North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Richmond (Yorks) Area Committee
10th July 2026
ZD25/00383/FULL – Full Planning Permission for construction of 1no. dwelling and change of use for part of the site from paddock to domestic.
At High Bank Farm, Cleasby Road, Stapleton, Darlington, North Yorkshire, DL2 2QE
On behalf of Mr and Mrs Thompson
Report of the Head of Development Management – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report 1.1. To determine a full planning application for 1no dwelling and change of use for part of the site from paddock to domestic on land at High Bank Farm, Stapleton, Darlington, North Yorkshire, DL2 2QE. 1.2. This application is referred to the Planning Committee because the applicant is a North Yorkshire Councillor and also a member of the Richmondshire Area Planning Committee. In accordance with the Council’s adopted governance procedures, applications submitted by or on behalf of serving Councillors must be determined by the Planning Committee to ensure transparency and proper decision‑making. 1.3. This application was previously brought before planning committee on 12th March 2026 and was deferred to allow for the submission of further information regarding potential improvements to the design and additional details in respect of arboricultural and ecological plans to meet policy compliance. 1.4. In support of the application, the applicant has submitted revised documentation, including updated plans incorporating:
· Renewable energy measures for the proposed dwelling · Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan · Sustainability statement · Planning statement · Landscape Visual Assessment. · Hard and soft landscaping plans 1.5. These documents have been duly reviewed as part of the reassessment of the application. 1.6. It is recommended that planning permission be refused as the application is contrary to the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012 – 2028 Core Strategy (adopted 9 December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED.
2.1. This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 1no. self and custom build dwelling and a change of use for part of the site from paddock to domestic.
2.2. The application site is situated in the countryside outside and away from the development limits of Stapleton. The application relates to a rectangular parcel of land measuring approximately 0.35 hectares which currently comprises paddock land and vegetated garden.
2.3. The application site comprises land to the south of the existing farm steading. The wider steading includes a children’s day nursery occupying converted buildings, an existing farmhouse, and a range of equestrian and agricultural buildings associated with High Bank Farm. The proposed development would be positioned directly to the south of these existing buildings.
2.4. The site benefits from an existing access which would be utilised by the proposed development, which is from Stapleton Bank to the east. The access point onto the public highway and the application site are both approximately 150 metres west of the settlement of Stapleton.
2.5. The nearest bus stop is located approximately 500 metre walk to the north of the proposed development. The walking route to this bus stop is largely along a section of highway with no dedicated footpath, which limits safe pedestrian access and reduces the overall sustainability of the site for future occupants.
2.6. Whilst the proposal would contribute towards the housing supply within the area, it is considered that isolated dwellings within the open countryside would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular regards to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations.
2.7. It is acknowledged that the proposal constitutes a self and custom‑build dwelling, which carries moderate positive weight in the planning balance. However, this benefit does not outweigh the clear policy conflict identified, arising from the siting of new residential development in the open countryside, at a location significantly removed from the development limits of Stapleton.
2.8. This proposal is therefore contrary to Policies, CP3, CP4 and CP8 of the Richmondshire Local Plan Core Strategy, which directs new housing to sustainable locations within the established settlement hierarchy and restricts residential development in the open countryside. The proposal also conflicts with paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which states that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one of the following specific circumstances applies.
a) There is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;
b) The development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;
c) The development would re-use redundant or disused building and enhance its immediate setting;
d) The development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential building; or
e) The design is of exceptional quality, in that it:
i. Is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and
ii. Would significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
2.9. None of the above circumstances are applicable in this case. As such, the proposal constitutes unjustified new residential development in the open countryside and is therefore unacceptable in principle.
Figure 1: Site Location
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here:- https://planning.richmondshire.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SYI8YZNAJCA00
3.2. There is no planning history directly relevant to the consideration of this application. While the wider site has previously been associated with a children’s nursery and an agricultural business, these uses do not have any material bearing on the assessment of the current proposal and therefore carry no weight in its determination.
3.3. The planning history for the wider site is as follows:
20/00503/FULL - Full Planning Permission for New Classroom to Accommodate Existing Pupils Following Alterations to Nursery Layout due to COVID19 (as Amended Plans Received 15.09.2020) – Granted 04.11.2020
18/00606/FULL - Full Planning Permission for Single Storey Extension to Existing Nursery to Provide Additional WC, Storage and Office Space – Granted 10.10.2018
17/00669/FULL - Full Planning Permission for Lean to Extension on Side of Existing Building – Granted 07.12.2017
15/00712/FULL - Full Planning Permission for Erection of Agricultural Building to House Cattle, Sheep and Straw – Granted 23.10.2015
14/00214/FULL - Full Planning Permission for Erection of Timber Framed Building to Provide Additional Space for Play Area – Granted 21.05.2014
12/00840/EXT – Extension of Time for Implementation of Full Planning Permission for Proposed Visitor Farm and Educational Facility with Associated Farm Shop and Tea Room and New Access Ref. 1/101/19K/FULL – Granted 12.02.2013
10/00447/VAR – Application Under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to Vary Condition No. 2 of Planning Permission Reference No. 1/101/19K/FULL to Allow Alterations to Window and Door Openings – Granted 20.07.2010
09/00606/FULL – Full Planning Permission for Proposed Visitor Farm and Educational Facility with Associated Farm Shop and Tea Room and New Access – Granted 22.12.2009
07/01101/FULL - Full Planning Permission for Construction of New Agricultural Building on Agricultural Land – Granted 05.12.200
4.0 Site and Surroundings
4.1. The application relates to a rectangular parcel of land measuring approximately 0.35 hectares located to the southern edge of Stapleton. The application site is directly south of the existing farmstead including children’s day nursery and farmhouse. The site currently comprises paddock and vegetated garden land, containing a disused timber stable.
