Appeal 6005566

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single dwelling at [site address] , [site address] , Etton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03186/PL, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule at the end of this decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • The Etton Conservation Area (the CA); and, • The non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), known as The Light Dragoon (TLD).

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires when determining proposals in conservation areas that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. At paragraph 210, the Framework sets out matters which should be considered, including sustaining, and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The Etton Conservation Area Appraisal, dated 2007 (CAA), says the settlement is linear but not uniform, without clear focal points, and that it has two distinctive parts, the western part, said to consist of mainly 18th and 19th century village houses, farmsteads and outbuildings, and the eastern part (east of “[address]”), which is said to be dominated by detached buildings around the church. The CAA says [site address] is lined with pleasant brick and pantile houses and cottages with spaces being at a premium, and its width, lack of walls and position of buildings ensures it does not feel enclosed. However, the CAA states that TLD, because of its location on part of a large car park along with its painted exterior creates a focal point, which is also helped by its raised position and generous setback from [site address] . Collectively these aspects positively contribute to the significance of the CA. In addition, the CAA adds that infill development is likely to be permitted, which should be in-keeping with the historic fabric of the village and reflect the size and scale of traditional, local architecture.

The East Riding Design Code, dated April 2025 (ERDC), provides design guidance for new development. Of particular relevance to the proposed development are Key Guidance G5 and Code C28, which specifically seek to ensure the scale, and proportions of new development has regard to the surrounding development and that any existing building line is respected. In addition, Code C7 says views to and between identified landmarks (built and natural) must be preserved and enhanced, and Code C52 states the materials for new buildings must match those used in the surrounding area.

The appeal site relates to an area of land on [site address] to the side of TLD, a detached two storey public house, which has outdoor seating to its front side, it would also mostly be located to the east of nearby [address]. TLD is understood to have recently been altered by the removal of extensions, outbuildings, along with nearby trees. However, both main parties agree that it is a NDHA, this is mainly due to its historical significance, than its architectural significance.

Part of the appeal site on the opposite side of TLD includes a track understood to be used to access parking spaces for the public house beyond the rear of the appeal site. To the other side of the access is a residential property (no.30), with the appearance of converted brick and pantile buildings, some of which adjoin the boundary with the appeal site. Beyond the car park to the rear is countryside which rises away from the village and includes rolling hills. I saw on my site inspection that on the approach to Etton along [address], and from at, and near to the junction with [site address] , there are views across part of the appeal site to the countryside, but they are not wide and expansive as they are partly obscured by existing trees, including a sycamore tree on the appeal site, and likely to have been previously even more restricted by the extensions, outbuildings and trees that were recently removed.

I saw on my site inspection that currently the appeal site is vacant and that construction works were taking place on a detached dwelling to the opposite side of TLD. At the time of my site inspection there was security fencing around part of the appeal site, with parked vehicles visible beyond it. It appeared somewhat of an anomaly in the immediate area, that is characterised by well-proportioned traditional properties facing [site address] , along this wide and spacious part of the road. The altered side elevation of TLD facing the appeal site is much less significant than its front elevation. The open and recently altered appearance of the appeal site at present does not in my view positively contribute to the significance of the CA.

The proposed detached dwelling would take the form of a modest cottage, with a reduced eaves and ridge height in relation to TLD and respect the traditional vernacular of properties in the CA. Its proposed setback would be consistent with TLD’s building line and that of the property under construction, and although setback much further than some other properties on this side of [site address] , those properties are in a different built context than the appeal site, and the proposed development would be broadly consistent with the linear form of the settlement and preserve the CA. It is noted that the proposed dwelling is said to be 12 metres or so wide, but the appeal site itself is considerably wide, and although it does form a break in the streetscene, the proposed development would allow adequate space to be retained to its front and both of its sides, and it would not harmfully enclose the gaps between buildings or harm the significance of the CA. Its brick and tile finish would contrast with TLD’s painted finish but also be broadly consistent with the palette of materials on other housing within the CA.

The proposed infill development would be modest and its domestic use, given its limited scale and mass would not constitute an over-development or urbanisation of this part of the village. Its siting and scale would also ensure views of TLD would not take away from its bolder appearance that would be emphasised by its light-coloured render, and grander scale, ensuring a sympathetic but subordinate relationship with it.

Notwithstanding the change in levels, the siting, scale and height of the proposed dwelling and its respective separation distances, would ensure an appropriate transition to no.30, and ensure the sense of openness in this immediate part of the CA is preserved. The retained views to the sides of the proposed dwelling, and along the access to the car park from [site address] and [address], would also ensure the connection and relationship with the countryside from within the CA was maintained, by allowing views of it across the appeal site and the proposed development would not be harmful to the CA.

Comments have been made that the proposed development should have a higher density than proposed. However, I disagree given the existing built context, and find a low-density development as proposed is consistent with the CA.

