Appeal 6001409

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of side extensions, construction of replacement single storey side extensions to create additional accommodation, construction of single storey rear extension with flue and siting of shepherds hut, potting shed, greenhouse for domestic purposes and siting of oil tank to side of dwelling, together with creation of pond at [site address] , Egton, Whitby, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the application [name]/2025/0413, without compliance with condition number 2 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/2023/0550 dated 23 May 2024 and subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The original planning permission1 was granted at the appeal property in May 2024 for the demolition of side extensions, construction of replacement single storey side extensions to create additional accommodation, construction of single storey 1 NYM/2023/0550 rear extension with flue and siting of shepherds hut, potting shed, greenhouse for domestic purposes and siting of oil tank to side of dwelling, together with creation of pond, subject amongst others, to a condition requiring adherence with the approved plans (‘Condition 2’).

Although an extension has since been built at the appeal property, this is not reflective of the previously approved plans and an application2 was submitted in order to vary the approved plans to align with the extension as constructed. This was subsequently refused by the authority.

I observed that an extension had been built and appeared to be substantially complete. It also appeared to reflect the plans that are before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on a retrospective basis.

The main issue is the effect of the varying Condition 2 upon the character and appearance of the area, including the North York Moors National Park. (‘the NP’).

As the appeal site is located within the NP, I am mindful of the duty to seek to further the purposes of the NP, which includes conserving its natural beauty and cultural heritage. National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) paragraph 189 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 NP is characterised, amongst other things, by the variety and quality of its landscapes, the distinctive character of its settlements and the way in which these factors interact.

The appeal property is a detached stone-built dwelling located within a collection of larger agricultural style sheds, collectively known as [site address] , and set back from the closest road. Egton itself is located beyond the crest of rising land to the west. There is little, if any, intervisibility between the village core and the appeal property, and falling land provides extensive open vistas to the east, over the [name], and towards the coast. The closest neighbouring properties include detached dwellings to the south and a collection of sheds within a field to the north.

The originally approved side extension was designed such, that although of open-plan interior, it would externally have a split height, resulting in the appearance of two side projections stepping down from each other, as well as the host property.

The extensions as constructed are larger than those originally approved and include an increase in width of the largest element of the side extension element, an increase in the depth of the kitchen, the increase in height of the largest element, and a monopitch roof of steeper pitch over the proposed kitchen rear projection. However, the design premise, in terms of managing the bulk and volume of the extensions remains, in that it externally appears as two elements stepping down in height from one another.

The scheme before me is less subservient to the host property than that previously approved, nevertheless in terms of height it remains below the ridgeline of the house and is set back from the front elevation. In terms of width, it is comparable to, if not slightly larger than, the main element of the house. However, as elements 2 NYM/2025/0413 within the extension have some subservience between themselves in terms of both height and set-back, the scheme does not appear as excessively bulky or unacceptably challenge the main house in visual terms. The overall footprint would only be moderately larger than that previously approved.

It is stated that as the extension is set at a slightly lower ground level than the existing dwelling, that it fails to remain subservient to it in absolute terms due to its height. However, in order to consider any potential for harm, it is necessary to consider the composition of the host property and the extension together and within the context of each other, rather than simply consider absolute measurements in isolation. Ultimately, in considering the level of subservience of the scheme, that the fact it has a lower roof line and is set back from the main house, means that when viewed together, it appears as being a secondary element to the clearly legible original dwelling.

On this basis, when taken as a whole, the scheme as built, broadly aligns with the advice set out within Section 3.1 of the North York Moors Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (‘SPD’).

Moreover, the comparative size of the addition is only readily evident from views from the front or rear of the appeal property. Large sheds substantially screen the appeal property from the closest road, and even if these could be removed in the future, the orientation of the appeal property perpendicular to the road and the distance at which it is located, means that any views would be oblique in any event. From the rear, views of the appeal property are filtered by existing woodland and a further existing shed. Overall, the extended property is not prominent in these views, and it is not easy to appreciate the full extent of the scheme except in specific close-range views.

The appeal property is likely to be more visible when viewed across lower open countryside to the east. However, such views would be predominantly towards the gable end of the house and potentially from a substantial distance and the appeal property would be viewed in the context of the large sheds to which it is closely related. In any case, my attention has not been drawn to any specific views within which the scale of the resultant building appears harmful.

In terms of overall design, the increased height of the larger element of the side extension means that there is a large expanse of stonework without any fenestration. This is a natural result of the extension providing ground floor level accommodation only, negating the need or practical purpose for an upper-level window. However, such an arrangement is not unusual at farmhouses or other rural dwellings where storage buildings may adjoin houses, and I saw myself that another property in the immediate locality incorporates a side projection element with a similarly restricted level of fenestration and a comparable level of subservience in terms of height and set-back. Overall, I have no reason to conclude that this design approach would be unacceptably harmful to the character of the area of the wider NP.

Bringing these strands together, I conclude that the scheme is not harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including the NP. In doing so, it accords with Strategic Policy C and Policy CO17 of the North York Moors Local Plan, as well as the SPD. Together, and among other factors, these policies require that developments and domestic extensions are of a high quality of design, take account of the character of the area, the special qualities of the NP, and they do not detract from the scale, height, form and position of the original dwelling, or its setting in the landscape.

