Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 December 2024 by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 January 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/W/24/3351074 Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ • 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 GraceMax Ltd against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref is ZE23/06913/FUL. • The development proposed was originally described as the ‘Erection of 5 no. light industrial units.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form. The planning appeal form indicates that the description was changed to the ‘change of use of agricultural land to industrial (Use Class B2), erection of 5 no. light industrial units and the formation of a service road.’ This is also the description which is set out on the Council’s decision notice, apart from where it excludes the term ‘light’. It is clear that the Council determined the planning application on this basis. 3.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The appellant’s Grounds of Appeal makes reference to Use Class B2 (General Industrial) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and in addition Use Class E (Commercial, Business and Service). The appellant’s Final Comments confirm that the appellant wishes for the proposal to be considered as solely Use Class E. It is a matter of dispute between the main parties whether this amendment should be considered at the appeal stage. 4. It is clear that a Use Class E proposal was not what was before the Council at the time of its decision and it does not reflect the description of development. As the appellant is now proposing a different Use Class through the appeal process, this represents a substantive change. It introduces a number of different uses to the proposal which are distinct from a general industrial use. It is also broader in its use than ‘light’ industrial units referred to in the application and appeal forms’ descriptions. While I note why the appellant has sought this change, trying to address concerns expressed during the planning application is not a justified reason for an amended proposal with an appeal, when the amendment is itself substantive. 5.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/24/3351074 that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Local Planning Authority and by interested parties at the application stage. As such, I have based my decision on the development that was before the Council at the time of its decision. 6. The Appellant submitted a signed Planning Obligation by way of a Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (UU) at the Final Comments stage. This concerns Class E use, as well as other covenants. I consider this later in my decision. It does not however change my view over what development I am to consider. 7. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has also been published during the course of the appeal. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment and I have considered the revised Framework in my decision, along with the response that I received. Main Issues 8.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The main issues are (i) whether the proposal would accord with the spatial strategy for the area, with regard to development in the open countryside; (ii) the effect on the living conditions of the future occupiers of nearby holiday units by way of noise, air quality and odour; (iii) the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and (iv) the effect on biodiversity interests. Reasons Spatial Strategy 9. The appeal site comprises a grassed area and woodland plantations that are set on either side of an access track. This track connects to Hungerhill Lane to the east via a gated access. The site lies at the perimeter of the former RAF Wombleton, parts of which are in use as an unlicenced aerodrome. A runway lies well beyond the site, beyond a continuation of the grassed areas and the access track. A potato store lies to the south of the site. There are also caravan parks close to the aerodrome. The small village of Wombleton is to the north of the site, separated by fields and paddocks. 10. Policy SP1 of the Ryedale Local Plan Strategy (2013) (Local Plan) sets out development requirements on the basis of a hierarchy of settlements.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision As the site is located outside of development limits, it is deemed to be in the open countryside. Development will be restricted to that which is necessary to support a sustainable, vibrant and healthy rural economy and communities, amongst other limited circumstances where development may occur. 11. In the context of the restrictions applied to development in the open countryside under Policy SP1, it is not evident why the proposal is necessary. The appellant has acknowledged that it is speculative and furthermore the approach of the policy is to direct development to settlements that appear in the hierarchy. Hence, that the proposal could potentially serve and support established activities and residents does not amount to passing a test of necessity. 12. Nor is there substantive evidence that it would provide for a local need, or for starter businesses that could subsequently move onto bigger premises on industrial estates. Otherwise, it would undermine the objectives of the spatial strategy in restricting development in the open countryside. If local villages https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/24/3351074 have no or limited employment space, this is reflective of the spatial strategy if they are also in the open countryside. As the proposal is speculative, it cannot reasonably be known if the site meets the specific locational requirement of the sector or meet business needs. 13. Where Policy SP6 of the Local Plan refers to employment and industrial land and premises in the wider open countryside, the proposal would not constitute either an expansion or is small scale conversion for the purposes of the policy. Where that policy goes onto concern significant industrial processes, this is not of particular relevance as the details of the proposal do not suggest it would concern the working or harnessing of natural materials or land assets, as is referred to in the policy. 14. Policy SP6 also references the provisions of Policy SP9 of the Local Plan. The proposal would not be a rural economic activity in line with Policy SP9, as it does not constitute a type of development that is supported under that policy. The proposal is not necessary to support land-based activity and a working countryside, based on the submitted evidence.