Appeal 6002374

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of domestic annex and home studio to 2 no. one bedroom holiday lets at [site address] , [site address] , Westow [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference ZE25/00634/FUL, and the plans submitted with it.

For the purposes of clarity and certainty I have taken the description of the development from the appeal form, which accurately describes the change of use that was considered by the Council and is the subject of this appeal. The application form confirms that the change of use has already been implemented, and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Planning permission was refused for two reasons, both relating to highway safety. The first reason concerned the inability to achieve the required vehicular visibility splays at the site access. The second reason related to the intensification of use of the access, which it was considered would give rise to vehicles waiting in the carriageway, interfering with the free flow of traffic and resulting in danger to highway users.

Since the determination of the application, the appellant submitted additional highways evidence, including an [name] ([name], September 2025) and visibility splay drawings. Having reviewed this information, the Local Highway Authority (the LHA) confirmed that the required vehicular visibility splays can be achieved and withdrew its objection in respect of the first reason for refusal. From the information submitted I see no reason to disagree. Accordingly, that matter is no longer in dispute and does not require further consideration in this appeal.

During the appeal process, the LHA maintained an objection on highway safety grounds, referring in particular to the intensification of use of the access, the potential for vehicles to wait or manoeuvre on the highway, and subsequently to the absence of a 2m x 2m pedestrian intervisibility splay between the access and the adjacent footway.

I have had regard to all the evidence submitted by the parties. In determining this appeal, I am required to consider the development before me and whether it results in an unacceptable impact on highway safety having regard to the development plan and national policy. Against this background, the main issue is the effect of the development on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers using [site address] , Westow.

Westow is a small rural village, and [site address] has the character of a lightly trafficked village road serving a limited number of residential properties. To the east of the appeal site, [site address] leads onto [address], which continues as a narrow, single-lane road serving only a small number of properties and agricultural land beyond. From my site visit, vehicle movements along this part of [site address] appeared infrequent, and there was no sense of through-traffic or significant background activity. The footway along the site frontage is relatively wide and clearly defined, and the existing access has operated for many years in connection with the host dwelling and its associated outbuildings.

The appeal proposal involves the change of use of buildings that were previously used as ancillary accommodation to the host dwelling. As such, the development does not introduce a new access, but does result in a change in the nature and frequency of movements using the existing access onto [site address] . The access passes between buildings within and adjacent to the site and leads to on-site parking and turning areas, such that vehicles associated with the development enter and leave the site via the same established arrangement.

The evidence before me indicates that the two one-bedroom holiday lets generate a limited number of additional vehicle movements. Given the modest scale of the proposal and the infrequent vehicle movements observed along this part of [site address] , I find it unlikely that vehicles associated with the development routinely need to wait or manoeuvre within the carriageway in order to gain access to the site.

While the access is constrained and does not allow simultaneous passage, the quiet village context, limited background traffic and short length of the access between buildings mean that any occasional need for vehicles to give way or manoeuvre would be brief and unlikely to result in material interference with the free flow of traffic. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the change in use gives rise to conditions that would be prejudicial to highway safety.

I have also considered the relationship between the site access and the adjacent footway, in light of the absence of a formal 2m x 2m pedestrian intervisibility splay. The footway is clearly defined, and pedestrian activity in this part of the village appeared limited at the time of my visit. Although only a snapshot in time, I have been presented with no substantive evidence to suggest pedestrian activity is particularly high at this location. In these circumstances, I find no persuasive evidence that the proposed change in use materially increases the risk of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, particularly given the very low increase in vehicular activity associated with the use.

For the reasons given above, I find that the development does not have an unacceptable effect on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists or drivers using [site address] . In this regard, the scheme accords with Policy SP20 of the Ryedale Local Plan Strategy (September 2013), which seeks, among other things, to ensure that development does not have an adverse effect on road safety, traffic movement or the safety of all users. I also find that the development does not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor give rise to severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network, having regard to paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

As the appeal site is within the Westow Conservation Area (the CA), I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In this case it appears that the significance of this CA relates to the historic layout and buildings associated with the residential and communal development of Westow. As the appeal development is for the change of use of the appeal building, it remains substantially unchanged in appearance and therefore has a neutral effect on the area. As such, the appeal development preserves the character and appearance, and thereby significance of the CA.

Reference has been made to the fact that the previous permission for the conversion of the buildings restricted their use to purposes ancillary to the host dwelling, and that this is not directly comparable with their use as holiday lets. I have had regard to this point, but the appeal before me concerns a change of use, which I have assessed on its own merits, including its effects on highway safety.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions, which I have considered against paragraph 57 of the Framework, and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance.

I have not imposed a condition requiring compliance with approved plans, as no internal or external physical details are relied upon in my assessment of the proposal and the permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application and the plans submitted with it.

A condition relating to the provision and retention of parking and manoeuvring space within the site has not been imposed. The adequacy of on-site parking and turning arrangements was not a matter in dispute in this appeal, and no specific parking layout or arrangement is relied upon in my assessment of the scheme. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that a separate parking condition is not necessary.

For the above reasons the development accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.