Plans to build two homes on edge of Skipton 'flyover' site

A PROPOSAL to build two new houses on an edge of Skipton site recently rejected for the building of 26 houses has been lodged with North Yorkshire Council.

An application has been made for the implementation of almost 20 year old planning consent for Clay Hall, off Broughton Road, close to the A629 Western bypass flyover, and next to the Leeds and Liverpool Canal.

Originally approved in 2005 by the former Craven District Council, the scheme includes two houses, with integral garages, a new access road and office over an existing garage. It was a re-submission of an earlier, rejected plan, for three houses and an office extension in September, 2004.

The rejected plan was turned down by the then Craven Council because it was considered an 'over-development of a constricted site'.

However, the revised scheme of a four bedroom and a three-bed house with the new access road some 200 metres from the development site, where visibility splays could be achieved, and with a connecting track to the new homes, was considered acceptable to the council.

Now, a 'certificate of lawfulness' has been applied for to confirm the commencement and implementation of the permission originally given in 2005.

A site plan with the application shows the new houses on the furthest part of the site from Niffany Farm, and next to the canal towpath.

Applications to extend the time limit on the approved scheme have been lodged and approved by the former Craven Council over the years, in 2010 and in 2013.

The site has also been subject to other planning applications. In October, 2016, outline planning consent for up to 20 houses was approved. In January, 2019, a plan for 42 homes at the site was refused permission by Craven Council and rejected on appeal.

In October, 2022, a revised plan for 30 homes at the site was again refused permission by Craven Council, and rejected on appeal.

In their decision notice, the planning inspector said the proposed houses would cause harm to the significance of the conservation area and that the harm was not outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.