Appeal 3277922

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for new reclaimed stoned garden wall 1800mm high 10m long tying into and existing reclaimed stone wall that is 1000mm high that will be raised to match rest of wall. Wall to be approximately 400mm wide with reclaimed coping slabs on top at [site address] , [site address] , Yeadon, Leeds [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 20/06073/FU dated 22 September 2020.

The description of the proposal has been altered from the application form to the decision notice. That on the application form adequately describes the proposal and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

I noted on my site visit that the wall was present. It appeared to broadly accord with the submitted plans. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans for the avoidance of doubt.

The main issue is the effect of the wall on the setting of the listed building, [name].

The wall, which the evidence indicates has formed an extension to one previously existing has been erected to form the garden boundary between the appeal site, [site address] and [name], which is grade II listed.

In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, I am required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Other than from within the private garden of [site address] or [name], main views towards the wall could only be taken from [site address] to the west and from within the [address] complex to the east. [site address] comprises of a range of older and more recent buildings, many of which have been converted into dwellings.

I acknowledge that the [site address] , [name], and other buildings across the complex have associations through their grouping in historical and functional terms.

However, buildings across the wider site have been converted and placed into separate ownerships and new buildings have been introduced across the site. This has broken the wider site down in functional and visual terms and the buildings do not therefore form a cohesive historical grouping with [name] even though this may have been the case in the past. The functional and historical characteristics of the setting therefore make only a limited contribution to the significance of the listed building.

The evidence indicates that although there was previously boundary treatment on the line of the wall, this had a less formal appearance and greater permeability than that which has been constructed. In spite of this, given the wider character of the site, the provision of more robust boundary treatment merely has a neutral effect on the functional and historical aspects of the setting of [name].

In visual terms, whilst [name] has an attractive frontage, its listing description, amongst other things includes its course squared sandstone block walls, stone slate roof, ridge chimneys and gable copings with kneelers and finials. It therefore has visual characteristics which make an important contribution to its significance.

Its west facing side elevation and roof slope are visible from [site address] across the entrance gates and walls of [site address] along with the most westerly of the latter features mentioned above. These views form the primary public views from where the Hall and the wall could, in theory, be viewed in the same frame.

However, due to the height of the gates and flanking boundary walls at the entrance to [site address] , the wall cannot easily be viewed from [site address] . Given its lack of visibility from public views, the wall does not visually compete with the listed building nor distract from it. Further, the wall does not appear visually out of place when viewed from within the [address] complex.

The wall has been constructed using well matched stonework to surrounding buildings which does not visually compete with that used on [name]. It includes stone coping that appears to match the previously existing section of wall, while the pointing is reflective of that on many of the more established buildings within the [address] complex.

The wall would therefore also have a neutral effect on the visual aspects of the setting of [name].

Overall, therefore the wall therefore has a neutral impact on the significance of the heritage asset and therefore preserves the setting of the grade II listed [name].

The proposal would subsequently accord with Policies P10 and P12 of the [name] (2019) which amongst other things require good quality design that at a minimum protects or conserves historic assets and the historical significance of the district.

The evidence indicates that the site sits within the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The question of inappropriateness has not been raised by the parties, however.

The Framework1 at paragraph 149 outlines that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to exceptions. One such exception is the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Walls, which are attached to buildings (such as is the case here), can be regarded as ‘buildings’ for the purposes of the Framework. The wall is very modest structure in comparison to the large and high-volume building to which it is attached and it could not be deemed a disproportionate addition. The wall does not therefore form inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

A condition suggested by the Council relating to approved plans would not be appropriate given the appeal development appears to be completed.

I have identified no conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.