4.2. Agricultural fields lie to the south, east, and west of the application site, reflecting the rural context of the surrounding landscape. The eastern boundary of the site is defined by a timber fence, while a farm track runs immediately to the south and west, from which the proposed development would take its access.
4.3. There is an existing vehicular access from Stapleton Bank, and this would be utilised to serve the proposed development. The access arrangement would therefore make use of established infrastructure without requiring the formation of any new access point.
4.4. The nearest bus stop is approximately a 500metre[LZ1] [LZ2] [LT3] walk north outside of the Bridge Inn Public House, with services to Darlington, Richmond and Catterick Garrison. However the walking route to this bus stop is largely along a section of highway with no dedicated footpath, which limits safe pedestrian access and reduces the overall sustainability of the site for future occupants.
4.5. The site is approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the shops and services located in Darlington, there are very limited services in Stapleton, with the main services being a children’s nursery and the Bridge Inn public house.
4.6. The site is in flood zone 1 according to the Environment Agency Flood Maps.
4.7. The site lies within the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area and is therefore subject to nutrient neutrality requirements.
4.8. There is a public right of way (Bridleway 20.65/3/1) running east to west through the wider site (farm) and is located approximately 75 metres north of the proposed development.
4.9. The Stapleton Pasture SINC is approximately 240metres east of the proposed development on the eastern side of Cleasby Bank.
5.0 Description of Proposal
5.1. This application seeks Full planning permission for 1no self and custom-build dwelling.
5.2. The plans submitted in support of this application show a dwelling of traditional design and proportions over two storeys, with single storey off-shoots. The property would be constructed in brick and stone under a slate roof.
5.3. The property has been designed to be accessible – fully compliant with part M4 of the Building Regulations.
5.4. The proposed dwelling would be heated with biomass.
5.5. The proposed development would utilise an existing vehicular access off Stapleton Bank.
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:
- Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 Core Strategy, adopted 2014
- Saved Local Plan Policy 23 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 1999-2006
- The Minerals & Waste Joint Plan 2015 – 2030 adopted 2022
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.3. Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework
- National Planning Practice Guidance
- National Design Guide 2021
NPPF 2026 Consultation
6.4. The Government has begun a consultation exercise on a new draft of the NPPF, ending 10 March 2026.
6.5. The revised draft separates plan making and decision-making policies. The implication of this approach is that that where local plan policies are inconsistent with national decision‑making policies, the local policies are expected to be given very limited weight in decisions. National decision-making policies are proposed. Policy S5 restricts development that is considered acceptable outside settlements, to prevent unsustainable patterns of growth and conserve rural character. Section (j) allows development addressing an evidenced unmet need provided it is well related to an existing settlement and of an appropriate scale. The consultation draft introduces stronger support for rural social and affordable housing and, through Policy HO5, sets clearer expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. This includes a new national baseline requiring 40% of homes to meet accessible standards, with tenure mix expectations for sites of 150 homes or more.
6.6. Whilst draft proposed changes to national policy can be treated as a material consideration, officers are of the view that given that this is only subject to consultation and represents significant from current policy in respect of this specific application, no more than negligible weight should be given to the suggested change/ changes.
7.0 Consultation Responses
7.1. A site notice was displayed on the site on 15 July 2025, neighbour notifications were issued, and consultation with all relevant statutory consultees was undertaken.
7.2. Following deferral of this application on the 13 March 2026, a further round of neighbour notifications was carried out on 29 April 2026.
7.3. The North Yorkshire Council Arboricultural Officer, Ecologist, and Stapleton and Cleasby Parish Council were also consulted on 29 April 2026 in light of the additional supporting information received.
7.4. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.5. Stapleton and Cleasby Parish Council: No objections.
7.6. Arboricultural Officer: No objection subject to conditions.
7.7. Ecology: No objection, subject to conditions (holding objection withdrawn following submission of additional information).
7.8. Environmental Health: No objection subject to land contamination condition.
7.9. Natural England: No objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured by condition. Concludes that LPA’s Habitat Regulation Assessment that subject to all mitigation being appropriately secured that it would mitigate against the adverse effects that could potentially occur as a result of the development.
7.10. NYC Highways: No objection subject to conditions relating to onsite parking.
Local Representations
7.11. Ten objections have been received from eight individual representations, all of which raise objections. A summary of the comments is provided below, however please see website for full comments.
7.12. Objections
- Principle of Development
- Harm to landscape character
- Poor design and lack of integration
- Lack of sustainability and public benefits.
