North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Skipton and Ripon Area Planning Committee
2nd June 2025
HGTZC24/03097/FUL – Demolition of former petrol station and erection of 6 no. self-contained residential apartments and associated parking at Site of Skellbank Garage, Skellbank, Ripon, North Yorkshire, on behalf of Tate Fuel Oils Limited
Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1. To determine a planning application for the demolition of the former petrol station and the erection of 6 no. self-contained residential apartments and associated parking on land at the Site of Skellbank Garage, Skellbank. 1.2. This application is referred to the Area Planning Committee by officers because the application raises significant planning issues. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED
This application proposes six apartments in a four-storey building on a currently derelict site in the Ripon Conservation Area.
- Four parking spaces are to be provided in an open undercroft, a form of development that would not preserve or enhance the built environment of the Conservation Area.
- The eaves height of the proposed building exceeds that of the neighbouring listed building and the proposed development would be harmful to the setting of the listed building.
- Full impact of the proposed development is hampered by the simplified elevation and roof details, which ignore the necessary utility installations.
- Whilst in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply housing development is normally to be permitted the conflict with key policies of the NPPF is such that the adverse impact of a development that would provide a short term gain but which would not add to the overall quality of the area outweighs the normal benefit of providing housing accommodation, and consequently does not offset the harm caused to the designated heritage assets of the Ripon Conservation Area and the adjacent listed building.
- No appropriate gypsum report and ground stability declaration form has been provided.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:-
3.2. The application has been revised since its original submission, which featured seven apartments in a flat roofed structure.
3.3. There are two relevant planning applications for this application which are detailed below.
6.31.227.I.FUL (HGT02/04953/FUL) Demolition of filling station and erection of block of eight no flats. Granted 27.08.2003.
6.31.227.K.FUL (HGT16.03629/FUL) Development of former petrol filling station forming 8no. self-contained apartments with associated off-street parking, secure cycle storage, and refuse facilities. Application Closed 15.05.2019.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The site lies on the north side of Skellbank within the Ripon Conservation Area, approximately 300m south-west of Ripon city centre. Ripon Hospital is to the north, the main block of which is a listed building, Spa Gardens lie to the north-west.
4.2. To the east, four flats have been formed from a former public house / restaurant and a dwelling. There is a west facing bedroom window to one of the flats.
4.3. The adjacent dwellings to the west, 5 and 6 Skellbank, are listed as being of Grade II Architectural and / or Historic Merit due to their special architectural and historic interest. 7 to 11 Skellbank beyond are considered non-designated heritage assets, as explained in the heritage assessment below.
4.4. The site is fenced off and has been unused since 2008, acquiring an overgrown derelict appearance. The petrol pumps and overhead canopy have been long removed. A flat roofed building which formerly accommodated a shop with a vehicle repairs workshop area remains set back with a hard surfaced forecourt area.
4.5. Brick walled boundaries exist to either side and there is a steep embankment to the rear.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing building and erect a four-storey building accommodating six apartments; three two-bed and three one-bed, with one of each on each of the upper three floors.
5.2. A natural slate roof, bricks and metal rainwater goods are specified, and a dummy chimney is sited centrally. Two integrated bat bricks are shown on the east elevation and two integrated swift bricks to the rear elevation.
5.3. The rear elevation features twin glazed screens to the stair and communal lobby. Windows otherwise are two or four panes. A rooflight is indicated to the west elevation and one to the rear.
5.4. The ground floor would provide four undercroft parking areas along with a bin store and individual cycle stores. There would be a pedestrian entrance to the west end of the frontage.
5.5. A staircase and lift will serve the upper floors. The west facing kitchen windows would be obscure glazed.
5.4 An external staircase to the east side of the proposed building will form an alternative access/egress route serving a door in the rear first floor level and making use of the rising land level to the rear to form a first-floor amenity area that will result in the removal of a group of trees.
5.5 To the front will be a paved forecourt with two vehicular parking forward of it. One of those being a short-term visitor space and the others together with the undercroft parking will have EV charging facilities.
5.6 Between the external parking spaces and Skellbank would be a raised planting area with a ‘feature tree’. Further raised planted areas would exist to the sides.
