Appeal 6004196

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have used the address from the Council’s decision notice as this accurately reflects the location of the appeal site. The mix of housing proposed was amended during the application stage. An updated proposed site plan PL.02 rev A showing amended house types has been submitted by the appellant. I am content that the updated plan does not seek to evolve the scheme and shows the house types considered by the Council. I have therefore accepted the updated proposed site plan.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • supply of homes to meet local community need; and • character and appearance of the area, including trees, bearing in mind it would be within the English Lake District World Heritage Site (WHS), the Lake District National Park (LDNP) and Windermere Conservation Area (WCA).

Policy 15 of the Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035 (the LP) seeks to increase the supply of homes to meet local community need. Primarily by supporting new permanent homes that contribute towards helping communities remain vibrant and resilient, achieving a better balance in the housing market and securing new housing in perpetuity for permanent occupation that is restricted to a local geography. The South Lakeland Strategy Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (2023) (SHENA) is the most up to date currently available evidence of housing need by size.

For the Lake District National Park sub area, the SHENA indicates that the greatest need is for 2-bedroom properties and 3-bedroom properties. On the basis of the extract from the SHENA provided by the Authority, there is no evidence that size relates to anything other than number of bedrooms. The proposal would deliver five dwellings, four of the dwellings would have three bedrooms and one would be a four-bedroom property. Overall, therefore, the proposal would make a positive contribution to the size of properties most in need in the sub area.

Despite the generous scale of the proposed dwellings, and notwithstanding that consideration of the size of a dwelling can go beyond the number of bedrooms, there is no clear evidence that the internal floor space or configuration of the accommodation of the proposed dwellings, and plots 1, 2 and 5 in particular, would make them unsuitable for local needs. In exceeding the nationally described space standards, the dwellings would be spacious enough to provide a comfortable living environment for the occupiers, promoting health and well-being.

I have also taken account of [name] of the Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2023) which advises that houses should have sufficient space and amenity to support the needs of the occupiers, including flexible spaces to facilitate home working. I have no clear reason therefore to find that in labelling a room as a study on the proposed plans this gives a misleading impression of the size of the proposed dwellings. Even if the occupiers choose to convert rooms into additional bedrooms in the future or make other internal alterations, as shown by the change in local housing needs since the outline permission at the appeal site, lifestyles may change over time. The relatively large dwellings proposed would allow for layout changes or adaptions that would future proof the homes.

In considering the immense pressure on the existing housing stock, the proposed dwellings would contribute to vibrant and resilient communities and a better balance in the housing market by delivering a mix of properties that would be consistent with the SHENA for the sub area. Furthermore, the dwellings would be secured in perpetuity for local occupancy. Consequently, the proposal would assist the Authority’s priority of meeting local housing needs. To conclude, the proposal would make a positive contribution to the supply of homes to meet local community need and would accord with LP Policy 15.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of woodland that was previously part of the grounds of a private school. It is bounded to the north by woodland, to the west by the access road to the former school, to the east by a public right of way and to the south by [address]. It is located on the edge of Windermere where there is a variety of architectural styles and materials. However, the surrounding built form nearest to the site on [address] is largely traditional in form and external materials, with chimneys, domestic-scale glazing and pitched slate roofs. There is a range of materials, including render, however stone predominates which creates a harmonious appearance. There are several mature trees in the townscape, including at the appeal site, which contribute positively to the verdant, landscaped quality of the surrounding area.

The site and surrounding area are situated within the WHS and the LDNP. The WHS is a designated heritage asset of the highest significance, internationally recognised as being of outstanding universal value (OUV) and I attach great weight to the asset’s conservation as directed by Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Pertinent to this appeal, the OUV and thus the significance of the WHS primarily stems from its heritage interests as a rich cultural landscape, which includes its historically derived and functionally determined settlement patterns and vernacular architectural heritage.

National Parks have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The two purposes of National Parks are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area; and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities by the public. In accordance with Framework Paragraph 189, I attach great weight to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and scenic beauty in the LDNP as well as the conservation and enhancement of its wildlife and cultural heritage.