A third party has made a number of comments in relation to the appeal. While the scheme may have been carried out other than in accordance with the originally approved plans, I have considered the appeal only on the planning merits of the revised scheme, and not on the basis of the status of the building works carried out so far. Equally, the sequence of events that may have occurred between the appellant and the Authority is also not a factor which is determinative in my decision.

It is stated that the structural engineering report fails to provide adequate justification for the revised scheme. However, I have considered the revised scheme on its design merits, and while any structural engineering issues may, or may not, have had a bearing on the nature of the proposal before me and provide a degree of context, there is no requirement for the design before to be justified in such terms. This is also a non-determinative factor in my decision.

In allowing this appeal, a new planning permission is created. Planning Practice Guidance advises, that for clarity, decision notices for the grant of permission under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) should restate conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect, unless that have already been discharged.

The original planning permission included a number of conditions, and I understand that Conditions 7 (fenestration), 8 (rooflights) and 18 (biodiversity enhancement’) were approved in October 2024. However, the approved details are not before me, nor is it clear whether they have been incorporated into the revised scheme. I have therefore reattached these conditions.

I have not been provided with any information in relation to the status of any of the other conditions imposed on the original planning permission. I shall, therefore, impose all those that I consider remain relevant. In the event that some have in fact been discharged, that is a matter which can be addressed by the parties. I have also amended condition wording, where relevant to take account of the fact that the development has commenced and appeared, at the time of my visit, to be substantially complete. The condition relating to the time period to commence development is not required, as this has already taken place.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and a new planning permission is granted with the original condition No 2 replaced by a new condition that incorporates the amended plans, retaining and where necessary, amending the non-disputed conditions from the previous permission that appear still to be relevant.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Amended Location Plan, [name] & [name] 10, [name] 04, [name] 04.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no development within Schedule 2, Part 1, [name] to H; Schedule 2, Part 2, [name] to F and within Schedule 2 Part 14 [name] to I of that Order shall take place without a further grant of planning permission being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

The shepherds hut hereby approved shall be used for domestic purposes incidental to the occupation of the main dwelling on the site and for no other purpose. There shall be no alteration or conversion of the shepherd’s hut hereby permitted to form overnight accommodation.

The potting shed, greenhouse and chicken coop shall be used for domestic purposes incidental to the occupation of the main dwelling on the site and for no other purpose. There shall be no alteration or conversion of the structures hereby permitted to permanent residential accommodation.

All new external materials used in the development hereby permitted shall match that of the existing building including the colour and texture and finish and where these include stone and/or brick, the method of coursing and pointing in the local tradition.

Within three months of the date of this permission, detailed plans of fenestration elements showing the constructional details and external appearance of all external elements, including frames and glazing, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such plans should indicate the overall fenestration design on a scale of not more than 1:20, the longitudinal and cross-sectional detailing including means of opening at a scale of not more than 1:5, and moulding details (i.e., frame, glazing bar) at a scale of not more than 1:2. The details submitted shall include the proposed colour of the windows and doors (and frames). Within six months of the date of the approval of details, all fenestration elements shall be installed in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained in that condition in perpetuity.

Within three months of the date of this permission, full details of rooflights used in the development will have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The rooflights shall be fixed or top-hung metal conservation style and within six months of the approval of details, shall be installed in accordance with these approved details and maintained in that condition in perpetuity.

External trickle vents shall not be incorporated into any new windows hereby approved and shall not be installed thereafter.

All rainwater and foul water goods utilised in the development hereby permitted shall be coloured black and shall thereafter be so maintained in that condition in perpetuity.

All flues associated with the proposed development shall be coloured matt black and maintained in that condition in perpetuity.

The external surface of the roof of the potting shed and shepherds hut hereby permitted shall be coloured dark grey or black within six months of the date of this decision and shall be maintained in that condition in perpetuity.

The external timber cladding and timber structural frame of the potting shed hereby approved shall be stained dark brown within six months of the date of this approval and maintained as such in perpetuity.

The exterior of the shepherds hut hereby approved shall be painted or stained a dark colour within six months of the date of this decision and maintained as such in perpetuity.

No first floor or mezzanine shall be constructed within the extension hereby permitted.

The pond hereby approved shall not be used for any commercial purpose, including any sporting or shooting activities. No supplementary feeding (for example of ducks and gamebirds) shall be carried out within or around the edges of the wildlife pond hereby permitted, and there shall be no introduction of fish or ducks to the pond in order to ensure that the ecological value of the pond is maximised.

There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site at [site address] until splays are provided giving clear visibility of 45 metres measured along both channel lines of the major road from a point measured 2.4 metres down the centre line of the access road. In measuring the splays, the eye height must be 1.05 metres and the object height must be 1.05 metres. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

Within three months of the date of this permission details of biodiversity enhancements, such as bat/bird boxes shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the agreed details shall be implemented within six months of the approval of details and maintained as such in perpetuity. ***END OF SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS***