North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
8th October 2025
25/01349/COU – Change of use of existing annexe to Holiday Let AT ANNEXE, 16 CASTLE STREET, SPOFFORTH, NORTH YORKSHIRE, HG3 1AP ON BEHALF OF cHRIS PARASKOS
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 change of use of an existing annexe to a holiday let at 16 Castle Street, Spofforth on behalf of The Head of Development Management. 1.2 This application is brought to the Planning Committee due to the property being partly within the ownership of Councillor Andy Paraskos, member for the Spofforth with Lower Wharfedale & Tockwith division. Under the council’s scheme of delegation, the application involves land/premises owned or controlled by a Councillor. |
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED
2.1. The proposal seeks full planning permission for thechange of an existing Annexe to form a Holiday Let at 16 Castle Street, Spofforth.
2.2. The site is located within the Spofforth Conservation Area and the Crimple Park and Beck Corridor Landscape Character Area within the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment 2004. A Grade II Listed Building, Bookroyd Cottage, No. 22 Castle Street lies to the north west, however the annexe building subject to this application is not considered to form part of its setting.
2.3. The change of use of the existing annexe building is proposed by the applicant to allow the building to be used for short-term holiday letting.
2.4. The design and principal of the proposal are considered acceptable. It will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or the streetscene and would preserve the character and appearance of the Spofforth Conservation Area. The proposal is in accordance with Local Plan Policies GS5, HP2, HP3 and NE4 and paragraph 131 and Section 16 of the NPPF.
2.5. The proposal is considered consistent with the duty at Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requiring that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
2.6. The proposal, due to the siting of the holiday let within the garden area of 16 Castle Street and the locations of vehicle parking and turning areas, would significantly harm the amenity levels of the occupants of 16 Castle Street. The proposal would also not provide occupants of the proposed holiday let with high levels of amenity. This is due to the noise and overlooking levels that would occur for both sets of occupants and the lack of appropriate natural light and outlook with regards to the bedroom window of the proposed holiday let. The proposal therefore would be contrary to Local Plan Policy HP4 and Paragraph 135 of the NPPF.
2.7. The proposal would not be considered to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, in accordance with Paragraph 116 of the NPPF.
2.8. As such the proposal does not accord with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework and the policies of the Development Plan.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here
3.2. The building subject of this application was previously a domestic outbuilding and was granted permission to become an annexe to 16 Castle Street in November 2010 (Application Ref: 10/04276/FUL).
3.4. An appeal (Inspectorate Ref: APP/E2734/A/10/2127141/WF) was lodged against the refusal of 10/00286/FUL and was dismissed in August 2010. The Inspector commented ‘The appellant’s house has a large conservatory to the rear and this, together with the small rear garden, would be very exposed to overlooking from pedestrians and vehicles passing close by to access the new property. Although the small new dwelling would not generate large volumes of traffic, it would have two parking spaces. I consider that the disturbance caused by moving cars, doors slamming and engines starting, in what would normally be tranquil rear gardens, would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the present and future occupants of the appellant’s house and the immediate neighbours’.
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application relates to a building sited to the rear of 16 Castle Street ,which is a traditional stone-faced c. pre-1850 cottage sited in a prominent position in the Spofforth Conservation Area.
4.2. The building is located within a discreet location set back from Castle Street. However, due to the positioning of the driveways of 16 Castle Street and the neighbouring dwelling to the north west, Alma House, the annexe building is visible to a certain degree in the public realm from Castle Street through the gap between these buildings.
4.3. A Grade II Listed dwelling, Bookroyd Cottage No. 22 Castle Street, lies to the north-west. However, due to its distance away from the designated heritage asset and its siting, it is not considered that the annexe forms part of its setting.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. The proposal seeks full planning consent for the change of use of the existing annexe to form a holiday let. No external alterations to the building are proposed.
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.
Adopted Development Plan
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035, adopted March 2020.
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (Adopted 2022)
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.3. The Emerging Development Plan for this site is listed below.
- The North Yorkshire Local Plan. 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
6.4. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework 2024
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment
- Spofforth Conservation Area Character Appraisal
- Heritage Management Supplementary Planning Document
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2. Environmental Health Officer – No observations or comments.
7.3. Highways – No objections subject to the inclusion of a condition.
7.4. Spofforth Parish Council have been consulted; however no response has been received.
Local Representations
7.5. No public representations have been received.
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
8.1. The development is not of a scale or within a location where an Environmental Statement would be required.
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Principle
- Impact on amenity
- Highways
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle
10.1. The Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 was adopted by the Council on 4 March 2020. The Inspectors’ Report concluded that, with the recommended main modifications which are set out in his report, that the Harrogate District Local Plan satisfies the requirements of Section 20(5) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and meets the criteria for soundness in the NPPF.