5.7 A raised kerb entrance will be formed out to the carriageway alignment of Skellbank rather than the existing kerb line which forms an increasing wide splay to the northeast from the carriageway.
6.0 Planning Policy and Guidance
6.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning authorities must determine each application under the Planning Acts in accordance with Development Plan so far as material to the application unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
6.2. Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, require that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting special regard is to be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and special attention is paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.
Adopted Development Plan
6.3. The relevant Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035, 2020
- Ripon Neighbourhood Plan to 2030, 2019
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.4. The North Yorkshire Local Plan is the emerging development plan for this site though no weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.5. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- National Design Guide
- Heritage Management Supplementary Planning Document
- Ripon Conservation Area Character Appraisal
- Landscape Design Guide
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2. Parish Council: Ripon City Council strongly supports the application.
7.3. Division Member(s): Considered the application should be considered by the committee.
7.4. Arborist (NYC): Has no objection. Advises a hawthorn be planted as an appropriate species.
7.5. Building Control (NYC): Required is a suitable, satisfactory, ground investigation report and the provision of a ground stability declaration form and mitigating measures, provided by a Registered Ground Engineering Advisor, as defined by the UK Register of Ground Engineering Professionals (RoGEP), or with an equivalent qualification, and with specific, demonstrable experience and expertise in dealing with issues relating to subsidence arising from gypsum dissolution within the Ripon area.
7.6. Ecologist (NYC): Requires two bat bricks and two swift bricks to be incorporated. Requires tree felling outside to take place outside the bird nesting season. That tree loss does result in an area habitat loss and that must be compensated to achieve the 10% biodiversity net gain. If that is not possible on-site off-site habitat area units will need to be purchased.
7.7. Environment and Design – Heritage (NYC):Object. The replacement of the garage structure is supported, the existing structure sits at single storey, has not been well maintained and does not reflect the character or appearance of the conservation area.
The site is in a sensitive location due to the close proximity to a Grade II Listed building and being located within the Ripon Conservation Area.
The Heritage Management SPD (section 7) states that new development within sensitive areas must respond to local character. This includes protecting and enhancing the setting of heritage assets and respecting scale and size of existing buildings. New buildings should be designed to contribute to the character of the area, be sympathetic to its surroundings and reinforce local distinctiveness. They should use materials that reflect and reinforce local character.
The proposed development is for the construction of a replacement building. This is designed to be as tall as the listed buildings to the west. Its architectural detailing appears to reflect elements of the Listed Building, however, it lacks detail and details are important to ensure that the development is high quality. Due to the scale, there are concerns that this new structure would dominate views along Skellbank and would have an adverse impact upon the setting of the neighbouring listed building.
The traditional enclosed basement at the adjacent Georgian Listed Building is not reflected.
A lower height building with a simpler design (such as a standard pitched roof - no hip or parapet) but with traditional detailing, would sit more comfortably in this position.
Location does not prevent the use of air source heat pumps or even considering use of solar tiles (rather than solar panels which would be more noticeable).
7.8. Environmental Protection (NYC): Notes the submitted GeoEnvironmental Report noted made ground was found with elevated levels of contaminants and lead and remedial options are considered for the southern part of the site. More than half the site, to the north was not able to be assessed. Further site investigation is therefore needed, and appropriate conditions should be attached to any approval. Requires noise levels be verified, appropriate refuse storage be provided, and hours of construction work be limited. Conditions are put forward.
7.9. Highways (NYC): Do not object. Request a Section 106 agreement to fund the update of parking restrictions and require any approval to be conditioned in respect of detailed layout plans and construction details of road and footway, provision of 2.4m x 43m visibility splays, junction protection and pedestrian improvements, construction management matters and provision of access, turning and parking.
7.10. Historic England: Do not offer any advice.
7.11. Ripon Civic Society:Welcomed the revision to a simple pitched roof, rather than flat roof, which is more sympathetic to the neighbouring buildings and sought the addition of a central chimney to reflect the Listed Buildings to the west. Request conditions requiring use of a traditional, locally distinctive brick with a natural slate roof and appropriate timber windows.
7.12. Yorkshire Water: Request conditions in respect of separate drainage systems and details be provided of the surface water arrangements.