- Ecological Impact
- Arboricultural Impact
- Unsustainable location[JW4] [LZ5]
8.0 Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
9.0 Main Issues
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Landscape Impact
- Design and Visual Impact
- Highway Safety
- Residential Amenity
- Contamination
- Ecological Impact
- Arboricultural Impact
- Biodiversity Net Gain
- Protected Species and Off-site Habitats
- Drainage
- Unilateral Undertaking
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
Location
10.1. The application site is located within the open countryside, approximately 150 metres south of the development limits of Stapleton. Policy CP4 of the Richmondshire Local Plan establishes that development should be directed to locations within defined settlement limits or, where these are not identified, within the main built-up confines of settlements. Where no deliverable opportunities exist within such areas, development may be directed to sites adjacent to defined development limits, as shown on the Local Plan 1999–2006 Policy Designation Map, until such time as the Proposals Map is superseded.
10.2. The acceptability of development adjacent to settlement boundaries is dependent on compliance with other relevant policies, including CP2, CP3, CP4, CP8, CP12 and CP14. In all cases, proposals must respect the scale, form and character of the settlement and its service and infrastructure provision.
10.3. Stapleton is identified within the Local Plan as an ‘Elsewhere Location’ and therefore falls outside the Spatial Principle SP2 settlement hierarchy. Policy direction for such locations is provided through SP3 (Rural Sustainability) and CP8 (Achieving Rural Sustainability).
10.4. Stapleton lies within the North Richmondshire sub-area, which Policy SP1 identifies as an area for modest growth, reflecting its predominantly rural character and limited access to services.
10.5. Policy SP4 sets out that 9% of new housing will be in North Richmonshire Sub Area distribution (Spatial Principle SP1) where the site is located. The settlement hierarchy of Spatial Principle SP2 refers to “Elsewhere in the plan area” locations sets out a 5% distribution of which within the North Richmondshire Sub Area including Stapleton the expected scale and distribution is 2% / 70 dwellings to be delivered by the end of 2029. The Richmondshire Annual Monitoring Report 2024 / 2025 (published September 2025) confirms that this figure has already been exceeded with 87 dwellings having been completed in the North Richmondshire area.
10.6. Policies SP3 and CP8 of the Richmondshire Local Plan support small‑scale housing development within or adjacent to smaller villages lying outside the SP2 hierarchy. However, CP8(3) requires that development must not conflict with policies relating to landscape character, amenity, environmental protection or nature conservation
10.7. The proposed development lies approximately 150 metres south of the development limits of Stapleton, clearly placing it outside the settlement boundary within open countryside (Please see Appendix A for a map of the application site and Development Limits). The nearest higher-order services are located in Darlington, approximately 2 miles from the site, resulting in significantly limited access to daily amenities. The nearest bus stop is located around 500 metres to the north.
10.8. The supporting Planning Statement submitted with the application contends that the site represents a sustainable location. It refers to guidance from Active Travel England and the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, identifying 800 metres as a typical walkable distance. The applicant highlights the proximity of a children’s nursery (approximately 50 metres), and a bus stop and public house (approximately 500 metres), to demonstrate accessibility to day-to-day services.
10.9. Whilst these distances are noted, sustainability is not determined by distance alone. The quality, safety and attractiveness of pedestrian routes are material considerations. In this instance, the lack of continuous footways and pedestrian routes are material considerations. In this instance, the lack of continuous footways and pedestrian infrastructures reduces the likelihood of journeys being undertaken on foot. The site remains physically and functionally detached from the settlement of Stapleton.
10.10. Local representations also raise concerns that the development lies outside the defined development limits of Stapleton and does not represent and appropriate location for new residential development.
10.11. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policies SP3, CP4 and CP8 of the Richmondshire Local Plan as it does not represent a sustainable form of development and fails to comply with the spatial strategy.
10.12. This[LZ6] [LT7] [LZ8] position is reinforced by a recent appeal decision following the refusal of planning permission for 9 dwellings at The Smallways Inn near Newsham (appeal ref: APP/U2750/W/25/3359331). In that decision, the Inspector stated:
“The appeal site is not adjacent to the settlement’s development limits or main built-up confines, and it is not well related to existing facilities or accessible by means that the private car. The proposal would therefore conflict with the spatial strategy set out within the development plan in this regard”.
10.13. Whilst this appeal decision relates to a larger development, the principle is directly relevant. Development which is physically and functionally detached from settlements and lacks adequate access to services and sustainable transport options, conflicts with the spatial strategy.
10.14. A local representation has referenced appeal case APP/U2750/W/25/3369477 within their objection, in relation to development outside defined development limits in Stapleton. However, this case is not directly relevant to the current proposal. The application site is situated within the centre of the village, immediately to the north and east of the existing development limits, on a former agricultural site where the barns remain in situ.
National Planning Policy Framework
10.15. Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:
Planning Decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one of the following circumstances apply:
a) There is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;
b) The development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;
c) The development re-use redundant or disused building and enhance its immediate setting;
d) The development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential building; or
e) The design if of exceptional quality, in that it:
i. Is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and
ii. Would significantly enhance its immediate settings, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
10.16. The proposed development is contrary to Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as it fails to meet any of the circumstances outlined within the policy. Paragraph 84 makes clear that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the circumstances apply. In this case, it is considered that none of the qualifying circumstances are satisfied.
