3 and 5 Montpellier Street, Harrogate

Decision

dismissed, 1 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: N Teasdale

Authority

North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)

Appeal reference

6007391

Application reference

25/01921/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Rebuilding of long-demolished cottages to form 1 retail unit and 1 two-bed apartment, with balcony, external access and gates

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area, PDL

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE4, HE6, HE7, HE9, S4(1)

Development plan policies

Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 HP2, HP3, HP4, Harrogate Conservation Area Character Appraisal, House Extensions and Garages Design Guide 2005

Main issues

conservation area and NDHA setting; neighbour living conditions

Summary

Rebuilding two long-demolished cottages behind Montpellier Parade, Harrogate, as a shop and a two-bed flat. Dismissed. The replacement was bulkier and over-fenestrated compared with the modest originals, and its four dormers would be prominent. The Inspector put the harm to the conservation area at "the higher end of the spectrum", with further harm to the setting of the locally listed parade and neighbours' outlook and privacy. Public benefits got substantial weight in total but did not justify the harm under HE4/HE6. The S4 presumption was displaced.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have considered its amendments against the December 2024 version ... the changes relevant to this appeal are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of my decision. I have therefore not gone back to the parties" (DL ¶3).
• Heritage — HE5/HE6/HE9: HARM. The Inspector sets out HE5's three categories of effect and HE6's substantial weight to conservation (DL ¶8). The building "would read as a bulky addition and not be reflective of the rhythm of the built form" (DL ¶18). "Given the scale and prominence of the proposals, the extent of harm would be at the higher end of the spectrum" (DL ¶21).
• Historic precedent argued. "I appreciate that the scheme seeks to replicate the scale of the cottages, but these have long since been demolished and I must determine the scheme based on its own merits" (DL ¶17).
• Derelict site. "I am also not persuaded that the derelict state of the site cannot be improved by other means" (DL ¶36).
• Benefits. The Inspector cites Framework statements that "substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings and to proposals that make more effective use of land", and attaches "substantial weight to the public benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶24).
• Living conditions: HARM. A neighbour's window would be fully obscured by a wall at close range, and a new amenity balcony differs from a fire escape: "a balcony serving a fire escape route is different to a balcony being used for amenity space" (DL ¶¶27, 29).

Planning balance

The HE6/HE7 heritage balance was run first. High-end CA harm (substantial weight) plus NDHA harm outweighed public benefits of substantial weight: "the magnitude of those benefits taking into account the nature and scale of one small retail and residential unit is not sufficient" (DL ¶25). Then S4: "the benefits of the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶40).

What made the difference

The site is small but prominent from a busy tourist street, and the design added bulk and dormers the historic cottages never had. The Inspector separated the weight category (substantial) from the magnitude of the benefit, which was small for one flat and one shop. A lower, simpler building with rooflights instead of four dormers, and no amenity balcony facing neighbours' windows, would probably have passed.

Transferable points

• Benefits can be given "substantial weight" and still be small in magnitude. The HE6 balance looks at "the magnitude of those benefits taking into account the nature and scale" (DL ¶25).
• Historical evidence that buildings once stood on a site is only a material consideration. The new scheme is judged on its own design (DL ¶17).
• "Site will stay derelict" is not a justification for harmful development if other means of tidying exist (DL ¶36).
• HE5 is used to classify effects, with the harm then graded ("higher end of the spectrum") (DL ¶¶8, 21).
• Drafting slip: the letter refers to 2024-style Framework chapters ("chapters 14 and 20", "Chapter 6") (DL ¶¶23, 26, 34).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• The cottages were demolished long ago (1960 photo shows smaller buildings); replication of the historic footprint is a material consideration only (DL 15-17)
• Council cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 23)
• Decided without consulting the parties; the Inspector compared the 2024 and 2026 versions and found the changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 3)
• Letter refers to Framework "chapters 14 and 20" and "Chapter 6", but the 2026 Framework has policy codes, not those chapters (DL 23, 26, 34)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.