergo changes that will prevent it coming back into future use.’

Another objector stated: ‘If flooding poses a legitimate concern, proper surveys by qualified experts should be conducted. These surveys should prioritize natural flood alleviation measures aligned with current best practices and sympathetic to maintaining the natural environment.’
In another objection a resident in Bishopdale reported seeing earth dumped on the gill behind that farm and a conservation officer’s report did not clarify the situation. The latter stated: ‘There is material (e.g. old pipes, wire, farm waste) that has been deposited into the watercourse, but it is difficult to determine exactly how much was dumped by previous owners or tenants and how much was deposited when earth was spread over the top of buried piping/culverting most recently.’

Bishopdale – Howesykes Farm
October: Cllr Robert Heseltine said that seven years ago the planning committee had been wrong to approve an application by Robert and Helen Brown to make changes at Howesyke Farm in Bishopdale. ‘I publicly apologise,’ he said.
Another North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton stated: ‘Just because we’ve made a mistake and got it wrong… in my view doesn’t make it right by now approving this [new application] when it is entirely contrary to the development plan..’
It was pointed out that in 2017 the planning committee had not accepted the officer’s recommendation to refuse that application which included extending the farmhouse, the construction of two rural workers’ dwellings at the farm, the erection of two barns, and the conversion of a modern barn into five holiday lets.
The new application (for a barn and one rural worker’s dwelling) was, however, approved with the majority of the committee this time accepting the recommendation of the planning officer. They were told that if it was refused the applicants could ‘fallback’ to that of 2017 and build two rural workers’ dwellings at Howesyke.
The planning officer commented: ‘[With] the significant extent of the holiday let proposal, combined with the holiday let use of the farmhouse, it is apparent that the tourism arm of the enterprise would become the main income stream, and significantly more than a diversification to support the environmental beneficial aspects of land management.’
She told the committee: ‘Many significant elements of the development proposal are contrary to policy, with some aspects lacking detailed justification, such as the proposed dwelling and need for the additional barn. The reason for this is that the applicant is reliant on a fallback factor.’
She said that the latest proposal amounted to unsustainable development and there was no essential functional need for the proposed dwelling at Howesyke but stated: ‘There are several factors relating to the fallback scheme that are worse than the development that is now proposed, including the visual impact, the operational needs of the enterprise, and the sustainability credentials. This weighs in favour of granting permission for the development, despite it being entirely contrary to development plan policy.
‘The fallback scheme included two semi-detached houses which, whilst well-designed, were sited poorly. Together with the farmhouse they would have formed a long run of buildings, all with similar eaves and ridge height. In design terms they would compete with the main farmhouse and confuse the hierarchy of dwellings on site.’
There is now a car park where they would have been built. Member Allen Kirkbride described the original location of those two proposed dwellings as infill. ‘I can’t see what the problem is with that [2017] plan,’ he said.
He agreed with North Yorkshire County councillor Yvonne Peacock who commented: ‘My main concern is that the first [application] went through on the basis that the applicant was going to live in the house and farm 1,000 sheep on the land. That has not happened.’ The farmhouse is now a nine-bedroom luxury holiday let.
Several Bishopdale residents had objected to the latest Howesyke Farm application (see below) with one stating that there had been an obvious increase in pheasants in the fields plus noise from the shooting business. ‘Howesyke is now beginning to look like some kind of expanding holiday estate. It is not in keeping with the natural, unspoilt image of Bishopdale,’ she had added.
The Browns have also applied to build a rural worker’s dwelling at Kidstones Gill Bridge and that will be discussed in November. At present a gamekeeper lives in a chalet there for which temporary planning permission expired in March this year. This is the second time the gamekeeper has remained there after temporary permission for the chalet had expired.
The committee was told that if permission is granted for a rural worker’s dwelling to be built at Kidstones Gill Bridge a legal agreement would be signed to rescind the 2017 approval to build two beside Howesyke Farmhouse.
Cllr Heseltine commented: ‘In my opinion, it has not been helpful to conflect the Howesyke Farm application with that of Kidstones [Gill] Bridge. It’s muddying the waters and confusing the issue.’
However, Derek Twine, the chairman of the Authority, said: ‘The [Howesyke Farm application] is the lesser of two challenging proposals. There is much that can be learned from seven years ago but we are in a different position with different criteria in terms of businesses and work in the Dales, life in the Dales and the way in which tourism as well as farming has changed.’
And the majority agreed with Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness Council) who stated: ‘I think we have got a get out of jail free card on the table. Over the last seven years there have been a considerable change in agriculture. This business is growing, it’s employing people, and what’s on the table is better than what we approved in 2017. So I can’t see any reason to refuse it.’
Mrs Brown told the committee: ‘Back in 2017 the planning committee supported our original planning application. The only changes to this current application is the removal of one cottage, the relocation of the remaining cottage to a more suitable site, and the reduction in size of one of the barns.
‘The idea of removing one of the cottages came about after lengthy discussion with the Park regarding the functional use of the worker’s cottage at Kidstones bridge – a stand alone block of 700 acres ten minutes away from Howesykes.
‘The easiest way to resolve the fact we already have permission for two cottages at Howesykes and not wanting to build a third in Bishopdale it was recognised that the best option was to move one of the cottages from Howesykes to Kidstones Bridge. This is the reason we submitted two separate planning applications.
‘In the last 15 years with the backing of the National Park Authority we have invested significantly in Bishopdale financially and environmentally and created employment opportunities for young people. We have created full time and part time roles for numerous young people, won environmental awards and so fulfilling many of the National Parks Management Plan objectives .. contributing to the environment, the local economy and the local community.
‘We wish to continue to complete our plans, continue to invest and create even greater benefits for the area. This application replaces what we already have approval for and does not ask for any more development than what is approved and could be developed.’
‘Receiving approval of the proposal for Howesykes will create the opportunity to move on to support the subsequent Kidstones Bridge application at the November committee meeting and for all the related elements to come together as a holistic finishing to the current situation as well as addressing the demonstrated need in a more direct and practical manner. We can assure you that we have the best interest of the national park and our employees at heart.’
Objections by local farmers and residents sent to the YDNPA before the meeting:
A local farmer commented about allowing a permanent rural worker’s dwelling to be built at Kidstones Gill Beck: ‘This development would be out of character for Bishopdale, in an unsuitable location, will impact the visual element of the area and will bring no significant benefits. Given that the YDNPA generally opposes the conversion of unused barns to accommodation for rural workers, such an out of character new build cannot, for consistency, be approved. There seems to be minimal justification for the demand for accommodation.’
Another farmer stated: ‘A great deal of good work has been carried out by the YDNPA since it was designated in 1954 which has preserved the wonderful landscape we enjoy today by protecting it from unwarranted developments and the near prohibition of green-field developments like this, especially with a purely commercial intent for the benefit of remote investors.
‘Excessive development has already taken place at Howesyke, which has destroyed the original character of the place with further unexecuted plans for accommodation still in existence. The existing permissions for rural workers to be accommodated if executed, would be much less impactful on the environment than allowing the unwarranted permanent destruction of a fresh unspoilt site on an unsubstantiated premise from an owner with no link to the landscape we all have inhabited for many decades.
‘The owners, Mr & Mrs Brown, were granted numerous extraordinary permissions at Howesyke Farm, which lay outside the normal accepted developments allowed in the National Park, including the development of the site of the large modern building sited to the front of the property despite the strong objection of the appointed conservation officer who stated that such a development would perpetuate the significant visual harm already caused by the poorly sited building and that they could not support the application.
‘As I understand it, the permission which was granted for the doubling of the size of the part 17th century farmhouse (possibly with at least 16th century origins) at Howesyke was on the understanding that it was to be used as a family home. It has not been used as such by the owner in the years since the major alterations were carried out and seems purely to be let as a holiday let/party venue.
‘The scale of the development is extreme: the apparent doubling in size of the farm house (with probably at least 16th century origins), the complete disregard for its historic fabric and appearance, the introduction of prominent non-local building materials, the hardcore tracks that have appeared all over the valley, the numerous buildings already erected etc. all for the benefit of commercial absentee owners.