I have been made aware of a recent appeal decision at the appeal site for 2 no. dwellings1, which was dismissed. The Inspector in that case found harm to the CA from the stepped siting of the dwellings, partly understood to be forward of TLD, along with their scale and height competing with it. The situation on this appeal is much different, with there being one single dwelling consistent with TLD’s building line, and having a scale and mass that respects it, and allowing views between gaps to the countryside beyond. Having carefully considered that appeal decision, I am content that the circumstances and issues were much different, and my findings above on this appeal are not inconsistent with it. In addition, I am also content that the proposed dwelling, along with the dwelling being constructed to the opposite side of TLD would together not be harmful to the significance of the CA.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, consistent with the duty in the Act, and for the same reasons comply with the relevant parts of policies ENV1, ENV2, and ENV3 of the East Riding Local Plan Update 2020 – 2039 [name], dated April 2025 (ERLPU), insofar as they require new development to positively and proactively conserve and enhance heritage assets, including elements that contribute to the special interest of conservation areas, ensure development is sensitively integrated into the landscape, protect and enhance spaces in 1 Appeal ref. APP/E2001/W/25/3373424 settlements which contribute to its character, and for high quality development that optimises the potential of the site, with appropriate materials, layout, and architectural style. The proposed development would also comply with paragraphs 135 and 208 of the Framework insofar as they require development to enhance the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive, sympathetic to local character and history, and seek to ensure development preserves the significance of

Finally, I also find the proposed development to be consistent with the CAA and relevant parts of the ERDC, as set out above, and with the key objectives of Policies I1, C1, and C2 of the National Planning Design Guide, dated 2021 (NDG), insofar as they seek to ensure well-designed development that responds to local character, vernacular, the area’s historical development, and the built context.

As described above, the NDHA’s scale, painted exterior, siting, raised position and spacious setback form part of its significance as a NDHA. Paragraph 216 of the Framework states that a balanced judgement should be made regarding direct harm to a NDHA, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The development of the appeal site with a single dwelling, sited on a similar building line to it, but smaller in scale and height and of a traditional design would ensure the key significance of the NDHA as a prominent and focal building, with a spacious setback is preserved.

Accordingly, I conclude the proposed development would not have a harmful effect upon the significance of the NDHA, and in doing so, the proposed development would comply with ERLPU Policy ENV3 that amongst other things requires proposals to retain, and enhance the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, or its contribution to the character of a place.

There are 4 no. grade II listed buildings near to the appeal site; no’s 35 and 57 [site address] ; a war memorial; and a K2 telephone kiosk. The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 66(1) requires that when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects the setting of a listed building, I am required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving that setting. Paragraph 212 of the Framework also requires me to give great weight to the conservation of the setting of listed buildings.

No’s 35 and 57 are on the other side of [site address] and not directly opposite the appeal site, they are not readily seen in the same context of the appeal site, and have existing built form to their sides. In terms of the war memorial and K2 telephone kiosk, these are located opposite the appeal site, but across a wide part of [site address] , the K2 telephone kiosk is seen much different to nearby buildings, particularly on views up and down [site address] , and the war memorial is a small structure in relation to nearby houses and near to the junction between [address] and [site address] , I regard its appreciation and setting to be mainly confined to areas very close to it . In view of the separation distances and the different contexts and scales of the listed buildings, I am content there would be no harmful effects on their settings.

I have been made aware of the planning history of the appeal site, which, in accordance with the information I have been provided with, has been taken into account in my decision insofar as it is relevant to this appeal. Reference has been made to whether this proposed development is consistent with an earlier approval relating to the adjoining car park. The Council has not identified any such conflict, and based on the layout plan, both the car park and the proposed dwelling could function without conflict between one another. In view of this, these points have not altered my findings.

The comments about the effect of noise and disturbance, including from music events, from TLD’s use as public house on the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed development are noted. However, the development would be a detached dwelling to one side of TLD, in a similar position to the dwelling being constructed to its other side, and there are dwellings opposite it. The proposed dwelling’s rear garden would be to the opposite side of the pub garden, and subject to a condition to mitigate noise and disturbance in respect of the design of windows and boundary treatment, there would be no reason to expect harmful effects to arise for future occupier’s living conditions. Similarly, in view of the separation of the proposed dwelling and its window positions, including the balcony along with its slightly raised level, I concur with the Council’s view that there would be no harmful effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The Council has not raised objections regarding the highway safety effects of the proposed development, including parking arrangements, movements along the track to the side, and through the junction on [site address] , and I see no reason to disagree. In terms of on-site parking, a condition could be imposed to ensure the 3 no. spaces (including within the garage) are maintained in perpetuity once created to prevent the garage being converted to accommodation later without requiring planning permission. However, I do accept the comment made about the need for a traffic management/construction plan, including to ensure adequate provision is made for parking and construction related traffic, in the interests of highway safety and to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, which can be the subject of a planning condition.

