ARC News Service reports of Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority ( YDNPA ) planning meetings in 2025 covering: Casterton, Chapel le Dale (Colt Barn), Countersett, Dentdale, Embsay, Gayle, Gunnerside, Great Asby, Linton Falls, Long Preston, Sedbergh, Thorpe, Threshfield and West Witton.

Casterton
September: Permission was granted for the relocation of a gated access and the installation of fencing and hard standing at a farm field off Wandales Lane, Casterton, near Carnforth.
The planning officer recommended refusal stating: ‘The proposed development is considered to be excessive for the purposes stated and detracts from the pastoral, undeveloped character of the immediate area by the introduction of an inappropriate amount of hard surfacing and enclosures within the field.’
One of the applicants, Annette Dixon, told the committee: ‘We understand from the planning officer that the setting back of the existing access would be acceptable and the erection of fences within the field do not require planning permission. We have noted the concerns about the size of the area of hard standing for which we originally applied and have reduced it by 19 per cent.
‘Our proposal for an area of hard standing covered by vegetation will allow the working of the land with modern machinery whilst protecting it from an unattractive area of mud at the entrance to the field. Mud is visually harmful. Mud will stick to tyres and spread onto the road increasing the farm work load clearing up. The site will be used for temporary parking of tractors and machinery whilst they are needed for particular tasks on the land and when those tasks are completed they will be moved back to the farm for security. It will not be an agricultural store.
‘The number of trips back and forth along the road, fuel consumption and carbon emissions will all be reduced along with farm costs. Setting back the access from the road will enable the safe entry and exit to the field without the present need for shunting on the road. The end of the wall will be realigned using the existing stone to meet the new position of the gate.’
She said that the small enclosed area would become a suitable habitat for birds, some small mammals, wild flowers, bees and other insects. The fencing would also protect a small stream from disturbance and erosion by cattle. She added that there was already grass and plants growing on the hard standing and soon there would be little impact of this on the landscape.
The majority of the committee agreed with her concerning the landscape, highway safety and reducing mud on the road, and voted for approval of the application. Mr Graham said that as these reasons were sound ones the decision to approve would not be referred back to the next meeting even though against officer recommendation.

Chapel le Dale
April: The majority of the committee voted against allowing Natural England to refurbish and develop its National Nature Reserve Base near Ingleton and Horton in Ribblesdale even though the planning officer had recommended approval. Several members were very critical of how Natural England had developed its use of Colt Park Barn ‘out of sight and out of mind’ since 1990 without planning permission.
As the chairman, Westmorland and Furness councillor Ian Mitchell, voted against refusal he believed the decision would be referred back to the next meeting (May 20).
Lizzie Bushby (deputy chair of the Authority) argued that the Authority should support such a nature recovery project. She added: ‘I think it’s really good to see a traditional barn with a use that’s not residential.’
And the chairman of the Authority Derek Twine said that after 30 years of its operation there it was not surprising that Natural England wanted to improve and enhance the facilities at the barn.
North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine, however, noted that the first time Natural England approached the Authority to operate the base legally was in 2023 when it applied for a lawful development certificate for its existing use for the management of the Ingleborough National Nature Reserve and Wild Ingleborough project, storage of all-terrain vehicles, agricultural equipment and materials, an office, workshop, laboratory and meeting point for educational visits by the public.
Cllr Heseltine stated that the members of the planning committee were not informed about that application in 2023 when permission was granted by officers.
He commented: ‘It’s a national body that has been operating out of sight and out of mind and then, when they have got sufficient years under the belt they come forward, not needing planning permission, [and apply] for a lawful development certificate. To my mind and to all other applicants particularly on the agricultural side that stinks – really stinks.’
He understood that the Authority wanted to support an environmental agency but he wasn’t going to turn a blind eye to the use of the barn for so many years without planning permission nor the problem of access.
He said: ‘The access is the most exceptionally sub-standard access that I have ever been asked to make an opinion on. But highway officers back in those days said it was alright. I wasn’t asked. Members weren’t asked. Now they say – no intensification so it’s still alright. Two wrongs didn’t make a right. It’s an atrocious access.’
Both Ingleton and Horton in Ribblesdale Parish Councils had strongly objected. The former had stated that the road junction on Gauber Road (B6479) with the access track to Salt Lake Cottages and Colt Park Barn was dangerous as it was on a blind summit on one side and a blind bend on the other. There had been a collision there in the last five years.
Construction traffic including long vehicles would increase the danger, it said, and would also have to cross the weak bridge over the railway line
Ingleton Parish Council was concerned that the access problems for those living in Salt Lake Cottages could become acute during the construction phase especially as there were water pipes and other services under the track. It stated that there wasn’t a plan to repair potential damage to the track.
Almost all those living along the track had objected to the application especially as they are responsible for repairing it. One said: ‘A short site meeting with both Natural England and a planning officer would be most welcome and a recognition of our responsibilities for the track by considering us “consultees” would be viewed likewise.’
Another said that the amendments to the application did absolutely nothing to address the safety of those using the track. ‘The abundance of passing places which are proposed still do nothing other than ruin the track and pasture. There remains no means of vehicles being able to pass each other in front of [Salt Lake Cottages].’ They added that there was no evidence to support the need for such an elaborate scheme and huge investment all with taxpayers’ money.
The planning officer said the work on the barn would not lead to any intensification of use and added: ‘It is considered that the construction phase can be adequately managed through securing a construction management plan which can involve liaison with the parish councils, local residents and the highway authority.’
Other members were concerned about the impact upon the landscape and wildlife in the area. Libby Bateman said: ‘The [officer’s] report says we are going to disrupt the barn owls. This is Natural England. This is an organisation whose task is looking after nature in the country, and yet it seems okay for them to disrupt the roosts and to disrupt the owls. That really grates on me. I know a lot of people who aren’t Natural England, who don’t have the money or the power, or even the political power they have, who are not allowed to do stuff like this.’
She commented that if a large company had wanted to put in meeting rooms and laboratories in that barn the committee would have said it was an intensification of use. But Natural England already had a certificate of lawful use because it had carried on with such a use under the radar for many, many years, she said.
The planning application included the creation of a new track around Colt Park Farm, the erection of a poly tunnel and an array of solar panels in a wild flower meadow. The committee was told that precautions will be taken to protect four mature trees along the route of the new track but was warned the longevity of the trees might be affected. This also concerned some members.
North Yorkshire Councillor David Ireton said: ‘I have been against many a barn conversion to residential use because [applicants] wanted a new track. And this is the same principle in my view.’
Another county councillor, Yvonne Peacock, agreed with him. ‘We have got to start thinking about being consistent and being fair to all.’
The planning officer responded that there was an established, existing use of the track to the barn and only a small section would be realigned to avoid going through the yard of the farm. She believed that although there would be some minor impacts on grassland and the landscape the realignment of the track would be a positive thing to do. She had reported that the new track avoided all limestone outcrops and so would not affect the limestone pavement feature of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
Mark Corner and Mr Twine were among the members who supported the application. Mr Twine agreed with Mr Corner who commented: ‘If we open a new track and reinstate the old one the position is the same amount of grassland. I think we are getting a bit over excited about the impact.’
The planning officer said a relatively small amount of neutral hay meadow, which had not been identified in the SAC citation, would be permanently lost due to the proposed polytunnel and solar panel array.
It is proposed to use the poly tunnel as a nursery for trees to be planted elsewhere on the Reserve so as to improve the sustainability of the nature reserve.
The Wildlife Conservation Officer did not support any trees being planted on the upland hay meadow east of the barn. They asked for a review of the long term plans for the nursery, and whether Natural England expected to retain the area as good condition hay meadow.
The officer reported that there was evidence of barn owl roosting but not breeding in the barn, and that the roosts of a small number of two species of bats would be lost but that could be mitigated and not affect the local conservation status of Daubenton’s bats or Common Pipistrelle.
The committee was informed that an European Protected Species Mitigation license would have to be obtained from Natural England for destroying any bat roosts. Two of the tests for that license are that the development has to be for overriding public interest including those of social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment; and there was no satisfactory alternative to achieve the same overriding public interest and benefit.
The planning officer stated: ‘It is considered that the refurbishment of the barn would improve the facilities for the Reserve base and would ensure the long term use of the barn. Therefore there are significant public benefits to the proposed works to the building.
‘It is unlikely that the barn would function adequately in its current use or that there are long term alternative viable uses of the building which would have less impact on roosting bats.’
In their objection one of those living along the track to the barn commented that building and site constraints made the barn virtually inaccessible for those with poor mobility. ‘It is difficult to see how this development sits with Natural England’s aims for wider public involvement in conservation issues,’ they said. Some suggested another location should be found.
The application is for: refurbishment of the existing traditional west stone barn with additional windows (including aluminium framed glazed rooflights along most of the west elevation of the roof) and the replacement of existing doors and roof replacement as well as improvements and reconfiguration of internal space; external recladding of the modern (east) barn, replacement of door openings and installation of internal mezzanine; installation of ground mounted photovoltaic panels with an associated battery storage structure; erection of a poly tunnel; realignment of the access track; and installation of service and associated works.

