ARC News Service reports on the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) planning committee on July 16 2024. Items discussed included: a slurry bag for Arches Farm at Bolton Abbey; a housing development at Giggleswick; a new storage building for the Kilnsey Show; possible enforcement action against Network Rail.; and a dog walking facility at Devils Bridge. A decision regarding a garage cum workshop in Hawes was deferred for a site meeting.
Arches Farm at Bolton Abbey –
Protecting the River Wharfe from pollution is high on the priorities for the Arches Farm near Bolton Abbey, Stephen Bolland told the committee.
He stated: ‘We farm close to the River Wharfe and protecting the river is something that is important to me and my family, regardless of legislation requirements. We already work hard to farm in a way that protects the environment.’
In addition, he said, they want to install a 50m by 29m slurry bag in a field to meet the requirements of the Environment Agency’s Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution Regulations 2018.
But a planning officer argued that due to the proposed location the slurry bag would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape even though there would be a metre high bund. She pointed out that when the bag was full it would be 1.5m above the bund.
The majority of the committee, however, voted to approve the application. As this was against officer recommendation it may be referred back.
Mr Bolland had explained: ‘A slurry storage bag is the type of solution recommended by Natural England and the Environment Agency. And as the next generation at the Arches farm I am enthusiastic about the benefits despite the cost implications to our business.
‘By law we have to collect all the cow slurry and dirty water produced on our farm and store it. Slurry is fertiliser and if applied correctly it avoids the need for artificial fertiliser and doesn’t harm the environment.
‘A need for a large store is so that the application of slurry can be optimised to take account of the environment of growing grass and the weather at the time of application. With a store of the size proposed we will never need to spread in winter or when it is raining so we can safeguard the environment. We are not intensive dairy farmers. We have a mixture of sheep and cattle and our produce, including our milk, is sold and consumed locally.
‘As a family we appreciate the special qualities of the National Park in the picturesque setting of Bolton Abbey. As a parish councillor commented, we have farmed at the Arches Farm for several generations having ensured our operations are in harmony with the tourism activities that draw thousands of visitors to the village each year. Our land management and keeping of livestock adds to the attraction for visitors.
‘I genuinely believe that the slurry storage bag screened by dry stone walls and proposed tree planting will have less of an impact than is suggested in the [officer’s] report. An amended plan has been submitted to show a new dry stone wall instead of previously shown hedge to screen the views from the bridle way to the west. When it comes to long distance views from across the dale, I remain of the opinion that these will only be intermittent glimpses between trees and that it would not be harmful.’
The YDNPA’s historic environment team commented: ‘It’s appreciated that there may be a wider landscape impact from this development, but it’s not considered that it would have a significant impact on recorded heritage assets on, or in the vicinity of the site.’
The planning officer, however, stated: ‘The siting of a slurry bag of the size proposed, along with the excavation works and engineering operations required would impose a large and prominent unsightly feature in this open landscape that would result in harm to the intrinsic pastoral character and visual quality of the area and would fail to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the National Park. As an unsightly feature of significant scale and prominence it would also distract and detract from the wider setting of the Bolton Abbey historic landscape which is of international importance. It is considered that such a large and potentially reflective feature in this location cannot be adequately mitigated or assimilated into the established, open landscape character through landscape planting and a less harmful location should be considered.’
Member Lizzie Bushby supported her and stated: ‘I do worry that this is a very high quality landscape adjacent to Bolton Abbey and it is visible in long distance views across the valley. It is potentially going to be highly visible and a change to this landscape.’
Bolton Abbey Parish Council had disagreed. It had told the committee: ‘We are of the opinion that this proposal will have no visual impact on the landscape character of the surrounding area nor will it introduce any amenity issues. We believe that the proposal should be supported to allow this considerate, long standing farm enterprise to continue to grow sustainably to the benefit of future generations and the village.’
North Yorkshire councillor Richard Foster commented that it would be difficult to find any site near Bolton Abbey that wasn’t of historical importance. ‘These were some of the first pastoral fields probably in the north of England [as the monks] probably had a dairy farm here rather than a sheep farm because it was closer to the priory for making cheese. So it is probably one of the most historic dairy farms in the country and to stop it on the grounds that it is not meeting environmental targets I think is wrong. I think [ this] is a really good solution. A big metal or concrete structure would probably look worse on the aspect of Bolton Abbey.’
Parish council member Allen Kirkbride said that a large concrete or metal slurry tank would stand out like a sore thumb and that fulfilling the latest legal requirements was a big financial outlay for small farms. ‘To my mind the applicants have bent over backwards to try to minimise the amount of environmental impact on this site. They are willing to screen it with planting schemes and a dry stone wall. I don’t know what more can be done. We are going to lose dairy farming in the dales if we are not careful. We do need help from the National Park to keep farms going especially dairy farms.’
When agreeing with Ms Bushby that a decision should be deferred Member Mark Corner said ‘I prefer nothing at the moment and come back with a better location.’