10.17. Objections have been received on the basis that the proposed development lies outside the defined development limits of Stapleton and is therefore contrary to both local and national planning policy. While the planning statement submitted in support of the application seeks to argue that the site is effectively adjacent to built confines of the settlement, citing the presence of an existing farmstead and the conversion of former agricultural buildings to a children’s nursery, this position is not accepted. The farmstead and associated conversions do not form part of the main built-up confines of Stapleton and do not represent a logical or cohesive extension to the settlement. The application site remains physically and functionally detached from the settlement and is clearly located within the open countryside. As such, the proposal represents an isolated form of development which conflicts with paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
10.18. In assessing this proposal against the development plan as a whole and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the key considerations relate to the site’s unsustainable location, the principle of development within the open countryside and the degree to which any identified benefits weighs against the identified harm.
10.19. In the planning balance, it is acknowledged that the proposal would deliver a self and custom build dwelling, which carries moderate weight. However, this benefit is significantly outweighed by the harm arising from the proposal’s unsustainable and isolated location, its poor pedestrian connectivity, and its clear conflict with both the development plan and national policy
5 Year Land Housing Supply
10.20. The extant Richmondshire Local Plan is now more than five years old. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024), the minimum annual local housing need for this area is 320 dwellings, calculated using the Government’s Standard Method. When applying the required 5% buffer, the five‑year housing land supply requirement is 1,680 dwellings. Based on the most recent monitoring data for the 2024/25 period, the Council can currently demonstrate a deliverable supply of 901 dwellings over five years. This equates to 2.7 years of supply, which falls significantly below the five‑year requirement.
10.21. Accordingly, the Council cannot demonstrate a five‑year housing land supply, and as set out in footnote 8 of the NPPF, paragraph 11(d)—the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” is engaged for applications involving the provision of housing.
10.22. NPPF paragraph 11d states that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless
i) the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance* provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination**
*The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 189) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.
**The policies referred to are those in paragraphs 66 and 84 of chapter 5; 91 of chapter 7; 110 and 115 of chapter 9; 129 of chapter 11; and 135 and 139 of chapter 12.
10.23. On the above basis, because the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply housing applications such as this one should be granted unless either two exceptions are met (i) and/or (ii).
10.24. In respect of 11(d)(ii) there are adverse impacts which will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits which is explored in the remains of the report below. As such, the principle of development is not considered acceptable.
Self and Custom Build
10.25. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to grant sufficient suitable development permissions to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in their area. Demand is evidenced through the authority’s Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Register, with each entry recorded during a base period forming the basis of that requirement.
10.26. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (Paragraph: 025 Reference ID: 57-025-201760728) confirms that the register is the primary mechanism for evidencing demand. It also confirms that authorities should have regard to the extent to which permissions granted are suitable for, and capable of being delivered as, self-build or custom housebuilding plots.
10.27. The Council published a Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Monitoring Report in April 2026. This identifies a demand of 40 individuals on the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Register as at 30 October 2024 and concludes that planning permission has been granted for 45 plots over the same period. This indicates that the Council has met its statutory duty.
10.28. However, National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) (Paragraph: 027 Reference ID: 57-027-20190722) is clear that permissions should only be counted where they are suitable for, and likely to be delivered as, self-build or custom housebuilding plots. In this instance, several of the permissions relied upon within the Monitoring Report are not subject to legal mechanisms securing them for self/custom build. As such, whilst they contribute to the reported supply total, there is no certainty that they will be delivered in a manner which directly meets the specific form of demand identified on the register.
10.29. Accordingly, whilst it is accepted that the Council can demonstrate a numerical supply of permissions exceeding identified demand, more limited weight is attributed to the extent to which that supply can be relied upon as being deliverable as self/custom build when assessed against the requirements of the NPPG.
10.30. Separate to the Monitoring Report, the following permissions within the Richmondshire Plan Area are clearly identifiable and secured as Self / Custom Build provision:
· 5 no. self/custom build dwellings at The Ashes Farm, Barton (ref: 19/00635/OUT), allowed at appeal on 5 January 2022.
· 1no Self-build dwelling at land adjacent to Springfield, Middleton Tyas (ref: 23/00124/FULL) Approved 4 May 2023.
· 1no. Self / custom build dwelling at land to rear of Ivy House, Approved 19 June 2026
10.31. These permissions are afforded substantial weight in demonstrating supply, as they are secured and therefore make a reliable and policy compliant contribution towards meeting identified demand.
10.32. Drawing these matters together, it is considered that whilst the Council can demonstrate compliance with its statutory duty , there remains some uncertainty regarding the deliverability of a proportion of that supply. As such, overall moderate weight is attributed to the Council’s position
10.33. The proposal would provide one additional plot capable of being secured and delivered as self/custom build. However, as a single-unit scheme, the contribution is limited and attracts only modest weight in the overall planning balance. This benefit would not, in isolation, outweigh the identified conflict with development plan policy.
10.34. Should planning permission be granted, it would be necessary to secure the dwelling as self-build through an appropriate planning mechanism. This would be achieved through a S106 Unilateral Undertaking to ensure that the development is constructed and occupied in accordance with the statutory definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. In the absence of such securing, the development could not reasonably be relied upon to contribute towards meeting the Council’s duty under the 2015 Act.
