Parish: Committee Date : 10th January 2019 Ward: Hutton Officer dealing : Mr M. Pearson 11 Target Date: 18th January 2019 18/02052/FUL

Change of use of grazing land to paddocks, school yard, post and rail fencing, construction of stable and storage building with 14no. roof lights and associated access road and parking for recreational use At Skutterskelfe House, Skutterskelfe, North For Mrs J. Powell

The application has been requested to be determined by the Planning Committee at the request of a Member of the Council.

1.0 PROPOSALS AND SITE DESCRIPTION

1.1 The application site is located to the west of Skutterskelfe House on the south side of the road between and . Skutterskelfe House was constructed at the end of the twentieth century and comprises a large detached house, together with detached garaging. A number of extensions and alterations have been approved in recent years. The house sits in generous grounds with numerous mature trees that generally screen the house from public views. The vehicular entrance to the house is located to the north and the domestic curtilage of Skutterskelfe House is clearly defined by boundary walls and hedgerows.

1.2 In 2004 an application for the construction of a stable block, alterations to the vehicle access point and formation of riding arena were approved. This stable block is located to the north of Skutterskelfe House in part of the garden area. The Stable is constructed in brick with a shallow pitched roof and is single storey in height. Due to its careful siting and appropriate scale, the existing stable block is also generally well screened from public views. The only public view towards the stable is from the entrance gates to the property on the road between Hutton Rudby and Stokesley.

1.3 The area subject to the application is currently used as grazing land and is defined by metal estate railings to the south and west, a hedge along the eastern boundary and a 2m high brick wall with stone coping along the northern boundary. This wall historically defined the extent of the estate of Skutterskelfe Hall (a Grade II* listed building now known as Rudby Hall) and connects to the gatepiers of the Lodge. The gatepiers and Lodge are Grade II listed and are located to the west of the application site. Whilst the brick boundary wall connects to the listed gatepiers they are not considered to be a curtilage structure. This assessment is on the basis that whilst the Council understands that the wall is historic (constructed before 1948) and has a functional relationship to the gatepiers (to provide enclosure) we have not been able to establish that the section of brick wall was in the same ownership as the gatepiers at the time of listing. Therefore, in this instance the section of brick wall is not considered to be a curtilage listed structure and therefore the proposed works do not require listed building consent. Nevertheless, the section of brick wall is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and remains of significance in terms of the setting of both the Lodge and the Hall and therefore the impact of the proposal needs to be assessed on this basis.

1.4 Also, within the application boundary is an existing unauthorised school yard, that includes lighting columns and pole mounted CCTV.

1.5 Planning permission is sought to change the use of the land to pony paddocks and to construct a new stable/storage building to store and accommodate the applicant’s

horses for private use. The proposed building will be L-shaped in plan and would be 23.5m x 26.25m x 3.1m to eaves and 4.7m high to the ridge.

1.6 The building has 3 principal elements; stabling for up to 7 horses, a hay store and an equipment store.

1.7 The building would be set on brick plinth with horizontal timber shiplap cladding and would have a pitched roof covered with corrugated metal roofing that would include rooflights.

1.8 The proposals also involve the construction of a new vehicle access point through the widening of the existing field gate set within the brick boundary wall on the northern boundary of the application site. This new access point will be gated and would serve a new access road that will lead to the stables located at the southern end of the site. Within the site, a number of ancillary roads are proposed, one of which connects to the existing curtilage of the applicant’s house which sits immediately to the east.

1.9 The proposed development would provide a number of paddock areas defined by timber fencing and would also include a riding school area located close to the proposed stables.

1.10 During the course of the application, the Council requested information regarding why the proposed development could not be accommodated within the existing domestic curtilage along with justification for the proposed new vehicle access point. In addition, a meeting was held with the applicant’s agent to discuss the proposals and possible alternative approaches regarding the siting of stables within the existing domestic curtilage, the need to form a new vehicle access and impact of the proposal upon the setting of the Grade II listed Lodge and gatepiers. On the basis of our original concerns the agent prepared a slightly modified proposal.

1.11 The Council also raised a query regarding the existing unauthorised school yard, lighting columns and pole mounted CCTV. Subsequently, the agent clarified that the applicant has confirmed that the works were undertaken in October 2007 and as such they are immune from enforcement action.

