Appeal 6003869

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal has been considered by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations

A screening direction has been issued which concludes that the development is not Environmental Impact Assessment development.

I note the appellant’s concerns regarding the pre‐application advice provided by the Council. However, such advice is given on an informal and without‐prejudice basis. It does not bind the local planning authority, nor does it predetermine the outcome of any subsequent planning application or appeal. The appeal has been determined on its planning merits, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations.

Although matters relating to landscape character and the setting of the conservation area are distinct, there is a clear degree of overlap in this case, particularly given the contribution that the surrounding landscape makes to the setting of the conservation area. For this reason, I have assessed these matters together under a single main issue.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Howardian Hills National Landscape ([name]) and the setting of the Terrington Conservation area (TCA).

The appeal site forms part of an open and undeveloped tract of countryside on the northern edge of Terrington. Although physically close to existing development along [address], it lies distinctly beyond the village development limit established by the Ryedale Local Plan Strategy (RLPS). Both the village and the site are within the [name].

The network of agricultural fields and paddocks in this part of the village are defined by hedgerows and traditional boundary features, reflecting the historic field pattern. The site reads as part of this wider landscape, which provides an immediate rural backdrop to the settlement and contributes to its sense of containment.

The open nature of the site, together with its position allowing views across the wider countryside, reinforces the rural setting of the TCA; the boundary of which runs alongside the site’s access track and the frontage to [address]. The relationship between the built form of the village and the surrounding National Landscape is an important component of its significance, enabling an appreciation of the village’s agricultural origins and its connection to the [name]. The site therefore makes a positive contribution to both the character of the [name] and to the setting of the TCA.

While the remnants of a former structure remain on part of the site, these features have largely assimilated into the landscape, and the site presently reads as undeveloped. The proposal would introduce a permanent building together with associated domestic paraphernalia, including decking, parking areas, a bin store and landscaping works, into this open parcel of land.

The structure would be of modest scale and would adopt a simple, rural design approach, including timber cladding and a pitched roof. Whilst these characteristics, even if secured by condition, would reduce its visual impact to some degree, they would not outweigh the effects arising from its siting. The building would be accessed via a narrow track and positioned away from the established frontage of [address], resulting in a form of backland development that is not characteristic of the prevailing linear settlement pattern.

From the evidence before me, including the Landscape and [name] (LVA), there is visibility of the site from nearby public roads, public rights of way and surrounding land. The site is most apparent in shorter-distance views from the south along [address]. At the time of my visit, visibility was partially filtered by vegetation, although this would likely be reduced during winter months when vegetation is not in leaf.

In addition, the site is visible in longer-distance views from elevated land, where the development would be perceived within the wider landscape context. In these views the development would appear limited in scale but nonetheless incongruous within an otherwise undeveloped parcel of land. Whilst not prominent at a landscape scale, it would introduce a perceptible change that would detract from the prevailing sense of openness.

Through the LVA the appellant has sought to demonstrate that the adverse effects of the development would be negligible and would be reduced over time with the establishment of proposed planting. It is further contended that the retention of grassland, trees, dry-stone walls, field pattern, and the siting of the cabin would preserve the landscape character of the [name] and its wider setting.

I acknowledge that the proposed landscaping, including hedgerow planting and reinforcement of boundaries would contribute to softening the appearance of the development. However, such mitigation would take time to establish and cannot be relied upon to fully screen the development, particularly in the short term. Moreover, even in the longer term, mitigation planting would not remove the presence of built form or its associated activity, and the perception of development within this currently undeveloped field would remain. Taken together, these effects would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the [name].

The development would also alter the way in which the TCA is experienced, particularly in views looking outward from the village and across the surrounding fields would be altered. The development, including the proposed landscaping, would interrupt the continuity of open land that separates the built form of the village from the wider countryside. Whilst the proposal would not result in direct harm to the fabric of the TCA, it would nonetheless detract from its setting.

While there is no separate statutory duty specifically in respect of setting, Policy SP12 of the RLPS and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) recognise that development within the setting of a designated heritage asset could result in harm to its significance. In this regard the proposal would erode the landscape setting of the village and would, consequently, have an adverse effect upon the setting of the TCA.

In this case, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the TCA. This harm would be at the lower end of the scale, given the modest size of the development and the localised nature of the harm. However, this is a matter to which I attach considerable importance and weight. In accordance with RLPS Policy SP12 and the Framework, this harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal,

There would be some modest economic benefits associated with construction and visitor spending. In addition, I recognise the inclusion of sustainable features such as an air source heat pump and solar panels, as well as biodiversity enhancements, which carry some weight. However, these benefits would be limited in scale. When weighed against the identified harm to the TCA, these modest benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh that harm.

In addition and having regard to the statutory duty1 and policy approach within the RLPS at Policy SP13 and the Framework, I consider that the reliance on mitigation would not overcome the underlying moderate harm to the NL arising from the development. Therefore, it would not accord with the requirement for relevant authorities to further the purpose of protected landscapes in conserving and enhancing their natural beauty to which I attach significant weight. All other factors do not either weigh for or against the proposal The very modest benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm identified.

Drawing these matters together, the proposal would result in harmful impacts on the character and appearance of the area, particularly the landscape qualities of the [name], which contribute to the setting of the TCA. The development would therefore conflict with Policies SP13 and SP12 of the RLPS, as well as Policies SP8, SP16 and SP20, insofar as they seek to avoid unacceptable visual intrusion and harm to local character. There would also be conflict with the Framework insofar as it seeks to protect valued landscapes and heritage assets. 1 Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended by the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023)

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan policies, when read as a whole.

Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed