ARC News Reports for the meetings of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority’s ( YDNPA ) planning committee meetings in January, March and April 2026, regarding Far End House near Austwick,  Aysgarth, Firbank near Sedbergh, Grassington, High Casterton near Carnforth,  Linton,  Long Preston, Malham,, Winterburn

Malham

It looked like a very simple issue – changing from a bed and breakfast provider to using the same Grade II listed former farmhouse, Miresfield at Malham, to a self-catering short-term holiday let. But it would take three meetings of the planning committee to find a possible solution.
At the March meeting the majority of members yet again voted against the planning officer’s recommendation for refusal and gave their approval for a legal agreement to be signed which would allow Michelle Lorimer to use the farmhouse for both local occupancy and a holiday let.
At the January meeting the planning officer told the committee that, according to policy, the applicant could only change the way the farmhouse was being used by signing a legal agreement restricting it to local occupancy housing. But Mrs Lorimer had refused as that would mean it could not be a holiday let.
Mrs Lorimer told the committee that month: ‘Fundamentally, the only change I am asking to make to my business is to stop cooking breakfasts. There is no other operational change or physical change to the way the farmhouse has been run for the last 40 years.’
She explained that her mother was now suffering serious health problems. ‘This has left the full responsibility for running the business to myself whilst also caring for my daughter as my husband works full-time and frequently travels abroad for work. As a small family-run business and with the increasing cost of hospitality, we operate at small margins and are not able to afford external staff or management.’
Malham Parish councillor David Howlett told the committee: ‘We’re very pleased to see Michelle Lorimer return to the village and to raise a family and anything that works against local people returning by adverse planning decisions is something we’d clearly want to avoid.’
During the debate in January Cllr Robert Heseltine (North Yorks Council – NYC) commented: ‘The business is virtually the same. I can’t see that it’s hurting anyone.’
And member Mark Corner said: ‘I wonder whether the objectives of the applicant can’t be achieved [by] leaving it as a bed and breakfast without the breakfast. I’ve stayed in lots of apart-hotels where you cook for yourself and you have a little lounge. I really don’t see the difference.’
But Richard Graham, the head of development management, told the committee that if a legal agreement wasn’t signed restricting the future use of the farmhouse the property could be sold as a dwelling on the open market.
The planning officer had stated: ‘The proposal fails to provide housing for a local need by way of a local occupancy restriction and would add to the existing stock of under occupied/holiday accommodation to the detriment of the sustainability of communities within the National Park.’
When the majority of members voted in January to approve the application without a legal agreement being signed it was referred back to the next meeting for officers to consider if the reasons for the decisions were sound. At the meeting in March some members said they would now vote to refuse the application.
Cllr Yvonne Peacock (NYC), however, asked why the issue could not be dealt with in the same way as for barn conversions with a legal agreement allowing both local need housing and holiday letting. Cllr Richard Foster (NYC), therefore proposed deferring a decision so that Mrs Lorimer could be asked if she was willing to do that.
The members were told at the meeting in April that Mrs Lorimer had agreed to that solution. But the planning officer still recommended refusal stating that the retention of a holiday let option would mean the proposal remained contrary to policies in both the current and emerging Local Plans.
The majority of members did, however, vote to approve the change of use on the basis that Mrs Lorimer agreed to sign a legal agreement restricting occupancy to local needs and/or short term holiday let.

