Appeal 6001899

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the planning application form. Notwithstanding this, the appellant’s Appeal Statement explains that the proposed parking area has been designed and is intended to be used for parking one vehicle primarily, albeit it is also confirmed that it would be possible to accommodate two smaller vehicles.

I have had due regard to the appellant’s intentions. However, the appellant has not put forward revised drawings to change the scheme from that considered at planning application stage, and so the Council and interested parties have not had an opportunity to consider a formally revised proposal for just one parking space. Accordingly, in the interests of procedural fairness, I have determined the appeal on the basis that it would be possible for two vehicles to park off-street.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, including the setting of 186 – [address], which is a grade II listed building1; and, 1 [name]: 1184457 b) highway safety, with regard to vehicle access and egress arrangements and visibility.

The appeal site comprises a terrace property at the end of a short row of traditional two-storey dwellings of modest scale. The terrace has a domestic character defined by its traditional materials, consistent architectural form, and simple detailing. It is set back behind a substantial stone boundary wall that that reflects the materials used in the terrace, behind and above which a dense, mature hedge runs continuously along the frontage. This forms a strong green edge to [address] and largely obscures the ground floor of the dwellings. Pedestrian access gates to the site and the adjoining property are set into the boundary treatment, maintaining a restrained and understated frontage.

Stone boundary walls like the one at the site are a prevailing feature of this stretch of [address]. These often reflect the dwellings to which they relate and consistently frame the edge of the footway, including opposite at 186–[address]. This is a grade II listed building that comprises a row of three late 18th century, two-storey stone cottages with a low stone boundary wall that directly addresses the road. The listed building’s significance and special interest is partly derived from its traditional materials and, as such, the prevalence of stone walls at and near the site complements the building, contributing positively to its setting and thus significance and special interest. Moreover, those stone walls make an important contribution to the area’s cohesive character and appearance more widely.

Although the dwelling at No 205 sits at the end of the terrace, the site’s boundary wall adjoins a further stretch of a seemingly more recent but, nevertheless, stone wall. Therefore, despite relating to the end of the terrace, the proposal would introduce a conspicuous break that would disrupt the established pattern of enclosure and distinctive edge to the footway. Furthermore, the resulting gap and use of the frontage for parking would weaken the cohesive, traditional attributes of the street by shortening the remaining part of the wall, diminishing its prominence and thereby harming the site’s contribution to the setting of the listed building and the wider area.

Although there are examples of off-street parking along this section of [address], including beside the listed building, the proposal would nevertheless erode part of the boundary feature that is integral to the character and appearance of the site and wider area. The use of reclaimed stone in the proposed retaining wall and steps at the back of the drive would not mitigate the harm that would arise from such a significant alteration to the site’s boundary. Accordingly, the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Additionally, the setting of the listed building would not be preserved, and its significance would be harmed.

Having regard to the scale and nature of the proposal, I find that the resulting harm to the significance of the listed building would be less than substantial. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The benefits alleged in relation to improved access and convenience of the occupiers of the property, provision for electric vehicle charging, permeable surfacing and the removal of a high-maintenance hedge would arise primarily for the occupiers rather than the wider public. The potential for public benefit to flow from the construction of a dwelling on the appellant’s land off [address] has not been substantiated with evidence to demonstrate that such development would come forward or that it would be directly enabled by the appeal proposal.

It has also been advanced that the proposal would allow safe, direct entry to the street. However, for the reasons set out below, overall, the proposal would not be acceptable in safety terms.

Taken together, the public benefits of the proposal are limited. Conversely, the Framework is clear that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Consequently, the public benefits are insufficient to outweigh the harm to the setting and thereby significance of the listed building.

The proposed development would conflict with Sections 66(1) of the Act2. It would also fail to accord with Policies HE1 and BT1 of the Calderdale Local Plan (LP) insofar as they seek to ensure development conserves the historic environment and respects or enhances the character and appearance of its surroundings. Additionally, the proposal would conflict with the historic environment protection policies of the Framework.

LP Policy GN4 is referenced in the reason for refusal, that corresponds to the main issue. However, the policy is not directly relevant as the matters in dispute principally concern localised streetscape matters not broader landscape character area to which it relates. Accordingly, I find no conflict with this particular policy.

[address] has a speed limit of 30mph at this point and has a relatively straight alignment, it carries a high volume of traffic and road-side parking is unrestricted on both sides of the carriageway. The proposed driveway does not include sufficient space for vehicles to turn within the site. Consequently, vehicles cannot both enter and leave the site in forward gear. This concern would remain even if the hardstanding were used to accommodate only a single vehicle.

Moreover, visibility from the proposed access would be significantly constrained by neighbouring boundary walls and hedges, which are outside the appellant’s control. As a result, the visibility splays that would be achievable within the appellants control would fall short of those normally required for a road of this speed3. The addition of a further access in this vicinity that fails to meet the expected standards would increase the likelihood of highway safety issues arising on this classified A-road. This would not be sufficiently mitigated by the intended low intensity domestic use or by installation of driveway mirrors. The latter would neither remove the need for reversing manoeuvres at the site nor improve pedestrian visibility of vehicles emerging from it.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and would conflict with LP Policy BT4. That policy seeks, among other matters, to ensure that new access arrangements maintain the safe and free 2 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. 3 Manual for Streets (Department for Transport; Communities and Local Government; Welsh Assembly Government, 2007) flow of traffic in the interest of highway safety and requires due regard to be given to the hierarchy of road users.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.