May:  The committee unanimously approved the amended application by Natural England to refurbish Colt Park Barn at Chapel le Dale following a report by the planning officer, Katherine Wood.
She said: ‘At the April meeting members resolved to refuse this application… on two grounds. The first was the loss of the wild flower meadow due to the realignment of the track and the second was the impact upon wild life particularly bats and the barn owl roosts… in the traditional barn.
‘The application was deferred from that meeting to bring this report back to committee to advise members on the validity and soundness of the reasons they put forward before a final decision was made.’
She said that since the April meeting Natural England had removed the proposed change to the existing track. ‘It is therefore considered that this reason for refusal is no longer relevant.’
She stated that bat roosts within the barn would be lost when it was re-roofed and roof lights were installed. She added: ‘The advice from the Authority’s wildlife team has [consistently] been that this would not affect the local conservation status of the two species recorded and that’s due to the small number of bats involved.’
She said there was evidence that the barn owl nesting box had not been used for a while. She concluded: ‘It is considered that providing there is adequate mitigation for the loss of bat roosts and opportunities for nesting birds, including barn owls, the development proposed should not adversely affect the local conservation status of bats and owls (and other nesting birds).’
Alan Kirkbride said he had voted against approval at the April meeting but was now satisfied with the amendments, especially as there would no longer be a track through a wild meadow field and there would be sufficient provision for barn owls and bats.
North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton highlighted the objections of Ingleton Parish Council concerning the access of the track from the barn onto the Horton in Ribblesdale road. He said that, although the Highways Authority had not objected, it was the most dangerous access onto that part of the main road.

