Appeal 6001808

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of [site address] from Class C2 ([name]) to Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) at [site address] , Clapham, Lancaster [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/18/109P, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA). That application is the subject of a separate Decision.

[site address] is a [name]* listed building (ref 1132400) in Clapham Conservation Area. Accordingly, as the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The appeal is against the failure of YDNPA to determine the application within the prescribed time period. In its evidence to the appeal, YDNPA states that, had it been in a position to determine the application, it would have refused it on grounds relating to harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

YDNPA raises no concerns in relation to potential impacts on the Conservation Area. On the basis of the evidence before me, the proposal would not result in any external changes such as could adversely impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Therefore, the main issue whether the proposed change of use would preserve the [name]* listed building, [site address] , and any of the features of special architectural or historic significance that it possesses.

[site address] (the LB) dates from around 1814 when it was constructed as a country house by [name] for [name]. It is a substantial detached 2-storey building finished in ashlar with a hipped slate roof. It has a south and north block, the latter containing service rooms and built around an open courtyard. The building is in the Greek revival style, including west entrance with massive portico with engaged Doric columns. Its south garden frontage comprises 7 bays with a central 2-storey bow of 3 bays with engaged Doric columns and lead dome.

The Hall was in residential occupation until around 1937. It was subsequently used as a preparatory school for children evacuated from the south coast during the Second World War, after which it became a school for delicate children and then, by the date of its listing in 1958, an outdoor education centre. It was owned and operated in this latter capacity by City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council until its closure in October 2024.

There have been alterations to the building to support its former C2 use including the insertion of ensuites, communal bathrooms and shower rooms, and enclosure of the internal courtyard to form a dining room. Externally, there are tarmac surfaces around the building and a detached temporary classroom outbuilding. However, the LB has not been substantially altered. Its historic plan form remains legible. Internal features remain including [name] columns to its entrance hall, geometrical stairs with stone treads and wrought iron balusters, and decorative cornices to principal ground floor rooms. Consequently, I find that the classical architecture, historic fabric and plan form of the LB contribute to its special interest, insofar as relevant to this appeal, as a fine example of a Georgian country house.

Both policy L2 of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan (2015-2030) (the LP) and emerging policy AB2 of the draft Yorkshire Dales National Park Local Plan (2025-2040) (the eLP) allow for the reoccupation of former dwellings where they constitute valuable heritage assets. eLP policy AB2 caveats that this is provided it would retain the building’s significance, not be too harmful to the landscape, and be occupied at all times as a main residence.

LP policy L3 and eLP policy AB3 support the afore-mentioned policies by seeking to ensure that proposals for re-use do not undermine the architectural and historic character of the building and its landscape setting, including that the building has the physical capacity to accommodate the new use without any more than minor extension or alteration. eLP policy AB3, which relates to the conversion of traditional buildings as well as the reoccupation of former dwellings, additionally specifies that conversion should not apply to modern additions.

In this case, the LB was constructed as a large country house in extensive grounds. The proposal would be the reoccupation of a former dwelling and valuable heritage asset. It would not alter the landscape setting of the LB. The occupancy of the building as a main residence is a matter that could be addressed by the imposition of a planning condition. Thus, the proposal would be acceptable provided it would not undermine the architectural and historic interest of the LB.

Information has been provided in relation to the former use of the LB and I saw evidence of it at the time of my visit. The ground floor of the building provides reception rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, laundry rooms, WCs and stores. There are numerous first floor bedrooms several of which are ensuite, together with WCs and shower room. The LB has an oil-fired central heating system and utilities are connected. Notwithstanding its large scale, the LB provides the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic existence without the need for conversion or works that affect the fabric of the building. On the basis of the evidence, its reuse as a dwelling would not erode the architecture, historic fabric or plan form of the LB.

The appellant had made a pre-application enquiry (ref C/18/109/ENQ2) to YDNPA in January 2025, in relation to a scheme to subdivide the LB into a large dwelling with five smaller apartments to the rear. This also referred to removal of the classroom outbuilding and internal courtyard infill and to the creation of parking spaces. There is no dispute that works to subdivide the LB and that would affect historic fabric would require listed building consent and would need to be informed by a detailed heritage assessment. Moreover, proposed external alterations would affect the setting of the LB.

However, while the application subject of the appeal followed the pre-application enquiry, it is not the same scheme upon which pre-application advice was sought. The planning application form specifies it would be a single residential unit and no substantive works of conversion are proposed. The LB is capable of functioning as a single dwellinghouse without the need for physical works to the building or its grounds. I accept that the appellant intends to submit future planning applications and listed building consent applications for works to subdivide and convert the building into two or more residential units and remove of modern additions. However, no such proposals are before me or necessary for the change of use. The appeal is a standalone proposal that can be considered on its own merits.