Principle of Development Conclusion
10.35. The proposal would deliver one self-build and custom housebuilding dwelling, which attracts moderate positive weight. However, this benefit is limited in this instance due to the site’s location as an isolated dwelling within the open countryside.
10.36. The site lies approximately 150 metres south of the defined development limits of Stapleton and does not form part of, or relate well to, the main built-up confines of the settlement. It is therefore located within the open countryside where new residential development is strictly controlled.
10.37. The proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy of the Richmondshire Local Plan, in particular Policies SP4, CP3, CP4 and CP8, which seek to direct development to sustainable locations within or adjacent to settlement boundaries. The site’s detached position and poor relationship with the settlement mean it does not meet these requirements
10.38. The proposal also conflicts with paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless specific circumstances apply. No such circumstances are present in this case.
10.39. It is acknowledged that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and that paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the NPPF is engaged. However, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not outweigh the clear policy conflict in this instance. The site represents an unsustainable location, with limited accessibility to services and poor pedestrian connectivity, resulting in a reliance on private vehicle use.
10.40. When assessed in the round, the adverse impacts arising from the proposal’s isolated and unsustainable location and its conflict with the development plan and national planning policy, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the moderate positive weight associated with the provision of one self-build dwelling.
Landscape Impact
10.41. Policy CP8 of the Richmondshire Local Plan seeks to avoid developments that would have an adverse impact upon the character, or distinctiveness of the landscape. Proposals are therefore required to demonstrate a sensitive response to their surroundings and avoid harm to established landscape features.
10.42. Paragraph 135(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that the planning decision should ensure that developments are:
Sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding build environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change ….
10.43. Theapplication site lies to the south of Stapleton, beyond the defined development limits, and is physically and visually separated from the village by a mature woodland belt running east–west. This provides a clear and defensible landscape boundary, beyond which the character transitions to open countryside. The existing farmstead, including the converted agricultural buildings now used as a children’s nursery and associated modern structures, remains visually and functionally distinct from the built form of the village and does not represent a natural extension of the settlement.
10.44. Local representations raise concerns that the proposed dwelling, by virtue of its isolated siting beyond a clearly defined landscape boundary, would result in an intrusive form of development that fails to respect the established rural character of the area. It is contended that the proposal would introduce built form into an otherwise undeveloped landscape and erode the prevailing character.
10.45. A Landscape and Visual Assessment has been submitted; however, it provides limited assessment of how the proposed development would appear within the wider landscape, particularly in the absence of visualisations or photomontages to demonstrate its impact in key views.
10.46. Whilst mature trees and hedgerows adjacent to Stapleton Bank provide some degree of screening, this is partial and seasonal. The site remains visible from certain vantage points, including from the nearby public right of way (bridleway) approximately 75 metres to the north, where the proposed dwelling would be perceptible within the open countryside.
10.47. The introduction of a new domestic dwelling in this location would extend built form beyond the established farmstead into an undeveloped rural landscape. This would result in encroachment into the countryside, eroding the strong landscape boundary and undermining the simple, open character of the area.
10.48. In the absence of any overriding justification for development in this location, the proposal would give rise to harm to landscape character and visual amenity. The concerns raised by local representations are therefore supported.
10.49. This proposal is considered to conflict with Policies CP4, CP8, CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan which seeks to ensure development is well related to its surroundings and conserves the landscape character, and with paragraph 135(c) of the NPPF which requires development to be sympathetic to local character and surrounding landscape.
Design and Visual Impact
10.50. Policy CP13 of the Richmondshire Local Plan requires all development proposals to achieve a high standard of design that is both visually attractive and functional. It places significant weight on ensuring that development responds positively to local character, reinforces distinctive design features, and integrates successfully with the surrounding landscape and built environment.
10.51. Paragraph 41 of the National Design Guide states:
Well designed new development responses positively to the features of the site itself and the surrounding context beyond the site boundary.
10.52. Paragraph 135 (b) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions should ensure that developments are:
Visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping.
10.53. The proposal seeks permission for the erection of a substantial two-storey dwelling with single-storey offshoots, comprising four bedrooms, a study, dining hall and associated accommodation. By virtue of its scale, extensive footprint, and the introduction of domestic paraphernalia, the development would result in a visually prominent and expansive residential form within an otherwise open and undeveloped rural setting.
10.54. The scale, massing and form of the building fail to respond sensitively to the rural context. The proposed dwelling would appear large, sprawling and architecturally incongruous, lacking any meaningful reference to the established character or prevailing built form of the surrounding landscape. This concern is reinforced by local representations, which highlight that the development is out of keeping with the character of the area. The overall composition would appear visually intrusive and would not sit comfortably within the wider countryside, resulting in an unacceptable erosion of rural character.
10.55. Whilst a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted in support of the application, it fails to satisfactorily demonstrate the development can be effectively assimilated into the wider landscape or mitigate the identified harm arising from the scale and form of the proposal.
10.56. The submitted landscaping details indicate the introduction of domestic features, including areas of gravel surfacing and formalised boundary treatments comprising hedgerows and ornamental planting. These elements are not characteristic of the prevailing landscape and would appear contrived within this open countryside setting.