Countersett
May: A planning officer recommended approving a planning application for a development which will include two new buildings at Thorns Farm near Countersett, but the majority of the committee agreed with member Alan Kirkbride that there should be a site visit first.
He said: ‘It is a development in open countryside and we have got to be very, very careful if we approve this that we aren’t setting a precedent.’
The application by Jonathan Reed, who lives at Wood End near Countersett in Raydale, is for the conversion of two conjoined agricultural buildings to be used as a gallery studio for craft, art and cultural events, and the erection of two new buildings. One will be for a workshop, staff and guest accommodation, and the other for two more two-bedroom self-contained short stay visitor accommodation units. All the buildings will be around a courtyard. The application includes a car park with 14 spaces.
The planning officer, Katie Towner, told the committee that the work already carried out included the modification and conversion of the agricultural buildings, access works and hard-surfacing.
She told the committee that parts of the planned development were not in accordance with the Authority’s Local Plan but said the application needed to be considered as a whole as a provision of a new arts facility which would meet a number of the objectives in terms of national and local policy.
She said it would support the expansion of business in rural areas and enable the re-use of modern agricultural buildings. It would also provide a facility for artists to understand the special qualities of the national park and share that with others, she added.
In its objection the Friends of the Dales stated: ‘We are concerned to read that the proposed facility is described “potentially world class” in the officer’s report. This description is entirely subjective and, of course, irrelevant as not a planning consideration. We urge members not to be influenced by this description or the business interests of the applicant which are equally irrelevant to a planning decision.’ (See below for what another planning officer included in his report regarding Low Hall Farm Barn in Dentdale about granting permission for new build in the open countryside.)
Unlike other planning applications discussed that day there was no report from the Highways Authority concerning the access to Thorns Farm.
North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock told the committee that in the past farm traffic could easily be seen using the access. ‘There’s never been a problem and it is a narrow road,’ she said.
She continued: ‘I think this is a very exciting application. I was fortunate about a year ago that the applicant took me round [to see] what he had done at Wood End …and explained what he was hoping to do. Artists are going to come and paint and enjoy our lovely countryside.’ She was pleased that the agricultural buildings would be put to some other use than being converted to dwellings and praised the high quality of workmanship on the Wood End Estate.
Some others agreed with her. But Mr Kirkbride questioned giving approval as there wasn’t a farmyard or farmstead at the proposed development site.
A farmer in Raydale had told the Authority: ‘I object to most of the work that has been carried out and to all that is planned. The rear shed… has been raised in height and a large glass window installed. Is this going to be [a] rule changer? Can we all now have large vast windows?
‘As for having a court yard of buildings and houses – this is not in keeping with the local area. Housing for staff shouts “I’m not hiring local people”. They have already completed the gallery and have art in it.’
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster commented: ‘If someone decided they were going to site a slaughter house would members be so keen. We are opening up a site with some living accommodation and it is in open countryside.’
He wondered if they would be giving permission without good reason for buildings that weren’t for farm use. ‘I know it’s being well screened but we are fighting farmers who want to put up buildings in the countryside. I am just worried that we have little bit of double standards here because it sounds a twee project that we want to get on board with. I’d like to know what conditions we can put on to make sure it’s going to deliver what it’s supposed to deliver or what we think it’s going to deliver.’
The head of development management, Richard Graham, replied that this was a fairly unique proposal. ‘What happens if it doesn’t take off? As far as accommodation is concerned I think if we were giving permission for something that was akin to a house then we would be far more sceptical about it. The accommodation proposed here is not for permanent occupation. I think it’s unlikely … a planning application will come to us [for a] permanently occupied dwelling because it is a complex of units.’ He added that the Authority would have control as any future change of use would require a planning application.
He continued: ‘We treated the application very much as a business proposition rather than anything else. It’s part and parcel of a much larger estate wherein a lot of work has been done to improve the landscaping and to improve the use and management of the land in so far as how it’s affects Semerwater, which is a triple SSSI. The proposal has been looked at in terms of it being a business that would support those other good things that have been done on [Wood End] estate.’
North Yorkshire councillor Steve Shaw-Wright questioned if the application would be recommended for approval if it was just for holiday lets. ‘I’m not against arts – I’m not against barn conversions – but this seems too nice.’
Member Mark Corner commented: ‘I think it is potentially an exciting development but it has the danger of setting a precedent for other developments in the open countryside.’
And North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine added: ‘We must remember that this application would commercialise something in the open countryside. I can’t think of a more idyllic piece of landscape – right on the side of Semerwater. I would have refused it today but go and have a look.’
………..
National Planning Policy Framework regarding new build in the open countryside:
‘Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:
a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;
b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;
c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;
d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential building; or
e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:
i. is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and
ii. would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.’
July: Would the application by millionaire Jonathan Reed to develop Thorns Farm near Countersett bring culture in a broader sense to the Dales? Or would it have been refused if it was a farming application?
The majority of the committee did approve the application which included the conversion of two agricultural buildings (retrospective), a car park, and the erection of two new buildings which will contain a workshop, two-bed staff accommodation, three short stay visitor accommodation units (each two-bed). In the application it stated that the converted barns will be used as a gallery and studio for craft, art and cultural events by invitation.
The planning officer said the staff and visitor accommodation, on their own, would conflict with the Authority’s policies. But she stated: ‘The Authority will presume in favour of development which is sustainable, including where it makes the National Park a high quality place to live and work, contributes positively to the built environment, conserves or enhances the landscape character through use of high quality design, improves biodiversity, and conserves and enhances the historic environment. [This] development does achieve these objectives and potentially provides a world class facility in the National Park setting. In accordance with [policy], the provision of a tranquil space to enjoy world class art inspired by the National Park, together with the creation of a sustainable environment does further the purposes of the National Park.’
The range of benefits, she said, would include economic growth, the renovation of buildings and support for the land management of the estate.
David Colley, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said in the past ten years Mr Reed’s home at Wood End near Thorns Farm, had been restored and conservation farming practices introduced on the estate. He added: ‘The income from farming alone cannot justify the investment … and the people employed currently. Diversification is required to maintain progress.
‘Diversification at Wood End is different to other farming situations as it is within a creative, cultural framework largely due to the owners who are internationally recognised for their achievements in the world of design and architecture. So income will be generated from the sale of art, sculpture, furniture and also developing an architecture and design studio on site and engaging with other culture and creative activities. Also by provision of very high standard, high quality visitor accommodation.
‘To date more than £2.5 million has been spent on works on the estate with local businesses. It is projected that another £1 million will be spent locally on the development of Thorns Farm.’ Mr Colley told the committee that it was expected that ten full-time and two to three part time staff would be employed.
He said that there were nature friendly farming practices and environmental stewardships for all the land. The farm produced high quality organic meat which is not only being supplied to specialist butchers but will also supply a restaurant that Mr Reed and his partner will open in Hawes in the autumn.
North Yorkshire Council (NYC) Cllrs Robert Heseltine and David Ireton quoted an officers’ report that the owner had addressed members of the committee at the site visit. The legal officer, Clare Bevan, said: ‘The owner shouldn’t take part in the site visit itself – just give access to the area.’
Cllr Yvonne Peacock (NYC) proposed approval of the application in line with the officer’s recommendation. She said: ‘As far as I am concerned it ticks so many boxes.’ She especially noted how beautiful the meadows looked and was pleased to see good farming practices. She added that everything had been done to a high standard including the walling by local wallers, and the renovation of the barns, plus the project would provide local employment and encourage different people to come to the Dales.
Cllr Steve Shaw Wright (NYC) commented: ‘I think it’s an opportunity for the Authority to support an innovative approach to bring, as Cllr Peacock said, a different set of people. We need quality jobs and we need people … who will come in and spend some money. I think we have to support this …and support the development of the business as well.’ He noted that Mr Colley had mentioned the Haworth Wakefield and Yorkshire Sculpture Park and Cllr Andrew Murday (NYC) pointed out that the sculpture Coldstones Cut in Nidderdale attracted tens of thousands every year.
Cllr Simon Myers (NYC) was pleased to see culture in the broader sense being brought to both residents and visitors in the Yorkshire Dales and, like Cllr Peacock, was impressed by the quality of work that had been carried out in the renovated barns.
Parish council representative Cllr Allen Kirkbride said he was also very impressed by that but said: ‘My reason for not supporting this is this has been done without planning permission.’ He added : ‘If this had been a farming application I don’t think it would have got past the first hurdle.’ He also pointed out that 50 per cent of Raydale (which includes Countersett) was now covered by environmental schemes such as that owned by the applicant.
The list of objections reported by the officer included: the increase in traffic along a narrow road should the project be opened up to the public in the future; design concerns in respect of the large glazed window on one of the converted barns; and that the new building for visitor accommodation was tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside.
( The report in he Darlington and Stockton which included a computer generated photo of how Thorns Farm will be developed.)