10.2. Local Plan policies GS1 and GS2 set out a growth strategy for new homes and jobs to 2035. Policy GS2 identifies Spofforth as a service village.
10.3. The application site lies within development limits as identified in local policy GS3. This policy also states that within development limits, proposals for new development will be supported provided they are in accordance with other relevant policies of the Local Plan.
10.4. Policy GS5 states that development proposals will be supported when they contribute towards the achievement of maintaining and enhancing the district’s visitor economy.
10.5. The proposal will provide 1no. holiday let, comprising a living area with kitchenette, a bathroom and 1no. double bedroom. This will contribute towards enhancing the district’s visitor economy. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with all other relevant policies. The proposal, therefore, accords with Policies GS3 and GS5 of the Local Plan.
Siting and design
10.6. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 establishes a general duty as respects Conservation Areas in the exercise of planning functions. It states that in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any [functions under or by virtue of] any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
10.7. Paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to communities.
10.8. Paragraph 208 of the NPPF states that Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
10.9. Paragraph 210 of the NPPF states that in determining planning application, local planning authorities should take account of:
a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
10.10. Policy HP2 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that proposals for development that would heritage assets (designated and non-designated) will be determined in accordance with national policy. Proposals affecting a heritage asset, or its setting, must protect or enhance those features which contribute to its special architectural or historic interest.
10.11. Policy HP3 of the Local Plan states that development should incorporate high quality design that protects, enhances or reinforces those characteristics, qualities and features that contribute to the local distinctiveness of the district’s rural and urban environments.
10.12. Policy NE4 of the Local Plan states that proposals that will protect, enhance, or restore the landscape character of the Harrogate district. This is achieved by requiring that development has a particular regard to maintaining the aesthetic and biodiversity of the natural heritage within the landscape such as ponds.
10.13. The proposal does not seek any external alterations to the building.
10.14. The scheme would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the surrounding landscape, host dwelling and streetscene. The proposal would also be considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal accords with policies HP2, HP3 and NE4 of the Local Plan and paragraphs 132 and Section 16 of the NPPF. The proposal is also consistent with the duty at Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requiring that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Impact on amenity
10.15. Paragraph 135 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity of existing and future users.
10.16. Local Plan Policy HP4 ensures that development will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours. This includes overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing, as well as noise, vibration and fumes.
10.17. The existing annexe building is required by condition 3 of the original consent for its conversion (Application Ref: HGT10/04276/FUL) to be used wholly in conjunction with and in addition to the existing living accommodation at 16 Castle Street.
10.18. An application prior to this was refused in March 2010 for the change of use of the building to form 1no. dwelling (Application Ref: 10/00286/FUL). This application was refused due to the proposal causing amenity issues and failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The officer considered that the ‘shared drive and backland/tandem position of the new dwelling means that the levels of privacy and amenity enjoyed by future occupants would be reduced.’
10.19. An appeal (Inspectorate Ref: APP/E2734/A/10/2127141/WF) was lodged against the refusal of 10/00286/FUL and was dismissed in August 2010. The Inspector commented ‘The appellant’s house has a large conservatory to the rear and this, together with the small rear garden, would be very exposed to overlooking from pedestrians and vehicles passing close by to access the new property. Although the small new dwelling would not generate large volumes of traffic, it would have two parking spaces. I consider that the disturbance caused by moving cars, doors slamming and engines starting, in what would normally be tranquil rear gardens, would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the present and future occupants of the appellant’s house and the immediate neighbours’.
10.20. This proposal would seek the application to become a Holiday Let for short term stays.
10.21. The application site is surrounded by neighbouring dwellings and their garden areas. These are No. 14 Castle Street to the south east, Alma House to the north west and Silkstone, Church Hill to the east.
10.22. The proposal would change the existing occupation of the building, from that currently associated with the residential occupation of 16 Castle Street, to that of a holiday let used for short term stays (the local planning authority would typically condition such consents to ensure any stay does not exceed 1 month). The change of use would however fundamentally alter the nature of the occupation of the current annexe building.
10.23. The building currently intersects the existing garden area of 16 Castle Street. The change of use would result in overlooking of this, currently relatively private garden, from the transient and everchanging occupants of the proposed holiday let.