YDNPA acknowledges that Listed Building Consent is not necessary to facilitate determination of the appeal. Nevertheless it considers that details of conversion works required for a Listed Building Consent application are pertinent to consideration of this proposal. This appears to relate not only to the appellant’s future intentions to remove the classroom outbuilding and courtyard infill but also on the basis that they are modern additions for the purposes of eLP policy AB3.

The courtyard infill dates from the mid 20th century. It is a poor quality and inauthentic feature that detracts from the architectural and historic interest of the LB. The residential use of the building does not depend upon the retention of this incongruous modern feature and its removal and the reinstatement of the historic courtyard would be a heritage benefit. It is not proposed for removal and, given its attachment to the LB, its removal would in any case need to be the subject of a Listed Building Consent application.

The classroom outbuilding is a utilitarian structure dating from the second half of the 20th century. It has no architectural or historic merit and it fails to respond positively to its surrounding context, including the LB. It is not necessary to facilitate the proposed residential use. Given its date of construction and physical separation from the LB, its demolition does not require Listed Building Consent. While its removal is not applied for, nevertheless YDNPA requested a proposed change of use plan (ref H4084-BOW-XX-ZZ-DR-A-SK2005) to illustrate, among other things, removal of the outbuilding and advised that a condition would likely be needed to secure its removal. However, YDNPA does not suggest this plan be listed under the approved plans condition nor suggest a condition to secure removal of the outbuilding is necessary in the event the appeal is allowed.

Although there is little evidence they are unlawful or unauthorised, I agree the removal of the unsympathetic modern additions would be beneficial. Moreover, their retention as part of the proposal would appear to conflict with the requirements of eLP policy AB3, albeit no conversion works are proposed. However, the existing harm to the heritage asset that arises from the modern additions is not attributable to the proposal simply because they would be retained and not removed. With reference to paragraph 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the proposed change of use, which would simply be the residential occupation of a former dwelling, would not itself result in any harm to, or loss of, the significance of the designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting).

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the special historic interest of the [name]* listed building. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 212 of the Framework. It would also accord with the aims of LP policies SP1, SP2, SP4, L1, L2 and L3 including, among other things, in relation to conserving the landscape and historic environment, heritage assets and traditional buildings, and the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park. There would be no conflict with the similar aims of emerging eLP policies CP6, AB1 and AB2. There would however be conflict with eLP policy AB3.

The appeal is not supported by a detailed heritage statement prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional. However, the Framework is clear that the level of detail should be proportionate and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of the asset. There is no question that the pre-application inquiry scheme or alternative scheme entailing works to the LB would need to be supported by a comprehensive heritage assessment. However, taking into account the nature of the proposal and the absence of heritage harm, the level of detail provided is acceptable in this case.

I note concerns that the proposal essentially mirrors the format of an outline permission, such as only allows for a decision on the general principle of how a site can be developed. However, while it may be an unusual application, the LB is capable of being occupied as a dwelling in its current form without any physical works of conversion. Accordingly, a grant of planning permission would not simply re-establish the principle of C3 residential use but rather it would allow the LB to be actively occupied and brought back into use.

The proposed change of use would result in the loss of the former C2 residential institution, which would be a loss of an employment/ business use. However, the former educational facility had been operating at a loss and it was not financially viable prior to its closure in August 2024. The LB was marketed for several months, but no commercial or indeed other buyer came forward. The site is demonstrably no longer commercially viable to sustain employment activity at the level of the currently permitted use. Consequently, the proposal would not conflict with the safeguarding employment aims of LP policy BE7.

There is an interested party objection to the planning application on grounds relating to the loss of the former residential institution. I understand that the outdoor activity centre would have been enjoyed by and beneficial to numerous children and others over the years. Nevertheless, the former use is no longer viable and it had already ceased before the planning application was made.

Clapham cum Newby Parish Council wrote in support of both the planning application and the appeal. It considers the proposal is appropriate because the building was originally a private residence. It notes the large costs associated with repairing the building and the potential for it to fall into disrepair and become derelict if planning permission is not granted for the proposal, which is it considers is the best option for what is an historically important building for the village.

Significant investment is required for the repair and ongoing maintenance of the LB. In the absence of an active use, the condition of the LB, its historic fabric and architectural features would deteriorate. In a disused and unoccupied state, the building would be at significant risk from water ingress, damp and mould growth, and potential electrical fires. It would also be vulnerable to trespass, theft and vandalism. Accordingly, there would be a clear benefit from securing the residential use and occupation of the LB.

The Framework advises local planning authorities to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. However, while YDNPA’s statement of case does not explore potential benefits, I am mindful that at the pre-application stage it advised that returning the LB to a viable C3 use, thus enabling its long-term conservation, would be a considerable public benefit. eLP policy AB2 supports the reoccupation of former dwellings where they constitute valuable heritage assets and acknowledges this may represent the most beneficial and viable way to conserve the building. In the absence of any other viable uses, I also find that the proposed C3 use would be a significant benefit such as would outweigh the conflict with eLP policy AB3.