Dentdale
May: An unusual barn built during World War II has become a key part of the heritage of Dentdale the committee was told.
A young local couple had applied to demolish it and build a three-bedroom dwelling that looked like it so that it could become their home. But the planning officer, David Jones, recommended refusal.
The couple’s agent, Ali Mudd, told the committee that Dent with Cowgill Parish Council supported the application. She said: ‘Local people value this landmark and its contribution to the history of the dale. The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has chosen not to value this history, and as the barn is not of stone construction, to consider it as a negative impact.’
The committee, however, agreed with the planning officer and refused the application. Cllr Heseltine commented: ‘I find the design to be inappropriate anywhere in Dentdale and the national park.’
Mr Jones stated: The building [at present] comprises a central part that is the equivalent to two storeys in height, and its upper storey walls and roof are constructed with metal sheets, that have a varied rusted patina. There are two single-storey elements to the building, to the rear and to the east side. Other than the metal sheeting, the building is constructed of a variety of materials, including brick, blockwork, render, and non-metal sheeting.
‘The position, footprint, height and form of the proposed dwelling would mimic that of the existing agricultural building, including having a central two-storey element with single-storey rear and side elements. The proposed external materials are lower storey walls of local stone, while the upper storey walls and the roofs would be profile metal sheeting in “Van Dyke” brown.’
He added that the applicants had not shown there was a need for new housing for rural workers outside of a settlement.
The committee chairman, Westmorland and Furnish councillor Ian Mitchell, said: ‘From my personal view as a resident of Dentdale it’s always been there. People know that landmark. It’s pictured a lot. It’s not a very attractive building but people do know where it is. You have also got to take into account what the parish council has said. That’s not just one voice. There’s the voices of a number who are also saying this is an important local landmark. So, in my opinion it is, but I don’t know how you justify it.’
Mr Graham commented: ‘This maybe a local landmark because it’s a prominent building in the landscape. It’s also a building that will have a finite life. If it’s not being used for agricultural purpose it’s very difficult to find a new purpose for that building that would be viable for it. ‘
‘Crucially this application doesn’t achieve that. It demolishes the building and replaces it with something that is a pastiche of the building that is there at the moment. It’s not actually preserving [it].’

October: In all the years I’ve been reporting on YDNPA planning committee meetings I have never before heard it said that a decision had to be deferred because of the officer’s report being inaccurate.
At the October meeting the head of development management, Richard Graham, told the committee concerning an application to convert Birchentree Barn at Cowgill, Dent, for residential use: ‘Unfortunately, the report was written on a misunderstanding that the proposal was the same as the previous application in so far as it included a holiday let element. That means that there are a number of factual inaccuracies at different points in the report including the second reason for refusal. So whilst I can apologise for that mistake, the key point is that the report is factually incorrect and it is recommended that the application is deferred to the next meeting so that we can bring an accurate report and a correctly justified recommendation.’

November: The provision of a home for a local family rather than seeing a barn become derelict were among the reasons that the majority of the committee voted in favour of an application to convert Birchentree Barn near Dent into a two-bedroom dwelling.
The planning officer had recommended refusal because, he said, the work would involve the removal of the roof due to the extent of damage and decay, and the demolition and rebuilding of two principal walls. This he argued would have an adverse impact on the heritage interest and traditional character of the road-side building, and the surrounding landscape.
He concluded: ‘Given the amount of demolition and rebuild involved, the proposed development would be tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling in the open countryside, and as such the proposal is contrary to Yorkshire Dales Local Plan.’
The chairman of the committee, Cllr Ian Mitchell (Westmorland and Furness), questioned the using the word ‘demolition’. ‘This is a rebuild of an existing wall in an existing barn.’ He supported the application stating: ‘This is a barn which has no farming need and, therefore, is bringing a traditional barn back into use. It supports a farming enterprise [becoming] financially viable. It provides a local occupancy dwelling, and it would be a planning gain concerning this building.’
Cllr Andrew Murday (North Yorkshire Council – NYC) commented: ‘ I think in the past when we discussed [some] barn conversions, we have refused them because whole walls [would] have been demolished and replaced. But neither the front or the back wall is being completely demolished, only part of them. I think that probably stretches sufficiently to allow us to overcome that objection.’
The one dissenting voice was that of Cllr Robert Heseltine (NYC) who argued that with the amount of work required it would be a new build in the open countryside with the traditional characteristics of the barn being eradicated. He added this was contrary to policy and stated: ‘Keep to your principles. If you lose your principles you have nothing left.’
In reply Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness) said: ‘The reason we have a planning committee is for those occasions when policy doesn’t tick all the boxes that we would like it to tick. If this heritage property doesn’t have some work done on it in the near future that roof is going to be in in no time. We are just going to end up with a derelict site. What’s the point of that when we want affordable housing? When we want communities to survive? When we want the local school to continue. So, on occasions, we have to go against policy. Not something I choose to do on a regular basis but I will on this occasion.’
Committee member Neil Heseltine added that he was in favour of the application as the applicant, Andrew Brown, was willing to sign a local occupancy legal agreement. He said: ‘I know that Dent Parish Council has been very much against the joint local occupancy or holiday cottage policy and they usually stand against these kinds of applications but they have gone with it on this occasion because of the signing of the [legal] agreement.
In support of the applicant Rebecca Gordon told the committee that Mr Brown’s family had farmed in Dentdale for over a century and was passionate about traditional farm buildings and traditional farming practices. It was likely the converted barn would become home to a young family and so support the viability of the community, she said. ‘[The farmer] definitely doesn’t want to let this building go to ruin. But given the current insecurity in the farming sector he is also unable to invest in its upkeep. This farm, like many small scale dales sheep farms is financially precarious.’
She explained that the walls could be rebuilt as part of the general upkeep of the barn but as it was no longer in use that didn’t seem to be a viable part of the farm business.
Member Libby Bateman, when proposing approval of the application, asked what work could be carried out if it remained as a barn.
The head of development management, Richard Graham, replied: ‘He would be able to take some of the walls down and rebuild [them].’
Mrs Bateman reminded the committee that the primary purpose of the National Park was to conserve and enhance. She stated: ‘If we don’t do something that’s going to stop this building falling down then I think we are guilty of neglecting our primary purpose.’

Embsay
April: The chair of Embsay and Eastby Parish Council, Cllr Judith Benjamin, was assured that North Yorkshire councillors would help with any request it made for more road signage on an estate in Embsay.
The committee did approve an application for outline permission to build a new house on Rockville Drive. It was asked by Cllr Benjamin that, if it did so, it would it make a requirement that there should be signage and even white lines at the junction of Hill Top Close and Rockville Drive.
The parish council had explained that the new build would be close to a four-way junction where there were already concerns about road safety. The planning officer, however, informed the committee that the Authority could not include a condition for an off-site feature. It would pass on the request to the highways authority. County councillors David Noland and Richard Foster said they would support any request to the highways authority by the parish council
The parish council also had concerns about the impact upon neighbouring properties. The planning officer, however, stated that the new house could be accommodated on the site without resulting in an adverse impact upon neighbours. She added: ‘Careful consideration would need to be given to the scale of the property and the siting of the openings… to ensure the amenity of the surrounding occupiers is protected.’