The appeal site’s landscaped qualities in terms of its role and function in the locality contribute in a positive way to the OUV and significance of the WHS and the cultural heritage of the LDNP.

The appeal site is also located within the WCA and in line with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the WCA. From my observations and the WCA Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2011) (the [name]), the significance of the WCA, insofar as is relevant to this case, is largely derived from its surviving historic fabric and the associated architectural detailing and layout of the buildings within it, including trees and groups of trees that soften the streetscene. As a verdant plot of land accommodating several established trees the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the WCA.

The principle of housing at the appeal site was established by the outline permission1 and is not in dispute. The appeal scheme would introduce five detached dwellings at the site, each with a bespoke design but common architectural style and material palette.

The Lake District Design Code (2023) (DC), covering the whole of the Lake District sets out that rough-cast render often painted white or cream is a common material, but that slatestone is dominant and frequently left exposed. The WCA Appraisal states that the most prevalent building material in the conservation area is natural stone, which was historically easily accessible in the locality and relatively inexpensive. In locations at the edge of towns such as the appeal site where there is a range of architectural styles and materials, the DC advises that design cues should still be taken from the prevailing forms in the area and informed by analysis of context and local character. The appellant’s Heritage, Design and [name] (2025) describes the proposal and suggests it is appropriate to its context, however there is limited analysis of the site’s immediate context or explanation how that has led to the design of the proposal.

The dominant material on all five dwellings would be white render. This would draw the eye and appear discordant when compared to the prevailing use of stone and more balanced mix of traditional materials along [address], as illustrated on the appellant’s architectural context map. This contrast would be readily perceptible to pedestrians and road users as they move around the surrounding 1 Decision ref: 7/2021/5689 area, passing the site access and to users of the public right of way, even where views are relatively short range and glimpsed through vegetation. While these effects would be relatively localised, harm to character and appearance is not limited to prominent or long‐distance views.

Although stone forms part of the proposed material palette, its use is largely confined to lower levels, where it is intended to ground the building into the landscape as part of a biophilic design. This natural and locally distinctive element would not be prominent in public views and so would not offset the extensive use of render. Despite the slate roofs being visible and reflective of the local area, the primary use of render would be an unwelcome, stark intrusion. It would disrupt the otherwise harmonious character and appearance of the area, interrupting the landscaped qualities of the site and the positive contribution it makes to the street scene along [address] and the enjoyment of the public right of way.

In addition, the proposed number, size and arrangement of window openings would differ markedly from the surrounding context. The combination of extensive render, the solid to void ratio, contemporary design features including balconies and glazed balustrades, together with elements of timber and aluminium cladding would not reflect the external appearance of nearby buildings and therefore would not reinforce local distinctiveness or a sense of place.

There is said to be spatial reasoning for the design of each dwelling to suit location and orientation, however this has not been substantiated in evidence. Extensive areas of glazing feature on western and northern facing elevations, and notwithstanding the generous size of the windows which may maximise daylight levels and natural ventilation, there is no analysis to indicate that they have been in designed in response to passive solar gain principles. Thus, it is not clear that this design feature is appropriately justified in the context of the site.

Owing to their elevated position relative to the appeal site together with intervening landscaping, the properties on [address] and pod classrooms associated with the school would not readily be experienced in the same visual context. As such, they do not meaningfully inform the immediate character of the appeal site locality, which is more strongly defined by the properties along [address]. Consequently, the presence of contemporary materials, increased glazing and use of render on these buildings does not lead me away from my above findings.

Nearby to the appeal site is Elleray, originally a large mansion in extensive grounds built for a Manchester industrialist. It is a notable hillside house and a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Its significance is derived from its role in describing the historic development of Windermere and associated architectural details. In line with the Framework, I have taken a balanced judgement, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The appeal site, as part of the former grounds of Elleray, falls within its setting and its verdant landscaped qualities make a positive contribution to the NDHA. Elleray is set back from the appeal site and so it is physically and largely visually separate from it. Given the location, extent and nature of the development in relation to the NDHA, the proposal would not generally be seen in views with it. Therefore, the NDHA’s setting, and the contribution it makes to experiencing the asset’s significance and special interest would be preserved.

