At the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority ‘s ( YDNPA ) planning committee on September 2 2025 the following were discussed: an application to build a bungalow by Frostow Lane near Sedbergh; the installation of hard standing in a field near Casterton, Cumbria; and a barn conversion at Thorpe near Grassington.

Pip Pointon reports on the planning meetings on a voluntary basis as part of the commitment of the Association of Rural Communities to local democracy.

Sedbergh

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.

Casterton

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.

Thorpe

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.