Gayle
May: Approval was given for a large traditional barn with two lean-tos at West Shaw Farm on Beggarman’s Road, Gayle, to be converted into a dwelling even though both the Highways Authority and Hawes and High Abbotside Parish Council were concerned about the safety of the access onto the main road.
The agent for West Shaw Farm, Jo Steele, told the committee: ‘I have driven this road on many occasions. My speed [at the farm] has been around 19 mph. Why? Because the road’s alignment between these buildings [means] that speeds approaching 60 miles per hour are unachievable.’
The Highway Authority had recommended refusal because the speed limit on Beggarman’s Road is 60mph and the visibility splays from the proposed access could not be achieved.
The planning officer, Nicola Dinsdale, stated: ‘The road narrows as it passes between the buildings of West Shaw Farm and is estimated to have an approximate width of 4.5 metres at this point. Although it is likely that vehicles will need to edge out gradually to obtain visibility, due to the narrow and winding nature of the road and the close proximity of the buildings, the speed of approaching vehicles will typically be well below the national speed limit.’
Several members agreed with her but North Yorkshire councillor Robert Heseltine asked why there weren’t ‘Slow’ signs painted on the road at either end of the farm buildings if that section of highway was considered to be so dangerous. Another member questioned how it could be proved what speed cars were driven at past those buildings if there hadn’t been a speed survey.
Mr Graham, replied: ‘In the majority of cases we obviously follow the recommendation of the Highways Authority unless there is a very good reason not to do that. In some cases though the Highway Authority, as in this one, has applied standards that match the speed limit on the road and don’t necessary take account of the context. In those situations we usually ask the applicants to produce a speed survey to prove that lesser standards can be applied. But not all applicants are willing to do that and so in those cases we have to apply our own common sense and experience to come to a judgement as to whether the access is safe or not.’
He added that no two sites were exactly the same and for that reason they brought such applications to the committee for a decision. He also noted that the access already existed as it had provided access for farm vehicles to a yard and a sheep fold.
Member Mark Corner asked if the Authority was close enough to introducing its new Local Plan to be able to insist upon the barn being used just for local occupancy. ‘I am disappointed that this … could end up as a holiday let rather than a permanent residence for local occupancy.’ He also argued that those living there permanently would be more aware of the difficult access as compared to those on holiday.
Mr Graham said that no weight could be given to the proposal to remove holiday lets from the new Local Plan as there had been objections to it.
The committee was told that a bat survey had shown that there was a common pipistrelle day roost in the barn but was unlikely to support a maternity roost. The mitigation and compensation measures expected included new roost creation and the introduction of bird and bat boxes.
Grassington
July: The provisions for disabled people in the Equality Act 2010 were quoted by a planning officer when the committee discussed and approved an application by a member of the Authority’s staff to convert a garage and alter a rear extension to a house they own at Grassington.
The planning officer stated: ‘It is considered that the proposal would benefit a person with a protected characteristic, advancing opportunities for them.’
Andy Curtis said he lived at the house with his partner and her children. He explained he has no vision at all which made even the simplest of tasks difficult. The house, he said, was not designed with a blind person in mind. Converting the small garage and adding a full-width rear extension would resolve many problems.
‘As a blind person – a specially designed living area with a distinct kitchen area, distinct sitting area and a distinct dining area would allow me to move safely around the living space and not be as much of a burden on the rest of the family.’ The garage would be converted to provide him with an exercise area and a place to listen to his lap top screen reader when working as a solicitor, away from all other noises in the house, he said. He added: ‘We believe these plans will make a massive difference to our lives. It would make it much safer for me for my specific needs.’
Grassington Parish Council had objected for several reasons. It was concerned that with only one parking space for a four to five bedroom house the proposals would lead to huge congestion on the narrow private road and could block access for emergency vehicles. Such over-development it believed would lead to environmental damage. It was also concerned about the noise from the air source heat pump.
The planning officer reported it had been originally proposed to place the air source heat pump at the front of the house but would now be at the back. The planning officer stated that the noise would be at an acceptable level and so unlikely to affect the amenity of the nearest neighbour. She added that the installation of the air source heat pump and solar panels would improve the environmental sustainability of the house.
As the road was unadopted the Highways Authority could only advise refusal of the application as the North Yorkshire Council’s interim parking policy is that a house of four bedrooms or more requires a minimum of three parking spaces. The planning officer stated, however, that the house already had only one parking space as the garage was so small. And the garage could be converted under permitted development without planning permission.

Gunnerside
October: The conversion of the Old Stable Coach House at Gunnerside into a one-bedroom dwelling was opposed by the majority of the members because of lack of parking, the impact upon the amenity of neighbours and the very limited space even for one person.
Cllr Yvonne Peacock (North Yorks Council – NYC) said: ‘I’ve had meetings with Melbecks Parish Council – they have such problems with parking because it is a tourist area for walkers. So I wasn’t surprised when I read what the highways had said because they have the experience of trying to find ways of preventing people parking in such a way that blocks the road which then, of course, ends up in preventing even the school bus getting to school.’
Cllr Robert Heseltine (NYC) commented: ‘The design and layout would be inconsistent with recognisable standards required for human habitation. The application is clearly detrimental to the quality of living of the neighbours.’
But another member, Mark Corner, said the Old Stable Coach House could have provided a home for someone struggling to find a home in the dales.
He added: ‘I am a bit concerned about apparent inconsistencies in the [officer’s] report compared to what I have just heard from the agent about which way the doors open and where the route is for walking. I am more open minded about the opportunity for someone to live in the area, albeit small, if they are prepared to live there in a low cost accommodation.’
The applicant’s agent, Dan Gracey, told the committee that the conversion would meet national standards for a single-person dwelling. He added:
‘Neighbours and the parish council have objected to the folding doors opening directly onto the highway. They will actually be opening inwards. Currently there are large double doors opening outwards onto the highway. If planning consent is not granted for residential use the applicant intends to continue with the current use of the building as a workshop with the attendant noise, doors opening onto the highway and vehicles loading and unloading. Clearly residential use will have less noise impact than the existing workshop use with hammering and power tools.’
He said the applicant had arranged for parking in a space 250m away. Nor would there be any need, he added, to walk along the road as there was a direct footpath into the village.
He concluded: ‘This is a small and attractive traditional building in the heart of the village. The proposed conversion to residential use is more appropriate than the current workshop use as it is surrounded by houses. The senior listed building officer is supportive of the application which will ensure the care and conservation of the building.’
The planning officer had recommended refusal of the application to convert the Old Stable Coach House for local occupancy or tourist accommodation.

