A FARMER has spoken of his frustration with the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority which he says has cost him £2,000 unnecessarily.

Tony Busby wants to build a house for his son at their farm, Harland House, at Marrick, but the authority has twice rejected his proposals.

He is angry that the authority seemed to switch its preferred site after telling him to carry out an archaeological survey of the first location, which cost him £2,000.

He appealed against the refusal, and a public inquiry will be held at the Dales Countryside Museum, Hawes, on March 30.

An independent agricultural assessment carried out in 2002 by consultants Mouchel concluded that a new home was needed for a farm worker. Mr Busby's son, Alan, lives in a caravan at the holding.

In October 2002, national park planners said a house on the appeal site need not look unduly prominent or out of keeping with the village character. Officers recommended approval, but members deferred a decision for exploration of other sites.

In November 2002, the recommendation had changed to one of refusal because the site was no longer the most suitable. However, a report to the committee admitted a house on the site would have no significant adverse impact on the village.

A decision was again deferred - for a site visit - and in December 2002 the committee refused permission.

In March 2003, the authority wrote to Mr Busby to say that Mouchel had ruled out many alternative sites, including one to the south of the farmhouse. Mr Busby submitted a fresh application and agreed to commission an archaeological survey, which revealed nothing of major interest.

He was disappointed when, in August last year, the committee refused the application in line with the recommendation of officers, who then said the southern site was preferable.

Andrew Moss, of Ward Hadaway, Mr Busby's agent, described the process as "a complete shambles."

Mr Busby said the farm would be no longer workable if the south field was developed, as it was the only one which did not open on to a public road.

The one-acre field was used as a hospital and isolation area for sick animals and, during foot-and-mouth, was the only pasture from which stock could be moved to buildings.

"We have made every effort to work with the national park and we thought we couldn't do any more to compromise and abide by the rules," said Mr Busby.

"We are pinning our hopes on the hearing. I have lived here 60 years and it is a downright shame that we can't get a house for my son."

Peter Watson, head of planning at the national park, said the village was archaeologically sensitive, as Marrick had been a medieval settlement. "Throughout the planning process, Mr Busby has had a preference for developing that field, a site that was likely to have been archaeologically sensitive," said Mr Watson. "A survey would have had to have been carried out if he continued to pursue this option, particularly in the event of an appeal."

Mr Watson said the initial recommendation to approve the plans was subject to there being no better alternative site.

"It had been proved that he needed a dwelling, but the issue was which was the best site," he said. "The Mouchel survey showed there were better sites than the one he was proposing, sites that were less prominent. We, therefore, recommended that he considered pursuing that."

There had been strong opposition as well as support from other villagers.

Mr Busby criticised the venue of the hearing, which entailed a long journey for himself and Marrick people wishing to attend. Marrick Institute held more than 100 people and would have been suitable, he said.

Mr Watson said the venue was chosen by the national park authority in discussion with the Planning Inspectorate, which required facilities such as two rooms, a photocopier, telephone and refreshment equipment