Appeal 6005710

The appeal is dismissed.

There is reference in the appellant’s evidence and the above description of development to a static caravan which is understood to have previously existed on the site. However, there was no static caravan in place when I visited the site, and the Council has confirmed no caravan was present from at least April 2024 onwards. I have not been provided with any details of any extant permission for a static caravan here. My decision is on this basis.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area including the effect on trees, the setting of the North York Moors National Park and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Sawdon Conservation Area; • whether the location of the proposed development would be acceptable having regard to the development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on protected species; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to privacy, outside space, noise, and odour; and • the effect of the proposal on an existing agricultural business.

The appeal site relates to [site address] on the fringes of the village of Sawdon. The site includes an existing farmhouse to the west, set within a garden area. A group of agricultural buildings within a farmyard lie to the east of the farmhouse, situated opposite the main access into the site. A wide belt of mature trees separates the house and garden from the wide grassed verge, registered as [name], that extends between the low stone boundary wall and the road. The tree belt is a consistent feature of this part of Sawdon with trees on both sides of the road, giving the area a distinctly verdant and rural character. Together, the wide, unbroken grass verge, mature trees and stone boundary wall form an attractive entrance to the village as the road bends around the appeal site.

A public right of way runs along the north eastern boundary of the site, beyond an open area of grassland that has been subject to recent tree felling and replacement planting. The public right of way also forms the boundary with the North York Moors National Park (the NP). As the boundary here is formed by a post and wire fence, the site is easily visible from the public right of way and thus from the NP. The open grassland strip, seen alongside the mature trees and grassed areas beyond the appeal site, also contributes to the rural character and has a positive effect on the setting of the NP.

The Sawdon Conservation Area (the CA) covers the majority of the built form of Sawdon to the west of [address] with the area to the east lying within the NP. From the limited information provided and pertinent to the appeal, the character and appearance and thus special interest and significance of the CA derives in part from the loose linear arrangement of predominantly traditional buildings of stone construction with pantile roofs, interspersed with open green spaces and trees set within a rural and agricultural landscape.

As a predominantly open site at the village entrance, framed by an important belt of mature trees, lying adjacent to the wide verge and surrounded by agricultural land, the appeal site reinforces that significance and contribute positively to its character and appearance. Whilst the modern farm buildings themselves do not reflect the traditional stone buildings that characterise the CA, they are set back well into the site, beyond the boundary of the CA and nonetheless underpin the historic importance of agriculture to the village.

The first element of the proposal is for the siting of a log cabin. The log cabin would be a sizeable timber lodge style building installed within the grassland area located adjacent to the existing farmyard, set forward of the existing agricultural buildings. In this position, it would be highly visible from both the site access, being the closest building to the road, and from the public right of way, lying a short distance away from the site boundary.

Owing to its siting, form, modern design and materials, the log cabin would be distinctly at odds with the traditional stone buildings that characterise the CA and would appear as a highly incongruous and prominent form of development that would be out of place in this setting. Its presence would also diminish the open character of the grassland strip and the rural character in general. For these reasons this element would adversely affect the character and appearance of the CA. Lying close to the NP boundary and visible from the public right of way, the provision of an incongruous form of development and erosion of the rural character would adversely affect the landscape setting of the NP.

The second element of the proposal is the creation of a new access road into the site, to serve the existing farmhouse. Its creation would involve removal of a large section of the traditional stone wall, and the creation of a surfaced track across the important highway verge, eroding its unbroken appearance and resulting in an urbanisation of this attractive entrance to the village to the detriment of the CA. For the same reasons, the access creation would also diminish the scenic quality of the views from within and adjacent to the NP.

Furthermore, I was able to see the route through the trees on the site visit, the proposal would inevitably disrupt the consistency of the tree belt by forming an access between their trunks compounding the harm to the rural character that would result from the access creation. I have not been provided with details of any [name] (RPAs) or any indications as to the extent of the root plates of these trees, however in accordance with the proposed plans, the access would extend beneath the canopies of multiple trees comprising the tree belt.

Whilst the appellant argues that no tree survey was requested by the Council I note that the onus is principally on an applicant to provide appropriate information in support of their proposal1. The appellant proposes the use of a geogrid system and argues that this is a no‐dig, above‐ground, root‐protecting solution, preventing compaction and maintaining water and oxygen exchange. However, despite the provision of a brochure, there are no precise details of how it would be installed on this site, whether any levelling would be required, or how appropriate it would be in this instance, given the likely extensive root plate incursion by the access.

