Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 17 December 2024 by Mr R Walker BA HONS DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 December 2024 Appeal A Ref: APP/U2750/W/24/3341988 Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, Skipton BD23 1NL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by San Pedro Properties Ltd against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is ZA24/25611/FUL. • The development proposed is second floor extension. Appeal B Ref: APP/U2750/W/24/3341987 Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, Skipton BD23 1NL • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by San Pedro Properties Ltd against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is ZA24/25612/LBC. • The works proposed are second floor extension. Decision 1. Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed. 2. Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. These decisions address both planning and listed building consent appeals for the same site and the same scheme.

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions To reduce repetition, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have dealt with both appeals together within a single decision letter. 4. As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). Main Issues 5. The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve a Grade II listed building, known as High Corn Mill, and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Skipton Conservation Area. Reasons Special interest and significance https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/U2750/W/24/3341988, APP/U2750/Y/24/3341987 6. The High Corn Mill (the Corn Mill) comprises of a complex of much altered buildings. This includes a northern L-shaped building and a southern building, which date from the eighteenth century. However, a corn mill existed on the site earlier and was historically associated with the nearby castle. The mill machinery is still functioning and can be seen internally within a miniature museum and externally from the canal tow path. 7. The building is predominantly built from stone and has been extensively altered and extended over different phases and is now used by various commercial enterprises. Although, the industrial mill use has been lost, elements of its historical industrial heritage remain evident, including surviving elements on the two earlier buildings, such as the lucam above the canal tow path on the northern L-shaped building. 8. From the evidence available to me, the special interest/significance of the listed building, insofar as it relates to these appeals, is largely derived from its age, historical associations with the town including the castle, the functioning mill machinery and surviving industrial architectural features and materials.

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions 9. The Skipton Conservation Area (CA) covers a large part of Skipton. The listed building is prominent within the CA from the canal tow path, Mill Bridge, Chapel Hill, the junction at Water Street and private views from across the canal to the east. 10. This part of the CA includes the historic core of the town and the canal corridor, with its significance in part derived from the town’s industrial heritage and associated development. Its character and appearance is largely derived from the surviving elements of its historic layout, open spaces, and street pattern, combined with the architectural richness of its historic buildings including numerous listed buildings. These also comprise of landmark structures such as Skipton Castle and the Holy Trinity Church. Buildings are built predominantly from stonework. The heritage interest and value of the historic buildings within this part of the CA, including the appeal premises, positively contribute to its character and appearance as a whole, and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset. Appeal proposal and effects 11. The proposed extension would sit on top of an existing flat roof, which forms part of an extension to the Corn Mill.

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions Sitting on top, adjacent to the canal tow path, it would be a highly visible feature that would partially obscure views of the early L-shaped building to the north and the gable of the early three storey building that the extension would be attached to. 12. The erosion of views of parts of the earlier elements of the listed building would be exacerbated by the horizontal cedar cladding proposed for the external walls. The amount of cladding, in such a highly prominent position, would draw the eye and appear as a discordant addition in stark contrast with the predominant material finish of the listed building. 13. It is put to me that the proposal would be an enhancement from the existing situation. I accept that the appearance of the existing flat roofed two storey extension is not of high architectural merit and the flat roof design is an incongruous element. However, the parapet of the two storey extension would still be legible due to the positioning, form and material finish of the proposed https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/U2750/W/24/3341988, APP/U2750/Y/24/3341987 extension. In this regard, elements of the incongruous feature would remain evident even with the proposal. Moreover, the existing flat roof arrangement means that views over the roof are achieved, and it does not draw the eye to the extent that the proposal, with its overtly contrasting material finish would. For these reasons, overall, the proposal would be harmful not beneficial. 14. Even with the presence of trees, the proposal would be visible from the canal tow path, Mill Bridge and the junction with Water Street and in private views to the east on the other side of the canal. Accordingly, it would be highly visible in a small part of the CA. Given my findings above in relation to how the proposal would be seen on the listed building, I also consider that the proposal would, in turn, harm the character and appearance of the CA. 15. The appellant suggests that a condition could be included to enable different finishing materials were I minded to approve the proposal.

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions However, a large part of my concerns relates to the materials, and these materials have been specifically proposed following structural calculations in response to the lack of foundations on this part of the building. As such, and with no firm details of an alternative solution before me and, given the listed status of the building and my statutory duty, it would not be appropriate to require such details by way of a condition. 16. Drawing the above together, the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the Grade II listed building, known as High Corn Mill, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Skipton CA. As a result, the expectations of the Act have not been met and the proposal would harm the significance of these designated heritage assets. Public benefits and heritage balance 17. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (2024) advises that great weight be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be).

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that this should have clear and convincing justification. 18. With reference to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the Framework, in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. In this instance, several aspects of the building’s special interest would be preserved, such as the working water wheel and there would be no loss of historic fabric. As such, the harm would be less than substantial, but nevertheless of great weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This includes securing the asset’s optimum viable use. 19. The proposal would provide additional commercial space for use as a fitness studio. In this regard, there would be social and economic benefits from the scheme. There would be environmental benefits from improved insulation, though the extent of this is unquantified.

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions The proposal would also assist in the maintenance of the listed building by addressing water penetration from the flat roof structure. However, there is no clear and convincing justification before me that other options would also not address water penetration. Overall, the nature and scale of associated public benefits that would flow from https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions The proposal would also assist in the maintenance of the listed building by addressing water penetration from the flat roof structure. However, there is no clear and convincing justification before me that other options would also not address water penetration. Overall, the nature and scale of associated public benefits that would flow from https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions Appeal Decisions APP/U2750/W/24/3341988, APP/U2750/Y/24/3341987 the scheme to the public at large would be small given the amount of additional floor space created. 20. There is also no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the continued viable use of the appeal property is dependent on the proposal or that the building’s ongoing use would cease in its absence. As such, the proposed development/works would not comply with paragraph 215 of the Framework. 21. To conclude, the proposal would fail to preserve the Grade II listed building, known as High Corn Mill, and the character and appearance of the Skipton CA. This would be contrary to the requirements of sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act. It would also be contrary to the requirements of Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Craven Local Plan, when taken together and in so far as they relate to this matter. 22. These say, amongst other things, that Craven’s historic environment will be conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced and its potential to contribute towards the economic regeneration, tourism and education of the area will be fully exploited.

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decisions This will be achieved through, amongst other things, ensuring that proposals affecting a designated heritage asset conserve those elements which contribute to its significance. Other Matters 23. The appellant has referred to a previous expired consent for a not dis-similar extension at the site. However, whilst the extension took a similar form in its shape and location, the material finish in the consented scheme distinguishes it from the scheme before me. In this regard, I have considered the proposal on its own merits. 24. The appellant has made changes to the scheme from an earlier refused proposal with a view to finding a solution. However, this does not change the merits or effects of the proposal before me. Conclusion 25. Appeal A: The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with that plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, Appeal A is dismissed. 26. Appeal B: For the reasons given, Appeal B is dismissed.

Corn Mill, Chapel Hill, SKIPTON, BD23 1NL — North Yorkshire Council — Mr R Walker INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4