ARC News Service reports on the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority‘s ( YDNPA ) planning meeting on October 15 2024, at which planning applications were approved regarding Aysgarth Holiday Lodges and Howesykes Farm in Bishopdale, and there was a statement about the dangers to health and wildlife of telecommunications masts.
Bishopdale – Howesykes Farm
Cllr Robert Heseltine said that seven years ago the planning committee had been wrong to approve an application by Robert and Helen Brown to make changes at Howesyke Farm in Bishopdale. ‘I publicly apologise,’ he said.
Another North Yorkshire councillor David Ireton stated: ‘Just because we’ve made a mistake and got it wrong… in my view doesn’t make it right by now approving this [new application] when it is entirely contrary to the development plan..’
It was pointed out that in 2017 the planning committee had not accepted the officer’s recommendation to refuse that application which included extending the farmhouse, the construction of two rural workers’ dwellings at the farm, the erection of two barns, and the conversion of a modern barn into five holiday lets.
The new application (for a barn and one rural worker’s dwelling) was, however, approved with the majority of the committee this time accepting the recommendation of the planning officer. They were told that if it was refused the applicants could ‘fallback’ to that of 2017 and build two rural workers’ dwellings at Howesyke.
The planning officer commented: ‘[With] the significant extent of the holiday let proposal, combined with the holiday let use of the farmhouse, it is apparent that the tourism arm of the enterprise would become the main income stream, and significantly more than a diversification to support the environmental beneficial aspects of land management.’
She told the committee: ‘Many significant elements of the development proposal are contrary to policy, with some aspects lacking detailed justification, such as the proposed dwelling and need for the additional barn. The reason for this is that the applicant is reliant on a fallback factor.’
She said that the latest proposal amounted to unsustainable development and there was no essential functional need for the proposed dwelling at Howesyke but stated: ‘There are several factors relating to the fallback scheme that are worse than the development that is now proposed, including the visual impact, the operational needs of the enterprise, and the sustainability credentials. This weighs in favour of granting permission for the development, despite it being entirely contrary to development plan policy.
‘The fallback scheme included two semi-detached houses which, whilst well-designed, were sited poorly. Together with the farmhouse they would have formed a long run of buildings, all with similar eaves and ridge height. In design terms they would compete with the main farmhouse and confuse the hierarchy of dwellings on site.’
There is now a car park where they would have been built. Member Allen Kirkbride described the original location of those two proposed dwellings as infill. ‘I can’t see what the problem is with that [2017] plan,’ he said.
He agreed with North Yorkshire County councillor Yvonne Peacock who commented: ‘My main concern is that the first [application] went through on the basis that the applicant was going to live in the house and farm 1,000 sheep on the land. That has not happened.’ The farmhouse is now a nine-bedroom luxury holiday let.
Several Bishopdale residents had objected to the latest Howesyke Farm application (see below) with one stating that there had been an obvious increase in pheasants in the fields plus noise from the shooting business. ‘Howesyke is now beginning to look like some kind of expanding holiday estate. It is not in keeping with the natural, unspoilt image of Bishopdale,’ she had added.
The Browns have also applied to build a rural worker’s dwelling at Kidstones Gill Bridge and that will be discussed in November. At present a gamekeeper lives in a chalet there for which temporary planning permission expired in March this year. This is the second time the gamekeeper has remained there after temporary permission for the chalet had expired.
The committee was told that if permission is granted for a rural worker’s dwelling to be built at Kidstones Gill Bridge a legal agreement would be signed to rescind the 2017 approval to build two beside Howesyke Farmhouse.
Cllr Heseltine commented: ‘In my opinion, it has not been helpful to conflect the Howesyke Farm application with that of Kidstones [Gill] Bridge. It’s muddying the waters and confusing the issue.’
However, Derek Twine, the chairman of the Authority, said: ‘The [Howesyke Farm application] is the lesser of two challenging proposals. There is much that can be learned from seven years ago but we are in a different position with different criteria in terms of businesses and work in the Dales, life in the Dales and the way in which tourism as well as farming has changed.’
And the majority agreed with Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness Council) who stated: ‘I think we have got a get out of jail free card on the table. Over the last seven years there have been a considerable change in agriculture. This business is growing, it’s employing people, and what’s on the table is better than what we approved in 2017. So I can’t see any reason to refuse it.’
Mrs Brown told the committee: ‘Back in 2017 the planning committee supported our original planning application. The only changes to this current application is the removal of one cottage, the relocation of the remaining cottage to a more suitable site, and the reduction in size of one of the barns.
‘The idea of removing one of the cottages came about after lengthy discussion with the Park regarding the functional use of the worker’s cottage at Kidstones bridge – a stand alone block of 700 acres ten minutes away from Howesykes.
‘The easiest way to resolve the fact we already have permission for two cottages at Howesykes and not wanting to build a third in Bishopdale it was recognised that the best option was to move one of the cottages from Howesykes to Kidstones Bridge. This is the reason we submitted two separate planning applications.