The appeal site accommodates a number of trees and groups of trees which have amenity value through public views that I observed along [address] and from several vantage points in the wider locality. In line with the build zones shown on the controlling parameter plan approved under the outline permission; to facilitate the development 17 trees and one group of trees would be removed. I have taken into account the amount and type of proposed replacement planting and the retention of prominent trees within the no‐build zone adjacent to the roadside, which would ensure that despite the loss of some trees the site would continue to contribute to the verdant character of the area over time.

However, there are concerns regarding the long-term protection of Tree 29 (T29), a prominent retained tree at the roadside boundary of the site. I have no clear reason to disagree with the conclusions of the [name] (2025) (AMS) that the proposed methods and specialist construction would protect T29. Yet, there is no evidence that the AMS takes into account the proposed drainage strategy which includes a geocellular attenuation tank some 0.8 metres deep that would encroach into the root protection area (RPA) of T29 but is not shown on the tree protection plan. Neither is there any evidence that the drainage strategy has involved the input of a tree specialist. Even if the drainage scheme could be implemented with no dig methods to avoid tree roots this is not supported in evidence.

Given the prominence of T29 and the contribution it makes to the landscape quality of the site and to the significance of the WCA, a precautionary approach is reasonable. On the basis of the limited information provided I cannot be confident that T29 would be adequately protected. The potential loss or decline of the tree arising from development within the RPA would cause some additional, albeit limited, harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Drawing the above together, the proposal’s design has not taken sufficient cues from the surrounding local context and when considered alongside the uncertainty regarding the protection of an important tree, would not integrate successfully with the prevailing character and appearance of the area. As a result, the scheme lacks a strong sense of place and would have limited connections with the identity of the surrounding area.

Considering the nature and extent of the proposed development, it would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the WCA and would harm its significance as a whole, failing to meet the requirements of section 72(1) of the Act. It would weaken the positive traits of a key attribute of the OUV of the WHS and harm the asset’s significance. The proposal would therefore conflict with the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. For the purposes of the Framework, the harm to the designated heritage assets would be less than substantial, and towards the lower end of the spectrum, which should be weighed against the public benefits. I will return to this matter later.

The proposal would also not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the LDNP and would therefore undermine the statutory purposes for which it is designated. It therefore follows that it would fail to seek to further the statutory purposes of the LDNP with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the cultural heritage of the area.

To conclude on this main issue, overall, the proposal would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including trees, bearing in mind that it would be within the WHS, LDNP and WCA. It would therefore be in conflict with LP policies 01, 02, 05, 06 and 07 insofar as they require development to conserve and enhance the extraordinary harmony and beauty of the Lake District landscape and its special qualities, conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets, and support and maintain a sense of place through design excellence that reinforces the importance of local character. The decision notice also refers to LP Policy 04 which relates to biodiversity and geodiversity. However, as reason for refusal three primarily relates to trees in the context of character and appearance this policy has not been determinative.

There would not be any significant consequences for the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and the proposal would make efficient use of land. However, these matters, and any other policy compliance, including access, highway safety and the standard of accommodation for future occupiers are neutral factors which weigh neither for nor against the appeal scheme.

The Framework requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm. Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should also require a clear and convincing justification. The harm to the significance of the WHS and WCA would be less than substantial. The Framework requires such harm to be weighed against any public benefits.

The proposal would contribute five dwellings to the housing supply in an accessible location within a rural service area that would meet local community need. Given the scale of the proposal, I attach moderate weight to these social benefits. The properties would be for local occupancy in perpetuity, however as this is a policy requirement it is a neutral matter and does not carry additional positive weight. There are also likely to be modest, time-limited economic benefits from the construction stage and some limited economic benefits arising from council tax income and expenditure by future occupiers, albeit there is limited guarantee of the extent to which this would be directed to local businesses or services.

Overall, even cumulatively, the sum of the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets that I have identified, and the considerable importance and weight this carries.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.