Local Representations
7.13. Representations received from two authors
7.14. Objections:
- Insufficient parking. Public parking lost. Parking spaces used by existing residents. Existing flat conversion does not have sufficient parking.
- Pavement parking will increase posing safety issues to pedestrians, forcing pedestrians into the road, and restricting access for emergency services.
- Parking results in limited visibility at junctions.
- Congested locality, stationary traffic, parking associated with Hugh Ripley Hall heightening levels of air pollution.
- Exacerbate poor level of air quality – Low Skellgate an Air Quality Management Area negatively impacting on health.
- What air quality surveys have been undertaken?.
- Increased noise, traffic, and pollution.
- Decline in quality of life and peaceful enjoyment of homes.
- Long terms affects to be considered and mitigation put in place before adding existing problems.
One author requests:
- The developer to fund residents only parking in the opposite cul-de-sac.
- 8 parking spaces or just 4 flats.
- Clear access for emergency services.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Housing Land Supply
- Impact on heritage assets
- Amenity
- Trees
- Ecology
- Highways
- Drainage and Water Supply
- Land Contamination
- Land Instability
- Air Quality
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1. Further to the development plan the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, promoting sustainable development. Policy A.1 of the Ripon Neighbourhood Plan states that a presumption in favour of sustainable development will be exercises across Ripon.
10.2. At paragraph 11 the NPPF requires development proposals that accord with an up-to date development plan to be approved without delay. Paragraph 12 advises that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted.
10.3. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF also advises that local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.
10.4. The NPPF sets out the importance of always seeking to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings, and advises (Paragraph 96) that the planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction and are safe and accessible.
Housing Land Supply
10.5. The NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years' worth of housing against their housing requirement with an appropriate buffer.
10.6. Allocations of land are made in the Local Plan, along with the setting of development limits under Local Plan Policy GS3, to meet the housing needs of the district to 2035.
10.7. Whilst not a specific allocation, the site does lie within the development limit for Ripon, a main settlement listed under Local Plan Policy GS2 where growth for new homes will be focussed.
10.8. Following changes introduced by the December 2024 NPPF the revised methodology applicable to calculating housing land supply now the Local Plan is over 5 years old results in a housing land supply of 2.8 years in the Local Plan area.
10.9. Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (i.e. the “presumption in favour of sustainable development”) is engaged for applications involving the provision of housing.
10.10. Where policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless one of two situations exist. Those are explored in the assessment below.
10.11. Impact on heritage assets
10.12. The first situation set out at paragraph 11(d)(i) of the NPPF where housing development should not be permitted is where the application of its policies that protects areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 to that paragraph provides reference to those policies and includes designated heritage assets.
10.13. Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting special regard is to be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and special attention is paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.
10.14. Local Plan Policy HP2, Heritage Assets, notes that proposals for development that would affect heritage assets (designated and non-designated) will be determined in accordance with national planning policy.
10.15. That policy requires that it should be ensured that proposals affecting a heritage asset, or its setting, protect and, or enhance those elements that have been identified as making a positive contribution to the character and special architectural or historic interest.
10.16. Guidance on proposals affecting heritage assets is out in Chapter 16 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment of the NPPF.
10.17. Paragraph 207 sets out the significance must be identified and assessed and at paragraph 212 that the impact of the development must be assessed.
10.18. Paragraphs 213 to 215 of the NPPF set out the considerations depending on the degree of harm caused to a designated heritage assets with paragraph 215 requiring less than substantial harm to be outweighed by public benefits.
10.19. The Heritage Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides appropriate advice including designing new development which is addressed in its chapter 7.
10.20. A number of character areas are identified in the Ripon Conservation Area Character Appraisal; the property lying in the area E: The Spa.
10.21. Beyond the adjacent listed building the terrace at 7-11 Skellbank is identified as being a building of local interest, due to the unusual window styles evident. These are non-designated heritage assets.
10.22. A checklist to manage change is set out in Appendix A of the Appraisal, providing a schedule of matters to which regard should be paid.
10.23. The second situation set out at paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF where housing development should not be permitted is where adverse impacts arise which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. Particular regard is given to eight specific key policies, of which three can be discounted as they relate to different forms of development to that which is proposed.
