Appeal 6002615

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site’s address and the description of development above have been taken from the appeal form and the Council’s decision notice, rather than the application form, as they are more precise.

The development is partly retrospective, with some works already completed on site. I have considered the appeal on this basis, having regard to the submitted drawings.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the landscape character of the area; and • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with respect to local and national policies and accessibility to services and facilities.

The appeal site forms part of a group of buildings at [site address] and lies outside the settlement of [site address] , within open countryside characterised by gently undulating farmland, medium‐to‐large rectilinear fields, sparse woodland and a dispersed pattern of farmsteads typical of the [site address] [name] landscape character area (Area 28 of the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment - LCA). The LCA identifies this as a sparsely developed rural landscape with limited capacity for further housing, and where development should be carefully controlled to avoid erosion of rural character and the established scattered settlement pattern.

The development seeks permission for a dwelling together with an extended residential curtilage to accommodate a car port/garage, domestic boundary treatments and associated hardstanding/landscaping.

The appellant contends that the dwelling should be read as part of the existing cluster of buildings and that its visibility from the bridleway and surrounding land is limited by existing development and vegetation. However, visibility is not the sole determinant of landscape impact. The LCA for Area 28 identifies sensitivities relating to incremental suburbanisation, intensification of domestic built form and erosion of the dispersed rural pattern. While the stone walls and slate roof reflect local materials and elements of the Class Q approvals, the dwelling’s overall form, massing, enlarged and regularised openings, and contemporary detailing give it a distinctly domestic appearance rather than the restrained, functional character of a traditional agricultural building. In this context, the appellant’s assertion that the dwelling sits “comfortably” within the group does not overcome the fact that it introduces a stronger residential presence of the type the LCA seeks to resist.

In addition, the proposed expansion of domestic curtilage and introduction of typical domestic features, including a car port/garage, boundary treatments and associated hardstanding, would further shift the character of the site from agricultural to suburban. The LCA cautions specifically against domestic subdivision and suburban paraphernalia, as these changes dilute the agricultural grain and undermine the dispersed rural settlement pattern. In this context, the expanded curtilage and its domestic elements would increase the residential influence on the landscape, irrespective of whether some views are filtered or partially screened.

Taken together, the building’s distinctly domestic form and massing, and the suburbanising influence of the expanded curtilage and its associated domestic features, would result in a perceptible erosion of openness, agricultural legibility and the coherent rural character that define LCA Area 28. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s evidence on screening and group context, the development nonetheless would intensify residential presence within a landscape where the LCA emphasises that new development should be resisted where it would dilute rural character or disrupt the existing dispersed settlement form.

Accordingly, the development would result in significant harm to the landscape character of the area. Thus, it would conflict with the aims of Policies HP3 and NE4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035 adopted 2020 (LP), which collectively require developments to respect landscape pattern and retain local distinctiveness, as identified in the LCA. The development would also fail to achieve the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which at paragraph 135 requires developments to be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

The appeal site is accessed via a bridleway that lacks pavements and street lighting. Given these conditions, walking and cycling would not be attractive or safe options. There are also no convenient public transport services. Furthermore, I have not been provided with substantive evidence demonstrating access to essential facilities, such as convenience shops, schools, or healthcare, by walking, cycling or public transport. As a result, future occupiers would be highly reliant on private vehicles for day-to-day needs.

The appellant argues that the development needs to be assessed against LP Policy HS6, which relates to the conversion of rural buildings for housing. This policy states that outside defined settlement development limits the conversion and/or re-use of existing buildings to residential use from other uses will be supported where proposals meet all of the relevant criteria. [name] of this policy requires that the building that is to be converted is of permanent and substantial construction, structurally sound and capable of conversion without the need for substantial extension, alteration or reconstruction.

Based on the submitted evidence, and on my observations during the site visit, it appears that most of the works associated with the proposed dwelling have already been carried out. I have had regard to the appellant’s submissions, including the Class Q approved drawings and the photographs and plans of the former buildings. The evidence before me indicates that the works undertaken for the conversion include full underpinning, the construction of a new cavity stone envelope, the complete replacement and increased height of the roof, and the re‐composition of the elevations, resulting in a detached two‐storey domestic form. In my planning judgement, the nature and extent of these works taken together constitute substantial alteration, such that the building is no longer recognisable as the original rural structure. Due to these substantial alterations, I therefore find that the scheme amounts to the creation of a new dwelling rather than the conversion of a rural building.

Accordingly, the development fails to comply with criterion A of LP Policy HS6. It also fails to comply with criterion D of the same policy, for the reasons set out above in relation to its effect on the landscape character of the area. Even if the remaining criteria were met, this would not be sufficient to render the development compliant with the policy as a whole.

In conclusion, the appeal site is not a suitable location for housing with respect to local and national policies and accessibility to services and facilities. Being outside any defined development limit, the development would conflict with [name] GS2 and GS3, which direct growth to locations with established services, facilities and sustainable transport connections. The reliance on private vehicles and the isolated nature of the site mean the development would not accord with the spatial strategy or support a sustainable pattern of development. The development would also conflict with the aims of the Framework, which at paragraphs 110 and 115 require development to be located where it can limit the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of transport modes, and to ensure that safe and suitable access to services and facilities can be achieved.

While the appellant refers to the earlier Class Q decisions as evidence that the site’s location was previously acceptable, Class Q involves a narrower prior‐approval exercise and does not determine the suitability of a new dwelling with an extended residential curtilage against the development plan’s spatial strategy and the wider transport sustainability tests in the Framework. Accordingly, the Council’s conclusions regarding the appeal site’s location in the context of the Class Q applications do not alter my findings above.

The appellant has drawn my attention to an application approved for the retention of two dwellings to the south-east of the appeal site1. The submitted evidence indicates that in that case the Council found that development was primarily a conversion. Thus, in light of my findings above, the appeal development is not directly comparable to the referenced case. In any event, I have considered the appeal scheme based on its own merits and site-specific circumstances.

Although the Council’s officer report identifies concerns regarding the development’s compliance with the sustainability requirements of LP Policy CC4, this does not feature in the Council’s reasons for refusal. Given my findings above on the two main issues, I did not consider it necessary to seek further clarification on this matter.

Future occupants could contribute to the rural community. However, given the small scale of the proposed development, its social and economic benefits would be limited. While one additional house would make a modest but positive contribution to the housing supply, the associated construction and subsequent occupancy would only provide minimal support to the local employment and the economy.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that paragraph 11 d) is engaged. There is nothing before me to suggest that the policies identified in footnote 7 of the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed under paragraph 11 d) i). Hence, the balance in paragraph 11 d) ii) applies.

Paragraph 11 d) ii) states that planning permission should be granted unless ‘any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations.’

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. The Council stated that it has a housing supply of 2.8 years, which is a considerable shortfall. Whilst the Framework recognises the contribution that small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement for an area, one dwelling would make a minimal contribution to the overall supply of housing and as described above, the associated benefits would be limited. Consequently, I attach limited weight to these benefits.

Accordingly, the lack of safe and convenient access to services and facilities via walking, cycling, and public transport, coupled with the harm to the landscape character of the area, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that 1 LPA ref: HGTZC24/03661/FUL indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.