Winterburn
A proposal to build a garage block and a live work dwelling at Winterburn would be an alien feature in the landscape a planning officer told the committee at the January meeting. The majority of members agreed with her that the application should be refused.
Member Mark Corner commented: ‘From what I can see, it looks very ugly. It reminds me of, if people can remember, a Pontins or Butlins. If we’re going to build something here, it needs to be in keeping with the vernacular.’
The planning officer stated that the block of five garages and a live-in dwelling did not conform with the policy that proposals for business units with ancillary living accommodation had to include a business plan to show that they would be viable.
The live-work dwelling would, he said, be in open countryside with the proposed residential accommodation not being ancillary to the business use. Nor had the applicant provided a viable business plan to show there was a need for a live-in manager for the seven holiday let properties he owns in Winterburn.
The applicant’s agent Jo Steel, however, stated: ‘The site would hugely benefit from a living onsite manager as a number of changeovers, with shorter breaks becoming more popular and the amount of cleaning, washing and servicing will be extremely hard to manage from an offsite location. The kitchen will be a key business asset for washing, drying and ironing.’
Steel said the roof plan could be altered even if that reduced the number of solar panels and, therefore, the amount of renewable energy. Biodiversity would be increased as wild flowers and trees would replace the remaining tarmac.
The planning officer explained that the site, part of which was previously a tennis court, had been used as a builder’s compound. It was next to a traditional barn which had been converted into five holiday lets.
He said: ‘The design of the building is utilitarian with a low monopitch roof rather than the simple double pitched roof which is a feature of local buildings.’ He added that it was proposed to cover most of the roof with solar panels.
Member Derek Twine said that neither the design of the building nor the amount of accommodation in the live-work dwelling were in keeping with the National Park’s policy. He also questioned the need for garages for those staying at the holiday lets.
And Cllr Richard Foster (NYC) commented: ‘We appear to have a set of garages whose main objective is to hold solar panels.’
Cllr Heseltine asked if the full details of the biodiversity gain had been reported by the planning officer and why there had not been a photograph of the substantial commercial vehicle garage workshop next to the site. ‘It can’t be called a sensitive site when there’s that commercial garage adjoining it.’ He felt that a decision on the application should be deferred to better understand the current policy interpretations and wondered if a decision to refuse permission could be upheld at appeal.
Cllr Yvonne Peacock also questioned the site being described as ‘in the open countryside’. She pointed out that it was well screened and described it as a business site. She said that the application should be approved as it was in support of a local business.

March-
Linton
A large new tank under a building does require planning permission the committee was informed at the meeting on March 10.
The committee voted to approve the application by Diving, Survey and Marine Contracting (DSMC) Ltd which included retrospective permission for installing a four-metre deep tank at their site off Lauderdale Lane between Linton and Cracoe.
Planning permission was granted in August 2023 for DSMC to redevelop Catchall Barn and build four industrial buildings along with extensive landscaping plus parking and ecological enhancement areas. The planning officer told the committee in March that once work started there were changes to those approved plans including two air source heat pumps, the repositioning of a utilities building, increasing the width of a concrete area and the installation of a tank under one of the buildings for testing equipment.
Litton Parish Council objected to the application, especially to that tank, stating: ‘[It] considers the retrospective approval of these changes as confirmation of our initial fear of industrial creep at the site.
‘We also consider the scale of the retrospective addition to the plan as a conscious decision by DSCM to undermine the planning process, which is deeply worrying for the future of the site.’
The managing director of DSMC, Charlie Bayston, told the committee: ‘We mistakenly thought that we did not require consent to what is inside an already approved building. We now know that this is not the case. The tank is contained inside half of the smallest of the approved buildings and it will not be visible from the outside and will not impact the parish in any way. ’
Cllr Richard Foster commented when proposing approval of the application: ‘This moved away from the original plan on what was passed and I understand why the [parish council] came back to the Authority to ask what exactly was going on at the site.
‘I think we’ve been accommodating with allowing this site and so it is a case of please now stick to the plans.’ He added that DSMC had assured them it would do so.
He described it as an innovative business that moved away from the core employment opportunities in Wharfedale of agriculture and tourism on which there was too much reliance. A new business like DSMC was, therefore, he said hugely important.
As requested by the parish council the tank will be restricted to being used for testing and training.

