Appeal 6001729

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description in the banner heading is taken from the original application form. The appellant has confirmed a change to the description following the submission of amended plans to retain the chimney stack, and I note that this also reflects the description on the decision notice. I have therefore assessed the appeal on the basis of the clearer revised description of ‘Construction of two dormer windows and installation of replacement composite cladding’.

As part of the appeal submission, I have been provided with an alternative scheme in respect of the dormer windows to the one considered by the Council. The revised plans would replace the proposed larger single south elevation dormer with two much smaller dormers, whilst the proposed east elevation dormer would be reduced in size so that it matches the others.

The changes to the south elevation are substantially different to the scheme on which the Council made its decision, and I am unaware of any formal consultation taking place on this alternative proposal. Accepting the revised plans for consideration as part of this appeal therefore has the potential to prejudice the Council and/or other interested parties from an opportunity to comment. In accordance with Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) and in the interests of procedural fairness, I have therefore made my recommendation on the basis of the same plans that the Council determined the planning application which led to this appeal. This does not preclude the appellant from submitting an alternative proposal to the Council by way of a further planning application should they wish to do so.

The appeal site is within the North York Moors National Park (the NP). I have a duty under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as amended by the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023) to seek to further the purposes of the NP, which includes conserving and enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. In making my recommendation, I have had regard to this statutory duty.

The appeal site is within the Hutton Lowcross Conservation Area (the CA). The statutory duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The CA is situated on the fringe of Guisborough and encompasses the estate parkland and agricultural fields formed around [name], a C19 country house. Having regard to the [address] and [name] (the Appraisal), the CA’s significance principally derives from its architectural and industrial heritage, including a Victorian farmstead and the [name] with its adjacent stables, built for the locally influential Pease family. These key building groups, along with the limited number of other non-designated buildings interspersed across the CA, possess a historic and aesthetic value which, in combination with their spacious landscape setting, is fundamental to the area’s special interest and rural character.

The sizeable two storey appeal property, built in the 1930’s as a timber demonstration house, stands largely on its own, set well apart from the nearest neighbouring dwellings as comprise the [address]. It occupies a prominent position beside a public footpath running through the centre of the CA, with its widely exposed rear elevation also visible from [site address] .

The dwelling has been significantly extended and altered since the Appraisal was prepared, however its well-balanced form and characteristic timber facing materials mean it continues to present a distinctively natural and mellow aesthetic. Much of this authenticity stems from the varied details, tones and textures of its extensive natural cladding boards, whose organic appearance helps the present building assimilate within the landscape despite its considerable breadth. Owing to the sympathetic quality of its existing design, the dwelling therefore continues to justify its identification in the Appraisal as a building of local significance, and accordingly I find that it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposed dormer window to the open south elevation would rise to the full height of the roof slope and span across much of its width. It would not be set in from the edges of the roof, and through its substantial proportions, would create a visually heavy and dominant mass that fails to respect the dwelling’s original two-storey form. I appreciate that this elevation has contemporary architectural elements, and that the design incorporates matching fenestration and roof pitches. Nevertheless, these details would not mitigate the resultant excessively bulky appearance. Through its cumbersome siting and sheer volume, the dormer would disrupt the attractive balance and scale of the rear elevation, in doing so diminishing the property’s character and appearance, with this harmful impact in view from the adjacent road.

The proposed east facing dormer would be smaller in comparison and would sit well above the eaves line. However, its height would be set only marginally down from the main ridgeline and due to its width, would provide little visual separation from the chimney in front. As a result, its overall positioning and massing would produce an unduly bulky appearance that again fails to respect the dwelling’s essential form and character, a harmful effect which would be plainly seen from the nearby public footpath.

Dormer windows are present in the wider surroundings, but they do not offer a meaningful comparison to the proposals. Those on the neighbouring [address] appear to form part of its original architectural composition and, in any case, are modest in scale and positioned well below the ridgeline, giving them a clearly subordinate appearance. Dormers elsewhere in Hutton Village lie outside the CA within a different setting and therefore cannot justify inappropriate development at the appeal site.

The evidence before me indicates that whilst the dwelling’s current timber cladding only dates from 2011, it replaced earlier timber materials across the elevations. Timber as a main facing material has therefore long been integral to the building’s identity and contributes significantly to its character. While the appellant claims that the existing cladding has deteriorated substantially since installation, no supporting evidence has been provided, and timber of this type is generally expected to have a far longer lifespan when properly maintained.

The appellant contends that the proposed replacement brushed [name] finish composite cladding would echo the visual effect of painted timber cladding. In support of this, reference is made to the Council’s recent approval for the existing timber cladding to be painted light grey, which is presented as a fall-back position for comparison with the proposed composite material.

The Courts have held that in considering the concept of a fall-back development as a material consideration, there should be a “real prospect” of it being implemented, and not just a theoretical possibility that the development might take place. It is also held that it is for the decision-maker to exercise their planning judgement on this matter and to ascribe the appropriate weight.

The appellant asserts that whilst it was initially intended to simply treat and paint the existing cladding, closer inspection has revealed serious faults that will render certain areas prone to failure and degradation even with painting. This casts substantial doubt over whether the fall-back position, said to be indistinguishable from the proposed composite cladding, would actually be implemented. Maintaining an acceptable painted finish would also require regular reapplication, and given the amount of cladding on the large building, it is reasonable to question whether such upkeep would realistically occur. Moreover, because of the natural characteristics of timber, including knots and large variations in grain, the resulting painted appearance would not closely replicate the consistent finish of the proposed composite material, a difference that would be apparent in public views from the footpath. For these reasons, I have afforded the fall-back position only very limited weight as a material consideration.

By virtue of the lack of detail and variation in its finish, both when installed and as time passes, the contemporary and overly uniform appearance of the composite cladding would undermine the character and appearance of the dwelling. This harm would be exacerbated by the extent of its coverage across the building and although I recognise that the property has evolved and been modernised over time, through its exposed rural and heritage setting, it remains sensitive to change. As a distinctly modern product, the composite cladding would appear incongruous against the traditional and natural qualities of its surroundings, and would therefore detract from the character and appearance of the CA.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) stipulates that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Taking into account its localised effect in the context of the extent of the CA, I find the harm that would arise from the proposal would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of the appeal.

Whilst the appeal scheme would give rise to private benefits for the householder, any wider public benefits as related to the short-term economic activity generated during construction would be only very limited. Consequently, these considerations do not amount to benefits sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the CA.

The Framework also requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty of the NP. The effect of the proposal on the landscape is not a matter in dispute between the main parties. Given the domestic nature and scale of the proposals, I agree that the landscape and scenic beauty of the NP would be conserved. Even so, this does not overcome the more localised harmful effects identified to the host building and the CA.

On this basis, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and area, and would fail to preserve or enhance the Hutton Lowcross Conservation Area. It would therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and conflict with Strategic Policy C and Policies ENV11 and C017 of the North York Moors National Park Authority Local Plan July 2020. These policies require, amongst other things, that new development conserves or enhances the significance of heritage assets including with regard to their special character and appearance, and is of a high quality design that reflects and complements the character and form of the original dwelling and its landscape setting. The proposal would also conflict with Part 2 of the Council’s Design Guide, which is a material consideration and advises that dormers windows should be small in scale and not dominant in appearance.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.