Great Asby
October: The impact of an existing enforcement order altered the course of the debate about a proposal to rebuild a partially demolished listed agricultural building at Great Asby
A proposal to refuse the application was withdrawn after Richard Graham explained to the committee: ‘Planning enforcement in the case of demolition of listed buildings is quite a serious matter and can lead to prosecution. If permission is granted there is still the option for the current owners or future owners to apply for the demolition of the building. So all those options would be open. If you refuse this application you are left with a ruin and you are also left with a live enforcement case.’
The planning officer had stated: ‘Works were carried out to the building between 2023 and 2024 to remove the corrugated roof sheeting and underlying modern roof structure, and the gable walls to either end (facing southwest and northeast) were also reduced in height. These works did not benefit from prior listed building consent and, although it is understood that there were concerns from the applicants regarding the structural condition of the gable walls and the condition of the roof structure, it is considered by officers that the works constitute unauthorised work to / partial demolition of a listed building.’
The late 18th to 19th century milking parlour is within the curtilage of a grade II 17th century farmhouse and so is also listed. The enforcement notice was issued in July 2025 and is in abeyance due to a planning application being made.
The planning officer recommended approving the application for listed building consent to reduce eaves to height of existing building and to reinstate pitched roof with a natural slate roof covering; to remove existing rendered lean-to at north east corner and to install new timber doors and windows in existing structural openings. This was accepted by the majority of the committee even though Asby Parish Council had very strongly objected.
Cllr Garret Fitzpatrick, the chair of Asby Parish Council, told the committee ‘The parish council believes that rebuilding the structure is not in keeping with the existing village landscape and has got no architectural, aesthetic or environmental merit. The remains of the agricultural building should be demolished to reveal the views of the grade II listed farmhouse and byre which are the real reason for the property being listed.
‘The applicants have confirmed that the building suffered roof damage and had to be made safe after a storm. They cannot use the building in its current perilous uninsurable state. The agricultural building detracts from the village scene in both its original and proposed forms and is a blot on the main route through the village.’ He described the proposed rebuild as a modern pastiche and added: ‘The parish is united in its objections to this poorly judged planning application that would continue to block the views to an interesting farmhouse and byre.’
The Senior Listed Buildings Officer was, however, concerned that the demolition of the barn would result ‘in the irreversible loss of historical fabric’ and added ‘The building is of traditional construction, is within the curtilage of the listed building, and contributes towards our understanding of how the site was used and developed over time historically, in order to meet the evolving needs of the farm. It contributes towards the significance and the setting of the listed building.
‘The justification given for its demolition is to open-up the southern aspect of the main part of the listed building and improve ventilation and natural light to the main house and byre.’ But this could be partially achieved by the reinstatement of a lower pitched roof and would be a much less harmful option in terms of the loss of historical fabric and character, the officer stated. A view affirmed by Derek Twine, the chair of the Authority.
Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness Council) said: I don’t think there’s an easy way forward for this. I can understand it from the parish council point of view – they’ve been looking at an eyesore for some time now. And it would be a lot better if they could get rid of it.
‘On the other hand, there’s an enforcement on it. The owner is in a care home. This property is going to come up for sale. You will not sell it with an enforcement notice on it. So the logical thing to do, to resolve the situation, is to approve the planning permission according to the officer recommendation and then whoever ends up owning this property can move on with it, whether that’s a new application to remove it or change the use of that building or whatever. But it solves the problem.’

Linton Falls
November: Permission was very quickly granted for a two-bedroom cottage to be built in the garden of a house in Linton Falls.
The only query was by Cllr David Nolan (NYC) who asked about the loss of green space. Richard Graham responded that the cottage would be in place of a large two-storey extension for which permission had already been granted.
Linton Parish Council had objected as it considered that the construction of the cottage would constitute over development and would mean the removal of green space. Nor, it stated, was the cottage specified as a local residency property.
In response the planning officer mentioned the existing permission for an extension and that the applicant had agreed to sign a legal agreement ensuring local occupancy.
He said that although the proposal would not be in accordance with the present Local Plan it would be with the emerging one which was at such an advanced stage it could be taken into consideration.

Long Preston
April: The committee did approve the application to convert the former Boars Head public house at Long Preston into three dwellings and to erect two new houses in the car park but only after some members had questioned how the BNG – bio-diversity net gain – could be monitored for 30 years.
It is now mandatory that most new housing sites must deliver a BNG of 10 per cent so that there will be a more or better quality natural habitat than before the development. The habitats created or enhanced on-site or off-site must be maintained for a minimum of 30 years (www.gov.uk – biodiversity and ecosystems).
North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton asked: ‘Who is responsible to make sure that that net gain is actually being done over the 30 year period? And who pays for that? How’s it going to be managed?’
The planning officer responded: ‘It’s been quite a new process and quite a learning process for us. We will have [legal] agreements for the BNG provision, off-site or on-site.’ She explained that the developer will have to provide a management plan covering the 30 year period and the Authority would not issue the legal agreement until it was satisfied with it. It would be for the Authority to monitor that.
North Yorkshire councillor Andrew Murday said: ‘The issue of bio diversity net gain is extremely difficult and I think we need a reasoned debate as to how we are going to monitor it. In 30 years time who is going to actually even know to ask whether that’s been [done].’
An officer explained: ‘It is something we are giving serious consideration to.’ She said the enforcement team would monitor this but they were awaiting the advice of an ecologist. Cllr Heseltine said this was a new situation nationally and was going to cost a fortune to monitor and enforce.
Long Preston Parish Council had informed the committee that it, and many local residents, had several concerns with the development, including the amenity of neighbours. It asked if the landscaping on site could include additional screening between the development and neighbouring households.
Matthew Stroh told the committee that the over-riding concern seemed to be to shoe-horn as many dwellings into a small space and that had not encouraged quality, innovation and how the new houses would fit into a dales village. He added: ‘It’s unfortunate that the [Authority’s] design guide has not been referred to more frequently which is taken to be a material consideration when evaluating a planning application and there is very little focus on the economic and the social and even the environmental sustainability aspects of this project.’
He, like the parish council, queried how the public house business had been evaluated, or how the new development would add to the services available in the village.
A decision about the application was deferred at the February meeting so that a site meeting could be held. At the April meeting Libby Bateman commented: ‘What I did see [on site visit] was an incredibly sorry old building. Not a lot of investment has gone into it.’
Cllr Peacock said: ‘It is very sad when you see any pub closing but at the site visit there was no question … it is in a bad state. To run it as a pub again would be extremely difficult, but it’s still very sad.’
The planning officer had informed the committee that evidence had been provided that demonstrated that the business was not commercially viable and no alternative use or operator was available.
Like others Cllr Peacock was very concerned that it had taken so long for the highways authority to answer questions about the access and the future private road status of that proposed for the site. The planning officer said that the highways authority had stated there was sufficient visibility display at the access which already existed for the pub and accommodation for the manager and guests.
North Yorkshire councillor David Noland said he couldn’t vote for approval without seeing a detailed highways report. He also felt that the two additional houses were being shoe-horned into the space and commented that in general the design of the development was pretty poor. He added that, even with the local occupancy restriction, the prices would not be for an ordinary person living in the dales.
The parish council was also very disappointed that there wouldn’t even be one affordably priced property. The planning officer reported that there was no affordable housing requirement on sites of up to five dwellings. The original application had been for six dwellings and this would have required a commuted sum payment in lieu of affordable housing. The number of houses on the site had been reduced from three to two to ensure, she said, that the historic 19th century pub retained its dominance and to protect the amenity of neighbours.
She added: ‘Without a viable commercial operation, traditional buildings such as the Boars Head can suffer from neglect and can eventually be lost. This building forms an important part of the character of the Long Preston Conservation Area and allowing for its conversion to residential use will ensure its preservation in perpetuity.’
Some members asked why renewable energy sources such as solar panels and air-source heat pumps had not been included, plus more EV charging points. The planning officer said that solar panels would have to be evaluated in the context of being within a conservation area.

