The proposed siting to the rear of the existing dwelling is not considered to be in accordance with the requirements of the NYM Core Strategy & Development Policies as it does not fit within the required criteria of the Replacement Dwelling Policy (DP 21) or Housing Policy (CP J) as it is not a replacement on the same footprint nor in a location which would be considered to be an infill plot. As such the proposal is not considered to be a replacement dwelling and represents a form of random sporadic development which does not respect the form and grain of the existing settlement pattern and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and surrounding open countryside.
The proposal seeks to avoid the imposition of an occupancy condition on the new dwelling. The re-siting of the new dwelling from the front part of the curtilage in a location within the main built up part of the village to a location outside the main built up part of the village in the rear part of the curtilage creates a new dwelling in the open countryside. This conflicts with the combined objectives of the adopted Core Policy J, Development Policy 21 and NYM Housing Supplementary Planning Document (s 6.3) together with the draft Local Plan Strategic Policy M and Large Village Policy CO8. As the Authority's planning framework for housing as a whole, there is no policy support for the creation of a new open market dwelling sited further into the countryside to replace one located in the main built up part of the village. In the absence of at least a local occupancy condition ( to reflect proposal circumstances and thrust of policies) , the proposal would undermine the Park wide spatial strategy whereby housing outside the main built up parts of larger settlements should meet affordable housing or essential rural worker need rather than general open market housing need.
Although the existing property does not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the Authority cannot support the application on heritage or design grounds as the proposed development relates poorly to the existing settlement pattern. As a result of its inappropriate siting and the lack of local distinctiveness in its design the proposal will cause harm to the significance of Osmotherley Conservation Area which the Authority has a duty to have special regard to the character and appearance of under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, a Core Policy 4 of the NYM Local Development Framework and conflict with pp 196 of the NPPF as the public benefit of the proposal does not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset.
Although the existing modern property is of relatively poor quality, its qualities are not considered justification for its demolition and construction of a new building which is also not informed by the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In particular, the architectural style, scale and massing of the proposed building do not reflect the local distinctiveness or special interest of the settlement required by Development Policy 3 (Design); its location and angle on the plot are not informed by historical settlement morphology; and, the building materials are not locally derived and are not of particular quality. The Authority's concern also extends to the proposed materials which, being external balconies and metalworking, steel rainwater goods, slate roof and pre-weathered timber vertical boarding which do not share affinity with the special interest of the built heritage within the Conservation Area.