There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the position of the proposed dwelling would harm the viability of the public house use within TLD, a community facility in the village. The example raised at Tickton is noted, but there is limited information as to why that public house closed following housing being built near to it, so I am not certain that they are linked and it does not lead me to conclude differently regarding the proposed development.

I have also had regard to objections from local residents and others received in addition to the issues above, including but not limited to, flood risk and drainage. [name] can understand the concerns, subject to planning conditions as appropriate, there is no compelling evidence before me that would lead me to come to a different conclusion to the Council on these matters.

A standard implementation condition has been imposed (1), along with a condition listing the approved plans (2), to provide certainty over what has been approved.

To protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and in the interests of highway safety; a condition (3) is necessary in respect of a Construction Management Plan. Conditions (7 and 8) are also necessary to address any potential contamination at the appeal site. A condition (11) regarding noise attenuation is required to ensure future occupiers have satisfactory living conditions. To protect the existing sycamore tree at the appeal site during construction works in accordance with details that have already submitted, condition (6) is necessary and will also preserve the CA.

To ensure the site can be effectively drained, condition 10 is necessary, and to take opportunities to encourage biodiversity in accordance with paragraph 193 of the Framework, condition 9 requiring a bat box is reasonable and necessary.

Condition 4 is necessary to require hard and soft landscaping details, which will allow the Council to agree appropriate planting and ground surfacing materials, to protect the CA. Although reference to 2 no. new trees has been omitted from the condition, as these could infill the spaces between the buildings and restrict views of the countryside from within the CA. Similarly, conditions (5) (13) and (14), relating to levels, external materials, and window reveals are necessary to protect the CA. Finally, to ensure access, parking and turning provision is made clear of [site address] in the interests of highway safety, and to prevent the garage being converted to habitable accommodation to ensure adequate on-site parking, condition 12 is necessary.

The Council recommended conditions to retain the sycamore tree at the appeal site. However, the approved plans clearly show the tree is to be retained, and a condition is to be imposed to ensure it is protected during construction works. Furthermore, with the tree being within the CA, any works to it, would in any event, require a notice in advance, consequently I could not agree that suggested condition was necessary. In addition, the Council sought a condition to withdraw certain permitted development rights, which are a national grant of permission. It is also noted that certain restrictions to these permitted development rights already apply through the appeal site’s location in the CA. I am not persuaded that there are special circumstances or adequate justification shown to warrant the removal of these rights. As a result, such a condition was not reasonable or necessary.

The proposed development accords with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework and the matters raised by interested parties, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing no’s 2024-19/PH2 L02 rev. B; 2024-19/NHT S200 rev. A; 2024-19/NHT 200 rev. B; and 2024-19/NHT 400 rev. C.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall provide for: - areas for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; - the loading and unloading of plant and materials; - the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; - the erection and maintenance of any security hoarding; - measures to control noise, and the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and, -delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall take place on site until a landscaping scheme to provide for both hard and soft landscaping of the appeal site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities of all soft landscaping, together with details of all hard surfacing materials, and a timetable for the implementation of the hard and soft landscaping details, along with follow-up maintenance measures. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, timetable and maintenance measures. Any planting which, within a period of five years, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

No development shall take place on site until details of existing spot ground levels and proposed spot ground levels, including finished ground floor levels of the proposed dwelling, that are measured in relation to a fixed datum point, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved levels details.

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place on site (including site clearance works or any other preparatory works on site) until the tree protection measures recommended in sections 5 and 6 of the [name] (Ver 6), prepared by [name] and dated October 2025 have been implemented. These measures shall be retained intact and not altered throughout the construction works on the development hereby approved.

Precise details of 1 no. bat box to be installed at the appeal site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved bat box shall be installed prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and retained thereafter in perpetuity.

Foul and surface water drainage for the dwelling hereby approved shall be installed prior to its first occupation, in accordance with the details shown on the submitted plan: drawing no. 24274-DR-C-0101 (rev P9) titled ‘eastern drainage strategy.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a scheme to attenuate noise from the adjoining public house, shall have been fully implemented in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include window specifications, sound insulation measures, and boundary details. The approved scheme shall thereafter be maintained.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the vehicular access from [site address] and the 3 no. on-site parking spaces shall have been fully formed and available for use. Thereafter the access and parking spaces shall be maintained as such and not used for any other purpose.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to any works above damp proof course level on the dwelling hereby approved, a scheme showing the exact external materials to be used on the development, including all external walling, roofing, window materials, guttering and downpipes, and boundary details (including heights), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The exact details or samples shall be consistent with those specified in Appendix 2 of the [name] of Case, dated February 2026. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

The external face of all the windows and doors shall be set in reveals of at least 50mm from the outer face of the adjoining brickwork. End of Schedule of Conditions