Sedbergh
May: Approval was given for the basement and ground floor at the west side of Main Street Gallery in Sedbergh to be used as a local occupancy dwelling.
The planning officer, Nicola Dinsdale, explained that a large proportion of the retail units would be retained. She said the retail units had been marketed by two separate estate agents over a two-year period but there had been no offers to buy and there had been only limited interest in renting them.
She added that as there would continue to be a retail unit over two floors the provision of a one-bedroom local occupancy dwelling would not harm to the economic vitality of Sedbergh.
In its objection to the application Sedbergh Parish Council stated: ‘Whilst members empathise with the current owner and acknowledge that the retail unit has been for sale for some time, they believe that a change of use would potentially leave the remaining retail space no longer viable for the future.’
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster commented: ‘I understand the parish council not wanting to lose retail space in the middle of the town, but I think it’s a minor change in use and, in actual fact, a smaller retail space may be more lettable.’

Sedbergh
July : ‘With due respect I do struggle to recognise the site from the officer’s report and I do propose we arrange a site visit so that members can visualise [it] for themselves -and the location,’ parish council representative Cllr Libby Bateman told the committee concerning the application for a self-build bungalow at Frostrow Lane near Sedbergh.
Her proposal for a site visit was accepted with some members stating they would have voted for approving the application by Brian Steadman, a retired deputy chief fire officer for Cumbria. His application included the partial demolition of the stables currently on the site and the creation of a new public pedestrian right of way along the A684.
The planning officer had recommended refusal. She stated that the site was in the open countryside and outside the Sedbergh housing development boundary. Nor would the design of the proposed bungalow, she said, be of such quality and be so truly outstanding that it could be classified as an exception in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) or YDNPA policy.
She also stated that the Yorkshire Dales Design Guide specified that bungalows were rarely an appropriate form of dwelling in the National Park because their proportions conflicted starkly with that of traditional buildings in the Dales. She argued that the bungalow would introduce a high intensity use alongside the stable and so would have a negative effect on the landscape and dark skies.
She pointed out that the Highways Authority had suggested removing the hedge between the site and the A684 to increase visibility from the site access and to provide a pathway for pedestrians including those walking to Farfield Mill. This would, however, increase the prominence of the site, the officer said.
Cllr Bateman commented that removing six metres of hedge was not in accordance with the Authority’s primary purpose to conserve. Hedges, she said provided considerable biodiversity, habitat and carbon sequestration. Instead Mr Steadman was offering to create another hedge so that the new footpath ran between that and the old one.
Cllr Bateman added: ‘The proposed multi-user route will create a missing link in our precious public rights of way network joining the end of one bridleway with another and creating a safe route for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. This proposal fits like a glove our secondary purpose to provide opportunities for the enjoyment of the National Park.
‘It cannot be logical that we are negotiating with landowners to create a multi-user route at one end of Garsdale yet we are denying a multi-user route at the other which is of no cost to the Authority.’
Like Mr Steadman and Cllr Simon Arnold, chair of Sedbergh Parish Council, she queried that bungalows were inappropriate in the National Park and said: ‘We need bungalows for… older people’.
The planning officer had stated that there were ‘no overt reasons’ to consider the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. Two of the relevant characteristics listed in this are disability and age.
Mr Steadman told the committee: ‘Accessibility was a key consideration during the design process – my wife and I are not yet disabled but facing increasing mobility challenges.’
He said: ‘The planning officer described the scheme as intensive. But it is a two-bedroom bungalow for a retired couple. The footprint is the average of rural homes in the UK so should not be considered a large footprint or high intensity use.’ He added that the proposed bungalow would be on a brownfield site; energy efficient and low carbon; and would be carefully positioned to minimise visual impact. He maintained that it would be in accordance with the Authority’s Design Guide.
He pointed out that the Authority’s policies encouraged housing that supported local communities and commented: ’This is not speculative development. It is about allowing local people to remain part of their community. I do not want to add to the exodus of local families. This will be a local occupancy home that will be occupied by me and my family.’ His family, he said, had lived in and served the community of Sedbergh for several generations.
Cllr Arnold commented: ‘From the perspective of the parish it is people like him who form the backbone of our community in retirement. Building strong and resilient communities is not just about encouraging young people to remain in the Park. It is about having a strong core of community in the first place. There is a gradual drain of those who would be the succession to that core in Sedbergh.
‘The site is located amongst a cluster of properties that form the linear hamlet of Frostrow. It does not sit within open isolated countryside. The most immediate neighbour 30 metres to the west is a late 1940s concrete prefabricated bungalow with an asbestos roof. At no point is this fact included in the [officer’s] report. A few 100 metres further west is a static caravan park.’
Cllr Arnold said the bungalow would be difficult to see from the A684 and explained why he did not believe there was limited visibility when accessing the main road from the site. He said that the new footpath would mean that pedestrians no longer had to walk along the carriageway forcing vehicles into the centre of the road.

