An ARC News Service report on the meeting of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority ‘s (YDNPA) planning committee on November 26 2024. There are two reports here regarding the applications for three terraced houses at Maulds Meaburn and a new house at Hudswell.
Click here for the long report about the application by Rob and Helen Brown to build a rural worker’s dwelling at Kidstones Gill Bridge in Bishopdale.
Pip Pointon reports on YDNPA planning meetings on a voluntary basis as part of the commitment of the Association of Rural Communities to local democracy.
Maulds Meaburn
It was unanimously agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to approve planning permission for three terraced houses near the Village Institute in Maulds Meaburn once an appropriate Nutrient Neutrality scheme had been organised.
The committee was told that the site was within the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Nutrient Neutrality catchment.
The planning officer explained: ‘The applicant’s strategy is to secure the upgrade of a poor quality foul treatment system off-site, to offset the impacts of this development on the SAC. In order for this to be an appropriate solution, the upgrade site needs to be upstream of Appleby treatment works. The off-site improvements can be secured by way of a section 106 planning agreement. This approach has been used elsewhere in the Eden catchment with the agreement of Natural England.’
Crosby Ravensworth Parish Council was concerned that the houses could become second homes or holiday lets. It had been assured by the planning officer that they would be for local occupancy but she said there was no policy basis requiring them to be affordable housing.
The planning officer explained that the application was much the same as that approved in 2019. As the site is next to the earthwork remains of the medieval development of the village which is a designated heritage asset, archaeological work and recording was undertaken. The excavations, however, took so long that the planning permission lapsed.
Member Libby Bateman (Ravenstonedale Parish councillor) said the excavations were quite unsightly in what was a very beautiful village. She felt that the development would be in keeping with other housing there.
The parish council was also concerned about the car parking area to be provided at the back of the houses. It stated: ‘The gradient on the access road and parking areas at 1:8 and 1:12 respectively (indicative section and streetscene) will be a challenge for some drivers. This access arrangement will simply not be used during winter months when there is any frost, ice or snow. This will become a major safety risk in winter not just for homeowners but also passing traffic on the main road.
‘Residents will either have to reverse into the parking spaces up the 1:8 access road or carry out a tight 3-point turn at the top and reverse into “Mini” sized parking spaces, some at right angles to the access. Reversing will again be up a significant gradient. Although the turning circles on the Vehicle Tracking drawing indicate achievability this is reliant on residents parking perfectly in an allocated parking space.
North Yorkshire Cllr David Noland agreed with the parish council not only about the access but that the parking spaces would not be large enough for many modern cars. It was likely, therefore, that residents would park on the road. He said: It’s a mess. But I couldn’t see what could be done.’
There were also questions about how the proposed development could meet biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements as it was so small. Planning officers explained that off-site BNG units could be purchased from a habitat bank provider.
Hudswell
An application to build a four-bedroom house with detached garage in the garden of The Grove at the west end of Hudswell was unanimously refused partly because it would not be for local occupancy.
Hudswell Parish Council had suggested that ‘principle residency’ would be acceptable. And the owner of the land, Charles Smith, told the committee that if his application was refused it would be overturned on appeal and cost the Authority thousands of pounds and waste officers’ time.
He suggested a payment of £10,000 to the village’s housing charity towards local occupancy housing there would be a better option.
But Richard Graham, Head of Development Management, said it had been recommended for refusal because the house would be outside the present development boundary, would not be for local occupancy in accordance with the present local plan, and would be so big that it would be inefficient use of land.
Such a large house, he explained, would probably be worth in the region of half a million pounds. ‘From the research we have undertaken as part of the new local plan I understand that principle residency might take off around five per cent of the price of the house. Looking back on local occupancy that we have granted over the years [this] has reduced the price of housing by between 20 and 30 per cent depending upon where the house is located.’
This clearly showed, he said, that restricting housing to people with local connections made the houses more affordable.
Cllr Peacock said the proposal was contrary to the present local plan. ‘The problem here is that we have no local need housing and no affordable housing.’
She did, however, point out that the situation in Hudswell was unusual in that part of it came under North Yorkshire Council and the rest was in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
Mr Smith told the committee that the county council had allowed new housing directly opposite The Grove. He argued that his proposal was for a windfall site and not one that might be within the development boundary of the village under the YDNPA’s new local plan.
The planning officer, however, stated: ‘The proposal is premature insofar as it relies upon potential policy changes that may come forward in the emerging local plan which is at an early stage. Should development of this site take place in the manner proposed it would prejudice the efficient use of the larger parcel of land intended for housing development to meet a local need.’
And Mr Graham said: ‘Even if this application was being considered months from now and we did have a draft plan that could give weight to it, it is likely that the planning application as it stands would still be recommended for refusal.’ This was because more houses could be built there and should be for local occupancy.