High Casterton near Carnforth
Permission was refused for an expansion of Woodclose Caravan Park at High Casterton near Carnforth as members agreed with the planning officer that it would have a negative impact upon the landscape.
The owners, Lake District Estates Ltd, wanted to expand the existing site by locating six additional units in a field to the north of the caravan park. This would have included access parking, landscaping and installation of a sewage package treatment plant.
The planning officer stated: ‘ The proposed development … by extending into an area of land that is undeveloped and visually distinct from the existing caravan park would negatively affect views from [a] footpath and the characters of its surroundings.’
The field is at present used, under permitted development rights, for touring caravans and campers. The agent, Tony Hills, described it as being managed as recreational parkland with a golf course and a cricket club nearby.
He said that the company had permission for 150 pitches on the present site but has only 100. If the site was extended it had offered to reduce the number of touring caravan pitches from 50 to 28 and have only the six wooden lodges in the new extension.
Member Alan Kirkbride commented that there was already a shortage of touring caravan sites in the Yorkshire Dales. ‘We don’t want to lose [more]’, he said.

Far End House near Austwick
The committee unanimously agreed, after a very short discussion, that an enforcement notice can be issued following unauthorised work carried out at Far End House two miles north east of Austwick.
The enforcement officer explained that Far End had been a small, isolated traditional farmstead which included a paddock and a derelict single storey agricultural barn. Planning permission was granted in March 2024 for the Far End House to be extended into an attached former barn, the erection of a two storey side extension and the replacement of a rear single storey extension. That permission, the officer said, did not include any change of use of the paddock or for domestic use of the agricultural barn.
The paddock has, however, been changed to domestic use with the creation of a patio and seating areas, hardstandings, walls and fencing, plus paths and steps into the area. In addition to solar panels on the farmhouse, for which planning permission had been granted, more have been ground mounted in the paddock. The derelict agricultural barn had been altered and extended for domestic use.
The officer said: ‘The property is a feature of the landscape being a typical Dales farmstead with house, barns, yard and modest garden area. The addition of a large, highly landscaped and formal garden is at odds with the traditional character of the building group and the landscape.’
She added that the derelict barn had been renovated to a high standard but its domestic use was reliant on the patio in the paddock area with glazed doors opening onto it. The owners, she said, had applied for retrospective permission for some elements of the work but not what were the most harmful aspects. ‘It is, therefore, considered expedient to take enforcement action to remedy the ongoing harm being caused.’
She explained: ‘If the Authority serves an enforcement notice it would not preclude the Authority agreeing to consider a further planning application. If the development included in the application was considered acceptable and planning permission granted, the planning permission would override the requirements of the enforcement notice in respect of those elements of the enforcement notice covered by the planning permission. The outstanding breaches of planning control would remain subject to the requirements of the Enforcement Notice.’
N Yorks Cllr David Noland said: ‘I hope everybody is deeply concerned about how much has been done without [the Authority] being asked in the first place.’