Cllr Foster, however, stated: ‘I am not sure another site will functionally work. We might be in a position where this [this application] comes back in six months time at which point the farm hasn’t had suitable storage. We could have another wet winter and we could’ve put the farm in the position where it is polluting the river.’
Westmorland and Furness councillor Graham Simpkins said the country needed the farming industry and added: ‘We need slurry management because we know the problems with the rivers.’
And North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock commented: ‘Only the farmer knows the best place for this for his business.’
Several members, including Cllr Foster, asked if the proposed screening with trees and bushes could be increased, and if there was an alternative colour for the slurry bag rather than grey.
Richard Graham, head of development management, said that usually a decision was referred back to the next planning committee meeting if it was against officer recommendation. He said he wanted to talk to the applicant to see if he could offer a landscaping scheme which would improve the impact upon the landscape.
Giggleswick –
Compromise was the key word when the committee approved a development of nine homes, large and small, on a site at Stackhouse Lane, Giggleswick.
The development will have five open market houses with one to always be a principle residency; two First Homes discounted for first-time buyers; and two flats for rent through a housing association. The First Homes and the flats were counted as affordable housing units.
Mr Graham said that, although principle residency was not a policy in the present Local Plan, having one open market dwelling designated as such had been agreed with the developer.
When asked by Mr Corner whether the developer might seek to remove the four affordable housing units Mr Graham replied: ‘I think it’s unlikely. It’s taken ten years to get to this point with this particular site. It’s been through an awful lot of discussion about viability – and through an appeal where viability has been looked at. I am really hopeful we will get some affordable housing on this site soon.’
He said the site had been allocated for development in the present Local Plan to deliver affordable housing for local people and not open market housing. ‘However, it’s one of the harsh realities of negotiating over a development scheme whereby viability is such an issue that you do end up with a compromise. Our current policy states we would accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site affordable housing so it’s been a real plus to secure some on-site rather than spent somewhere else. It’s not ideal but it’s a good compromise.’
Cllr Kirkbride said: ‘The only thing that worries me a bit is the size of the affordable housing. It looks slightly minute compared with the open market housing.’
The planning officer had stated: ‘There is significant plot disparity with the four affordable units on a combined plot size equivalent to one of the open market plots. The purpose of allocating the site is in order to secure the affordable units and yet the majority of the site will be taken up with the open market houses. It is also understood that the applicants are seeking to maximise viability on a site with several abnormal costs including significant excavation works and undergrounding the overhead line.’
She explained that due to the sloping nature of the land quite a lot of excavation was required. ‘We have tried to achieve the best compromise and accepted that the houses would be elevated above the road. That was why the landscaping was such an integral part of negotiations.’
In her report she stated: ‘Given that the allocated site had little depth into the field, the submitted scheme brought the buildings closer to the road. However, officers suggested that the applicant increase the depth of the site beyond the allocation in order to site the buildings further back from the road. This has enabled more open space around the buildings and some space for meaningful tree planting to the front. All of the buildings will still remain in the allocated site.
‘The proposed mix of houses includes four affordable units – two First Homes and two apartments for affordable rent. The Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment (SHMA) has identified a need for small affordable rented properties and the apartments will help to meet this need. First Homes are effectively discounted market sale units which are discounted by 30 per cent from the market value and sold at not more than £250k to a person or persons meeting the First Homes eligibility criteria (first time buyer, household income not exceeding £80k). The 30 per cent discount is passed down to subsequent owners of the property but the price cap of £250k is only for the first sale.’
Kilnsey Show
Compromise had also been important in finding a location for a storage building for the equipment used by the Kilnsey Show even though it was accepted it would not be an ideal site.
The planning officer explained that a decision had been deferred at the committee’s meeting on May 28 to see if a better site could be found than that originally proposed by the Upper Wharfedale Agricultural Society (UWAS). Following discussions with UWAS she accepted that a site near Scar Laithe Barn would offer the best compromise.
She said: ‘There is a need for a permanent building to store equipment for the show. It is an important event within the agricultural calendar of the Dales and contributes significantly to the agricultural heritage and economy of the dales.’
Chris Windle, the agent for UWAS told the committee: ‘The society has always been acutely aware of the iconic landscape at Kilnsey. It’s one of the things that makes the show as successful as it is [with a] fantastic backdrop and the acoustics – with the commentary bouncing off the crag.
‘The show is an iconic dales event. It’s probably one of the most important agricultural shows in the Yorkshire Dales. We have got a dilapidated building that has been there 50 years. So we need to have something more modern to ensure that the show, which has been going for over 125 years, can continue for as long as possible.
‘We’ve got a compromise that suits, I hope, the members and the planning officers. It suits the society, it suits the landowner.’
When it was noted that the new location was nearer to Kilnsey Crag Mr Graham said: ‘It’s going to have a landscape impact but we think that it is less than the site that was originally proposed.’