10.57. Local representations raise concerns that the proposed landscaping would introduce an urbanising influence, eroding the intrinsic rural character of the site. This concern is well-founded. The cumulative effect of the engineered surfaces and structured planting would reinforce the perception of a domesticated and suburban form of development, which would sit uncomfortably within the wider agricultural landscape and fail to respect its openness and simplicity.
10.58. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy CP13 of the Richmondshire Local Plan, paragraph 41 of the National Design Guide, and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It fails to achieve a design that is sympathetic to local character, history, and the surrounding landscape setting. The modern form, excessive massing, and visual prominence of the dwelling would not integrate successfully within the rural environment. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to reinforce the established vernacular and would not contribute positively to the character, distinctiveness, or visual quality of the wider countryside.
Sustainability
10.60. Paragraph 139 (b) of the National Planning Policy Framework states:
Significant weight should be given to 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.
10.61. The applicant has submitted a Sustainability Statement which confirms that the development would incorporate a range of energy efficiency measures, including solar panels and an air source heat pump, and would exceed the requirements of Part L of the Building Regulations. Provision is also made for electric vehicle charging and cycle storage.
10.62. The proposal purports to deliver wider sustainability benefits through support for the rural economy, localised employment opportunities, and the provision of housing within a rural setting. Whilst these factors are acknowledged, they do not outweigh the fundamental limitations associated with the site’s accessibility and transport sustainability.
10.63. In terms of construction, the proposal demonstrates compliance with criterion (e) of Policy CP13 through the incorporation of low carbon technologies and energy efficiency measures. However, such features are now standard expectations within modern residential development and therefore attract only limited weight in the planning balance.
10.64. When assessed against Policy CP13 as a whole, the proposal fails to demonstrate a high quality, contextually responsive design that respects and enhances the defining characteristics of the area, contrary to criterion (b). Furthermore, the scheme does not represent the exceptional or innovative design required to attract significant weight under paragraph 139(b) of the Framework.
10.65. Whilst the scheme incorporates certain sustainable construction measures, these are insufficient to overcome the fundamental locational deficiencies of the site. The proposal does not represent sustainable development when considered in the round and is therefore contrary to Policy CP13 of the Richmondshire Local Plan and paragraphs 117 and 139(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework.
10.66. Policy CP4 (3e) of the Richmondshire Local Plan states that development should not cause significant adverse impact on highway safety. Whilst Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:
Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.
10.67. The Local Highway Authority has assessed the proposed development and raises no objection to the use of the existing access from Stapleton Bank. It has advised that, should planning permission be granted, conditions should be imposed requiring the submission of detailed plans relating to access, turning and parking arrangements.
10.68. The Local Highway Authority does not anticipate that the proposed dwelling would give rise to a material increase in vehicle movements. Construction traffic is also expected to be limited and unlikely to have a significant impact on the local highway network.
10.69. The proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor would the residual cumulative impacts on the road network be severe. The development therefore accords with Policy CP4 of the Richmondshire Local Plan and paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework. [LZ9] [LT10]
Residential Amenity
10.70. Policy CP4(3e) of the Richmondshire Local Plan requires that development should not cause any significant adverse impact on amenity. Paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework similarly states that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible, promote health and well‑being, and provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.
10.71. The application site is physically and visually separated from the residential properties within Stapleton by a mature belt of trees running east–west to the north of the site. Given the substantial separation distance of approximately 150 metres between the proposed development and the nearest residential properties in Stapleton, together with the intervening landscaping, the proposal would not result in any loss of privacy or create an overbearing impact for existing occupiers. In addition, the separation distance between the existing farmhouse and the proposed dwelling approximately 55 metres to the northwest is sufficient to ensure that the amenity of the farmhouse would also be preserved.
10.72. The proposed dwelling would be set within a generous plot and separation from neighbouring properties are sufficient to ensure no unacceptable overshadowing or loss of daylight occurs. The isolated nature of the site is such that the development would not generate noise or activity levels that would harm the living conditions of nearby residents.
10.73. Future occupants would benefit from adequate internal living accommodation and appropriate outdoor amenity space, ensuring a satisfactory standard of residential amenity. outdoor amenity areas.
10.74. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy CP4 of the Richmondshire Local Plan as well as paragraph 135 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Contamination
10.75. Policy CP3 (4) of the Richmondshire Local Plan requires that development proposals provide an appropriate risk assessment and remediation strategy to address any issues relating to land contamination or land stability arising from past uses or activities.
10.76. Paragraph 196 (a) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning decisions should ensure that sites are suitable for their proposed use, taking account of ground conditions and any risks arising from land instability or contamination.
10.77. The site was historically in agricultural use and formerly operated as a pony paddock, with a timber stable still present on part of the land. The site now appears to be disused standing vacant.
10.78. The proposal introduces a vulnerable end use, in the form of a dwelling, onto the site. Following consultation with the Environmental Health Team, no objection has been raised, subject to the inclusion of an unexpected land contamination condition. Given the site’s historic use, there is potential for unexpected contamination to be present. The recommended condition will ensure that any previously unidentified contaminants encountered during construction are appropriately investigated and remediated, thereby safeguarding the health of future occupants.