September: The decision about the planning application to build a bungalow on land off Frostow Lane near Sedbergh was deferred so that the applicant could organise a speed survey.
The applicant, Mr Brian Steadman, had planned to provide a path cum bridleway along a 70 metre stretch of the A684 where, at present, pedestrians have to walk in the road.
Just days before the planning committee meeting the Authority received the following from Westmorland and Furness Council Highways: ‘The current proposed footway could be dangerous to pedestrians by encouraging them to an unsafe position emerging into traffic at the corner of an A road carriageway. If the proposal is to be approved by the planning committee despite LHA advice the it will not be constructable because highways permission is then required to make the connection to the highway at either end of the path and this will not be granted.
‘If this proposal is to be approved then the only compromise possible is to provide visibility splays at the points where the footpath joins the carriageway. This will mean removal of some hedgerow. The Y distance would depend on the results of the speed survey at each end of the path. In the absence of a speed survey, this would be 215m.’
At the planning meeting the head of development management, Richard Graham, said that one factor in favour of the application was the proposed provision of a path which would provide public benefit. But the application would still be recommended for refusal as it was contrary to the present Local Plan concerning houses being constructed in the open countryside.
The planning officer told the committee: ‘I think we have got to allow the applicant time to respond to the highways… and to allow the parish council to respond.’
As there was a split vote the chair, Ian Mitchell, cast his vote for deferral.

Thorpe
September: Permission was granted for the conversion of a traditional barn in Thorpe for either a holiday let or for local occupancy even though Thorpe Parish Council had strongly objected.
Mr Graham explained to the committee that there was an existing planning permission to convert the barn into a three-bedroom holiday let. The new application, which included the addition of two extensions, would be for a four-bedroom holiday let or for local occupancy.
As there was an existing planning permission the Authority could not give weight, he said, to the emerging new Local Plan which will only permit new dwellings to be used as permanent residences.
Thorpe Parish Council had informed the committee: ‘Over the last 30 years Thorpe has reversed the trend of many Dales villages in that it is a thriving community of permanent residents. We now have many young families with children attending local schools. We have 23 houses of which two are already holiday lets.
‘Holiday lets often experience long vacant periods, especially in the winter months, which would be detrimental to the nature of our village and the locality.’
It added that 25 residents had attended a Parish Meeting in November to share their concerns about the holiday let status of the barn as there were eight properties in the village which could be used that way; and to what they saw as the excessive size of the proposed development.
The majority of the committee accepted that the new application was a slight improvement on the previous one because it included local occupancy even though the dwelling would now be larger.

Threshfield
April: All but one of the members voted to approve the application to convert and extend a small traditional barn to create a one bedroom holiday let or local occupancy dwelling at Old Hall Farm in Threshfield.
The planning officer had recommended refusal because, she said, the conversion works and proposed extension would individually and cumulatively have a significant adverse impact on the character and significance of the traditional building. She believed that the alterations were not necessary to bring the barn back into viable new use nor would there be any clear public benefits associated with ‘the particularly harmful interventions’.
The applicant Tom Harrison told the committee he ran an environmentally friendly farm which was one of the few in the dales still making small bale hay on wild flower meadows. ‘Although I am a traditionalist … small farms like ours have to change to survive.’
He described the difficult economic times being faced by such farms and why he wanted to use the small barn as a holiday let. ‘Without the planned extension the project would be economically unviable. In this day and age guests expect minimum requirements that must be met for them to feel comfortable. The extension I have proposed has been kept to the minimum, placed on the site of a previous extension.’ The new extension, he said, would be smaller than the original.
He added: ‘This small one-bedroom conversion is the future of farming business and, therefore, we have voluntarily proposed a [legal] agreement to tie the building to the farm.’
The committee was told by David Duthie, clerk to Threshfield Parish Council, that the parish council had enthusiastically supported this application. Its reasons included that conversion and extension would have no detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area nor the residential amenities of other residents. And the addition of a holiday let would help to support the pubs, cafes and shops in the area. Mr Duthie said the parish council also wanted to see such old buildings preserved and this one was in need of care and attention.
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster supported both the application and said: ‘The Harrison family are the conservationists in the local area but they need help.’
Cllr Peacock said the beauty of the national park depended upon the farmers but they still had to make a living. She noted that Mr Harrison had a son who wanted to come back to the business after studying at agricultural college. She agreed with the parish council that the proposal would improve the building and also provide more income for the farm.

West Witton
November: Permission was granted for the creation of a 3.9m wide driveway at a house along Main Street in West Witton even though the committee was told that this could put the future of the village shop at risk.
Philip Payne, who runs the shop with his wife Lucy, said that creating such an access to Ghyll Holme would lead to the loss of two parking spaces on the road opposite Withywood Stores and this would reduce the amount of passing trade.
He explained: ‘Passing trade currently equates to 30 to 40 per cent of our trade on a daily basis, which rises to 60 to 70 per cent during the holiday periods. At half term in October that increased turnover to £1,200. We simply cannot survive on footfall alone.’
‘Withywood Stores is an existing community facility in West Witton. The Parks Authority say that they recognise they have lost lots of village shops and will do what they can to protect the ones that they have. It is in the [emerging local] plan that … a development that would result in the loss of or have an unacceptable effect on an existing community facility will not be allowed.
‘The planning officer claims there is no satisfactory evidence to demonstrate the impact will be significantly detrimental to the viability of the shop. This is an unreasonable assumption to make – with what evidence can you make this claim? We have evidence of how vital our passing trade is.’
West Witton Parish Council had stressed the importance of the shop within the village and its high community value and stated: ‘We are extremely conscious of the potential impact that this proposal may have on the village shop.’
The Paynes were also supported by Cllr Yvonne Peacock (NYC) who said: ‘We need to keep the few village shops we still have in our dales. There is not enough parking in West Witton – we need that [space] to be kept open.’ For the sustainability of the shop and an important community facility she proposed that the application be refused. But no one seconded that.
James Coote told the committee that he and his partner had moved to Ghyll Holme in September from West Yorkshire but he still commuted 160 miles a day six days a week using his electric car. His planning application included provision of a porous block paved area for parking two cars and the installation of an EV charger.
He said that he had, on occasions, had to park almost 250 yards from his home in West Witton as there were cars parked outside Ghyll Holme. Nor could he charge his electric car as the cable would be across a footpath. He agreed with the planning officer that it would not be possible to make a parking area behind their house due to limited space and access.
Committee member Libby Bateman commented that there would actually be a net gain in car parking spaces if two cars could be parked off the road at Ghyll Holme. She said: ‘The average length of a vehicle is 4.4m… and the gateway [will be] 3.9m. You’re only losing less than one space.’
Cllr David Ireton (NYC) agreed. ‘I do take on board what the shopkeeper’s telling us, but I don’t really see there will be a greater loss of parking in that straight section of road by introducing off-street parking.’
And Cllr Murday added: ‘By taking two cars off the road still allows one car to park outside that house – so the net gain is one car less parked on the road.’