Appeal 6000959

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw that work had commenced, however the proposal was not complete. I have therefore assessed the proposal on the basis of the drawings provided.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Helmsley Conservation Area.

As the appeal site is in the North York Moors National Park (‘NP’), I am mindful of the requirement to seek to further the purposes of it, which includes conserving its natural beauty and cultural heritage. Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) states that NPs have the highest status of protection, and that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing their landscape and scenic beauty. The special qualities of the NP, include amongst other things, and of particular relevance to this appeal, the variety and quality of its landscapes, the distinctive character of its settlements and the way in which these factors interact.

The appeal site is located within Helmsley Conservation Area (‘the CA’). The significance of the CA, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, is primarily derived from the uniformity of materials and general form of dwellings. Buildings are predominantly pavement edge and with few front projecting features other than limited examples of bow or bay windows on some larger commercial properties.

The appeal property comprises a stone-built dwelling located at the end of a terrace, and unusually for the immediate locality, incorporates a small area of largely undefined front curtilage. This factor, along with the location of the appeal property at the end of a terrace, towards the edge of the CA, and on a private driveway which sits behind [address], results in the appeal property having a relatively unique situation and one where, unusually, a form of front porch would not necessarily appear at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the CA.

The North York Moors National Park Authority Local Development Framework [name] 2 Supplementary Planning Document states that the size and shape of a proposed porch should respect the proportions of the original dwelling and recognises that oversized porches can appear very prominent in relation to the rest of the house.

The width of the proposal, in combination with the need to keep the ridge height below the upper storey dormer window, means that the pitch of the porch roof would be noticeably shallower than those of the dormer windows in the front elevation of the appeal property. This would accentuate the width of the porch, meaning that it would appear as a significant feature projecting from the front elevation of the dwelling.

Moreover, the projection of the porch, and the use of wraparound plinth walls would afford the proposal the character of a substantial enclosed area, rather than a more open or lightweight structure and this would further increase the visual dominance of it. Overall, the proposal would appear as a large, comparatively bulky feature at odds with the vertical fenestration and otherwise traditional proportions of the existing dwelling. In doing so, despite the situation of the appeal property, it would unbalance the dwelling and be harmful to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance as a whole.

This harm would be less than substantial and given mitigating factors, such as the location of the appeal property, it would be towards the lower end of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, Framework paragraph 212 requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm. Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should also require a clear and convincing justification.

Framework paragraph 215 requires such harm to be weighed against any public benefits. [name] have found that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, I cannot agree that it would enhance the dwelling or the streetscape. The proposal would make use of traditional materials; however, the use of appropriate materials would be a neutral factor preventing additional harm rather than amounting to a benefit of the proposal.

I am mindful of the support that the proposal may have received from some local residents, however, public support in itself does not amount to a public benefit to which I can afford more than modest weight. There would also be additional minor economic benefits during construction, however overall, the public benefits of the proposal would be insufficient to outweigh the great weight which I attach to the harm to the designated heritage asset.

Moreover, having found that the proposal would be harmful to the significance of the CA, being mindful of my duty to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural and scenic beauty of the NP, and having regard to the special qualities of it, I afford significant weight to the harm that I have found in these respects.

For the reasons given, the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would harm its significance. The scheme is therefore in conflict with Policy ENV11 of the North York Moors National Park Authority Local Plan. Amongst other things, this policy requires proposals to be of a high-quality design conserving or enhancing the features that contribute to visual, historic or architectural character, and reinforce the distinctive qualities of settlements through considerations of scale and design detailing. Developments affecting the historic environment are required to reinforce the local distinctive historic character of the NP.

I am mindful that the Authority previously granted planning permission for a porch at the appeal property in 2020. This approved porch was smaller in terms of both width and projection, and the plinth walls would not have wrapped around the front of the structure. It is unclear whether this planning permission remains extant. However, even if I were to agree that it forms a genuine fallback position, the details of the previously approved porch do not indicate that it would be a more harmful proposal than that which is currently before me.

Although the differences in dimensions would appear to be minor, given the nature of the proposed structure, these small differences would nevertheless be noticeable and the proposal before me would be noticeably more harmful in comparison to the previously approved scheme. The fallback position, would not, therefore, be a factor that weighs in favour of the current scheme.

It is stated that the proposal would be located wholly within the footprint of a previously removed outbuilding. There is no evidence before me in relation to this previous building, its design or dimensions. Moreover, it has since been removed in any event, and there is no indication that it could, or would, be reconstructed should the appeal fail. Therefore, this factor carries very little weight in favour of the proposal.

I do not doubt that the appellant has acted in good faith, and that the proposal has resulted from a genuine misunderstanding in relation to the previously approved scheme. However, I am required to determine the appeal solely on the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.