10.79. Subject to the recommended condition being attached to any grant of permission, the proposal would accord with Policy CP3 of the Richmondshire Local Plan and Paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Ecological Impact
10.80. Policy CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan seeks to conserve and enhance biodiversity and requires development proposals to avoid, minimise or appropriately mitigate any adverse impacts on biodiversity arising from development.
10.81. Paragraph 193(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that planning permission should be refused where significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for. Paragraph 187(a) further requires that planning decisions should protect and enhance sites of biodiversity value, ensuring that development does not undermine their ecological importance.
10.82. The Council’s Ecologist has advised that the proposal is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact on statutory or non-statutory designated sites such as Stapleton Pasture SINC which is approximately 240 metres east of the development due to the small scale of the development.
10.83. The Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that, following the submission of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan, that their earlier holding objection has been withdrawn, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
10.84. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment identifies that T7 (Weeping Willow) requires management and has the potential to support bat roosts. As bats are a protected species, a pre-commencement check by a licensed bat specialist should be undertaken, and soft felling techniques employed where deemed appropriate.
10.85. The Council’s Ecologist has advised that, should permission be granted, conditions be imposed to mitigate impacts on ecological habitats, along with additional conditions to secure ecological enhancements.
10.86. The proposal therefore accords with Policies CP4 and CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan, as well as paragraphs 187(a) and 193(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Arboricultural Impact
10.87. Policy CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan seeks to protect trees within the plan area and requires development proposals to avoid, minimise, or appropriately mitigate any adverse impacts on trees arising from development.
10.88. Paragraph 193(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that development resulting in the loss of irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
10.89. Paragraph 136 of the National Planning Policy Framework confirms that trees should be retained wherever possible.
10.90. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) have been submitted following the deferral. These confirm that only a limited portion of the root protection area lies within the proposed development footprint. It is therefore anticipated that, subject to the implementation of tree protection measures in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Plan, any adverse impacts will be appropriately avoided.
10.91. A Utilities and Services Plan has been submitted in support of the application, which demonstrates that all proposed service routes will be located outside of root protection areas and directed away from existing trees, thereby avoiding any adverse impacts on retained trees.
10.92. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has confirmed that they raise no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the implementation of tree protection measures during the construction phase.
10.93. The proposal therefore accords with Policies CP4 and CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan, as well as paragraphs 136 and 193(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework, subject to the imposition of appropriate tree protection conditions.
Biodiversity Net Gain
10.94. Planning Permissions in England are deemed to be granted subject to the general Biodiversity Gain Condition as set out by Schedule 7A, paragraph 13 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) as amended by Schedule 14, Part 2, paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the Environment Act 2021. This is a pre-commencement condition.
10.95. The proposed development qualifies for the self-build and custom-build exemption from the mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements and had this been recommended for approval would the required legal agreement would secure this as explained in paragraph 105, because it (i) comprises no more than 9 dwellings (ii) is on a site no larger than 0.5 hectares and (iii) consists exclusively of self-build or custom building housing as defined by Section 1(A1) of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. Accordingly, the statutory biodiversity gain planning condition under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does not apply. This proposal therefore accords with the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024.
Protected Species and Off-Site Habitats
10.96. Policy CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan states that proposal which will have a detrimental impact upon the significance of a natural asset within the plan area will not be supported.
10.97. The application site lies within the Nutrient Neutrality SSSI Catchment Area. Before granting planning permission for developments within this catchment, the Local Planning Authority must be satisfied that the proposal would be nutrient neutral and would not adversely affect the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) by increasing nutrient pollution.
10.98. This application proposes the creation of a new dwelling, which without suitable mitigation would result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar Site and would damage or destroy the interest features for which the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified.
10.99. Natural England has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal subject to mitigation. To mitigate these adverse impacts, Natural England has recommended the imposition of a condition requiring the installation of a Package Treatment Plant (PTP) achieving a final effluent concentration of Total Nitrogen (TN) ≤ 18 mg/litre..
10.100. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states that competent authorities must ensure that development proposals do not lead to adverse effects on the integrity of designated European sites, including those affected by nutrient enrichment. In accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), the Local Planning Authority undertook a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and consulted Natural England as the statutory nature conservation body.
10.101. Natural England notes that the Local Planning Authority, as the competent authority, has undertaken an Appropriate Assessment of the proposal in accordance with Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Natural England is a statutory consultee at the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process. The HRA submitted to Natural England in support of this application (dated 13 February 2026) concludes that the authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any designated sites. Having considered this assessment and the mitigation measures proposed to address all potential adverse effects, Natural England confirms that it concurs with the conclusions of the HRA, provided that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured through any planning permission granted.
10.102. The Local Planning Authority is satisfied that subject to the imposition of the required mitigation condition that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, and the proposal is also in accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and the relevant guidance contained within the NPPG. The proposal therefore accords with Policy CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan.
Flood Risk
10.103. Policy CP2 of the Richmondshire Local Plan states that development proposals should be steered away from areas at risk of flooding and should be designed to minimise flood risk both on‑site and elsewhere, including through the incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) where appropriate.
10.104. Policy CP4(3d) of the Richmondshire Local Plan further requires that developments should not be located in areas of flood risk, nor should they result in an increase in flood risk to surrounding land.