10.24. Relevant here are the key policies set out in paragraphs 129, 135 and 139 of the NPPF.
10.25. Paragraph 129 requires that planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, considering requirements that include the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive, and healthy places.
10.26. That is furthered by the key policy at paragraph 135, which notes planning decisions should ensure that developments:
a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;
b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout, and appropriate and effective landscaping;
c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change;
d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;
e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks.
10.27. The final of these three key policies of the NPPF, at paragraph 139, states that development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes. Conversely, significant weight should be given to:
a) development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes; and/or
b) outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.
10.28. The National Design Guide characterises as being of the most importance, and offers detailed guidance on, matters of context, identity, built form, movement, nature, public spaces, uses, home and buildings, resources, and lifespan.
10.29. Local Plan Policy HP3 ‘Local Distinctiveness’ requires high quality building design that protects enhances or reinforces those characteristics, qualities and features that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the urban environment. Factors include respecting spatial qualities, scale, appearance, built form and fenestration.
10.30. Conserving and enhance the high quality and character of the environment by ensuring that all forms of new development are designed to a high standard and maintain and enhance the local vernacular and 'sense of place' of individual settlements is required as part of Local Plan Policy NE5 ‘Green and Blue Infrastructure’.
10.31. Policy C.1 of the Neighbourhood Plan requires amongst other matters a proportionate scale, use of sustainable materials and high-quality design.
10.32. Accompanying the application is a Heritage Statement that describes the locality, notes the requirements of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Act, and assesses the relevant policies of the NPPF. The provided mapping shows the site to be undeveloped on all maps including the 1909 edition. What is taken to be the original garage building is shown on the 1929 edition and remains as such through to 1968 edition. From the 1980 edition the garage building is shown on an enlarged footprint as existing today.
10.33. The Statement judges the site as existing to make a negative contribution to the significance of the heritage assets. In contrast, the proposed development is stated as not causing harm and according with the Act, NPPF and development plan policies, although it fails to make any assessment of the latter and there is little consideration of the visual impact of such a tall development upon the setting of the neighbouring listed building or the character or appearance of the Ripon Conservation Area.
10.34. Also accompanying the application is a Design and Access Statement, which advises the ground floor entrance will be set lower than the existing level of the garage structure.
10.35. The four undercroft parking spaces are stated as being “in an open fronted volume that mirrors the original half basement of the adjacent Georgian property. That basement, however, is not open fronted, it is a traditional enclosed basement area characteristic of the local area, and this has not been reflected on the proposed development. It is the open fronted, vehicle dominated, nature of the frontage that the consideration of this application largely hinges on.
10.36. Further, the proposal is taller at the eaves, which are obscured by a box gutter, than the neighbouring listed building.
10.37. The relationship with that listed building was not fully assessed in the 2003 granted application and, when raised in the subsequent application, resulted in no responses being received and that application being finally disposed of.
10.38. The southerly frontage is stated as allowing for natural daylighting to be maximised whilst taking the overheating risk into account using background and purge ventilation, in the report submitted to address Local Policy CC4 ‘Sustainable Design’. Solar shading of the openings is stated as being provided through the design of windows and the position of each window within the depth of the external wall. Those are, however, only set back around 12cm when 75cm or 100cm is commonly required on new builds in a Conservation Area.
10.39. There is, however, a forward element shown on the side elevations labelled as a solar shade which is unclear on the other drawings. A screen across the frontage alone would also be visually harmful to the locality in the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent listed building. Clarity on this matter is awaited at the time of writing.
10.40. A largely open fronted lower level in comparison is not a feature found on existing buildings, including those of local character and appearance, within the Conservation Area. This conflict is heightened by the site being prominent on the main east-west route through the city.
10.41. Whilst the policies are permissive of a design being different where it is of exceptional quality that is not considered to be the case here.
10.42. Whilst development of the site would provide some mitigation of the existing situation on site, the consideration equally has to be to the visual impact of the proposed development in the long-term. As per paragraph 135 of the NPPF it is not just the short term that has to be considered but that a development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area.
10.43. Although there are some design details which reflect those found on the neighbouring listed building, such as large window openings on the upper floor and a hipped roof, the design of the ground floor (or basement level) fails to reflect the traditional front elevation and solid to void ratios found on historic properties in the immediate area.