1.12 The agent confirmed that applicant had decided to proceed with the application and requested that the application be determined on the basis of revised drawings. The amendments to the proposed drawings comprised the following:

• Reduction in height of the stable block • Removal of tree lined avenue • Removal of some fencing to reduce sub-division • Introduction of landscape planting to the west

1.13 Included within the submission was an updated Design & Access Statement that included an expanded justification for the proposed development;

The applicant owns 5 horses and 2 ponies. These are a mixture of active and retired animals. The ponies are kept in the existing stable at Skutterskelf House and the horses at commercial stables at Field House in Stokesley where there is pressure for them to be relocated. At present the horses are transported between Stokesley and Skutterskelf for grazing every 14 to 21 days. It takes around two weeks for the animals to graze the present land and the rotation allows the grass to recover. At present all the animals are never on the applicant’s land at the same time to due insufficient grazing and housing.

Due to the above, issues of highway safety, sustainability and the security and welfare of the animals the applicant considers that this is a reasonable justification and need for the proposed development to house and graze all of the animals on the development site.

The applicant’s daughter is currently undergoing the selection process for the British Dressage Under 12 Squad and a dressage arena complying with national competition standards is necessary.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 Skutterskelfe House and the proposed site have the following relevant planning history: • Replacement Dwelling and domestic garage – 96/50619/P – Approved 1.5.96 • Alterations and single storey extensions to include garden room, swimming pool & formation of dormers – 04/00566/FUL – Approved 7.5.2004 • Construction of stable block, formation of riding arena and alterations to access – 04/01381/FUL – approved – 29.9.2004. • Alterations and extension to existing dwelling 10/01592/FUL – 10/01592/FUL – approved 19.8.2010

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: 3.1 The relevant policies of the Development Plan are as follows;

Core Strategy Policy CP1 - Sustainable development Core Strategy Policy CP2 - Access Core Strategy Policy CP4 - Settlement hierarchy Core Strategy Policy CP16 - Protecting and enhancing natural and man-made assets Core Strategy Policy CP17 - Promoting high quality design Development Policy DP3 - Site accessibility Development Policy DP9 - Development outside Development Limits Development Policy DP28 - Conservation Development Policy DP30 - Protecting the character and appearance of the countryside Development Policies DP32 - General design Development Policies DP33 – Landscaping

4.0 CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Parish Council – Noted highways concerns regarding visibility and set back distance of the new gates. In addition, the Parish Council noted that a “domestic only” condition should be imposed.

4.2 NYCC Highways – no objections subject to a condition regarding the private access/verge crossing.

4.3 HDC Environmental Health Officer – No objection but recommended conditions regarding the storage and spreading of manure and that there shall be no burning of manure on the site.

4.4 Historic – Declined to comment.

4.5 Northumberland Water – No Comments to make.

4.6 Site notice expired 25th October 2018 – one letter of support for the proposed equestrian use was received from a local resident within Skutterskelfe.

4.7 Neighbour Notifications – The owners of Rudby Hall submitted a detailed letter of objection that noted the following concerns summarised below:

• Air Quality/residential amenity • Highways safety • Heritage impacts

5.0 OBSERVATIONS

5.1 The main issues for consideration in the determination of this application relate to: i) the principle of the development; ii) design & landscaping; iii) impact on heritage assets and; iv) highway concerns.

Principle

5.2 Paragraph 83 of the NPPF notes that planning policies and decisions should support a prosperous rural economy through the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings, and promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses.

5.3 Policy CP4 of the Core Strategy stipulates that development in the open countryside will only be supported when an exceptional case can be made and when inter alia “it is necessary to meet the needs of farming…and will help to support a sustainable rural economy.” Policy DP 9 states that permission will only be granted for development outside development limits in exceptional circumstances having regard to the provisions of policy CP4.

5.4 The proposed development is for a domestic use in the open countryside and is therefore not considered to comply with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policies CP4 and DP9 of the Hambleton Local Development Framework. The Council considers that the proposed stable block could be accommodated within the existing substantial garden area of Skutterskelfe House.