10.105. Paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere, taking into account all sources of flooding and the cumulative impacts of development.
10.106. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1, land within flood zone 1 has a low probability of flooding from rivers and the sea.
10.107. Environment Agency flood mapping indicates no identified surface‑water flood risks within the proposed development site.
10.108. Surface water drainage is proposed to be managed via a soakaway system, which is acceptable in principle subject to compliance with Building Regulations Part H and the requirement for infiltration testing to demonstrate that ground conditions are suitable.
10.109. Foul drainage is proposed to be discharged to a sewage treatment plant. This will also mitigate against the adverse impacts of increased nutrient loading in the area and satisfies Natural England in this regard.
10.110. The proposal therefore accords with Policies CP2, CP4 as well as Paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework with regards to flood risk, surface water and drainage.
Unilateral Undertaking
10.111. The proposed dwelling qualifies as a self and custom-build development. The applicant has indicated their intention to construct the property for their own occupation rather than for commercial sale. In accordance with the legislative framework governing Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and associated exemptions, the self-build shall be formally secured to ensure the development is treated in line with the relevant exemption criteria. To achieve this, the applicant would be required to enter a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the self-build nature of the scheme should planning permission be granted. This mechanism provides the Local Planning Authority with certainty that the development meets the qualifying conditions for the exemption and ensure that the appropriate legal controls are in place for the duration of the development[JW11] [LZ12] .
Equality
10.112. Under Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
10.113. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 has been considered and there is no reason why the proposed application would prejudice anyone with the protected characteristics as described in paragraph 10.112.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1. The proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of one self-build and custom-build dwelling. The site lies outside the defined development limits and main built-up confines of Stapleton and would result in an isolated dwelling within the open countryside. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policies SP4, CP4 and CP8 of the Richmondshire Local Plan and paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which collectively seek to direct development to sustainable locations and resist unjustified isolated homes in the countryside.
11.2. It is acknowledged that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (2.7 years), and that the delivery of housing carries significant weight. The provision of a self/custom-build dwelling, for which there is identified demand, attracts moderate positive weight.
11.3. Notwithstanding this, the site is physically and functionally detached from Stapleton, with limited access to services and poor pedestrian connectivity. The absence of continuous footways, the distance to public transport, and the nature of the surrounding road network, including sections subject to the national speed limit, significantly limit opportunities for safe and convenient pedestrian movement. The reliance on private vehicle use confirms that the proposal represents an unsustainable form of development, contrary to the spatial strategy and paragraph 84 of the Framework. No exceptional or supporting circumstances have been demonstrated.
11.4. In applying the titled balance, the benefits of the proposal include:
· The delivery of one-self build dwelling, attracting moderate positive weight;
· Limited economic benefits during construction;
· Standard sustainability measures, including low-carbon technologies.
However, these benefit are modest and carry limited weight.
11.5. These benefits are outweighed by a number of clear and demonstrable harms:
· The introduction of an isolated dwelling in the open countryside, contrary to spatial strategy;
· An unsustainable location with poor accessibility to services and reliance on private vehicles;
· Harm to landscape character through encroachment beyond a defined and defensible settlement boundary;
· A design and form of development that fails to respond appropriately to its rural context and appears visually intrusive.
11.6. While no objections are raised in respect of technical matters (including highways, amenity, ecology, arboriculture, flood risk and contamination), these neutral factors do not outweigh the fundamental policy conflicts and identified harm.
11.7. When assessed in the round, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework as a whole.
11.8. Accordingly, notwithstanding the absence of a five-year housing land supply and the application of paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, the proposal does not constitute sustainable development. Planning permission should therefore be refused.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1. That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:
i. The proposal represents an isolated dwelling in the open countryside, outside and physically detached from the development limits of Stapleton, and unrelated to the established settlement pattern. As such, it conflicts with the spatial strategy set out in SP4 and with Core Policies CP4 and CP8 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 (adopted 2014) which seeks to direct new housing to sustainable locations and restrict residential development in the countryside. The proposal also conflicts with Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires decision makers to avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless specific exceptions apply, none of which are met. The development is therefore unacceptable in principle.
ii. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its isolated siting within the open countryside and its position beyond a clear and defensible landscape boundary, would result in an intrusive form of development that fails to respect the established rural character of the area. The development would therefore harm the local landscape character and appearance, contrary to policies CP4, CP8 and CP12 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 (adopted 2014). The proposal also conflicts with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character and maintains or enhances the quality of the landscape. Accordingly, the proposal is unacceptable on landscape grounds.
iii. The proposed dwelling due to its isolated siting and intrusive appearance within the open countryside, would fail to respect local character or integrate with its surroundings. The development therefore results in an unacceptable design and visual impact contrary to Policy CP13 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2028 (adopted 2014). The proposal also conflicts with Paragraphs 41 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the design principles of the National Design Guide, which requires new development to be context-responsive, locally distinctive and visually well integrated.
Target Determination Date: 10.07.2026
Case Officer: Liam Timmins, liamtimmins@northyorks.gov.uk
Appendix A – Adopted Development Plan Limits and Proposed Development Site
Key
Solid Redline – Development Limits
Yellow Star – Application site location
Key
Red circle – Development Limits / core village of Stapleton
Yellow Star – Application site location