Appeal 3298108

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Tranmere Park Conservation Area (the Conservation Area).

The appeal site is located within Tranmere Park which is a large residential estate to the west of Guiseley designated as a Conservation Area. The estate is sited adjacent to, but has a sense of separation from, the adjoining urban area and is surrounded for the most part by open countryside. The Conservation Area is characterised by the layout of the estate, the style of housing and the landscaping and mature planting, which creates a quiet suburban character.

The housing, which is constructed of different but repeating designs, is of low density and is set well back from the road where there are adjoining wide grass verges, some with small trees. This combined with the lack of pavements on the estate, or gates to the driveways, creates a sense of openness.

Westgate, where the appeal site is located, is a long road with a mixture of detached and semi-detached housing of limited styles; stone details being a distinctive feature. Some of the houses, including [site address] , have low stone boundary walls with other properties being completely open or having hedges to the front. Overall, there is a distinctive and unifying character to the area.

No 14 is a detached two storey dwelling with white painted render which is reflective of an Arts and Crafts style found throughout this part of Tranmere Park. On the east elevation is an attached flat roofed garage which would appear to be original to the house. No 14 has decorative stone details visible on the front elevation including stone kneelers to the roof, stone details to both chimneys and distinctive drip courses. The Council considers that this is an excellent and unaltered example of the original estate.

The proposal seeks to create a front porch with oak supports and glazed window panels. Two further oak supports would be located to the front of the dwelling supporting the pitched roof canopy that would extend from the porch, above the bay window and create a hipped roof over the garage and an open canopy along the side and part of the rear.

The Council has commented that hipped roofs and porches are not typical design features of the Arts and Crafts style. However, I saw some examples of these on Westgate and the extracts of the Tranmere Park Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2013) provided by the appellant indicate that there are also examples in the wider area. However, the use of timber porches is not a common feature along Westgate where render and stone are the dominant material.

No 14 has a simple but pleasing frontage which is enhanced by the original decorative details. The introduction of the porch and canopy would unbalance the symmetry of the property, whilst the use of timber posts would be excessively robust and out of character with the subtle features in the original design. This, combined with the glazing of the porch to the apex would not only lead to the loss of original features, but the modern design would not harmonise with the site and its location. This would harm the character of the building.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, in this case the Tranmere Park Conservation Area, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

In assessing the degree of harm as set out in the Framework, this would be less than substantial, as the changes proposed are localised in terms of the Conservation Area as a whole. Where harm is identified, paragraph 202 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. It is likely that the benefits from such a development would purely be private benefits and as such this would not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Therefore, the proposal would fail to accord with the Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy (as amended by the [name] 2019), 11 September 2019, Policies P10 which requires high quality design, P11 requiring the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and saved policy BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review which covers alterations and extensions needing to respect the scale, form, detailing and materials of the original building.

The appellant refers me to examples of houses in Westgate where front extensions and hipped roofs have been constructed. Alterations to the front elevations of houses along Westgate were viewed on the site visit. However, with no information on these individual cases, I cannot be certain that there are any direct comparisons with the proposal before me, particularly with regard to the conservation area status at the time they were constructed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that what appear as relatively small changes to buildings within a conservation area can incrementally over time alter the character and appearance of the designated area. I have determined the appeal on its own merits and these examples do not alter my conclusion.

For the reasons given above, considering the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.