Siting & Design

5.5 Policy DP32 of the Development Policies DPD requires all development to be of the highest quality. Development proposals must seek to achieve creative, innovative and sustainable designs that take into account local character and setting and promote local identity and distinctiveness.

5.6 The proposed design is to an extent common to other modern rural buildings seen throughout the District. However, this particular building has an L-shaped plan, rather than a simple rectangular footprint as might be expected for an isolated stable building or field shelter. It is considered that the proposed building form is better suited to form part of a wider complex of buildings. It is noted that the design is in response to the local micro-climate in order to provide some protection from the prevailing wind. However, Officers consider that this could be overcome through a change to the orientation of a simpler rectangular shaped building form. In addition, the height of the entire building has been determined by the height of the horsebox, and therefore it is considered that the scale of the building, predominantly for stabling, is inappropriate. It should be noted that the design ethos and limited palette of materials are otherwise considered to be appropriate to the context.

5.7 The siting of the proposed building is not considered to be acceptable. As noted above the Council consider that the proposed building could be sited within the existing residential curtilage. The Council has requested analysis of alternative locations but no substantial information has been provided.

5.8 The Council notes that the presence of an existing school yard within the application site, and to a degree, this is discretely sited against a backdrop of mature trees. The Council contend that no justification for a second school yard has been provided or why the existing facility could not be upgraded and therefore negate the need for a second facility.

5.9 On the basis of the above it is considered that the proposal does not accord with the requirements of Policies CP17 and DP32.

Landscaping

5.10 The application site is located within a parkland area associated with Skutterskelfe Hall, located to the east. The Hall was designed to sit in a wider parkland setting, which has subsequently been sub-divided and is in separate ownerships. The fundamental character of this area relates to its open parkland character comprising maintained grassland with isolated groups or individual mature trees. The proposal to provide a tarmac surfaced access drive, sub-divide the open space to provide two large paddocks and a substantial school yard together with a substantial stable building would fundamentally change the landscape character. It should be noted that the Council accept that the fencing of this area in itself does not require planning permission. However, it is considered that the proposed development including the school yard, which would also require a loose chipping surface and may have associated equestrian paraphernalia, such as jumps, is considered to fundamentally alter the landscape character of the area and would therefore not comply with Policy DP30 and DP33.

Heritage Assets

5.11 The proposed site is located within a parkland area associated with the Grade II* listed Rudby Hall, located to the east. The Hall was designed to sit in a wider parkland setting, which has subsequently been sub-divided and is now in separate ownership. However, the land between the Hall and its Grade II listed Lodge located to the west of the Hall clearly retains its parkland character with large expanses of open grassland interspersed with isolated groups of trees or individual mature specimens.

5.12 The proposed development would involve the construction of a tarmac surfaced road, a substantial building and the provision of fenced paddocks and a large school yard. This would result in the sub-division the open parkland and would provide a large building, sited in an isolated position, which the Council contend would fundamentally alter the appearance of this parkland character and would thus impact harmfully upon the significance of the Grade II* Rudby Hall and the Grade II listed Lodge. It is acknowledged that the setting to the Hall has changed over time through the introduction of new development (Skutterskelfe House) discretely positioned in the wooded area to the west of the Hall, it is not considered that development in the open areas within the parkland would be appropriate. Whilst it is appreciated that the immediate setting of the Lodge has altered over time through the introduction of its own domestic curtilage defined by fencing and hedgerows and planning consent has been granted for timber storage sheds and solar panels, the issue to hand relates to the impact of the proposed development on its wider setting. In this instance the wider setting comprises the land that still retains its parkland character. The construction of a substantial building, associated access road, fencing and school

yard would alter the appearance of the setting of the Lodge and Hall. The applicant contends that the distance involved together with the intervening topography and trees, that proposal would not impact upon the setting. The Council considers that the Lodge has principal elevations overlooking this space including a first floor balcony area that affords the opportunity to overlook the parkland in views east towards the site. In addition, public views south-east towards the application site across the forecourt area of the gatepiers and flanking walls are also possible. The parkland plainly forms the wider setting of both listed buildings, both visually and by historical association.