‘Given the number of applications from these owners so far and the following incremental developments that seem to just keep coming it is concerning to imagine what this landscape may look like in 20 years’ time if the present rate of creeping commercial overdevelopment of Howesyke Farm continues. I recognise the need for farms to diversify, but the developments proposed here are extreme, permanent, disproportionate and deeply impactful on the nature and character of the landscape – just as the intense commercial shooting operation run by the owners is on the quality of life [of residents]
A Bishopdale resident wrote: ‘The whole history of the development of Howesyke and adjoining properties and buildings has been expansion and changes of use applications, taking the original concept away from a residential farm to some form of massive leisure complex. Whilst changes to staff residences to holiday lets may seem reasonable…why have a new build further up the dale? This was meant to be a residential farm, and is now morphing into a holiday camp.’
Another commented: ‘The requirement for more holiday lets in such a small area is unnecessary. Additional to this, Bishopdale acts like an ampitheatre and noise is magnified due to the valley shape. Additional people to those already using the holiday let facilities at Howsykes will, when outside with games, music etc. create excessive amplified noise disturbing the local environment and wildlife. Full conversations can be heard quite clearly.’
Kidstones Gill Bridge
October: Without the evidence of livestock on the Howesyke Estate the application for a rural worker’s dwelling at Kidstones Gill Bridge in Bishopdale was a sham, Alastair Dinsdale, Wensleydale farmer and chair of the Association of Rural Communities, told the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority‘s ( YDNPA ) planning committee on November 26.
The majority of the members, however, voted to approve the provision of a three-bedroomed rural worker’s dwelling with an integral garage at Kidstones Gill Bridge. The planning officer explained that this was part of the Howesyke Estate owned by Rob and Helen Brown. She said the livestock at Kidstones Bridge amounted to 200 breeding ewes, 20 suckler cows and, at present, 40 turkeys for the Christmas trade.
Mr Dinsdale told the committee there was no evidence that the Howesyke Estate owned any breeding ewes or suckler cows. He added that in the report of the independent agricultural advisor commissioned by the YDNPA there was a disclaimer that the number of livestock had been provided by the applicants and had not been verified. [Before the meeting an objector had asked the planning department for detailed information about the number of livestock owned by the Howesyke Estate but received no reply.]
He said, ‘Without this evidence this application is a sham. If the committee give[s] approval without evidence of the suckler cows and lambing sheep farming enterprise then they are granting permission for two luxury houses [one at Howesyke] in the open countryside for 40 Christmas turkeys.’
The planning officer reminded the committee that at its meeting in October it had approved an application by the Browns which was subject to a legal agreement being signed rescinding their right to develop two-semi detached rural workers’ dwellings at Howesyke for which they were granted permission in 2017.
She said: ‘The applicant’s intention is to retain their right to build two new rural workers dwellings. One of these would be at Howesyke, and one would be re-located to Kidstones Gill Bridge.’
She reported that the independent agricultural advisor had taken account of the fact that the functional need is much reduced because of the reliance on adjoining farmers providing livestock care.
She said: ’The conclusion is that there is still a significant functional need in relation to the game rearing enterprise, with intensity of need during periods or bird rearing and livestock birth. Also, that there is a need for a worker to live on site at Kidstones Gill Bridge, to deal quickly with emergencies in the interest of the wellbeing of animals, the efficient running of the holding, for overall security and as poaching deterrent.’
She added that the temporary chalet was the only available dwelling at Kidstones Gill Bridge at present.
Adrian Hume Sayer, whose family has lived and farmed in Bishopdale for over 100 years, called for the committee to dismiss the application because the Brown’s had recently bought Dale Head Farm with a house less than one mile from Kidstones Gill Bridge. ‘The development of this green field site would seem entirely contrary to the YDNPA’s first principle and to its planning policy,’ he said.
Cllr David Ireton asked if the Brown’s acquisition of Dale Head Farm with its accommodation had been taken into account when the independent agricultural advisor had assessed the need for a dwelling.
The Head of Development Management Richard Graham replied: ‘No, that wasn’t taken into account either in this report or the agricultural advisor’s assessment. If members are not happy with that we can go back to our agricultural consultant to look at it in the light of that additional purchase.’ The committee voted against deferral by nine votes to seven.
Mr Hume Sayer also told the committee that the Brown’s continued stream of development and intensively commercial shooting business was having a significant negative impact on the environment and residents turned to the YDNPA to protect it. ‘Parishioners have raised significant concerns about the environmental impact of this plan and the Browns’ wider operation… such as noise on shoot days,’ he explained.
He was concerned about the impact upon the dark skies policy as it was planned to orientate the new property so that it looked down the dale and so would be easily seen at night. This was not, he said, in keeping with the tradition of building in the valley.
He pointed out that at a meeting of Aysgarth and District Parish Council only three out of the seven councillors voted to support the application with the councillor for Bishopdale parish strongly opposing it. [See note 1 below]
In her statement Mrs Brown three times mentioned that Aysgarth and District Parish Council had supported the application. She said: ‘I understand that there are approximately 657 households in the parish but only a small handful have made objections.’ [Note 2]
She continued: ‘Jack, who is here today, and his partner Lauren, have worked and lived at Kidstones since 2018 both filling the functional needs of the land as acknowledged by officers and the Park’s specialist advisor. After six years living in temporary accommodation it is vital for a permanent worker’s dwelling to be constructed to keep Jack and Lauren as they are both creative contributors to the Bishopdale community.’ [Note 3]
North Yorkshire Cllr Andrew Murday commented: ‘There has been somebody living in temporary accommodation for the past six years. I feel rather sorry for them that they have had to do that, and surely they deserve to have better than that.’
When planning permission was granted in 2017 for what was a traditional farmhouse at Howesyke to be extended and two rural workers’ dwellings to be built beside it (including one for Jack Jones), the Browns had told the planning committee that they intended to live there with their children. [Note 4]
At the November meeting Mrs Brown told the committee: ‘We would love to move to Bishopdale permanently but the circumstances of Rob’s work being in Manchester we have had to put this on hold for a few years. We use Howesyke as a second home, letting the house from time to time, bringing new people to the area to spend in the local economy and enjoy the beauty of the national Park.’
North Yorkshire Cllr Yvonne Peacock pointed out that the former farmhouse was now a luxury holiday let which could sleep 18 people. She disagreed with the arrangement that the applicants would accept only having one rural worker’s dwelling built at Howesyke as long as they could have a house in the open countryside at Kidstones Gill Bridge.
‘I can’t agree to that because it was on landscape reasons that the officers recommended only building one at Howesyke and [my objection] is also on landscape reasons. You can certainly travel from Howesyke to do anything [at Kidstones Gill Bridge].
Cllr Robert Heseltine agreed with her. He told the committee: ‘This is a high end commercial tourism and wildlife shooting enterprise. The farming aspect is minimal. For nearly ten years my family farmed at Dale Head Farm and I was allocated to look after it. I had one day a week shepherding there and walling.’ He described how a farmer from West Burton had taken care of the Kidstones farm by visiting once a week.
Member and Askrigg parish councillor Allen Kirkbride said he did not feel that there was a need for a house for a rural worker at Kidstones Gill Beck. ‘Without the farming there is no need for this house on this site. There is another building available for a gamekeeper not far away,’ he said.
North Yorkshire Cllr Richard Foster, however, strongly disagreed. He stated: ‘According to our agricultural advisor…this property is needed. This other house [at Dale Head Farm] is speculative. We don’t even know if that stays in the management of these people, or if it will be sold. Anything can happen to it. It’s not part of this application.’
He pointed out that planning officers had approved similar agricultural workers’ dwellings in the open countryside in other parts of the National Park. This application, he said, would also have been dealt with by planning officers and was only brought to the committee because of the background history of Howesyke. ‘We need to forget the past history on this – we just need to move forward,’ he added.
Member Libby Bateman (Ravenstonedale Parish councillor) agreed with him. She wondered if the house would still be useful in preserving, conserving and enhancing the Yorkshire Dales National Park in the future.
‘Is it going to be a family that’s living there that’s going to be having children in the school and those children having the opportunity to grow up in the countryside, that we all enjoy, the beautiful countryside and the wellbeing that it adds to those people? So this is in compliance with the policy. It’s not about who owns it – it’s about what you leave behind and what that does to the environment and to this place in the future.’
Cllr Peacock agreed that what they were doing was not just for now but the future. ‘So we must get it right. So why not delay at this stage and get some more information?’ And she asked that, if it was approved, very strong conditions were applied. ‘Please this must never be a holiday cottage…or a second home.’