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision As regards appropriate rural diversification, this is also undermined by the speculative nature of the proposal. In addition, if small businesses are unlikely to commit if there are uncertainties or until it becomes viable, this also casts uncertainty over how the proposal itself can accord with the policy. As a result, how there can be a guaranteed level of demand is also unclear, even with the wider site and development owned by the appellant. 15. The limited evidence on need also does not favour permitting the proposal in a location which is not easily accessible by non-car modes of transport. The appellant has pointed to the reinstatement of a former footpath towards Wombleton village. Based on the evidence submitted, much of it appears to be on land outside of the appellant’s ownership. There are no details of how it would connect to the site and it is also questionable how it would operate for users outside of day time hours and during inclement weather. Its use would thus not support healthy communities. It carries limited weight in my decision. 16. Both main parties offer a different view over whether the site constitutes previously developed land.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision In the context of the locational shortcomings of the proposal under the spatial strategy and as it lies outside of settlements, this does not alter that it would not be in compliance. 17. The location of the potato store in relation to the site also has a limited bearing because in storing agricultural produce it supports a working countryside, including for farming. If that building was reused, it would be considered as a conversion, which does not apply in this case. The same applies concerning the extension to that building and how it is accessed, which is entirely separate from the site. The circumstances are sufficiently different from the proposal so as not to alter my conclusion. 18. Where the Framework supports a prosperous rural economy, this is not unqualified. Growth and expansion under the Framework are to be sustainable, but the proposal does not accord with the strategy that is set out in the Local Plan and which itself sets out sustainability related objectives. The Framework does not therefore offer support in this regard. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/24/3351074 19. I conclude that the proposal would not accord with the spatial strategy for the area, with regard to development in the open countryside. It would not comply with Policy SP1 because the location of the proposal would not reflect the settlement hierarchy approach. It would also not comply with how Policy SP6 in this regard and SP9 seek for employment land to be located, including where they concern the countryside and the rural economy. Its conflict with the related sustainability objectives of the Local Plan also places it in conflict with Policy SP19. It is a matter which weighs significantly against the proposal. Living Conditions 20. Land to the south of the potato store has received planning permission1 for a holiday lodge development. The nature of Use Class B2 means there is the potential for effects on the living conditions of the future occupiers of those lodges through industrial noise, as well as air quality and odour. I observed on site there is already noise from the potato store, and the appellant has referred to the ventilation of this building as a noise source. 21.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Despite the potential for noise disturbance from the operation of the proposal to impact on the living conditions, a noise impact assessment (NIA) document was not submitted with or during the planning application. Although the appellant has referred to a lack of effective engagement from the Council, this does not negate the need to consider the effects from a proposed industrial noise source. 22. The appellant has provided some further information on noise during the appeal, including distance based attenuation, technical data sheets from the lodges and noise limit targets. While I note the specific input from a suitably qualified acoustic person on the lodges, this collectively does not amount to a robust NIA. There is limited information on methodology, background noise levels and likely noise emitting from the proposal in order to properly inform an assessment on living conditions. Nor is it for the Council to provide this information in relation to technical standards. That responsibility lies with the appellant as it is proposing the development. 23. The noise mitigation that has been put forward is similarly open to question, in the absence of a robust NIA to base it on.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The potato store may provide some measure of acoustic screening due to its position between the proposal and the lodges, but it is not known whether this would be sufficient. It has also been suggested that an appropriate orientation of the lodges would lessen noise impacts, but no satisfactory control method to ensure this would occur has been put forward. Nor would it be likely to be reasonable to fetter what is a consented development through restriction, or rescindment. Hours of operation can only be properly considered if there is some understanding of the noise impacts, which for the reasons that I have set out is largely absent. 24. There is also no certainty that simply specifying noise standards and testing would result in not unacceptable levels of noise, because of the site circumstances and lack of noise detail before me. Even if I was minded to allow the appeal, a related planning condition would therefore have the potential to nullify a planning permission. The use of lease covenants would appear to be beyond planning controls. 1 Appeal ref: APP/Y2736/W/21/3269844 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/24/3351074 25. Much of the dispute concerns noise, but similarly there is a lack of information on potential air quality and odour impacts. Such living condition matters can arise for Use Class B2 development and there is no substantive evidence on the likely effects and effective controls. 26. I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the future occupiers of nearby holiday units by way of noise, air quality and odour. Hence, it would not comply with Policy SP20 of the Local Plan where it concerns development not having a material adverse impact on amenity by virtue of its design, use, location and proximity to neighbouring land uses. Impacts on amenity are said to include noise, dust and odour, amongst others. 