# 10 Dew Lane, Ormesby

- **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett
- **Authority:** Redcar and Cleveland (North East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6004752
- **Application reference:** R/2025/0238/VC
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** s73 variation of approved plans condition to reposition a part-built detached dwelling in a rear garden (original permission R/2021/0639/RS)
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, garden-land
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** N6, S4, HO7
- **Development plan policies:** Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 2018 N4, SD4, Design of Residential Areas SPD 2011
- **Main issues:** habitats nutrient neutrality, habitats recreational disturbance, living conditions
- **Tags:** habitats-mitigation, nutrient-neutrality, s73-variation, fallback, s4-substantially-outweighed, ho7-moderate-weight-no-evidenced-need, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme, garden-land

## Summary
A s73 application to reposition a part-built single house in a rear garden in Ormesby. It was refused, and the appeal was dismissed. Living conditions were acceptable, but Natural England raised nutrient neutrality during the appeal. No mitigation strategy was provided, so an adverse effect on the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site could not be ruled out, and this defeated the S4 presumption. The fallback of an extant permission for the same dwelling did not save it.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Decided without consulting the parties: "There are no substantive changes in respect of the main issues and therefore no interested parties would be prejudiced by my consideration of the 2026 version" (DL ¶4).
- **Habitats, nutrients: FAIL.** "No such mitigation strategy has been provided by the appellant. Consequently, I cannot ascertain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar site" (DL ¶10).
- **Habitats, recreation: PASS.** A £200 contribution paid under the original permission, though not secured by an obligation, was accepted as mitigation (DL ¶15).
- **Living conditions: PASS.** Obscure glazing to the side dormer could be secured by condition (DL ¶20).
- **HO7: moderate weight only.** "Policy HO7 gives substantial weight to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting evidenced accommodation needs ... However, there is no substantive evidence before me which identifies such a specific need for the type of accommodation proposed ... I therefore afford this benefit moderate weight given its small scale" (DL ¶30).

## Planning balance
S4 balance. On the benefit side: moderate weight for one home and small economic benefits. On the harm side, the adverse effect on the SPA/Ramsar: "Policy N6 of the Framework indicates that proposals should be refused. I therefore find the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed ... Policy S4 of the Framework does not point to permission being granted" (DL ¶31). The fallback got significant weight, but "the application of the Habitat Regulations indicates that the proposed development must not be permitted" (DL ¶26).

## What made the difference
Nutrient neutrality came up for the first time at appeal and the appellant produced no mitigation strategy. The Habitats Regulations are a legal bar that no fallback or S4 weighting can overcome. A costed, secured nutrient mitigation scheme would very probably have led to the appeal being allowed, since every other issue passed.

## Transferable points
- HO7 "substantial weight" is tied to "evidenced accommodation needs". With no evidence of need for the type of home proposed, a single dwelling may get only moderate weight (DL ¶30).
- N6 works as a refusal policy inside the S4 balance: an adverse effect on integrity means S4 "does not point to permission" (DL ¶31).
- A s73 application creates a fresh permission and brings in a new Habitats assessment even where the original permission was never assessed (DL ¶¶3, 9).
- A fallback of significant weight does not outweigh the precautionary Habitats Regulations test (DL ¶26).

## Policy findings
- **N6: fail.** no nutrient mitigation strategy; adverse effect on integrity of Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA/Ramsar cannot be ruled out; N6 says refuse (DL 10-12, 31)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** no evidence of specific need for this accommodation type, so HO7 substantial weight not applied; moderate weight for general supply (DL 30)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by habitats harm; S4 does not point to permission (DL 30-31)
- **DP3: pass.** living conditions acceptable with obscure-glazed side dormer (plan policy SD4) (DL 17-24)

## Key facts
- Dwelling already started but not built to approved plans; s73 would reposition it about 4 m west
- Nutrient neutrality raised by Natural England during the appeal; not assessed at original permission (DL 9)
- Fallback of extant permission given significant weight but precautionary Habitats approach prevailed (DL 26)
- £200 recreational mitigation paid at original permission accepted as mitigation (DL 15)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004752
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cf72e7e6-be99-4e14-bf3e-21536daa5393

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004752.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.