Pip’s Notes
1 – Aysgarth and District Parish Council consists of five parishes: Aysgarth (3 councillors), Thornton Rust (2 councillors), Thoralby (3 councillors), Bishopdale (1 councillor) and Newbiggin (1 councillor). It is, therefore, very easy for the councillor from parishes such as Bishopdale to be out-voted. For that reason, it was customary in the past for the views of the councillor/s from a parish affected by a planning application to be given precedence. That did not happen at the meeting of Aysgarth and District Parish Council on September 7 2023. One of the three who voted in agreement with the Brown’s application for a rural worker’s dwelling at Kidstones Gill Bridge often has part time employment on the Howesyke Estate during pheasant shoots.
2 – The number of households quoted by Mrs Brown maybe for the whole of Aysgarth and District Parish Council as there are approximately 22 households in Bishopdale parish with about seven being owner occupied. The Browns now own several properties and farms in Bishopdale.
3 – Jack Jones and a different partner were introduced by the Browns to Aysgarth and District Parish Council in September 2023. The plans for the 2017 application (R/58/65C) showed the semi-detached ‘staff accommodation’ situated next to the farmhouse. That area is now a large car park.

Adrian Hume-Sayer’s statement (abridged)
(A Bishopdale farming family)
The applicants acquisition of Dale Head Farm, with house less than one mile from the proposed site completely negates any demonstrable need for this green field development and I call that the application be dismissed on these grounds.
I would also like to state that the reporting of the Parish councillors vote was somewhat misleading and it should be recorded here that only 3 of the 7 councillors voted to support the scheme with the councillor for Bishopdale strongly opposing.
We all accept that change is necessary but it is the nature of the change and its consequences which the community has come together to rightfully oppose with (I believe) the vast majority of those parish households without a vested interest in the Browns’ enterprise coming together to demonstrate their opposition to this and the Brown’s continued stream of development. Their intensively commercial shooting business is having a significant negative impact on the environment in which we all live and which we turn to you to protect. Parishioners have raised significant concerns about the environmental impact of this plan and the Browns wider operation, which are well documented, such as the noise on shoot days.
A major part of the justification for this application is the ‘demonstration of need’ for there to be a rural worker on site, not only has the evidence for this has not been satisfactorily verified but importantly this application does not take into account that the owners now own another house less than a mile away from which the site could be reached on foot in a matter of minutes, something that would be expedited by the rebuilding of the Howgill footbridge.
The development of this greenfield site would seem entirely contrary the YDNPAs first principal and to its planning policy
The business needs of absentee owners should not be the main concern in considering an extraordinary development of this kind – the colossal and irreversible environmental impact should be the primary concern….
The report suggests that the present staffing level of the estate is adequate with two rural workers, so why are two workers cottages being considered bringing the number of workers houses to three across the two sites. When the original application was considered, the third house was to accommodate a farm worker but as the farming has not been taken in hand, this additional house is surplus to the stated need.

Alastair Dinsdale’s statement
Wensleydale farmer and chair of the Association of Rural Communities
I am here today to see that policies are applied consistently and fairly.
This application hinges on whether the test of policy SP3 and C3 have been met. The applicants claim to have 200 lambing sheep, 20 suckler cows and 40 turkeys. No evidence to support this has been provided. The independent report contains a disclaimer that land and livestock numbers are the applicant’s figures and have not been verified.
Yesterday when I went to check the building myself I found the building contained young dairy heifers not suckler cows.
Last night I had a phone call from the applicants’ agent asking what I was objecting to. I told him I wanted to see the planning policies applied to this applicant the same as they would be to anyone else and that I did not believe the applicants owned any cattle or sheep themselves. I asked him to provide evidence of ownership today – such as a herd register or continuous flock record. Does he have that with him? [There was no response from the agent or Mrs Brown.]
Without this evidence this application is a sham and I ask the members to be led by the local representative and to reject the application.
If the committee is minded to give approval without evidence of the suckler cows and lambing sheep farming enterprise then they are granting permission for 2 luxury houses, in open country, for 40 Christmas turkeys. If that is the precedent they wish to set then they cannot expect the local community to take their planning policy seriously.
Statement by Helen Brown (slightly abridged)

Rob and Helen Brown – applicants
We are really pleased that Alan Jackson, the Park’s independent advisor and the parish council recommend approval of this application.
As discussed at the last meeting this application ties in with the Howesyke application you as a committee approved last month. In summary this application came forward following pre-application discussions with your officers regarding the functional need for a worker’s cottage at Kidstones bridge, a stand-alone block of 700 acres and ten minutes from Howesyke. This has led to us submitting two separate applications for new properties to replace the two we had consent for – so one new house at Howesyke and one new house at Kidstones bridge where there is a confirmed functional need.
… Alan Jackson’s report confirmed that this application satisfies all the requirements for policies P3 rural worker’s housing. Jack, who is here today, and his partner Lauren, have worked and lived at Kidstones since 2018 both filling the functional needs of the land as acknowledged by officers and the Park’s specialist advisor. After six years living in temporary accommodation it is vital for a permanent worker’s dwelling to be constructed to keep Jack and Lauren as they are both creative contributors to the Bishopdale community. A new traditional looking cottage will be built in stone and slate with trees screening the site from the road which compliments Howesyke’s strong environmental objectives. It will be totally off grid using power from the hydro plant and we understand that it could be the first off grid home or certainly one of the very small number in the National Park.
We attended the parish council meeting when this application was discussed with the councillors and members of the public, some of which are present here today. And we are delighted that the parish council voted to support the application. We note that there are some objections to the application but 16 of these come from four households, the same four households, and one of these households is based in Stroud. I understand that there are approximately 657 households in the parish but only a small handful have made objections. We ask you to note the support of the parish council alongside any objections.
We fully understand and support the concept that farming needs to evolve and work in harmony with environmental protection and enhancement. We have already planted nearly 100 hectares of land with over 100,000 native trees and restored nearly 400 hectares of degraded peat moorland to benefit wildlife and water quality. Our extensive and careful management of our farmland also supports many of the threatened waders such as curlew, lapwing, redshank, snipe as well as barn owls, kestrel, merlin, and many more which are now abundant in the valley.
Following the government’s recent budget, like many farmers, we will face many financial pressures in the coming years. For one our basic payment scheme subsidy will be slashed by approximately £30,000 next year which was unforeseen. It is now more important than ever that we can move on from more extensive farming practise to be able to deliver the environmental schemes which provide the vital income stream that keeps farmers in business. We wish to continue to complete our plans, continue to invest and create even greater benefits for the area and for our children so that our farm can meet these future liabilities to allow our children to enjoy the same.
We have created full time and part time roles for many young people, won numerous environmental awards, and so fulfilling many of the national parks management plan objectives .. and contributing to the environment, the local economy, and the local community.
We would love to move to Bishopdale permanently but the circumstances of Rob’s work being in Manchester we have had to put this on hold for a few years.
We use Howesyke as a second home, letting the house out for time to time, bringing new people to the area, to spend in the local economy and enjoy the beauty of the national park. We spend a lot of time in this area and are hands on owners, farmers and employers, running the business using our skills we learnt studying agriculture at university. We have a great team working with us who, along with ourselves, contribute to the local community and have a lot of friends in Bishopdale.
Your support for this application will enable all the related elements to come together.

