The castle folly at the Forbidden Corner. Photo: Yorkshire Dales NPA
National park bosses in the Yorkshire Dales are to order the demolition of a mock castle that was built without permission.
The park authority is to serve an enforcement notice on the owner of the Forbidden Corner near Middleham, which has built the folly without planning permission.
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority planning committee members approved the action, after receiving a report from officers that said that the nearly 10m-high folly had introduced an unacceptable element of pastiche development into Coverdale.
Robert Heseltine, the authority’s member champion for development management, said: “The Forbidden Corner is a very welcome success story, which makes a significant positive contribution to the local economy.
“But it cannot be right to build a large castle folly, visible for miles around, in a historic and culturally important landscape, without even bothering to seek planning permission.”
The Dales authority was told about the new folly, which lies within the Forbidden Corner gardens at Tupgill Park, in March this year. Building work ceased with the gatehouse part of the folly at a height of about 7m above the surface of a wall-fronted walkway, a total of 9.5m above the deer park.
A retrospective application for planning permission was submitted on 1 June. It was withdrawn on 28 July, following a decision by national park officers to recommend that planning committee refuse permission. Officers said the folly would introduce an inauthentic, pastiche building of significant scale and prominence into a nationally important, protected landscape.
The enforcement notice, once served, will require the demolition and removal of the castle folly and the restoration of the site to its previous condition within three months.
The Forbidden Corner’s owner Colin Armstrong said he would appeal against the enforcement notice and described the new folly as ‘harmonious’.
In 2000, Mr Armstrong won a run-in with the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority when a planning inspector allowed an appeal against enforcement action to stop the walled-garden folly being opened up to members of the public.
It was originally planned as a private folly on the 600-acre estate but Mr Armstrong, who ran a petrochemical business in South America, decided to open up the attraction to the public.
Forbidden Corner said it received more than 2,000 letters of support for its appeal to keep the folly open.
The inspector stipulated that visitor numbers be restricted to a maximum of 120 per hour, via a pre-booking system.
Rebecca Felgate
08 August 2017The fun police need to back off! Forbidden Corner is awesome and perfectly in harmony with its surroundings!
Garsdale Girl
09 August 2017Park Authority at it again.....sat in their Bainbridge Office, all finding something to complain about.
Andrew Marshall
09 August 2017yet another example of a NPA/NT/NTS being absolute idiots... How can future historical buildings/structures/attractions be created if they just keep stomping their feet every time and say no..
History is not just in the past it's being created every day. If something fits with the area let it stay don't live for the past let's create for the future as well. Or there will be nothing left when it all falls down and is to expensive to repair.
Jeez their brain must be in their big toes and with all that feet stomping has caused them all Brain damage as thats is the only explanation for their constant stupid anf unfair decisions
Bob Aitken
09 August 2017Irrespective of the merits of this case, about which I know nothing more than is given here, there's clearly an issue about individuals apparently trying to play fast and loose with the planning system, building whatever they fancy where they fancy without going through planning procedures, particularly in the National Parks. Even if you don't agree with the decision in this case, I don't see any cause for ad hominen abuse directed at the planners and Park Authority for trying to apply the planning legislation ...
Diddy
10 August 2017Planning permission is required.
Dianne Riding
08 September 2018Yes planning permission should have been sought but I have visited with children and grandchildren over years and think this place is so special it must be given special consideration and dealt with sympathetically ....allowing the castle to remain to add to the enormous pleasure that this wonderfully unique, magical and creative place provides (and drawing families to the area who would not otherwise visit) .
Perhaps insisting that any further development should have permissions applied for beforehand henceforth rather than removing the existing castle which actually suits the area well and would give a further exciting and fun experience to young (and older!) visitors.
Hopefully it will be allowed to continue to develop as a kind of outdoor interactive art gallery (giving opportunities to local craftspeople) as opposed to a more plastic Disney type theme park.