27. The proposal would also not comply with paragraphs 187 (e) and 198 (a) of the Framework where they concern unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air or noise pollution, and that development should mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development, and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision I am less persuaded it would be in conflict with paragraph 198 (b) as it is not identified and protected as a tranquil area from noise, as far as I am aware. This does not though address my concerns over the lack of sufficient noise information. It is a matter which weight significantly against the proposal. Character and Appearance 28. The landscape character in the vicinity of the site is one of fields and paddocks, with small pockets of trees and woodland that are set in the low lying Vale Of Pickering area. The aerodrome is also a feature of the landscape, and there is other development in the landscape such as isolated buildings, caravan parks and modest sized settlements. In the immediate vicinity of the site, the potato store is a clear feature. It is a large building which is constructed of green cladding and with an associated outside area which is used for storage, vehicle parking and plant. It is not therefore a landscape where development is absent. 29. With the proximity of the large potato store building to the site in particular, the scale and form of the proposal would not appear out of keeping and fail to reinforce local distinctiveness.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision The appellant has suggested that larch cladding could be used to soften the effect of the harsher materials that were indicated during the planning application, as would the use of sedum on the roof. Such external materials could be ably addressed through condition. On this basis, the proposal would not have an undue urban appearance. 30. In terms of visual amenity, the site is contained and is well screened by the woodland areas in most directions. The appellant is also agreeable to providing further native plant screening. Views from the north on Hungerhill Lane are therefore unlikely to be unacceptable even in times of leaf fall, also when the use of larch cladding and sedum is considered to mitigate visual impacts. The proposed building would also largely screen associated commercial vehicles from this direction and the woodland would achieve the same in other directions from public vantage points. Again, if external lighting was proposed, it could be dealt with through condition. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/24/3351074 31. The proposal is thus not considered inappropriate in character and appearance terms in the context of this particular location. Nor would it have an undue urbanising effect on the immediate rural setting and harm the existing ambience. Thus, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would comply in this regard with Policies SP6, SP13, SP16 and SP20 of the Local Plan where they concern an appropriate scale to the surroundings having regard to the visual impact, the protection and enhancement of landscape character, local distinctiveness and respecting character and context. Biodiversity 32. The site is not afforded any specific protection on biodiversity grounds. While the site has not been the subject of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal or a walkover survey, the areas of trees would notably not be the subject of built development. The area of grassland lost would be relatively modest. As there are not particular constraints, it is unlikely there would be a reasonable likelihood of protected species been present and affected by the development. The information submitted on this issue is thus sufficient. 33.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision While the application was submitted prior to Biodiversity Net Gain becoming mandatory, Policy SP14 of the Local Plan still sets out that development should provide net gains for biodiversity. The sedum roof and potential improvements to water quality related to habitat have been indicated, and could be addressed through condition. This would both reasonably offset biodiversity loss and provide for net gain. 34. I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on biodiversity interests. As such, it would comply with Policy SP14 which concerns conserving, restoring and enhancing biodiversity, including requiring a net gain and resisting proposals that would lead to significant loss or harm. It would also accord with paragraph 109 (f) of the Framework in as far as the proposal would include appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains. Other Matters 35. The UU seeks to covenant with the Council matters relating to noise, tree/vegetation planting and associated management, Use Class E and controls over aviation use. The UU however places obligations on the Council in that the covenants are enforceable by it.

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Yet, the Council are not bound to it and there is no indication that it would be agreeable to such a role. 36. It is also unclear how the covenants would effectively work where putative planning conditions that have been put forward would also seek to control the same activities. Planning permission would also not be granted by the Council, unlike as is presented in the UU, as that would lie with the Planning Inspector on behalf of the Secretary of State, amongst these drafting uncertainties. The UU would not therefore meet the tests set out in paragraph 58 of the Framework for planning obligations. It is defective for the reasons that I have set out. Consequently, it does not carry weight in my decision. 37. Interested parties have raised a number of other concerns. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, such matters do not alter my overall conclusion and have therefore not had a significant bearing on my decision. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/24/3351074 Planning Balance and Conclusion 38. While the proposal would not accord with the Local Plan’s spatial strategy and notwithstanding its speculative nature, some economic benefits would likely arise in the construction and operational phases if it was built, both from expenditure and employment. In broad terms, it attracts support in this respect from the Kings Speech that has been drawn to my attention, although I do find conflict with the Framework for the reasons that I have set out. I have also proceeded on the basis that biodiversity net gain would result, and so regard this as a benefit. 39. These benefits attract moderate weight and so in the planning balance they do not outweigh the significant harm that would arise by way of both the conflict with the spatial strategy and the effect on living conditions. 40. I have considered all matters that have been raised, but the benefits that would arise would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations to outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed

Field at Hungerhill Lane, Wombleton, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire, YO62 7SQ — North Yorkshire Council — Darren Hendley INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7