Appeal 3360921

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for render to external elevations. at [site address] , Leeds [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/05995/FU, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]: 24009-100; 24009-101; 24009-103; and 24009-105.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Methley Church Side Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located near the edge of, but within, the Methley Church Side Conservation Area (MCSCA). The conservation area extends from [address] southwards to include the recreational ground, with the historic development concentrated along [name], where more spacious plots predominate, and the more tightly knit development along [address].

In so far as it relates to this appeal the character and appearance of the MCSCA, and thus its significance, is associated with the quality and diversity of its buildings and the open spaces within it. The materials used in buildings include stone, brick and render. This mix of materials contributes to the diversity of the built environment within the conservation area and thus its interest.

The appeal property is located at the entrance to a small cul-de-sac. Properties within the cul-de-sac are built from the range of materials found within the MCSCA including, brick, stone and render. Whilst the Council has highlighted that the render to No [address] (No 81) has not been authorised, there is no indication that others in the conservation area are not lawful, and these properties form part of its established character and appearance.

The appeal property and a pair of semi-detached properties to the rear of the cul-de-sac date to the 20th century. These three properties contrast with the earlier housing that front onto the recreational field and back onto the cul-de-sac. Instead, they are better related to the Mickletown suburbs to the east, beyond the railway line and they contribute little, if anything, to the significance of the MCSCA.

The proposal would result in the rendering of the appeal property resulting in the dwelling being more overtly different to the pair of semi-detached dwellings to the rear. However, being located at the entrance to the cul-de-sac, and being a detached property, the appeal dwelling is already distinct from the pair of semi-detached properties, despite having some similar characteristics.

In this regard, the proposed alterations to the appeal building would simply create a more overtly modern and distinct property but the use of render would not appear at odds with the existing diversity of materials in the MCSCA. Moreover, at the edge of the conservation area, at the entrance to the cul-de-sac, adjacent to the railway line, and as a detached 20th century property bordered by a road on three sides, I consider there is the capacity to accommodate this proposal without causing harm to the character and appearance of the MCSCA.

I therefore conclude that the positive qualities which define the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved and no harm would arise to its significance as a designated heritage asset. It would therefore satisfy the requirements of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

The proposal would also be in accordance with policy P10 of the Council’s Core Strategy, policy BD6 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan Review and the objectives of policy HDG1 of the [name], when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that new development for buildings and spaces, and alterations to existing, should be based on a thorough contextual analysis and provide good design that is appropriate to its location, scale and function.

In addition to the standard time commencement condition (1), I have specified the approved plans (2) as this provides certainty.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.