Blea Moor Network Rail
July: Cllr Heseltine described the work carried out by Network Rail on Blea Moor as ‘vandalism of the highest order’. And Cllr Foster commented that it looked like criminal damage.
They and other members of the committee were shocked to see photographs showing the 4.5m wide track already created by Network Rail as part of one 620m long route to provide access to a tunnel ventilation shaft. The depth of the stonework on the track varies from 600m to 1m.
They were told that its construction had involved the excavation of earth, including peat, in order to reach ground sufficiently solid to build on. The planning officer said the work had begun in August 2023 without informing the landowner, who had stopped it a month later after being told about the track by a Dent Parish councillor.
It was reported that the landowner had worked with Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (YWT) and Yorkshire Peat Partnership (YPP) between 2020 and 2020 to restore peatland at that site of the track with funds from Nature for Climate and Countryside Stewardship agreements.
YWT stated: ‘Due to the prolonged period between the damage occurring and YPP being commissioned to undertake the works to stabilise the exposed bare peat, damage has continued to occur. For example, peat was left uncovered for a significant period and it is impossible to comprehensively cover up the piles of excavated peat, plus erosion has taken place due to the channelling of water into new gullies (50+) that have formed around the track.
‘The installation of the track has disrupted the structure of the peat and the peatland hydrology. The specialised peatland vegetation that forms under healthy blanket bog conditions forms new peat, captures carbon, slows the flow of water across the landscape and provides habitat for rare and important birds and other wildlife. Once the peat structure and hydrology has been compromised, these processes are also compromised.’
The planning officer reported: ‘Blanket bog is classed as irreplaceable habitat. The unauthorised works have clearly caused loss and damage to an irreplaceable habitat. For such damage to be justified there needs to be “wholly exceptional” circumstances.’
Network Rail stated that it needed access to three tunnel ventilation shafts serving Blea Moor tunnel to fix new tops to the turrets and carry out repairs to brick and metalwork so as to stop rainwater falling onto the tracks and freezing in winter. The planning officer said that, although it was accepted that these repairs were necessary, these works were clearly not a ‘nationally important infrastructure project’.
Both he and the landowner believed that other methods could have been used to access the turrets such as helicopter lifts, using Argo Cat vehicles, use of bog mats and floating access tracks. All of these, however, had been discounted by Network Rail.
The planning officer told the committee that Network Rail had withdrawn its retrospective planning application for the track. Approval was given for enforcement action.

Bolton Abbey
July: Protecting the River Wharfe from pollution is high on the priorities for the Arches Farm near Bolton Abbey, Stephen Bolland told the committee.
He stated: ‘We farm close to the River Wharfe and protecting the river is something that is important to me and my family, regardless of legislation requirements. We already work hard to farm in a way that protects the environment.’
In addition, he said, they want to install a 50m by 29m slurry bag in a field to meet the requirements of the Environment Agency’s Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Regulations 2018.
But a planning officer argued that due to the proposed location the slurry bag would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape even though there would be a metre high bund. She pointed out that when the bag was full it would be 1.5m above the bund.
The majority of the committee, however, voted to approve the application. As this was against officer recommendation it may be referred back.
Mr Bolland had explained: ‘A slurry storage bag is the type of solution recommended by Natural England and the Environment Agency. And as the next generation at the Arches farm I am enthusiastic about the benefits despite the cost implications to our business.
‘By law we have to collect all the cow slurry and dirty water produced on our farm and store it. Slurry is fertiliser and if applied correctly it avoids the need for artificial fertiliser and doesn’t harm the environment.
‘A need for a large store is so that the application of slurry can be optimised to take account of the environment of growing grass and the weather at the time of application. With a store of the size proposed we will never need to spread in winter or when it is raining so we can safeguard the environment. We are not intensive dairy farmers. We have a mixture of sheep and cattle and our produce, including our milk, is sold and consumed locally.
‘As a family we appreciate the special qualities of the National Park in the picturesque setting of Bolton Abbey. As a parish councillor commented, we have farmed at the Arches Farm for several generations having ensured our operations are in harmony with the tourism activities that draw thousands of visitors to the village each year. Our land management and keeping of livestock adds to the attraction for visitors.
‘I genuinely believe that the slurry storage bag screened by dry stone walls and proposed tree planting will have less of an impact than is suggested in the [officer’s] report. An amended plan has been submitted to show a new dry stone wall instead of previously shown hedge to screen the views from the bridle way to the west. When it comes to long distance views from across the dale, I remain of the opinion that these will only be intermittent glimpses between trees and that it would not be harmful.’
The YDNPA’s historic environment team commented: ‘It’s appreciated that there may be a wider landscape impact from this development, but it’s not considered that it would have a significant impact on recorded heritage assets on, or in the vicinity of the site.’
The planning officer, however, stated: ‘The siting of a slurry bag of the size proposed, along with the excavation works and engineering operations required would impose a large and prominent unsightly feature in this open landscape that would result in harm to the intrinsic pastoral character and visual quality of the area and would fail to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the National Park. As an unsightly feature of significant scale and prominence it would also distract and detract from the wider setting of the Bolton Abbey historic landscape which is of international importance. It is considered that such a large and potentially reflective feature in this location cannot be adequately mitigated or assimilated into the established, open landscape character through landscape planting and a less harmful location should be considered.’
Member Lizzie Bushby supported her and stated: ‘I do worry that this is a very high quality landscape adjacent to Bolton Abbey and it is visible in long distance views across the valley. It is potentially going to be highly visible and a change to this landscape.’
Bolton Abbey Parish Council had disagreed. It had told the committee: ‘We are of the opinion that this proposal will have no visual impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area nor will it introduce any amenity issues. We believe that the proposal should be supported to allow this considerate, long standing farm enterprise to continue to grow sustainably to the benefit of future generations and the village.’
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster commented that it would be difficult to find any site near Bolton Abbey that wasn’t of historical importance. ‘These were some of the first pastoral fields probably in the north of England [as the monks] probably had a dairy farm here rather than a sheep farm because it was closer to the priory for making cheese. So it is probably one of the most historic dairy farms in the country and to stop it on the grounds that it is not meeting environmental targets I think is wrong. I think [ this] is a really good solution. A big metal or concrete structure would probably look worse on the aspect of Bolton Abbey.’
Parish council member Allen Kirkbride said that a large concrete or metal slurry tank would stand out like a sore thumb and that fulfilling the latest legal requirements was a big financial outlay for small farms. ‘To my mind the applicants have bent over backwards to try to minimise the amount of environmental impact on this site. They are willing to screen it with planting schemes and a dry stone wall. I don’t know what more can be done. We are going to lose dairy farming in the dales if we are not careful. We do need help from the National Park to keep farms going especially dairy farms.’
When agreeing with Ms Bushby that a decision should be deferred Member Mark Corner said ‘I prefer nothing at the moment and come back with a better location.’
Cllr Foster, however, stated: ‘I am not sure another site will functionally work. We might be in a position where this [this application] comes back in six months time at which point the farm hasn’t had suitable storage. We could have another wet winter and we could’ve put the farm in the position where it is polluting the river.’
Westmorland and Furness councillor Graham Simpkins said the country needed the farming industry and added: ‘We need slurry management because we know the problems with the rivers.’
And North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock commented: ‘Only the farmer knows the best place for this for his business.’
Several members, including Cllr Foster, asked if the proposed screening with trees and bushes could be increased, and if there was an alternative colour for the slurry bag rather than grey.
Richard Graham, head of development management, said that usually a decision was referred back to the next planning committee meeting if it was against officer recommendation. He said he wanted to talk to the applicant to see if he could offer a landscaping scheme which would improve the impact upon the landscape.

