"WE are letting very good schemes go by the board simply because of dogmatic policies,” Lancashire County councillor Cosima Towneley angrily told the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority’s planning committee.

The committee had just – by one vote – refused permission for Cawden Barn at Malham Raikes, Malham, to be converted into a local occupancy or holiday let.

The members were told that the applicants wanted to use it for agricultural accommodation from January to March each year as the family had 500 sheep at Malham which lambed in the open. It would then be used as holiday accommodation. The agent, John Steel, said that although the barn was outside the village boundary there were dwellings within 25 to 40 metres of it.

Kirkby Malham Parish Council supported the application “in principle” as it wanted the barn to provide “local occupancy” living accommodation. It added: “It should not be for the purposes of holiday letting and be restricted by a local occupancy condition.”

The planning officer reported that back in 2006 the historic barn had been in a ruined state. It was then heavily restored using non-traditional construction methods, including a distinctive arch, and enforcement action was pursued. The planning committee had approved a retrospective application in 2009 for the barn to be used for storage but not all the conditions have been complied with he added.

He said the latest application did not comply with the authority’s Local Plan and would be a new dwelling in the open countryside. The barn, he said, was not a traditional building of heritage significance as it had been erected in 2009.

Ian McPherson stated: “Unless we stick to our policies the whole thing becomes a lottery – there’s no certainty. This is contrary to local policy.”

Richmondshire District councillor Yvonne Peacock, however, retorted: “If we cannot go against policies and put forward material considerations then it is just a waste of time for us sitting here. A planning committee is here to judge a planning application and we cannot sit here and say ‘this is against policy so we are not doing this’. We can say ‘Yes, we understand it is against policy …but we can put forward material considerations whether or not they are good enough. This is the reason we have a planning committee.”

Cllr Towneley agreed with her and added: “Polices are there but we are not here just to be ruled by policy.” She asked the members to consider the benefits to the community of having more young people living in the Dales and added: “Are we seriously saying that because of a dogmatic policy we are going to fail to allow this chance of use and to allow sustainability?”

Pip Pointon, ARC News Service