10.44. The distinctive Georgian and Victorian buildings found in the surrounding area clearly have well balanced facades with doors and windows punched into the brick work. The proposed design fails to recognise this key characteristic of the Conservation Area and its neighbouring listed building.
10.45. By introducing alien features into the design of a replacement building, the development will have an adverse impact upon both the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would fail to preserve the special architectural interest of the listed building. The development would be contrary to the listed buildings and Conservation Areas Act, development plan, and the Heritage Management supplementary planning document.
10.46. Further, the details of sustainable design that are provided refer to the Building Regulations being met and matters beyond those concerning enhanced thermal performance levels, use a heat recovery system and the energy efficiency is only referred to as being considered at a later stage.
10.47. The justification to Policy CC4, however is that, whilst the building regulations regime addresses the standard of energy efficiency in buildings, this policy seeks to ensure that new development takes a holistic approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There is no certainty in the content of the submitted report that would be achieved.
10.48. Reference is made to the use of mechanical ventilation but, along with soil pipes, there is no indication of such on the external elevations. The dummy chimney would seem to be an appropriate location but that has been discounted by the applicants agent who merely askes that the matter be conditioned.
10.49. The sustainable design report does acknowledge the site is in a sensitive setting in the conservation area and proximity to listed buildings which is stated as ruling out the use of renewables and that electric power would be used. Whilst normal solar panels would indeed be appropriate no consideration seems to have been given to the use of solar tiles which replicate normal roofing materials or air source heat pumps.
10.50. The lack of details on external utilities does, however, negate the ability to fully assess the impact on those heritage assets of the development as it would actually appear.
10.51. Due to the height of the new building and design details which do not reflect the traditional building form in the immediate area, the proposed development would have a negative impact upon both the setting of the listed building (5-6 Skellbank) and upon the character and appearance of the Ripon Conservation Area. In relation to the NPPF, the works would result in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets.
10.52. Paragraph 214 of the NPPF advises that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
10.53. The removal of the existing single storey structure would result in an enhancement to the Conservation Area, however, it is the design of the replacement building which would result in harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. To the Conservation Area, the harm would be permitting a new structure that does not reflect the local distinctiveness of the area and to the listed building, the development would detrimentally impact upon the setting which results in harm to its significance. The design details and massing of the building could be substantially improved through further design considerations, however, the scheme under consideration conflicts with the requirements of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, Local Plan Polices CC4, HP2, HP3 and NE5, Neighbourhood Plan Policy C.1, and the relevant key NPPF policies.
Amenity
10.54. The key NPPF policy at paragraph 135 also requires the creation of places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.
10.55. Local Plan Policy HP4 sets out the need to ensure high standards of amenity are provided and maintained and requires new residential development to incorporate well-designed and located private and/or communal outdoor amenity space which is of an adequate size for the likely occupancy of the proposed dwellings.
10.56. A noise impact assessment has been submitted with the application, which notes the noise environment is characterised by road traffic and scheme of sound insulation would protect the apartments from the ambient noise climate. That would comprise use of thermal glazing and appropriate ventilation and is considered appropriate by Environmental Protection, and who would if permission were to be granted require the internal sound levels to be verified as being achieved.
10.57. The 2023 Landscape Design Guide advises that communal gardens for flats must be provided on the basis of 25m2 per flat and in higher density urban situations may be relaxed if in very close proximity to proximity to central green spaces and facilities (less than 250m).
10.58. Spa Gardens as accessed from Skellbank is within 250m. The application nevertheless does feature a small, 25 m2, amenity area to its rear. That is overlooked by the bedroom window is the side of the adjacent flats at a height above the amenity area of 3.15m and is also 3.2m below the fenestrated rear of 5 Skellbank. Given the amenity area is communal this does not cause a privacy issue and due to the heights involved there is no substantive concern regarding any impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.
10.59. The apartments themselves are arranged appropriately and accord with the nationally described space standards as required by Local Plan Policy HS5.
10.60. Local Plan Policy TI5 ‘Telecommunications’, requires appropriate broadband access in new developments. The application site is in a locality where the OFCOM broadband checker indicates that access to Fibre to the Premises broadband infrastructure capable of Next Generation Access speeds is not available. The alternate permissible under the Policy of a download connection of 30Mbps is available.