Cllr Foster commented: ’It’s not an ideal site but I do think it’s the best compromise…for the volunteer organisation.’ It was important, he said, that the building worked well for the volunteers.
Parish council member Liz Appleton Hall, who is chairman of Conistone with Kilnsey Parish Meeting, said: ‘The Kilnsey Show showcases the Dales. It’s a very good example of our statutory purpose to promote the understanding and enjoyment of the qualities of the Yorkshire Dales – and 10,000 people went last year.’
Network Rail and Blea Moor
Cllr Heseltine described the work carried out by Network Rail on Blea Moor as ‘vandalism of the highest order’. And Cllr Foster commented that it looked like criminal damage.
They and other members of the committee were shocked to see photographs showing the 4.5m wide track already created by Network Rail as part of one 620m long route to provide access to a tunnel ventilation shaft. The depth of the stonework on the track varies from 600m to 1m.
They were told that its construction had involved the excavation of earth, including peat, in order to reach ground sufficiently solid to build on. The planning officer said the work had begun in August 2023 without informing the landowner, who had stopped it a month later after being told about the track by a Dent Parish councillor.
It was reported that the landowner had worked with Yorkshire Wildlife Trust (YWT) and Yorkshire Peat Partnership (YPP) between 2020 and 2020 to restore peatland at that site of the track with funds from Nature for Climate and Countryside Stewardship agreements.
YWT stated: ‘Due to the prolonged period between the damage occurring and YPP being commissioned to undertake the works to stabilise the exposed bare peat, damage has continued to occur. For example, peat was left uncovered for a significant period and it is impossible to comprehensively cover up the piles of excavated peat, plus erosion has taken place due to the channelling of water into new gullies (50+) that have formed around the track.
‘The installation of the track has disrupted the structure of the peat and the peatland hydrology. The specialised peatland vegetation that forms under healthy blanket bog conditions forms new peat, captures carbon, slows the flow of water across the landscape and provides habitat for rare and important birds and other wildlife. Once the peat structure and hydrology has been compromised, these processes are also compromised.’
The planning officer reported: ‘Blanket bog is classed as irreplaceable habitat. The unauthorised works have clearly caused loss and damage to an irreplaceable habitat. For such damage to be justified there needs to be “wholly exceptional” circumstances.’
Network Rail stated that it needed access to three tunnel ventilation shafts serving Blea Moor tunnel to fix new tops to the turrets and carry out repairs to brick and metalwork so as to stop rainwater falling onto the tracks and freezing in winter. The planning officer said that, although it was accepted that these repairs were necessary, these works were clearly not a ‘nationally important infrastructure project’.
Both he and the landowner believed that other methods could have been used to access the turrets such as helicopter lifts, using Argo Cat vehicles, use of bog mats and floating access tracks. All of these, however, had been discounted by Network Rail.
The planning officer told the committee that Network Rail had withdrawn its retrospective planning application for the track. Approval was given for enforcement action.
Devils Bridge
Just one vote decided the fate of an application to provide a safe place to exercise dogs opposite a parking area near Devils Bridge on the A683. Eight members of the committee voted to refuse the application in accordance with officer recommendation, seven were for approval and there was one abstention.
The proposal was for the change of use of a flat field to create an enclosed private area offering safe and secure spaces for dog owners, locals and visitors, to allow their dogs to play off lead during booked time slots between 6.30am and 9.30am. In addition to the existing wall there would have been a six metre fence with the field being divided into four paddocks of differing sizes.
The applicant, Annie Golden of Pooch Pods Ltd, told the meeting she had read reports about sheep worrying and dog attacks and wanted to help find a solution. She added: ‘The number [of dog owners] has grown hugely. And a lot of these dogs since Covid haven’t had the opportunity to be exercised.’ She said the field was near a parking area where there were toilets and a refreshment kiosk.
Parish council member Libby Bateman commented: ‘There is a real demand for this kind of facility. Dogs will be better behaved if they’ve had a good chase about. I don’t think this will be as intrusive as what we thought originally. I think it will be a great addition to the area.’
But others agreed with the planning officer that it would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape. ‘I don’t think it’s the best place,’ said Ms Bushby. ‘It’s potentially going to have a detrimental impact on the gateway to the National Park.
And Cllr Simpkins stated: ‘This is the gateway to the Westmorland Dales. If you go down there at the weekend this is an extremely congested area. There are motorbikes [and bicycles] all over the place, and there’s cars as well. And the burger van. This is totally the wrong place.’
Hawes
It was agreed to hold a site meeting before making a decision regarding the application to demolish a garage cum workshop at the west end of Hawes Market Place and build a two-storey stone building to be used as an office.
The planning officer had recommended this be approved. But Cllr Yvonne Peacock told the committee: ‘This is a very very tight site. I think you need to see this in context to actually realise just what it is like and how narrow it is round there.’