PLANNING officers have been left red-faced after failing to spot an objection to large development in the district.

Permission was given in September to a mixed business and residential development of 19 houses at Anley Crag, to the south of Settle, which is a large parcel of land flanked by the A65 and the B6480.

But Craven District Council's planning officers have said the plans will not be revisited despite missing an emailed objection from the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.

Eight letters of representation had been received and objections were raised by the CPRE and Natural England.

Settle Town Council also voiced its reservations that the size and scale of the development would have a detrimental affect on the landscape of the open green gateway to Settle.

The district council listed among those who offered no objections as the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.

However, officers were recently made aware that the Authority, although offering no objections when originally approached in 2017, had indeed made a representation against the plans in January this year after additional information had been submitted to them.

The Authority's objection was on the basis of landscaping and visual impact on the setting of the national park where the boundary was less than 100 metres from the site.

The reason was given as "the proposed development would introduce a large-scale urban form of comercial, industrial and residential development into this isolated and unspoilt national park gateway location".

The Authority objected to having regard to the statutory purposes to 'conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the national park by the public'.

Speaking at the planning committee meeting on Monday, planning manager Neville Watson said the case officer who the national park had originally dealt with had left the council.

Mr Watson said the national park had sent the updated letter of objection to the officer, Matthew Taylor, and the email had gone into his inbox.

"I was not able to access these emails and the response from the national park authority went without having been put into the public arena.

"Instead the report to the committee referred to the original submission received from the national park in July which stated no objections subject to appropriate landscaping."

Mr Watson said despite missing the email, the concerns raised by the national park echoed those raised by Natural England surrounding landscape impact and had been taken into full consideration when preparing the report for the planning committee.

He said no prejudice had been caused to the determination of the application by the 'error' and the original decision remains.

Members of the committee agreed to note the response from the national park and reaffirmed the decision made by the committee in September.