Cam Houses, Oughtershaw
September: The committee agreed with a planning officer that the impact upon the landscape around Cam Houses at Oughtershaw of a 20m lattice telecommunications mast with three radio antennas and three 600mm dishes would be too significant.
Twine said this was a situation where the first purpose of the National Park to protect and conserve the landscape came into play. ‘There is not much more iconic than this remote area,’ he added. It was also described by members as an important open area with spectacular scenery.
The planning officer said the mast would breach the skyline in what was a highly sensitive, exposed and relatively wild landscape seen from Ribblesdale. He explained: ‘The proposed development would prejudice the public’s enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by introducing a prominent and incongruous structure that would result in significant harm within an iconic landscape of outstanding natural beauty that is currently enjoyed by numerous visitors.’
The installation of the mast above Cam Houses would include fencing, two telecom cabinets, and hard standing, plus the possibility of an unmetalled grass 250m long track from the Pennine Way.
It was reported that the applicant, Cornerstone, considered the mast to be critical to provide a line of sight to others such as those at Buckden and Coverdale.
When asked if there was an alternative solution the planning officer replied that it had been suggested the fibre optic network in the area could be connected to the mast at Hubberholme. He added: ‘ The coverage on the tops of the hills won’t be as good without this proposal but, certainly in the habitable areas of the valley, there appears to be this alternative proposal.’
Buckden Parish Council had told the committee: ‘The application has significant implications for mobile network provision in Buckden Parish. We are … supportive of improved 4G coverage in remote rural areas.’ It added that communities without mobile coverage were becoming increasingly disadvantaged and the provision of 4G coverage was a pre-requisite of the YDNPA vision of ‘strong self-reliant communities’.
In addition, it said, the funding available under the government’s Shared Rural Network was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide remote communities with a service that has been available to much of the country for more than a decade.
It stated that the mast at Raikes Wood, Buckden, would not provide effective coverage in the Oughtershaw area and one at Cam Houses would benefit residents as well as walkers using the Dalesway and Pennine Way. The parish council was particularly opposed to increasing the height of the mast at Raikes Wood to compensate for not having one at Cam Houses.
The planning officer said the objections included impact upon landscape, impact upon the ecology, and some strong concerns relating to the health and safety of such masts, and how those affected human health and wildlife, in particular insects.
The committee was clapped by members of the group: Dales Commoners – Keeping the Dales Natural, wild and free of 5G.
Telecommunications Masts

At the October meeting the committee was asked if a planning authority could be held culpable if it failed to protect its residents from any harmful effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emanating from telecommunication masts.
In statements at the beginning of the meeting four women asked the committee about the impact of new telecommunication masts in the dales on the health of humans, livestock and wildlife and upon the landscape.
‘We wish to alert members to the areas in which we feel planning authorities could be vulnerable to claims being made against them for resulting harm,’ Sue Holden said.
She told the committee that the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) had stated that compliance with its guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or affects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers, defibrillators, and cochlear implants.
Alexandra Wood said the ICNIRP guidance related only to thermal effects. ‘Information is readily available detailing the adverse health effects and increased cancer risk of electromagnetic radiation technology via a non-thermal pathway.
‘On the recent Outershaw mast application we see no reference to specific design details. We are asking how can the planning committee verify that any mast antennae set is compliant… without knowledge or understanding of the specific antennae design details from the Telecom applicant? We know Lloyds of London will not insure against the harmful effects of radio frequency from these masts and we don’t know of any insurance company that will.’
The women told the committee that there were over 10,000 independent peer-reviewed scientific papers that demonstrated adverse biological effects of EMFs, such as changes in hormone levels, damage to DNA, sleep disruption and many other serious symptoms including cancer, at power levels way below the current government and industry safety guidelines.
The committee was told: ‘This rollout [of telecommunication masts] is potentially endangering dales people and the habitat. No consent has been sought from locals for many of these masts. We are all being exposed to harmful EMFs without our knowledge.’
Caroline Penman stated: ‘A 2020 European Parliament study found that ICNIRP’s links to the telecoms companies shows it can’t be considered independent. Many ICNIRP members have received research funding from the industries that benefit from ICNIRP’s high industry-friendly limits.
‘Why, when objectives of the Park’s Management Plan states that overhead lines are to be buried to “reduce the impact on the landscape”, are we even considering building massively imposing towering masts and the ensuing forest of booster masts on the skyline of our iconic Fells, when there are alternatives to achieve the same goals?’
These she said included satellite communications systems or the under road fibre-optic cable network that was used in Cyprus to connect all remote villages within two years.
It would, she said, cost £280 million less to equip 50,000 hillwalkers with iPhone 14 than the Total Not Spot scheme using telecommunication masts. And iPhone 14s can be used to send emergency SOS to text emergency services when outside cellular and Wifi coverage.
‘We could major in being the only place left in the UK totally free of masts, where you can truly digitally detox, pitching yourself against the elements and being allowed to take responsibility for yourself.’
In response the chairman of the planning committee, Cllr Ian Mitchel, read the following statement:
‘Firstly the Authority tries to ensure that information submitted with planning applications is correct insofar as it can. All applicants have to sign a declaration on the planning application forms to confirm that the information provided is true and accurate.
‘Your second point about health risks from telecommunications development is very technical. The National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out Government instructions on how the planning system should operate, is quite clear on how planning authorities should deal with these issues:
‘Planning applications should include a declaration from the applicant that new telecommunications development will meet international commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection.
Planning authorities should not “question the need for an electronic communication system or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure”.
‘Compliance with International Commission guidelines is a condition of the telecoms operator’s licence which is regulated and enforced by Ofcom and not by planning authorities.
‘You have also made a point about the potential effect on the National Park landscape and the experience of visiting the Park.
‘Every planning application for telecommunications development is carefully considered so that negative effects are balanced against the benefits for our residents, for children in education, local businesses, the emergency services and our visitors.
‘This does not mean that every application is permitted, some have been refused or withdrawn because of our concerns, but on the whole we have managed to find appropriate sites and secure landscape planting for the majority.’

Dentdale
March: The impact of the increasing number of holiday lets and second homes on local communities was discussed when considering an application which included the conversion of a traditional barn near Dent for guest accommodation.
Dent Parish Council had objected to this because it has its own policy against holiday let accommodation. It stated: ‘Dentdale currently experiences a high percentage of holiday lets and the sustainability of the village and its infrastructure will suffer because of this.’
It did support the internal reconfiguration and extension of the existing farmhouse which is beside the barn at East Clint.
Member Neil Heseltine told the committee: ‘I quite like this development – there’s lots of thought put into it. It respects the integrity of both buildings.’
He said he was extremely happy that Dent Parish Council had objected to a barn being converted for holiday lets as that brought the Authority’s own policy under scrutiny.
The present Local Plan allows for traditional barns to be converted either for holiday lets or local accommodation and the committee’s adhered to this. Permission was granted for the work on the farmhouse, the barn and other facilities.
‘I hear the concerns of the parish council,’ remarked Member Libby Bateman and referred to the government trying to do something about holiday lets and second homes as the proliferation of these was a problem for many parish councils.
Allen Kirkbride said he had every sympathy with Dent Parish Council as in his village, Askrigg, almost 40 per cent of the dwellings were holiday lets: 43 holiday cottages, 24 second homes plus several Airbnbs. ‘This is having an effect on the life of the villages. It is something we as a park authority should think about before we are taken over.’ He added that he owned two barn conversions which were holiday lets.
Cllr Peacock told the committee that the teashop in Bainbridge could not be open every day due to lack of staff.
She said: ‘Unless you start providing homes for people to live and work here it will be no use coming to a holiday cottage because there will be nowhere to eat. We won’t have people coming because they won’t be able to get a cup of tea or a pint of beer.’ For this reason the Authority had to consider this policy carefully when preparing the new Local Plan, she added.
Cllr Robert Heseltine also would have preferred the barn to be used for local accommodation. He commented that, to him, the barn was classic of the late 17th century. ‘I just hope the detail respects the integrity of that building.’
Cllr Foster pointed out that at that meeting the committee had approved just one house to be lived in permanently – all the other developments had been for holiday lets.