I acknowledge that future proposals are likely to come forward, including to subdivide the LB. In relation to the pre-application inquiry scheme, YDNPA advised that the LB appears to have the capacity to accommodate a large dwelling as well as several self-contained flats without the need for alterations to its layout or exterior which would harm its special character. While pre-application advice is not binding, nevertheless YDNPA consider in principle, and subject to details, that a future scheme to subdivide the building is likely to be capable of satisfying the heritage protection aims of the local plan. Therefore, potential future schemes do not weigh against the proposal.

Irrespective, the appeal scheme is a standalone proposal. It has not been demonstrated that permitting the change of use without full details of future conversion works, which would be applied for and considered on their own merits, would prejudice the determination of any such future application or fetter future decisions affecting the LB. I note that the YDNPA planning lawyer advised that the application should not be determined without full details of conversion works. However, that advice has not been provided in full to evidence why the proposal, which is not reliant on works of conversion or subdivision, could be neither approved nor refused on its own merits.

My attention has been drawn to a recent planning permission (ref R/85/53) for change of use of stone barn to a dwelling. Full details have not been provided, but YDNPA’s statement indicates that a proposed extension could not rely on the existing situation. While that was assessed against the same conservation-led policies as this proposal, there is little evidence that the conversion, extension and change of use of a barn is directly comparable, including in terms of its benefits, to the proposed change of use of a former dwelling and designated heritage asset.

I note reference to an earlier refused application (ref YD/5/18/109B/LB)1 for Listed Building Consent to demolish existing single storey structure infilling courtyard at [site address] . I agree with the officer insofar as removing the structure would restore the courtyard to its former standing as an essential feature of the design of the LB. However, the earlier refused scheme is not directly comparable and it does not weigh against the appeal.

YDNPA failed to consult several statutory consultees during the processing of the application. However, these were advised of the appeal and none appear to have provided any comments. I have no reason to think that the proposed change of use would have any adverse implications in terms of trees, landscape, flooding or highways. In its putative reason for refusal, YDNPA also refers to conflict with policies in the Framework. However, I am satisfied the proposal would be sympathetic to local character and history and it would maintain a strong sense of place. Moreover, it would conserve landscape and scenic beauty in the National Park. Policies in the Framework do not weigh against the appeal.

YDNPA suggest planning conditions in the event the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests for conditions set out in the Framework.

I have imposed the standard time limits condition (No 1) in the interests of certainty. Notwithstanding that the proposal involves only a change of use, in recognition of the heritage significance of the building including its floor plan and historic fabric, I have also imposed a condition specifying the plans (No 2) in the interests of certainty. However, it is not necessary to specify the existing layout and floor plans which are in any case identical to the proposed layout and floor plans.

Condition no 3 (occupancy restriction) is necessary to ensure that the dwelling is occupied as a main residence and not as a second home or holiday let. Condition no 4 (external lighting) is necessary in the interests of the amenity of the area and to protect the dark skies of the National Park.

I have not however imposed suggested condition no 4, that no historic features or fabric shall be removed unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This is because the proposal does not include any removal or alteration of historic features or fabric and such works would in any case require Listed Building Consent. The condition would therefore fail the tests in relation to being necessary and relevant to the development to be permitted.

I have similarly not imposed condition no 5, restricting permitted development rights relating to the roof and the porch. This is because alterations or additions to the roof or porch of the listed building would require Listed Building Consent. This condition would not therefore be demonstrably necessary or relevant to the development permitted. 1 A related planning application (ref YD/5/18/109A) was also refused for replacement of existing single storey structure infilling courtyard by a single storey building with partial two storey over to use as dining room with bedrooms over.

For the reasons set out above, I find there would be some limited conflict with emerging local plan policies but nevertheless I am satisfied that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan as a whole.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: H4084-BOW-XX-ZZ-DR-A-P200 rev P1 (Location Plan); H4084- BOW-XX-ZZ-DR-A-P201 rev P1 (Block Plan); H4084-BOW-XX-01-DR-A-P221 rev P1 ([name] 00 Layout); H4084-BOW-XX-00-DR-A-P220 rev P1 ([name] 01 Layout).

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied otherwise than by a person as his or her only or principal residence. The occupant shall supply to the National Park Authority (within [address] Authority’s request to do so) such information as the National Park Authority may reasonably require in order to determine compliance with this condition. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied as a second home or as a unit of holiday letting accommodation.

Any external lighting erected on or within the grounds of the dwelling hereby permitted shall meet the following requirements and be retained as such thereafter; i) Lights shall be fully shielded to angle the light downward; ii) Lights shall be no more than 500 lumens; iii) Lights shall have a colour temperature less than 2700K; iv) Lights shall be fitted with proximity sensors so they are switched off when not needed (dusk til dawn sensors shall not be used); v) Lights shall be installed at the lowest possible height to achieve lighting levels required. End of Schedule