Appeal 3370520

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 16 all-black solar panels within a GSE integrated roof tray system at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02162/FU, and the plans submitted with it.

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.

I have taken the description of development from the planning application form albeit, I have removed the words ‘a slightly smaller design from approved application ref PP 13585888’ for the purposes of the banner heading and decision as they are not a description of development.

There is a discrepancy between the names included in the planning application form and the appeal form. I have included [name] name in the banner heading this being the original applicant and I have received confirmation that the appeal is to proceed in their name.

It was clear from the appeal site visit, that the development proposed has already been installed. Therefore, the appeal has been considered on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively.

The main issue is the whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Weetwood Conservation Area (WCA).

In accordance with the duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I am required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the WCA.

The WCA’s significance is largely derived from its woodland character and prevalence of large, stone-built properties, often set in spacious and well-enclosed grounds. The appeal property, Rosegarth, reflects this character it being a large, semi-detached dwelling, built in stone, set back from the road, with a generous garden. A stone wall, railings and a dense boundary of mature trees and hedges sit along the roadside boundary, beyond the neighbouring property at [name]. Owing to these factors, combined with its position at the far end of a no-through lane, the appeal site has a notably discreet presence and positively contributes to the significance of the WCA.

There is an existing planning permission for eighteen solar panels on the same roof slope. I acknowledge that scheme was arranged into three groups whereas the sixteen solar panels in place form a continual line and are arranged around the chimneys. Even so, I agree with the Council that the dark colour of the solar panels ensures that they suitably blend with the tones of the dwelling’s roof materials. The solar panels are also neatly aligned with each other. Together with the host property’s discreet presence on [site address] , these factors ensure that the solar panels suitably assimilate with the host dwelling and the wider surroundings of the WCA.

Therefore, the development preserves the character and appearance of the WCA. As such, it accords with the requirements in Policies P10 and P11 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended 2019) and [name] GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (UDP) for development to be appropriate to its context and conserve the historic environment. For the same reasons, the development would also accord with the guidance contained in the Leeds City Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012), including HDG1, and the good design and heritage conservation requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).

The Council has also cited Policies N14 and N17 of the UDP in its reason for refusal, which relate specifically to listed buildings. However, Rosegarth, whilst a positive building, is not statutory listed. Accordingly, these policies do not alter my findings.

As the development is already complete and given my findings that it has an acceptable relationship with the character and appearance of the area, planning permission is granted in accordance with the plans submitted with the application. No further conditions are necessary in this instance.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

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