Devils Bridge
July: Just one vote decided the fate of an application to provide a safe place to exercise dogs opposite a parking area near Devils Bridge on the A683. Eight members of the committee voted to refuse the application in accordance with officer recommendation, seven were for approval and there was one abstention.
The proposal was for the change of use of a flat field to create an enclosed private area offering safe and secure spaces for dog owners, locals and visitors, to allow their dogs to play off lead during booked time slots between 6.30am and 9.30am. In addition to the existing wall there would have been a six metre fence with the field being divided into four paddocks of differing sizes.
The applicant, Annie Golden of Pooch Pods Ltd, told the meeting she had read reports about sheep worrying and dog attacks and wanted to help find a solution. She added: ‘The number [of dog owners] has grown hugely. And a lot of these dogs since Covid haven’t had the opportunity to be exercised.’ She said the field was near a parking area where there were toilets and a refreshment kiosk.
Parish council member Libby Bateman commented: ‘There is a real demand for this kind of facility. Dogs will be better behaved if they’ve had a good chase about. I don’t think this will be as intrusive as what we thought originally. I think it will be a great addition to the area.’
But others agreed with the planning officer that it would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape. ‘I don’t think it’s the best place,’ said Ms Bushby. ‘It’s potentially going to have a detrimental impact on the gateway to the National Park.
And Cllr Simpkins stated: ‘This is the gateway to the Westmorland Dales. If you go down there at the weekend this is an extremely congested area. There are motorbikes [and bicycles] all over the place, and there’s cars as well. And the burger van. This is totally the wrong place.’

Giggleswick 
July: Compromise was the key word when the committee approved a development of nine homes, large and small, on a site at Stackhouse Lane, Giggleswick.
The development will have five open market houses with one to always be a principle residency; two First Homes discounted for first-time buyers; and two flats for rent through a housing association. The First Homes and the flats were counted as affordable housing units.
Mr Graham said that, although principle residency was not a policy in the present Local Plan, having one open market dwelling designated as such had been agreed with the developer.
When asked by Mr Corner whether the developer might seek to remove the four affordable housing units Mr Graham replied: ‘I think it’s unlikely. It’s taken ten years to get to this point with this particular site. It’s been through an awful lot of discussion about viability – and through an appeal where viability has been looked at. I am really hopeful we will get some affordable housing on this site soon.’
He said the site had been allocated for development in the present Local Plan to deliver affordable housing for local people and not open market housing. ‘However, it’s one of the harsh realities of negotiating over a development scheme whereby viability is such an issue that you do end up with a compromise. Our current policy states we would accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site affordable housing so it’s been a real plus to secure some on-site rather than spent somewhere else. It’s not ideal but it’s a good compromise.’
Cllr Kirkbride said: ‘The only thing that worries me a bit is the size of the affordable housing. It looks slightly minute compared with the open market housing.’
The planning officer had stated: ‘There is significant plot disparity with the four affordable units on a combined plot size equivalent to one of the open market plots. The purpose of allocating the site is in order to secure the affordable units and yet the majority of the site will be taken up with the open market houses. It is also understood that the applicants are seeking to maximise viability on a site with several abnormal costs including significant excavation works and undergrounding the overhead line.’
She explained that due to the sloping nature of the land quite a lot of excavation was required. ‘We have tried to achieve the best compromise and accepted that the houses would be elevated above the road. That was why the landscaping was such an integral part of negotiations.’
In her report she stated: ‘Given that the allocated site had little depth into the field, the submitted scheme brought the buildings closer to the road. However, officers suggested that the applicant increase the depth of the site beyond the allocation in order to site the buildings further back from the road. This has enabled more open space around the buildings and some space for meaningful tree planting to the front. All of the buildings will still remain in the allocated site.
‘The proposed mix of houses includes four affordable units – two First Homes and two apartments for affordable rent. The Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment (SHMA) has identified a need for small affordable rented properties and the apartments will help to meet this need. First Homes are effectively discounted market sale units which are discounted by 30 per cent from the market value and sold at not more than £250k to a person or persons meeting the First Homes eligibility criteria (first time buyer, household income not exceeding £80k). The 30 per cent discount is passed down to subsequent owners of the property but the price cap of £250k is only for the first sale.’

Grassington 
March: It didn’t take long for the committee to agree with a planning officer that two fascia signs could be displayed on what is now called ‘Siegfied’s Retreat’ in Carrs Lane, Grassington.
Grassington Parish Council had objected to the sign on the front of the building at first floor level because, it said, it would be out of character with the adjoining conservation area and would set an inappropriate precedent for advertising first floor business premises.
The planning officer, however, stated: ‘The sign on the front of the building is one of two signs on the frontage. The other sign at the property [advertising an Estate Agent] is a red, white and blue sign which is prominent and bolder in appearance than the sign seeking consent. [This] sign is black with cream letters and is in keeping with the character and use of both the building and the surrounding …shops, cafes and pubs.’ She believed the sign would not visually harm the conservation area.
The owner, Alan Biggin, who introduced himself as a chartered accountant from Bradford, said that after he bought the property three years ago the upper two floors were converted into a holiday let. He felt that the sign was not too big, and was attractive as it had a traditional aura about it.
North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton said: ‘I don’t see anything offensive in this sign whatsoever,’ and agreed with Mr Biggin that the sign below it stood out much more. He told the committee that the holiday let sign had been taken down whilst awaiting a decision on the application.

Grassington
March: The decision to approve installing four shepherd huts for holiday lets on the site of what was a fish farm on Old Mill Lane, Grassington, was just as quickly made.
The planning officer explained that originally the applicant had applied for four holiday lodges but the Environment Agency had objected as there was a flood risk at the site. There was no objection to the shepherd huts as these will be high enough above ground level. The applicant must also have a flood management plan which includes a place of safety.
The application included a building for storing bikes and bins, plus a new garden for the applicant’s house, Riverside Grange.
The planning officer said that the proposed development would significantly aid nature recovery on the site through the removal of unsightly redundant structures and hardstanding and the enhancement through landscaping, walling and tree planting. She added that the site was already sufficiently screened and enclosed by high hedging and fencing.
Grassington Parish Council had, however, objected arguing that shepherd’s huts were not typical to the stone vernacular of the Dales; that the unmetalled access road with no turning space was not suitable; and wood burning stoves were polluting. It added that the local planning authority should have ‘special regard’ to the architectural and historic character of listed buildings, and the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas.
The planning officer reported that the applicant will install bioethanol burners instead of wood burning stoves.
Cllr Foster pointed out that the fish farm employed up to two people whereas the new use would provide employment for only a couple of hours a week.
The planning officer replied that the low level of employment at the fish farm before it closed a number of years ago was not sufficient to protect this as an employment site.

Hartlington
September: Edwin Williams of Burnsall Parish Meeting pleaded with members of the planning committee not to start enforcement action against the owner of the private seasonal car park near Burnsall.
A planning officer stated that the installation of a stone entrance ‘island’ and metal boxes for the barrier at White House Farm car park at Lower Hartlington were not in accordance with the planning approval made by the planning committee in May 2021.
The approved scheme called for two simple cabinets to be clad in a timber housing and for the car park entrance to be screened with trees. A hedge has been planted instead and the planning officer said: ‘The development, as built, is a highly over-engineered approach to the issue of streamlining access and payment for the car park.
‘The landscape is a highly pastoral one providing an iconic setting to Burnsall. The application site is highly visible from the village, the historic bridge and from one of the key entry points to the village. The area around Burnsall has great scenic value which is appreciated by thousands of visitors every year.’
She, therefore, recommended refusal of the retrospective planning application to vary the conditions of original approval and for enforcement action to bring the development in line with that.
Mr Williams told the committee: ‘When the application was passed in 2021 we were so grateful because the traffic in Burnsall had been horrendous since Covid. On one day the village was blocked for four hours – you couldn’t get a vehicle in or out.’
The barrier system at the car park, he explained, had stopped cars being backed up across the bridge and into the village. ‘So please do not remove these barriers. I plead – I beg – I go on my knees – please do not.’
He said that the appearance of the barriers was minimal – and North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine agreed with him.
Cllr Heseltine described the car park entrance and barriers as a very discreet solution, visible for only a short distance, which had solved the vehicular access problems in Burnsall. ‘We should welcome and congratulate this farming family for commitment over many decades to actually supporting our [the Authority’s] statutory duty.’ (To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park.)
North Yorkshire councillor Andrew Murday (Lib Dem) said: ‘I find it very difficult to understand why we would refuse this when it would make things so much worse.’
Two committee members, however, believed it was wrong to approve a retrospective planning application when the applicant had ignored what the committee had previously approved.
The majority of the committee did approve the latest application with the condition that the present metal boxes were covered in timber cladding and that some trees were planted to screen the entrance. ARC News Service.