April

Grassington

River pollution caused by slurry spreading was one reason why the majority of the members voted against officer recommendation to refuse permission for the installation of a 41m by 75m geotextile storage bag at Town Head Farm, Grassington.
Cllr Richard Foster had asked that this should be discussed by the committee. He had stated: ‘There has long been concern within the community about the risk to waterways from the business of the farm. Whilst I understand the responsibility is with the farmer the perception that we just said no to measures that could have prevented an incident without debate does not sit well with me.’
During the debate he warned that there was a very grave risk of river pollution when slurry was spread in winter and when it was raining. ‘I think keeping a farm in business, that looks after the land, wants to do the right thing, is the right way forward.’
The applicant, David Oversby, had stated that the storage bag was needed to comply with the latest Environmental Agency regulations.
He told the committee: ‘This application is a direct and unavoidable response to changes in UK legislation, a change we as farmers and yourselves as stewards of the landscape must embrace. The benefits of these changes on the environment are massive and a huge step forwards. The benefits are timed application of natural nutrients, reducing the reliance on man-made fertilizers and improving efficiencies, sealed storage reducing the escape of ammonia and containing the smell of slurry to improve local air quality.’ The benefits, he said, also included stopping the risk of slurry runoff into the River Wharfe.
He said that they had invested £23,000 in selecting a site  taking into account the topography, visual impact, the neighbours, environmental impact and archaeological remains on the farm. This, he said, was supported by a Landscape and Visual Assessment report.  ‘If there was a more suitable site I can assure you we will be debating that site today.’
Mr Oversby told the committee he was proud to be the fourth generation of his family at the farm in such a beautiful area and he dreamed of passing it on to his family. He said: ‘I have recently learned of an excellent dairy farm, just five miles from Grassington, within the National Park, ceasing their production – a decision brought about by the financial pressures created by the need to improve infrastructure and meet the demands of tomorrow’s farming.’
He said he wanted to invest in the future of not only his four children but also of the young families of the 11 staff employed by the farm and dairy, as well as the continuance of dairy farming within the National Park.
The planning officer, however, stated that there were more appropriate solutions. She said: ‘The site is visible from public vantage points on the public right of way network, which includes the Dales Way, and from nearby residential properties.’ As no information about odour management had been provided she said there could be negative impacts upon residents.
She, therefore, recommended refusal stating: ‘The introduction of a slurry bag, bund and access/turning circle, along with the excavation works and engineering operations required, would be harmful to the landscape by introducing an alien and incongruous feature that cannot be suitably mitigated or assimilated into the established, open pastoral landscape character.’
Four residents and four Grassington Parish councillors were in agreement with this with some pointing out that a better site could be found. Three parish councillors, however, said that the site chosen was the best.
Members Cllr Yvonne Peacock and Alan Kirkbride reminded the committee that a number of dairy farms in the Yorkshire Dales had closed down. Cllr Peacock said the Authority should be helping to keep diary farms in business. She stated ‘How often do we say … that we want employment in the National Park that isn’t just based solely on tourism with low-paid jobs?’
And Alan Kirkbride said : ‘This site is in a hollow and it’s a dark green bag. It will mix in with the landscape because of the colouring… and be hardly seen.’
Geotextile bags were a very good alternative he said compared to the old storage tanks which were past their sell by date.
Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness Council), however, agreed with the planning officer: ‘By approving this we’re destroying that opportunity to preserve the dales as we like them and as everybody likes them. Much as I want to support the farmer there are other opportunities and they haven’t been fully explored.’
The head of development management, Richard Graham, stated: ‘A slurry tank within the farmyard or adjacent to the farmyard will be the optimum site for the landscape, for the archaeology and arguably for residents. For officers the proposal raises a number of questions that haven’t been satisfactorily answered. So why not a covered tank rather than a slurry bag, or multiple tanks within the farmyard? Another question is – why is this proposal for a significantly larger storage capacity than the one refused in 2022? Basically we’re convinced there’s a better solution.’
After 12 members voted to approve the application with two voting against it Mr Graham stated that, in accordance with policy, a decision against officer’s recommendation would be deferred to the next meeting to consider if the reasons were sound.

Long Preston
Approval was given for permission in principle for a new house to be built at the West End of Long Preston.
The planning officer explained that ‘permission in principle’ established whether a site was suitable for development before detailed development proposals were considered.
Residents living near the site and Long Preston Parish Council were concerned about the access which serves several existing properties. The parish council stated: ‘The access onto the A65 is a narrow gap between houses, very near the bungalows for the elderly, and we believe that the visibility will be poor.’
The objections from residents included concerns about the impact upon elderly residents and the access for emergency vehicles, deliveries and refuse collection.
North Yorkshire Council’s highways department stated that due to the limited scale of the development it was satisfied that, in principle, the access would be safe and suitable. But when there were more detailed plans the visibility at the junction with the A65 would need to be considered and that the provision of a passing place along the route to the house would be beneficial.