Trees
10.61. Local Plan Policy NE7 requires loss or damaged trees to be replaced on-site, or if possible, off-site to the public value of the removed trees.
10.62. Accompanying the application is a tree survey which describes two groups of trees to the rear of the existing building. The nearest to the building being a group of early mature small trees of up to 5m high identified as Plum, and beyond that a mixed informal hedge-like group that includes beech, cypress, plum and cotoneaster of up to 8m high. All are categorised as being of low quality and value, poor condition, and expected to contribute to the locality for at least 10 years.
10.63. The group of plums trees is stated as being removed. That is not opposed by the Council’s Arborist, who also does not request any replacement planting beyond the tree that is to be planted in the front raised bed. A hawthorn is considered by the Arborist to be an appropriate species.
Ecology
10.64. A principle set out in Paragraph 193 of the NPPF when determining planning applications, is that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Local Plan Policy NE3 relates to protecting the natural environment.
10.65. The Town and County Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, sets out in Schedule 7A ‘Biodiversity Gain in England’ that planning permissions in England are deemed to be granted subject to a general pre-commencement condition that requires a biodiversity gain plan is both submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
10.66. Accompanying the application is a Statutory Metric and Biodiversity Net Gain Plan. Further tree planting is suggested, which is not practicable, and hence off-site habitat area units would need to be purchased to fulfil the requirement. This would be covered by the biodiversity gain plan.
Highways
10.67. Local Plan Policy TI1 ‘Sustainable Transport’, seeks to ensure development proposals seek to minimise the need to travel and achieve more sustainable travel behaviour.
10.68. Key policies of the NPPF set out in paragraphs 110 and 115 respectively concern managing growth with regard to the transport issues, which are set out in paragraph 109, and matters of sustainable transport, safe access, parking areas reflecting current guidance and any significant impacts on the transport networks/highway safety mitigated.
10.69. The location of the site close to the centre of Ripon means sustainable transport options are available, and the development includes individually secure bicycle accommodation that also accords with Neighbourhood Plan Policy G.3.
10.70. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) accept that queueing currently exists at peak times at the nearby highway junction. That is intended to be improved as part of other development works in Ripon.
10.71. They also note the parking available on the public highway to the immediate east and their attention was drawn to the representations that have been received. The safety of the access to the development site was of concern to the LHA who requested that the kerb line be built out to protect the access and provide appropriate visibility splays.
10.72. The LHA state the amendments to the public highway are not removing any on-street parking spaces but protect the junction and the footpath from poor parking and obstructions to visibility. The site currently has parking across the protected access and hatched areas which are not intended for such use.
10.73. On-street parking in the area is high, but as the development is providing an appropriate number of parking spaces in line with published standards, and is not removing any on-street parking it is not proportionate for the LHA to require improvements to the surrounding parking needs as part of this application.
10.74. The LHA advise that the level of parking provided meets their requirements in terms of the number of apartments, although they would normally also require a visitor parking space but given the proximity to the City Centre and associated infrastructure this has not been required.
10.75. Aside from occasional delivery vehicles external paved area is of a scale to accommodate the turning of 7.7m fire tender.
10.76. It will be necessary to update the parking restrictions in line with the proposed junction changes by means of amended yellow lines following the kerbing and related Traffic Regulation Order required for such a change. This would require a Section 106 agreement to be completed prior to any permission being granted and the contribution sought would be £2,500.
10.77. The previous proposed developments on the site were for eight flats, which had eight parking spaces in the forecourt and consequently two flats on each of the four floors. The proposal before members has a deeper front planted area.
10.78. The available width of the site forward of the building for vehicles is 13.6m which quite readily would accommodate up to five vehicles parked external to the building with space for further parking achievable on the remainer of the frontage.
10.79. Instead, this application provides four spaces in an open undercroft, a form of development that is not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment of the Conservation Area.
10.80. Reference is made to any less than six apartments not being viable, although no viability assessment has been provided. Removing vehicular parking at the ground floor would allow for residential accommodation at that level and as a result allow for a lower building than that which is proposed in this application.