5.13 On the basis of the above it is considered that the proposed development would not preserve the wider setting of Rudby Hall or the Lodge, and therefore does not comply with s.66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In addition, when a proposal is considered to cause harm to the significance of the heritage asset this should be regarded as either substantial harm or less than substantial harm in accordance with paragraph 193 of the NPPF. In this instance the Council consider the proposal would cause less than substantial harm and therefore in accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF the harm should be weighed against the public benefit of the proposal. Unfortunately, the Council is not able to identify any public benefit from the proposal as the use relates to a domestic function and as such the presumption is for the refusal of planning permission.

5.14 In addition, whilst the brick wall along the northern boundary of the application is not considered to be a designated asset, it is clearly associated with the Grade II* listed Rudby Hall and the Lodge and is of historic interest. Whilst the wall is not formally held on list of non-designated heritage assets, this does not restrict the LPA’s ability to identify such assets during the planning application process. On the basis that the brick boundary wall is an historic feature associated with Rudby Hall it is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and therefore paragraph 197 of the NPPF is engaged.

5.15 The existing field gate opening is narrow in width and to some extent the timber gate is a common feature within the rural landscape. The proposal to widen the width of the opening to provide a formalised vehicle access point of such a substantial width is not in keeping with the rural character. Such formal openings are generally reserved for access points to houses or farm complexes, not to access fields.

5.16 It is acknowledged that the modern highway design specifications have guided the design of the proposed access to cater for the safe access for a large horsebox. However, the scale of the proposal is not dis-similar to that of the historic entrance adjacent to the Lodge and is therefore considered to be somewhat out of proportion in this context.

5.17 On this basis it is considered that the proposed alteration to this non-designated heritage asset would not satisfy paragraph 197 of the NPPF or Policy DP28.

Highways

5.18 Since the submission of the application the design of the access point has been altered to accommodate comments received from Highways. As a result, there are no highways concerns raised regarding the proposal. The owners of Rudby Hall requested a Transport Impact Assessment should be undertaken but it is not considered appropriate to request such an assessment on this occasion. The proposal therefore satisfies the requirements of Policies CP2 and DP3.

5.19 However, the Council contend that there is no need to provide a dedicated access point through the historic boundary wall. It is noted that the applicant’s existing

horsebox utilises the access point to Skutterskelfe House and whilst this vehicle may be difficult to manoeuvre through the access point, this is not sufficient justification to warrant the creation of a separate access point as proposed. The Council consider that alternative options are possible, such as the alteration of the existing vehicle access point or indeed the use of a smaller horsebox.

Amenity

5.20 Concern has been raised by the owners of Rudby Hall regarding the potential impact of the proposal on the amenity of guests visiting the property which is used for weddings and other business or private events. A valid concern has been raised regarding the burning of manure on the site and the potential for this to increase if the proposed development is approved. This concern was also noted within the consultation response from Environmental Health and that this matter could be controlled through the imposition of a suitably worded condition.

5.21 Subject to suitable conditions the proposed development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on residential amenity or the amenity of guests staying at Rudby Hall.

5.22 In view of the above considerations, the application is recommended for refusal.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION:

6.1 That subject to any outstanding consultations permission is REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is for a domestic equestrian use in the open countryside and is therefore not considered to comply with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policies CP4 and DP9 of the Hambleton Local Development Framework. The proposed development through the provision of a tarmac surfaced access drive, sub- division of the open space to provide two large paddocks and a substantial school yard, together with a substantial stable building would fundamentally change the landscape character of the area and would therefore not comply with Policies DP30 and DP33 of the Hambleton Local Development Framework. The siting and form of the proposed stable block is considered to be inappropriate within the open landscape and therefore the proposal does not accord with the requirements of Policies CP 17 and DP32.

2. The proposed development would not preserve the wider setting of the Grade II* listed Rudby Hall and the Grade II Lodge and Gatepiers. It therefore does not comply with s.66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and in accordance with paragraph 193 of the NPPF, the Council considers the proposal would cause less than substantial harm and no public benefit has been identified to outweigh the identified harm.

3. The proposed alterations to form an wider access point through the brick boundary wall along the northern boundary of the site are considered to be harmful to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset and as such fail to accord with paragraph 197 of the NPPF.