10.24. The proposal would also be considered to result in unacceptable levels of overlooking of the windows and outdoor area in front of the holiday let by occupants of 16 Castle Street, who would need to walk past the holiday let to access the rear garden area. This would be further exacerbated by the proposed siting of the 2no. tandem parking spaces for 16 Castle Street, which would result in users of the garden area walking past in very close proximity to the windows of the holiday let.
10.25. The proposal shows a turning area for vehicles which would be sited in close proximity to the conservatory to the rear of 16 Castle Street. The increased comings and goings of vehicles of occupants of the holiday let would be considered to harm the amenity levels of the occupants of 16 Castle Street due to increased noise and disruption.
10.26. The proposed siting of the 2no. tandem parking spaces to serve 16 Castle Street would also result in vehicles parking in close proximity to the window serving the bedroom of the proposal holiday let. This would be considered to impact the amount of natural light that would be received by the bedroom and also result in an oppressive outlook for occupants. The manoeuvring of cars and closing of doors in such close proximity to a bedroom space would also be considered to result in unacceptable noise levels.
10.27. The proposal overall is considered to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupants of 16 Castle Street and the proposed holiday let is also not consider to afford occupants with appropriate levels of amenity. This would be contrary to Policy HP4 and Paragraphs 135 (f) of the NPPF.
Highways
10.28. The Local Highways Authority has been consulted on the application and has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the access, turning and parking areas be set out as shown on the approved details.
10.29. A previous planning application to convert the outbuilding (Ref: HGT10/00286/FUL) owned by number 16 was refused in 2010 due to concerns about amenity and impact on the conservation area. The Local Highways Authority recommended approval but conditioned the widening of the access to 4.5 metres for a length of at least 6 metres to allow two vehicles to pass. At appeal the applicant objected to this condition, but the appeal inspector noted that it was a suitable condition for the application.
10.30. A further application was then submitted (Ref: HGT10/04276/FUL) to convert the outbuilding to an annexe. This application was approved with conditions requiring the direct link with the main dwelling to assuage the previous concerns.
10.31. The existing dwelling would lose a bedroom and would be a two-bed dwelling, and the annex/let would be a one-bed unit. The main dwelling requires two parking spaces and the annex/let a single space in line with current Local Highways Authority parking standards. The applicant has provided updated plans showing three vehicles can be accommodated within the site without impediment to each use (two residential spaces in tandem and a separate holiday let space). The plan also shows that all vehicles can turn within the site allowing them to enter and exit the highway in a forward gear.
10.32. The proposed use would slightly increase trips and parking at the site and the let use would result in movements by people other than the immediate residents. This will result in a slight increase in conflicting movements.
10.33. As noted, the previous decision requested 4.5 metres width for vehicles to pass. As the access would now be considered a ‘shared private drive’ in line with current Local Highways Authority standards it should have a minimum width of 4.1 metres to allow two vehicles to pass.
10.34. The site is currently limited to 4.0 metres and the additional 0.1 metre would result in the removal of some of the boundary wall which may affect the local character of the area.
10.35. Given the proposed let is only a one-bed unit and could be conditioned to remain in full association with the main dwelling the Local Highways Authority has not sought to recommend refusal based on the small width difference. Should any further development take place on the site, additional works would be required to the access. Should the let be intended to be used as a permanent C3 dwelling, or outside ownership of the applicant the LHA would require the access to be improved. A further application for a change of use for use as a dwelling would however be required in any case.
11.0. PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.2. The proposal, due to the siting of the holiday let within the garden area of 16 Castle Street and the locations of vehicle parking and turning areas, would significantly harm the amenity levels of the occupants of 16 Castle Street. The proposal would also not provide occupants of the proposed holiday let with appropriate levels of amenity. This is due to the noise and overlooking levels that would occur for both sets of occupants and the lack of appropriate natural light and outlook with regards to the bedroom window of the proposed holiday let. The proposal therefore would be contrary to Local Plan Policy HP4 and Paragraph 135 of the NPPF.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:
Recommended Refusal Reason
1. The proposal, due to the siting of the holiday let within the garden area of 16 Castle Street and the locations of vehicle parking and turning areas, would significantly harm the amenity levels of the occupants of 16 Castle Street. The proposal would also not provide occupants of the proposed holiday let with high levels of amenity. This is due to the noise and overlooking levels that would occur for both sets of occupants and the lack of appropriate natural light and outlook with regards to the bedroom window of the proposed holiday let. The proposal therefore would be contrary to Local Plan Policy HP4 and Paragraph 135 of the NPPF.
Target Determination Date: 10th October 2025
Case Officer: Josh Arthur - Joshua.arthur@northyorks.gov.uk