Moreover, I am mindful of the comments of the Tree and Woodland Officer who highlights that to achieve optimal geogrid performance, the overlying aggregate must be compacted during installation. Such a process transmits pressure to the underlying soil, including the root plate. Soil compaction restricts gaseous exchange and impairs root function by limiting access to water, oxygen, and nutrients. Furthermore, the installation of geogrids inherently involves ground level changes, which can disrupt soil aeration and moisture dynamics. Finally, the use as an access could lead to wheel rutting which over time, further concentrates loads, reducing the protective capacity of the aggregate layer.

I acknowledge that the Tree and Woodland Officer highlights that the grid system may be appropriate in instances where it occupies less than 20% of the RPA. However, in the absence of any detail of the [name] am unable to take this into account.

As such, on the basis of the evidence before me, at least a degree of excavation or compaction would in all likelihood occur within a number of the trees’ root plates. Damage to the root plate could adversely affect the health of the trees potentially causing multiple failures. Given their aforementioned importance any tree lost would adversely affect the consistency of the tree belt, the rural character of the area and the character and appearance of the CA. 1 section 62(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Having regard to the above, there is no robust evidence before me, such as an arboricultural impact assessment, to establish if or how the wellbeing of the trees would be safeguarded and that the aforementioned harm could be avoided.

I have found that the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA which would be contrary to the requirements of section 72(1) of the Act2. In doing so, it would cause harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset. When considering the impact of proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It makes clear that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

Having regard to the extent and nature of the proposal, the harm to the significance of the [name] have identified would amount to a moderate to high level of ‘less than substantial’ harm, as set out in the Framework. Paragraph 215 advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant considers that the proposal would improve highway safety. It is unclear how adding an additional access to [address], as opposed to a replacement access, would improve highway safety. Additionally, there is no evidence before me to indicate that the proposed access would represent an improvement over the existing access. This therefore does not constitute a public benefit. Similarly, given that no caravan exists on the site, the removal of a caravan does not represent a public benefit of the appeal scheme. Moreover, as the protection of trees is a minimum policy requirement, I do not consider that any protection in that regard would constitute a public benefit.

The proposal would allow the appellant to remain in the community and I acknowledge that the appeal scheme would be beneficial in those respects. However, whilst I sympathise with the appellant in terms of his desire to remain in the village, I have not been provided with evidence that the proposed log cabin is the only means of achieving this aim, and, nonetheless, this would principally be a private benefit for the appellant, rather than a wider public benefit. This therefore carries limited weight.

It is unclear to me how the re-use of land within a farmstead would constitute a public benefit. The site of the proposed access is not previously developed land. [name] shall come to consider biodiversity enhancements in my other matters below, that the proposal would provide an opportunity to provide biodiversity enhancement would constitute a small public benefit. This carries limited weight due to the scale of the proposal and the lack of detail of the extent of such an enhancement at this stage.

Having regard to the limited public benefits arising from the proposal, these are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the identified harm to the significance of the CA, a designated heritage asset. 2 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area, would fail to provide adequate protection to ensure the retention of trees and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This would be contrary to the expectations of the Act. The proposal would also diminish the scenic quality of this part of the setting of the NP.

The harmful impact would conflict with Policies DEC1, DEC5, ENV5, and ENV7 of the Scarborough Borough Local Plan (2017) (the LP), which, together, amongst other things, seek to ensure new development preserves heritage assets and represents high quality design that is appropriate to its context, including with regard to the historic environment and wider landscape character including the setting of the NP. There would also be conflict with the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets and paragraph 189 which requires new development within the setting of National Parks to be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts.

Whilst the intended use appears to have evolved somewhat during the course of the application, it is understood that the proposed log cabin would be occupied by the appellant as a permanent residence.

The appeal site lies outside of the Development Limits of Sawdon and is therefore in the countryside for the purposes of the settlement hierarchy set out in LP Policy SH1. In locations outside of the Development Limits, LP Policy ENV6 sets out that new development will be limited to circumstances where a countryside location is essential. The Policy provides a number of instances of such development. In these regards, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal is essential for farming, forestry or other countryside activity, nor does the development consolidate or diversify an agricultural business. The proposal is not for a re-use of an existing building and does not relate to tourism or recreation.

Given that the previously existing static caravan is no longer present on site and has not been in place for some time, the scheme does not represent the replacement of a building that has a negative impact on the character and appearance of the area with one of a higher quality. Indeed, having regard to the limited details I have of the previously existing caravan, it seems that this was significantly smaller and sited further away from the site access than the appeal scheme. As such, even if it were present on site, and was lawful, having regard to my assessment of the proposal in the main issue above, I am not convinced that the proposed building would represent the visual improvement envisaged by the Policy.