10.81. In accordance with Local Plan Policy TI3 electric vehicle charging facilities are indicated.
Drainage and Water Supply
10.82. The proposal is not of significant implications in terms of increased surface water runoff (Local Plan Policy CC1) and is in a location where drainage and water supply are available (Local Plan Policy NE2). No objection is raised by the statutory undertaker, Yorkshire Water.
10.83. Also, with respect to Policy CC1, the site lies in Flood Zone 1 and river flooding is not envisaged. The site frontage area is at risk from surface water flooding (1 in 1000 year) but that does not extend as far as the proposed built form.
Land Contamination
10.84. Local Plan Policy NE9 address this topic. As noted above the fuel tanks have previously been removed.
10.85. The submitted contamination investigation report found elevated levels of contamination on the southern part of the site but was unable to assess the northern part of the site. As such further investigation would be required.
Land Stability
10.86. The site lies within an area where land may be potentially subject to localised subsidence hazards, associated with both existing cavities and with the on-going dissolution of gypsum deposits by groundwater.
10.87. Local Plan Policy NE9 'Unstable and Contaminated Land' sets out relevant requirements.
10.88. A ground stability report and declaration form signed by a Competent Person is normally required, with the report based on a geotechnical desk study and site appraisal and subsequently followed up by a programme of ground investigation.
10.89. No such report and declaration accompany the application. As such the application cannot be supported until these matters have been addressed and satisfactorily demonstrate that a 170sq.m four storey building can safely be built and occupied on the site. In other cases, on appeal, Planning Inspectors have clarified that it is not a matter that can be dealt with by condition.
Air Quality
10.90. Local Plan Policy NE1 requires air and/or dust assessments where, amongst other matters, an Air Quality Management Area may be affected.
10.91. The Air Quality Management Area on High and Low Skellgate was revoked in October 2024 due to the air quality objectives having been complied with for over 5 years.
10.92. Monitoring is ongoing and a development of six flats would not create such additional traffic movements as to have a materially significant impact.
10.93. In terms of dust created during construction that would be controlled under the construction management details that would be sought through a condition in the event of permission being granted.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1. The provision of four vehicle parking spaces in an open undercroft is a form of development that is not sympathetic to the surrounding built environment of the Conservation Area.
11.2. The eaves height of the proposed building exceeds that of the neighbouring listed building and the proposed development would be harmful to the setting of the listed building.
11.3. Full impact of the proposed development is hampered by the simplified elevation and roof details, which ignore the necessary utility installations.
11.4. Whilst in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply housing development is normally to be permitted under paragraph 11 of the NPPF, the conflict with key policies of the NPPF is such that the adverse impact of a development that would provide a short term gain but would not add to the overall quality of the area. This means that the exceptions in paragraph 11 d of the NPPF are engaged as the harm as caused to the designated heritage assets of the Ripon Conservation Area and the adjacent listed building outweighs the normal benefit of providing housing accommodation.
11.5. The absence of any appropriate gypsum report and ground stability declaration form is also in the circumstance of an unsupportable application a further refusal reason. Similarly, the issue of the less than adequate currently provided details on climate change mitigation.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1. That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The design of the proposed development fails to reflect local characteristics of the Ripon Conservation Area at ground floor level such to be harmful to the character of that Conservation Area and through its form the setting of the adjacent listed building, and with a lack of detail matters leading to a full impact assessment on those heritage assets not being achievable, would be contrary to Policies HP2, HP3 and NE5 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035, Policy C.1 of the Ripon Neighbourhood Plan to 2030, the Harrogate District Heritage Management Guidance Supplementary Planning Document November 2014, the Ripon Conservation Area Character Appraisal June 2009 and the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 11(d) and its related key policies set out at paragraphs 129 and 135.
2. The development site is within Gypsum Area C. No Ground Stability report has been submitted as required by Policy NE9 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 and no appropriate report or declaration form has been provided. The development would not adequately satisfy the criteria of policy NE9 in demonstrating that the proposal would safeguard future occupants of the proposed new apartments against subsidence due to the dissolution of Gypsum.
3. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the development will contribute to a reduction in both the extent and the impacts of climate change and the proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy CC4 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035.
Target Determination Date: 4 June 2025
Case Officer: Mike Parkes, mike.parkes@northyorks.gov.uk