Aysgarth
Approval was quickly given for a workshop and shed at Aysgarth Camping at the east end of Aysgarth.
The planning officer told the committee that this would replace a small children’s playground at the south side of the camping and caravan site near the A684. He stated that the roots of trees would be protected and more will be planted. ‘Officers are satisfied that the need for a new building has been demonstrated by the applicants and that its design and location are acceptable.’
Aysgarth and District Parish Council had objected stating that the timber shed would be too obvious from the footpath along the A684.
Cllr Peacock accepted it was needed but said she would have preferred the shed to have been constructed further inside the site although the planting of trees between it and the road should help screen it. She wasn’t keen on it being painted black and would prefer a sandy colour to fit in with the two buildings near it.
It was reported that the children’s play area was for only those staying at the camping and caravan site and had already been removed.

Firbank near Sedbergh
The retrospective application for work carried out at Moss Foot, Firbank, Sedbergh to turn it into a high class holiday let frequently for large groups was refused, but without enforcement action.
Cllr Peacock warned that if the committee approved taking enforcement action everything listed in the site would have to be returned to its original appearance – at a huge cost to the applicant.
Richard Graham, head of development management, told the committee: ‘There are potential solutions to some of the problems.’ One way, he said was to refuse planning permission so that officers could work with the applicant to revise the proposal. Edie Lord, one of the applicants, said that Moss Foot was close to his partner’s home, and their intention was to create  high quality accommodation with disabled access that would encourage people to visit, stay and value the National Park. he added that they hadn’t realised they needed planning permission for the outside work and should have sought the advice of planning officers sooner. One member queried how they could  not have known that planning permision was required for additional work following that granted in 2022.
The planning officer told the committee: ‘It is considered that the change of use of the single residential dwelling to form a large intensive holiday let use and cumulative effect of alterations to the buildings within the site, the creation of a large parking area and the change of use of agricultural land to form a terraced garden area with associated outdoor lighting has had a significant adverse impact upon the agricultural nature of the site and tranquil pastoral character of the surrounding area.’ She said the holiday let was often used for hen and stag parties.
She reported that among the unauthorised works was the demolition of a stone barn with another being constructed in its place to house a steam room and sauna. She added: ‘Irrespective of the previous existence of a building on the site, there is no justification for the construction of an amenity building, which lies outside of the residential curtilage of Moss Foot House and constitutes agricultural land.’
She said that even though the nearest neighbouring property was 200 metres away the intensive holiday let use of the site did result in noise disturbance. The neighbour, she reported, had objected because their small farm visit business had been affected by the noise from the property which had even led to bookings being cancelled.
Among those who argued for approving the application was the chairman of the committee, Cllr Ian Mitchell (Westmorland and Furness). He said: ‘I am disappointed by the amount of unauthorised works that have happened on the site … but we must judge what is now in front of us.’
Included in his four reasons for approval were the social and employment opportunities; supporting the rural economy; the re-use of a former farm to deliver a high-quality tourism offer; and the use of renewable energy. Another member noted the huge local support for the development of the holiday let at Moss Foot which included Firbank Parish Meeting. Many described how the holiday let use of Moss Foot was supporting the local economy.
Other members, however, disagreed with Cllr Mitchell. Cllr Noland pointed to the demolition of the historic barn and what he described as the massive destruction of trees. He asked why the solar panels had not been placed on roofs and about the impact upon dark skies.
Cllr Kirkbride commented: ‘Something must be done about the lighting. It looks horrendous.’
Cllr Peacock referred to the £23,000 that Mr Oversby had paid to be able to make his application for the slurry geotextile bag at Town Head Farm, Grassington. ‘This just throws in the face of so many who have asked for advice [before an application].’ And she asked how the Authority could restrict lighting elsewhere if approval was given for so much at Moss Foot.
Member Dr Saira Ali said: ‘I would support [that] you go away and work together to come up with a solution. We get retrospective proposals all the time and I appreciate that some of them are acceptable, but this opens up flood gates for others to do the same.’