Nonetheless, even if the proposal were to fall within one of the above categories, Policy ENV6 is clear that the proposal should also not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the countryside or the setting of the NP. Having regard to my conclusions on the above main issue, the proposal would also fail to meet this requirement.

For the above reasons the location of the proposed development would not be acceptable having regard to the development plan policies. The proposal would conflict with Policy ENV6 of the LP in this regard.

Bats and wild birds are protected by law3 and their presence is a material consideration when a development proposal is being considered which would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. There is a statutory duty on me to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity4.

[name] 06/2005 states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the

I have not been provided with any distribution records of bats, barn owls or other birds in the locality. However, the site is in a rural location surrounded by farmland and the trees forming the tree belt could provide habitat or roosting places for bats or nesting birds. As set out above, the proposed access road would pass through the tree belt, and there is insufficient information to ascertain the extent of any harm or loss of trees.

In the absence of any surveys, and on the basis of the information before me, I cannot be certain as to the extent to which protected species may be affected by the proposed access track. Furthermore, if protected species were affected, I cannot be certain as to what mitigation, if appropriate, may be required. In this regard, paragraph 193 of the Framework states that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

I therefore cannot conclude that the proposal would not adversely affect protected species, specifically bats and nesting birds. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy ENV5 which states, in summary and amongst other things, that development proposals should consider whether potential adverse impacts on protected species can be adequately mitigated. It would also be contrary to paragraph 187(d) of the Framework which amongst other things, seeks to minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity.

As set out above, the appellant intends to reside permanently in the log cabin. Whilst the farm and farmhouse are advertised for sale, it is unclear whether the log cabin would be retained as part of the holding or whether the appellant would continue to reside in it. Nonetheless, the proposed log cabin would be sited very close to the existing farm buildings.

[name] am not provided with any noise assessment, it is clear to me that any occupants of the log cabin would likely be subjected to noise from agricultural vehicles and machinery, livestock and agricultural processes. Additionally, livestock, manure and feedstuffs associated with the agricultural activities would likely lead to odour and insect activity arising in close proximity to the log cabin. As is the nature with such an enterprise, agricultural activities giving rise to odour and noise could take place during the day and night, seven days a week. 3 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 & Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. 4 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, as amended.

In that regard, given the very close proximity of the proposed log cabin and its outside space, the appeal proposal has potential to lead to significant disturbance to its future occupiers, adversely affecting living conditions. This is supported by the comment received from the Council’s Environmental Health section.

Despite assertions by the appellant that no outside space is proposed, the proposal shows a small patio area outside the log cabin. This is a very small area, that is not private, being located adjacent to a working farmyard. On the basis of the evidence before me, there does not appear to be sufficient space allocated that would be capable of storing refuse, drying clothes and being used for sitting out. Through the lack of adequate private outside space, the proposal would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupants of the log cabin.

Nonetheless, for the above reasons, the proposal would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to privacy, outside space, noise, and odour. The proposal would therefore conflict Policy DEC4 of the LP and paragraph 135 of the Framework which, together, seek to ensure proposals ensure a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants.

The Council raises concerns with regard to the potential sale of the farmhouse separately to the rest of the holding and the resulting impact on the agricultural business. However, this is not part of the appeal proposal, and it is not clear to me that the appeal proposal would directly lead to such a scenario. In that regard I note that the farmhouse retains an agricultural occupancy condition which would limit the potential for separation.

Nevertheless, the proposal would introduce a permanently sited log cabin which could be occupied separately from the farm business in the near or distant future. This could potentially lead to complaints in relation to noise and odour as a result of agricultural activity in close proximity of the log cabin. Such complaints or investigations by Environmental Health could lead to pressure for the farm business to limit or alter its activities to the detriment of normal operation of the business.

Paragraph 200 of the Framework sets out that existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed. I am not provided with any details of mitigation, nor is it clear that adequate mitigation could be provided to avoid the harm identified in the above main issue. In that regard I am mindful that the Environmental Health section recommend a 400-metre buffer between the appeal site and agricultural buildings.

For the above reasons the proposal would likely result in an adverse effect on the existing agricultural business, contrary to paragraph 200 of the Framework, set out above.

I have had regard to the letters of support received. Nonetheless, support from the local community does not necessarily indicate a lack of harm.

The fourth reason for refusal referred to the lack of provision of the [name] (BNG) baseline figure for the existing site. However, I note that to be validated an application must be accompanied by minimum information set out in Article 7 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 including the completed metric calculation tool. I have not seen any evidence that this has been provided. Nonetheless, as I am dismissing on multiple other grounds, I need not consider this matter any further.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.