‘In the last 15 years with the backing of the National Park Authority we have invested significantly in Bishopdale financially and environmentally and created employment opportunities for young people. We have created full time and part time roles for numerous young people, won environmental awards and so fulfilling many of the National Parks Management Plan objectives .. contributing to the environment, the local economy and the local community.
‘We wish to continue to complete our plans, continue to invest and create even greater benefits for the area. This application replaces what we already have approval for and does not ask for any more development than what is approved and could be developed.’
‘Receiving approval of the proposal for Howesykes will create the opportunity to move on to support the subsequent Kidstones Bridge application at the November committee meeting and for all the related elements to come together as a holistic finishing to the current situation as well as addressing the demonstrated need in a more direct and practical manner. We can assure you that we have the best interest of the national park and our employees at heart.’
Objections by local farmers and residents sent to the YDNPA before the meeting:
A local farmer commented about allowing a permanent rural worker’s dwelling to be built at Kidstones Gill Beck: ‘This development would be out of character for Bishopdale, in an unsuitable location, will impact the visual element of the area and will bring no significant benefits. Given that the YDNPA generally opposes the conversion of unused barns to accommodation for rural workers, such an out of character new build cannot, for consistency, be approved. There seems to be minimal justification for the demand for accommodation.’
Another farmer stated: ‘A great deal of good work has been carried out by the YDNPA since it was designated in 1954 which has preserved the wonderful landscape we enjoy today by protecting it from unwarranted developments and the near prohibition of green-field developments like this, especially with a purely commercial intent for the benefit of remote investors.
‘Excessive development has already taken place at Howesyke, which has destroyed the original character of the place with further unexecuted plans for accommodation still in existence. The existing permissions for rural workers to be accommodated if executed, would be much less impactful on the environment than allowing the unwarranted permanent destruction of a fresh unspoilt site on an unsubstantiated premise from an owner with no link to the landscape we all have inhabited for many decades.
‘The owners, Mr & Mrs Brown, were granted numerous extraordinary permissions at Howesyke Farm, which lay outside the normal accepted developments allowed in the National Park, including the development of the site of the large modern building sited to the front of the property despite the strong objection of the appointed conservation officer who stated that such a development would perpetuate the significant visual harm already caused by the poorly sited building and that they could not support the application.
‘As I understand it, the permission which was granted for the doubling of the size of the part 17th century farmhouse (possibly with at least 16th century origins) at Howesyke was on the understanding that it was to be used as a family home. It has not been used as such by the owner in the years since the major alterations were carried out and seems purely to be let as a holiday let/party venue.
‘The scale of the development is extreme: the apparent doubling in size of the farm house (with probably at least 16th century origins), the complete disregard for its historic fabric and appearance, the introduction of prominent non-local building materials, the hardcore tracks that have appeared all over the valley, the numerous buildings already erected etc. all for the benefit of commercial absentee owners.
‘Given the number of applications from these owners so far and the following incremental developments that seem to just keep coming it is concerning to imagine what this landscape may look like in 20 years’ time if the present rate of creeping commercial overdevelopment of Howesyke Farm continues. I recognise the need for farms to diversify, but the developments proposed here are extreme, permanent, disproportionate and deeply impactful on the nature and character of the landscape – just as the intense commercial shooting operation run by the owners is on the quality of life [of residents]
A Bishopdale resident wrote: ‘The whole history of the development of Howesyke and adjoining properties and buildings has been expansion and changes of use applications, taking the original concept away from a residential farm to some form of massive leisure complex. Whilst changes to staff residences to holiday lets may seem reasonable…why have a new build further up the dale? This was meant to be a residential farm, and is now morphing into a holiday camp.’
Another commented: ‘The requirement for more holiday lets in such a small area is unnecessary. Additional to this, Bishopdale acts like an ampitheatre and noise is magnified due to the valley shape. Additional people to those already using the holiday let facilities at Howsykes will, when outside with games, music etc. create excessive amplified noise disturbing the local environment and wildlife. Full conversations can be heard quite clearly.’
West Burton – Aysgarth Lodge Holidays
The planning committee agreed that the intensity of the lighting along the internal roads at Aysgarth Lodge Holidays near West Burton must be reduced.
The committee was told that the 6000K bulbs in the 49 bollards did not comply with the Authority’s Dark Skies Initiative. It approved the retrospective application which specified that these will be replaced with 2700K and 470 lumens bulbs with ‘warm white’ colour.
Aysgarth Lodge Holidays was given one month to comply. The planning officer commented: ‘This would mean that the new bulbs would be in place for most of the winter 2024/25 and thereafter.’ He said this would be a significant improvement on the existing situation.
Burton-cum-Walden Parish Council had stated: ‘The council remains concerned about light pollution, particularly as we have supported the Dark Skies Initiative, but we will review the situation when the proposals are implemented.’
Its suggestion that the bollard lights should be switched off from 11pm to 6am each night was accepted by the committee and included in the conditions of the approval.
