Appeal 3350961

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 24/01484/HOU, dated 23 April, 2024 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan, drawing no.01; proposed site plan, drawing no.03 [name]; existing and proposed site sections, drawing no.04 [name]; proposed garage, drawing no.05 [name].

The Council has referred to the garden walls of the appeal site as being curtilage listed. [name] have only limited evidence of the surrounding listed buildings and their relationship to the appeal site, there is no substantiated evidence to the contrary. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the walls are curtilage listed.

The main issues are: the effect of the proposal on the setting of nearby listed buildings; and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Steeton Conservation Area.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires, when considering whether to grant planning permission for development affecting a listed building or its setting, that there must be special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Furthermore, paragraph 212 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, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The appeal site is reached by a wide, unmade road, which provides access to [name] and several dwellings. These are vernacular in appearance with stone slate roofs and set amongst a backdrop of trees, which creates a rural character to the area. From the road, a driveway provides access to a number of properties including the grade II listed buildings, [name] and [address]. Adjoining, and to the north of [name], is the appeal site, which is the grounds of a walled kitchen garden. Within this, a single storey, modern, rectangular house has been constructed.

The significance of [name], as it relates to this appeal, is that it is visible from the appeal site and the boundary wall between the two sites is shared. [name], which has a datestone of 1674, was extended and remodelled in 1921 by the architect [name]. To the west of the house is a walled, landscaped garden, which was altered in the early 20th century, although a garden on this site is reputed to date from before 1850. Therefore, there is a close physical relationship between these two walled gardens.

[address] is of 18th century date and is a former barn, or coach house which has been converted to residential use. The building has Jacobean detailing with small, mullioned windows. This too is visible from the appeal site.

The walled garden of the appeal site, which also pre-dates 1850, and abuts [name] walled garden, is apparently associated with [name], located to the north-east of the site. The garden consists of high stone walls which have an inner face of brick on the north, west and eastern elevations. The southern elevation, which is the shared boundary wall with [name], is of stone, supported by stone buttresses. At the north-east corner of the garden there is a small, rectangular, brick and stone, pyramidal roofed building, slightly higher than the walls. It has a doorway at ground level.

The proposed garage would be sited between the front elevation of the house and the pyramidal roofed building, a minimum of 1 metre from the garden wall. The garage would be finished in vertical timber boarding, like the house, with a slightly pitched standing seam aluminium roof. As the ground level in the north-east corner of the site is lower than both where the house is located, and the land to the rear, the garage would be lower than the house, the garden wall, and the apex of the corner building.

Whilst the position of the garage would result in some of the brick wall not being immediately visible from the front of the site, the proposal would be located away from it. Moreover, the brick walls around the site are extensive, particularly when seen at the rear of the house where the garden is very open. Therefore, the lack of visibility of a small area would not be harmful. In addition, the proposed garage is relatively small and is adjacent to a sizeable modern house which covers most of the width of the garden. Siting the garage close to the house, and away from [name], would mean that it would not appear obtrusive or visible, unless from within the site.

Moreover, the garage is simply designed and not excessive in size. Therefore, it would not compete with the existing dwelling or the surrounding historic walls. Although it would result in an additional structure within the enclosed garden, it would enable the storage of a vehicle and bikes in one building. This would reduce clutter within the garden space. Whilst the Council refer to the host dwelling being regarded as a concession and as a way of sustaining the maintenance of the garden and walls, there is no evidence as to how this would be practically applied if there is no external storage space.

Based on the footprint of the building, its height and location, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the significance of the nearby listed buildings. Additionally, it would preserve the setting of the listed buildings in accordance with Section 66 of the Act.

The proposal would not conflict with Policies DS1, DS3 and EN3 of the Bradford District Core Strategy Development Plan Document, 2017 (CS). These policies collectively, and in part, seek to achieve good design with appropriate scale, details and materials which contributes to the character of the area and that conserve the heritage significance and setting of heritage assets. It would also accord with chapter 16 of the Framework.

The site is within the Steeton Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA includes the traditional and rural character of the cottages and buildings, some of 17th and 18th century date, which relate to its agricultural past, as well as robust terraced housing built following a population increase during the 19th century, and the development of the textile industry.

Section 72(1) of the Act requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Paragraph 212 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to the asset’s conservation.

The walled garden is an important historic feature in the CA. However, whilst the surrounding walls have been retained and restored, the appearance of the site has already changed following the construction of the host dwelling and the residential use of the site.

The appeal site is relatively small and localised in terms of the CA as a whole. The scale of the proposed garage, built in materials to match the host dwelling, whilst not enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, would preserve it. This is because the garden space is being used, and the walls surrounding it would be maintained by the occupation of the site. Moreover, the open character of most of the site would be retained. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not harm, but would preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

It would, therefore, accord with Section 72(1) of the Act. Additionally, the proposal would not conflict with [name] DS1, DS3 and EN3, which together seek, through good design, to conserve the significance of heritage assets. It would also accord with chapter 16 of the Framework.

I have considered conditions with reference to the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Therefore, in addition to the standard implementation condition, a condition listing the plans is necessary to provide certainty over what has been approved.

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