Appeal 3329035

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The application was submitted for retrospective planning permission. The Council’s delegated report confirms that the submitted plans do not reflect what has been built, as they are a revised scheme from a previously refused retrospective application1. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.

The appeal site is in a conservation area, and I shall therefore pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area in accordance with section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The Government published a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) on 19 December 2023. [name] have had regard to the revised national policy as a material consideration, planning decisions must still be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action. 1 Local Planning Authority Reference 22/08236/FU.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property, street scene and the Oulton Conservation Area (OCA).

The OCA has historical ties to its agricultural industries which is reflected in the materials of the dwellings in the area. The variation of 16th and 17th century stone, timber-framed and handmade brick dwellings show its organic village development into a rural estate. Local sandstone is the predominant building material used including boundary treatments which have a strong presence in the area. The open garden spaces in addition to the presence of mature trees and hedges give Oulton a green village character. Overall, this contributes to the special rural village green character of the OCA.

The appeal property, [site address] , is a predominantly stone building which along with its garden space positively contributes to the rural green character of the OCA.

The scale of the proposed scheme would be reduced due to the removal of the canopy and raised decking; however, it would still be excessive in height and proportion. The scheme would be located towards the public road and take up almost the full width of the garden which would restrict the views of the open garden space. This would result in a visually dominant structure and a significant loss of the verdant open character of the garden space. The scale and massing of the proposed scheme would therefore harmfully erode the historic character and openness of the garden space which characterise the OCA, to the detriment of its significance.

Although the use of dark timber external cladding complements the vegetation and timber access gates, the materials are incongruous to the stone building of [site address] and the predominant stone presence in the OCA. While the appellant’s suggested use of external stone cladding to match [site address] would address this to an extent, it would not mitigate the harm caused by the scale, massing and location of the development on the openness of the garden plot.

The proposed scheme is fronted by [address], therefore is not located to the rear of [site address] . The scheme would be partially screened from [address] due to the fence and vegetation boundary treatment which encloses the garden. However, I am not persuaded that a condition to retain the height of the hedge boundary for the lifetime of the development would be reasonable or enforceable. Therefore, the introduction of an outbuilding of the scale and massing proposed in this location would detract from the character and appearance of the garden plot of the host dwelling.

For the reasons given, the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the appeal property, the street scene and cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the OCA.

The appellant has cited similar outbuildings approved for nearby properties within the OCA. However, the cited examples are either more modest in scale, situated away from the main road or to the rear of the property and/or would likely meet permitted development criteria. Therefore, I have not seen in the area other examples of outbuildings of a comparable scale, height and location to the proposed scheme.

Although the proposal would provide an additional habitable space, this is a private benefit for the occupants of the appeal property, therefore there is no public benefit which would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the OCA.

Although external stone cladding would mitigate some harm, this does not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the OCA or the harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and street scene caused by the scale and height of the scheme. This is regardless of whether the outbuilding would be classed as a temporary structure.

Consequently, the scheme would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the OCA and would therefore be contrary to the Oulton Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2010) and Saved Policy N19 of the 2006 adopted Leeds Unitary Development Plan (UDP). It would conflict with Policy DBE1 of the Oulton and Woodlesford Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021- 2033, which requires that development in conservation areas respects local architecture, preserves their character in line with the Appraisal and preserves or enhances gardens. The scheme would also be contrary to the scale, form and proportion requirements of Policy P10 of the 2019 adopted Leeds Local Plan Core Strategy, Policy BD6 of the UDP and Policy HDG1 of the 2012 Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document.

The Council found no significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants at [address] and I see no reason to disagree. The appellant states the development would not affect listed buildings, living conditions of any neighbours, including [address], and highway safety. While that may be the case, a lack of harm is neutral in the planning balance and does not outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal scheme would be contrary to the development plan, when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.