Hawes
September: The demolition of a garage and the construction of a two-storey office building beside Bear Interiors at Hawes was approved even though the parish council was very concerned about the impact upon parking and access to a residential area.
Member Allen Kirkbride said the single storey garage would best be replaced with a single-storey building. North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock questioned if another office building was needed in Hawes and she told the meeting:
‘This is a very busy part of Hawes. I can see this [creating] great difficulties for all the residents who park there. We are putting a work place right in the middle of a residential area.’ Like Hawes and High Abbotside Parish Council she was concerned that having an office there would make parking in the town even worse.
The members who attended a site meeting heard residents’ concerns that the private roads on either side of the garage might be blocked when the office was being built, including the only access to Wards store which deals with delivering gas bottles.
At the committee meeting member Lizzie Bushby asked if a parking strategy could be drawn up but Richard Graham, head of development management, responded that was not practical when no parking space was allocated to the garage. The planning officer reported that the owner of the garage did not own the small piece of land in front of it.
She stated: ‘There is no parking on site, so the offices could only be accessed by foot. However, the site is close to many public parking spaces. The Highway Authority has not objected to the proposed development. Questions regarding access over private land are matters for the individuals concerned and not material planning considerations.’
She did not believe the new building would overlook or overshadow neighbouring properties or cause any loss of privacy. Permitted development rights would be removed so that planning approval would have to be obtained for any change of use.
She said that replacing the old garage with an office block built with traditional materials in keeping with conventional architecture would ‘represent a minor enhancement of the street scene’

Hudswell
November: An application to build a four-bedroom house with detached garage in the garden of The Grove at the west end of Hudswell was unanimously refused partly because it would not be for local occupancy.
Hudswell Parish Council had suggested that ‘principle residency’ would be acceptable. And the owner of the land, Charles Smith, told the committee that if his application was refused it would be overturned on appeal and cost the Authority thousands of pounds and waste officers’ time.
He suggested a payment of £10,000 to the village’s housing charity towards local occupancy housing there would be a better option.
But Richard Graham, Head of Development Management, said it had been recommended for refusal because the house would be outside the present development boundary, would not be for local occupancy in accordance with the present local plan, and would be so big that it would be inefficient use of land.
Such a large house, he explained, would probably be worth in the region of half a million pounds. ‘From the research we have undertaken as part of the new local plan I understand that principle residency might take off around five per cent of the price of the house. Looking back on local occupancy that we have granted over the years [this] has reduced the price of housing by between 20 and 30 per cent depending upon where the house is located.’
This clearly showed, he said, that restricting housing to people with local connections made the houses more affordable.
Cllr Peacock said the proposal was contrary to the present local plan. ‘The problem here is that we have no local need housing and no affordable housing.’
She did, however, point out that the situation in Hudswell was unusual in that part of it came under North Yorkshire Council and the rest was in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
Mr Smith told the committee that the county council had allowed new housing directly opposite The Grove. He argued that his proposal was for a windfall site and not one that might be within the development boundary of the village under the YDNPA’s new local plan.
The planning officer, however, stated: ‘The proposal is premature insofar as it relies upon potential policy changes that may come forward in the emerging local plan which is at an early stage. Should development of this site take place in the manner proposed it would prejudice the efficient use of the larger parcel of land intended for housing development to meet a local need.’
And Mr Graham said: ‘Even if this application was being considered months from now and we did have a draft plan that could give weight to it, it is likely that the planning application as it stands would still be recommended for refusal.’ This was because more houses could be built there and should be for local occupancy.

Kettlewell
September: After over four years of discussions and applications Nigel Lambert of Fold Farm Shorthorns at Kettlewell has finally been given planning permission for an essential barn for a farming enterprise focussed on environmental land management and preservation of native breeds.
At the committee meeting North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine said: ‘The farmer needs this building – it is a necessity.’
A planning officer had, however, recommended refusal stating: ‘It is recognised that there are difficulties faced by the applicant with regards the storage of agricultural equipment and feed but it is considered that the scale, form and location of the proposed development would have a truly significantly harmful impact on the landscape of this part of the National Park.’
Member and Askrigg Parish councillor Allen Kirkbride pointed out that the Authority’s senior farm conservation officer supported the application not just because there was a genuine need. That officer had stated: ‘It is understood that the planning officer has objections to the siting of the building, however, given the fact that the intended location is adjacent to the sewage works and other man-made structures, it seems logical that this should be the preferred option rather than siting it away from the farm and village which would cause additional farm traffic travelling to and from the site.’
Both Cllr Kirkbride and North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock (Cons, Upper Dales) said that the proposed site would be well hidden. This was due to the mature trees by the sewage works and as more trees will be planted.
Lizzie Bushby (deputy chair of the Authority), however, said the barn would be seen from some views across Wharfedale and Derek Twine (chair of the Authority) asked for further conditions to ensure it didn’t have a negative impact upon the landscape.
Cllr Kirkbride warned that if they put too many conditions on such a small farm it could fail. As the majority of members accepted the site location the head of development management, Richard Graham, said the planning department could work with the applicant and his agent, Gemma Kennedy, on the conditions regarding the materials to be used and tree planting.
Ms Kennedy told the committee the applicant had been seeking approval for a new agricultural building since March 2020. As a planning officer was concerned about the visual impact that application had been withdrawn. In 2022 Mr Lambert applied to convert and extend an existing roadside building beside Conistone Road with part of it being set aside for use by Duke of Edinburgh campers. That was also withdrawn due to concerns raised by a planning officer.
He then submitted a pre-application inquiry which led to planning officers suggesting a site very close to that which has now been approved. But Mr Lambert was concerned that site was over a water main.
In June 2023 approval was given for him to convert the roadside building to provide facilities for the DofE campsite.
Ms Kennedy said that in the past three years she has considered all possible locations for an agricultural building with Mr Lambert and a planning officer to try and find a location that would have the least visible impact yet allow the farm to be run efficiently and sustainably.
She explained: ‘All other locations on the holding that have been considered and dismissed would have a far greater visual impact than the application site, not to mention constraints including narrow accesses, sloping sites and historic field lynchets, making them unsuitable to pursue.
‘The applicant’s farming system – keeping native breed cattle on Biodiversity Action Plan hay meadows, epitomises what the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority heralds as its vision. Denying the necessary facilities to operate would be counter intuitive.’
The present application was for a smaller building than that suggested in 2022 with a five metre clearance from the water main. ‘We acknowledge that the building will be subject to public views, but so too are the majority of agricultural buildings in the National Park,’ Ms Kennedy said.
Cllr Peacock commented: ‘Wherever you put a building in the National Park it will be seen by somebody, somewhere.’

