Appeal 3297352

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for proposed outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/05222/FUL dated 2 December 2021 subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 & 08.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the outbuilding hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing dwelling.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on the setting of the adjacent Ramstone which is identified as a non-designated heritage asset, along with the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The evidence indicates that Ramstone was a former agricultural barn which was part of the [address] agricultural holding which has been converted into a residential dwelling.

Ramstone forms part of a grouping of dwellings and other buildings which are clustered within countryside within a dip in the undulating landscape to the west of Harrogate, closely to the west of [name] and to the north of [name].

Some of the nearby buildings, especially those which are of traditional construction and which appear to be of former agricultural use make a positive contribution to the visual and historic aspects of the setting of Ramstone. The surrounding open countryside, which rises to the north and south also makes a positive contribution to the visual aspects of the setting of the building. Ramstone is best appreciated in close views such as from the right of way (ROW) running past the building to the south from where the historic features that have been retained within the conversion clearly distinguish the building as a former barn.

The land to the north of Ramstone makes a neutral contribution to its setting. It has a broadly open appearance and the evidence indicates that land to the north has been subject to level change in the past as a result of previous deposits of tipped stone.

The outbuilding would be set on the same east/west axis as Ramstone and would incorporate a centre pitched roof. It would be set down in height from Ramstone. The outbuilding would incorporate aspects of more modern and contemporary design through the use of timber and glazing to the south and west elevation. However, in general, the materials would closely reflect those used within Ramstone. The curved western end would reflect the western end of a former agricultural building to the west.

Overall, this would be a sympathetic and subordinate building which would sit comfortably astride Ramstone and within the wider grouping on a site that makes a neutral contribution to the setting of the main building. The proposal would therefore have a neutral impact on the significance of the heritage asset and would therefore preserve the setting of Ramstone.

The proposal would subsequently accord with policies HP2 and HP3 of the Harrogate Local Plan (2020) (HLP) which amongst other things require that proposals affecting the setting of a heritage asset, at a minimum, protect those features which contribute to its special architectural or historic interest and demonstrate high quality design which at a minimum protects or reinforces the characteristics, qualities and features that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the district’s rural and urban environments.

The outbuilding would partially limit views of Ramstone from higher ground to the north on the B6161 and from a ROW which joins the road to the north of the appeal site. However, Ramstone is not best appreciated in longer views and would remain visible in closer views from the ROW which runs close to the dwelling along with the outbuilding which would be positioned closely to its north.

I have considered the landscape character detailed within the assessment1. Key characteristics of the area in terms of settlement and built environment include scattered individual farmsteads. Given the close relationship of the building to the existing grouping and its sympathetic design, there would be no harm to the landscape character of the area. 1 Harrogate and District Landscape Character Assessment 2004 Area 21 [name] and Reservoirs.

Further, although the building would be large, a reasonable and proportionate garden area would remain to serve Ramstone, the proposal not therefore representing overdevelopment at the site. Given this and having consideration to the design of the building, the proposal would not result in the urbanisation of the landscape.

The proposal would not therefore harm the character or appearance of the area. There would subsequently be no conflict with Policy NE4 of the HLP which requires at a minimum that proposals protect the landscape character of the district.

I have not found conflict with the submitted design guides for rural buildings or house extensions and garages2. The Council have not identified any issues relating to amenity as a result of the proposals and I have no reason to disagree. The proposal would therefore not conflict with Policy HP4 of the HLP relating to this matter. Policy HS6 of the HLP relates specifically to the conversion and/or re-use of existing buildings to residential use from other uses and therefore has limited applicability to this proposal. Even in the event that it were considered applicable, I have not identified any conflict with it. I have not identified conflict with Policy HS8 of the HLP which relates to extensions to dwellings.

Planning permission is granted subject to the standard three-year time limit. It is necessary that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. A condition requiring matching materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

I have identified no conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.