Both North Yorkshire councillor Yvonne Peacock and Allen Kirkbride approved of the application but told the committee that the bright light emanating from the holiday site had caused a lot of concern.
Cllr Peacock emphasised the need for screening as the lights from the site were visible from the B6160 near West Burton and also from the A684 when approaching Aysgarth from Hestholme Bridge. She asked that previous planning conditions regarding screening should be checked.
Cllr Graham Simpkins (Westmorland and Furness Council), however, was opposed to any bollard lighting. He said: ‘I think we are failing in our duty. We are supposed to be protecting the Dales by protecting the countryside and the wildlife. If you want something that is illuminated to this extent go to Pontins or Butlins or somewhere. You don’t come to the Dales. What about the kids who want to see our dark skies? Do they have to stop up to midnight to be able to see it? I think it’s a total failure. Bring a torch!
‘I’ve got villages in my constituency that don’t have [street] lights and have dark skies and they love it. In that way the wildlife isn’t confused and we can see the dark skies. [This] will be visible from somewhere and it doesn’t look like the Yorkshire Dales when it’s all illuminated. People come to the Dales to see countryside and wildlife, not to see an illuminated park.’
The approved application included the use of land for siting of a caravan to serve as the holiday park reception and office.
Telecommunications Masts
The committee was asked if a planning authority could be held culpable if it failed to protect its residents from any harmful effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emanating from telecommunication masts.
In statements at the beginning of the meeting four women asked the committee about the impact of new telecommunication masts in the dales on the health of humans, livestock and wildlife and upon the landscape.
‘We wish to alert members to the areas in which we feel planning authorities could be vulnerable to claims being made against them for resulting harm,’ Sue Holden said.
She told the committee that the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) had stated that compliance with its guidelines may not necessarily preclude interference with, or affects on, medical devices such as metallic prostheses, cardiac pacemakers, defibrillators, and cochlear implants.
Alexandra Wood said the ICNIRP guidance related only to thermal effects. ‘Information is readily available detailing the adverse health effects and increased cancer risk of electromagnetic radiation technology via a non-thermal pathway.
‘On the recent Outershaw mast application we see no reference to specific design details. We are asking how can the planning committee verify that any mast antennae set is compliant… without knowledge or understanding of the specific antennae design details from the Telecom applicant? We know Lloyds of London will not insure against the harmful effects of radio frequency from these masts and we don’t know of any insurance company that will.’
The women told the committee that there were over 10,000 independent peer-reviewed scientific papers that demonstrated adverse biological effects of EMFs, such as changes in hormone levels, damage to DNA, sleep disruption and many other serious symptoms including cancer, at power levels way below the current government and industry safety guidelines.
The committee was told: ‘This rollout [of telecommunication masts] is potentially endangering dales people and the habitat. No consent has been sought from locals for many of these masts. We are all being exposed to harmful EMFs without our knowledge.’
Caroline Penman stated: ‘A 2020 European Parliament study found that ICNIRP’s links to the telecoms companies shows it can’t be considered independent. Many ICNIRP members have received research funding from the industries that benefit from ICNIRP’s high industry-friendly limits.
‘Why, when objectives of the Park’s Management Plan states that overhead lines are to be buried to “reduce the impact on the landscape”, are we even considering building massively imposing towering masts and the ensuing forest of booster masts on the skyline of our iconic Fells, when there are alternatives to achieve the same goals?’
These she said included satellite communications systems or the under road fibre-optic cable network that was used in Cyprus to connect all remote villages within two years.
It would, she said, cost £280 million less to equip 50,000 hillwalkers with iPhone 14 than the Total Not Spot scheme using telecommunication masts. And iPhone 14s can be used to send emergency SOS to text emergency services when outside cellular and Wifi coverage.
‘We could major in being the only place left in the UK totally free of masts, where you can truly digitally detox, pitching yourself against the elements and being allowed to take responsibility for yourself.’
In response the chairman of the planning committee, Cllr Ian Mitchel, read the following statement:
‘Firstly the Authority tries to ensure that information submitted with planning applications is correct insofar as it can. All applicants have to sign a declaration on the planning application forms to confirm that the information provided is true and accurate.
‘Your second point about health risks from telecommunications development is very technical. The National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out Government instructions on how the planning system should operate, is quite clear on how planning authorities should deal with these issues:
‘Planning applications should include a declaration from the applicant that new telecommunications development will meet international commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection.
Planning authorities should not “question the need for an electronic communication system or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure”.
‘Compliance with International Commission guidelines is a condition of the telecoms operator’s licence which is regulated and enforced by Ofcom and not by planning authorities.
‘You have also made a point about the potential effect on the National Park landscape and the experience of visiting the Park.
‘Every planning application for telecommunications development is carefully considered so that negative effects are balanced against the benefits for our residents, for children in education, local businesses, the emergency services and our visitors.
‘This does not mean that every application is permitted, some have been refused or withdrawn because of our concerns, but on the whole we have managed to find appropriate sites and secure landscape planting for the majority.’