AN application for a small campsite at Grassington would probably have got the green light from the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority’s planning committee on Tuesday, June 11.

But the majority of members agreed with the planning officer that Jason Simpkin’s plans to use a large field and construct two buildings would have too much of an impact upon the landscape.

The officer commented: “The concerns with the current proposal are a matter of scale rather than a matter of principle.”

She said that a modest campsite and one building for facilities in the northeast section of the field adjacent to the B6265 Hebden Road would be acceptable.

The report read by committee members states the site is separated by a field and mature trees from the nearest neighbouring properties at Elbolton Hall.

Mr Simpkin’s plans were to use all of a one hectare field on a plateau above the River Wharfe for approximately 25 seasonal pitches.

He proposed two buildings, one to provide facilities for the campers, and the other to include the manager’s accommodation.

He told the committee that Grassington did not have a campsite. He read a letter from the Grassington Chamber of Trade which noted that there had been a dramatic drop in the footfall of tourists in the town in the last couple of years and that the creation of a family friendly campsite would lead to an increase.

“I hope this development will enable a greater range of visitors to Grassington, especially young families,” Mr Simpkin said and added that his plans were in line with the National Park’s statutory purposes.

He had informed the Authority that a smaller campsite would not be a viable business. He argued that having a manager on site would help to alleviate some of the concerns raised by residents such as the possible increase in noise and nuisance, and the impact of lighting.

North Yorkshire County councillor John Blackie agreed that having a manager living on the site would be helpful and added: “I am amazed that Grassington hasn’t got a camp site. Campers spend far more in the local economy than any other form of tourist and so keep the shops and services going.”

Other members, however, accepted the officer’s contention that a two-storey stone building to house an office and reception on the ground floor and a self-contained manager’s flat on the first floor was too much.

The planning officer did not accept that a seasonal site for 25 tents needed a manager to supervise it, especially as there was a site for 24 tents at Kettlewell which did not provide such accommodation.

She reported that the proposed new buildings would replace a static caravan and the dilapidated remains of a railway carriage.

She said there was also concern about the possibility of campers walking along a road to the village where there was no footpath as that would be the shortest route to the pub.