Kilnsey
July: Compromise had also been important in finding a location for a storage building for the equipment used by the Kilnsey Show even though it was accepted it would not be an ideal site.
The planning officer explained that a decision had been deferred at the committee’s meeting on May 28 to see if a better site could be found than that originally proposed by the Upper Wharfedale Agricultural Society (UWAS). Following discussions with UWAS she accepted that a site near Scar Laithe Barn would offer the best compromise.
She said: ‘There is a need for a permanent building to store equipment for the show. It is an important event within the agricultural calendar of the Dales and contributes significantly to the agricultural heritage and economy of the dales.’
Chris Windle, the agent for UWAS told the committee: ‘The society has always been acutely aware of the iconic landscape at Kilnsey. It’s one of the things that makes the show as successful as it is [with a] fantastic backdrop and the acoustics – with the commentary bouncing off the crag.
‘The show is an iconic dales event. It’s probably one of the most important agricultural shows in the Yorkshire Dales. We have got a dilapidated building that has been there 50 years. So we need to have something more modern to ensure that the show, which has been going for over 125 years, can continue for as long as possible.
‘We’ve got a compromise that suits, I hope, the members and the planning officers. It suits the society, it suits the landowner.’
When it was noted that the new location was nearer to Kilnsey Crag Mr Graham said: ‘It’s going to have a landscape impact but we think that it is less than the site that was originally proposed.’
Cllr Foster commented: ’It’s not an ideal site but I do think it’s the best compromise…for the volunteer organisation.’ It was important, he said, that the building worked well for the volunteers.
Parish council member Liz Appleton Hall, who is chairman of Conistone with Kilnsey Parish Meeting, said: ‘The Kilnsey Show showcases the Dales. It’s a very good example of our statutory purpose to promote the understanding and enjoyment of the qualities of the Yorkshire Dales – and 10,000 people went last year.’

Linton Camp
March: ‘It seems incredible to me that with the climate emergency that we should caving in to a development that is portraying itself as providing a green environment with hobbit style grass roofed huts and then sticking wood burners in,’ commented North Yorkshire councillor Simon Myers about the application by Linton Regeneration Company to amend the approval it had been given to develop Linton Camp.
Whereas the original application included wood burners in nine holiday lodges the amended plans also have them in the 24 self-contained ‘serviced’ holiday units which will replace hotel rooms in the main building. It was due to the inclusion of so many more wood burners that the committee decided to defer making a decision.
The committee was told that planning officers had repeatedly recommended that the wood burners be omitted due to the amount of CO2 and small particulate pollutants that they emit and that this contradicted the company’s statement in its sustainability appraisal about ‘producing an innovative and exemplar development’.
Linton Regeneration Company had responded, however, that ‘there was an absolute expectation from the target market groups that this would be a key element in the experiences being sought in the proposed development.’ The planning officer commented ‘It would appear the wood burners are an aesthetic addition rather than a practical one for heating purposes.’ The heating will include air and ground source pumps and solar panels.
She understood that the company wanted to change the proposed hotel to self-contained units as it had learnt from existing local businesses that it would be very difficult to find 200 to 250 full time and part time staff. The amended development would probably require 30 full time staff and potentially 20 part time cum seasonal staff.
The central building will have a 36 per cent reduced area than that approved for the hotel with the roof being 1.2m lower. It will contain a spa, a gym, 24-seat cinema, a two-lane bowling alley, a bar and a restaurant which will also be open to local residents and guests staying in nearby villages, the planning officer stated.
To its previous objections which included what it saw as the excessive scale of the development and its impact on the protected landscape, Linton Parish Council added that the amendment meant a reduction in local employment opportunities.
Cllr Robert Heseltine described the amended application as a pale shadow of the original, the latter having turned out to be a carrot for something entirely different.
He added: ‘I do think this is a massive missed opportunity. You could have done so much good on this site for local families with affordable housing.’
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster said the development would be highly visible in the open countryside. What had been important to him was the provision of employment – ‘If this had come back offering more staff accommodation I would have been far more forgiving.’
Member Jim Munday commented, however, ‘This site was derelict for over 30 years. Two years ago we agreed with the proposals to build a hotel. Two years later … the applicant has come back with a modified proposal, which is smaller, it is less intrusive. I believe we should welcome the wider range of accommodation in the National Park. If it wasn’t for the wood burning stoves I would [approve of] this application.

Maulds Meaburn
November: It was unanimously agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to approve planning permission for three terraced houses near the Village Institute in Maulds Meaburn once an appropriate Nutrient Neutrality scheme had been organised.
The committee was told that the site was within the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Nutrient Neutrality catchment.
The planning officer explained: ‘The applicant’s strategy is to secure the upgrade of a poor quality foul treatment system off-site, to offset the impacts of this development on the SAC. In order for this to be an appropriate solution, the upgrade site needs to be upstream of Appleby treatment works. The off-site improvements can be secured by way of a section 106 planning agreement. This approach has been used elsewhere in the Eden catchment with the agreement of Natural England.’
Crosby Ravensworth Parish Council was concerned that the houses could become second homes or holiday lets. It had been assured by the planning officer that they would be for local occupancy but she said there was no policy basis requiring them to be affordable housing.
The planning officer explained that the application was much the same as that approved in 2019. As the site is next to the earthwork remains of the medieval development of the village which is a designated heritage asset, archaeological work and recording was undertaken. The excavations, however, took so long that the planning permission lapsed.
Member Libby Bateman (Ravenstonedale Parish councillor) said the excavations were quite unsightly in what was a very beautiful village. She felt that the development would be in keeping with other housing there.
The parish council was also concerned about the car parking area to be provided at the back of the houses. It stated: ‘The gradient on the access road and parking areas at 1:8 and 1:12 respectively (indicative section and streetscene) will be a challenge for some drivers. This access arrangement will simply not be used during winter months when there is any frost, ice or snow. This will become a major safety risk in winter not just for homeowners but also passing traffic on the main road.
‘Residents will either have to reverse into the parking spaces up the 1:8 access road or carry out a tight 3-point turn at the top and reverse into “Mini” sized parking spaces, some at right angles to the access. Reversing will again be up a significant gradient. Although the turning circles on the Vehicle Tracking drawing indicate achievability this is reliant on residents parking perfectly in an allocated parking space.
North Yorkshire Cllr David Noland agreed with the parish council not only about the access but that the parking spaces would not be large enough for many modern cars. It was likely, therefore, that residents would park on the road. He said: It’s a mess. But I couldn’t see what could be done.’
There were also questions about how the proposed development could meet biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements as it was so small. Planning officers explained that off-site BNG units could be purchased from a habitat bank provider.

West Burton – Aysgarth Lodge Holidays
October: The planning committee agreed that the intensity of the lighting along the internal roads at Aysgarth Lodge Holidays near West Burton must be reduced.
The committee was told that the 6000K bulbs in the 49 bollards did not comply with the Authority’s Dark Skies Initiative. It approved the retrospective application which specified that these will be replaced with 2700K and 470 lumens bulbs with ‘warm white’ colour.
Aysgarth Lodge Holidays was given one month to comply. The planning officer commented: ‘This would mean that the new bulbs would be in place for most of the winter 2024/25 and thereafter.’ He said this would be a significant improvement on the existing situation.
Burton-cum-Walden Parish Council had stated: ‘The council remains concerned about light pollution, particularly as we have supported the Dark Skies Initiative, but we will review the situation when the proposals are implemented.’
Its suggestion that the bollard lights should be switched off from 11pm to 6am each night was accepted by the committee and included in the conditions of the approval.
Both North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock and Allen Kirkbride approved of the application but told the committee that the bright light emanating from the holiday site had caused a lot of concern.
Cllr Peacock emphasised the need for screening as the lights from the site were visible from the B6160 near West Burton and also from the A684 when approaching Aysgarth from Hestholme Bridge. She asked that previous planning conditions regarding screening should be checked.
Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness Council), however, was opposed to any bollard lighting. He said: ‘I think we are failing in our duty. We are supposed to be protecting the Dales by protecting the countryside and the wildlife. If you want something that is illuminated to this extent go to Pontins or Butlins or somewhere. You don’t come to the Dales. What about the kids who want to see our dark skies? Do they have to stop up to midnight to be able to see it? I think it’s a total failure. Bring a torch!
‘I’ve got villages in my constituency that don’t have [street] lights and have dark skies and they love it. In that way the wildlife isn’t confused and we can see the dark skies. [This] will be visible from somewhere and it doesn’t look like the Yorkshire Dales when it’s all illuminated. People come to the Dales to see countryside and wildlife, not to see an illuminated park.’
The approved application included the use of land for siting of a caravan to serve as the holiday park reception and office.