Appeal 6002812

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of four dwelling houses and associated works at [site address] , [site address] , Triangle, [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01296/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Council has confirmed that since the determination of the application, it can no longer demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It therefore considers the proposal would meet the exceptions for development in the Green Belt within paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and would not be regarded as inappropriate development. The Council considers that its reason for refusal can no longer be sustained, and it does not wish to contest the appeal.

In light of the above significant change in circumstances, such that the Council do not wish to pursue their sole reason for refusal, the main issue is now whether there are any other considerations that might indicate that the appeal should be dismissed.

The duty under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The Grade II listed The Triangle is located on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site. Its significance and special interest insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived from its age, materials, and traditional construction. The appeal site comprises an area of car parking to the side of [site address] with no designated spaces and the parking being of a haphazard nature as observed during my site visit. The car park creates an element of openness with the countryside beyond and an openness to this section of the highway. However, given its nature, particularly when occupied by vehicles, it is distinctly different in character from the traditional buildings along this section of highway. As such, it does not positively contribute to the setting of The Triangle. Further, the relationship of The Triangle to the surrounding countryside does not form part of its significance and special interest.

The proposal would create a terrace of four dwellings set back from the highway which would create a separation from The Triangle and maintain the openness of the street scene. Whilst some element of connection with the countryside beyond would be lost, the proposed dwellings would make reference to local characteristics through careful detailing. They would utilise traditional materials such as natural stone for the walling, natural slate roofs, natural or artificial stone for the cills and lintels, and stained timber fascia and gable/verge. They would therefore reflect the traditional construction and materials of the surrounding properties including The Triangle, preserving the significance of the listed building through development within its setting.

There would be an area of parking to the front of the proposed dwellings, however this would be reduced in scale compared to the existing parking area and utilise formal bays, representing a visual improvement to the existing situation.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would preserve the significance of the [name] listed The Triangle. Accordingly, it would not conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy HE1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33 (2023) (the Local Plan) or the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Together, these require development to conserve the historic environment including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset.

The proposal includes parking spaces for each of the four dwellings including visitor spaces. Planning permission 20/01279/FUL was for the conversion of The Triangle to five dwellings which appears to have been implemented, and I have not been provided with any reason to think otherwise. Parking spaces are located within the appeal site closest to the highway for the dwellings granted under 20/01279/FUL. The parking for the proposal is in accordance with the Annex 1 Car & [name] referred to within Policy IM5 of the Local Plan. As such, I consider the parking for the proposal appropriate and would be unlikely to require vehicles to park along the highway. Further, the comments from the [name] for Strategic infrastructure state that it would be difficult to defend an objection on the lack of off-street parking for the development, and as such there are no highway objections to this application.

This section of [site address] is relatively straight, offering good visibility from the appeal site along the highway. The proposal would replace a considerable number of parking spaces with a small number of houses. So as a matter of my planning judgement, the proposal would not likely exacerbate existing pedestrian numbers crossing [site address] .

Third parties raise concerns regarding construction vehicles parking along the highway. Nonetheless, I am satisfied the site is of a sufficient size to accommodate the parking of construction vehicles likely to be deployed for a development of this scale, avoiding such a need.

As such, for the above reasons the appeal development would be acceptable with regards to its effect on highway safety. It would therefore not conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies IM5 and BT4 of the Local Plan. When read together these require development to ensure the safe and free flow of traffic and meet anticipated parking needs.

Dwellings are located on the opposite side of [site address] and to the north of the appeal site. These dwellings are adjacent to the highway and thus experience levels of noise and light from passing vehicles.

The proposed dwellings are set back from the road with a modest number of windows within the front elevation and gables of the proposal, minimising light levels from these openings. Given the proposal is for four dwellings, the associated noise generated by occupants will be limited. As such, the effect of light and noise levels on surrounding occupiers would be limited, particularly given the existing levels experienced from vehicles travelling along the highway or those utilising the existing car park.

Given the proposed dwellings set back position from [site address] , any noise generated from passing motorists would likely have a limited effect on noise levels experienced by future occupiers.

As such, the proposal would be acceptable with regard to its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regards to noise and light. Therefore, it would not conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy HS1 which requires residential development to not unacceptably effect living conditions.

Land ownership and private rights of way are civil matters and not something I can consider as part of this appeal.

Whilst supporting documents may allude to the proposal funding the refurbishment of The Triangle, there is nothing before me to satisfy me this is the case and so this potential benefit has not been a factor in my decision to allow this appeal.

I have considered the conditions suggested and I have had regard to the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance in this regard. As a result I have amended some of the suggested conditions for consistency, enforceability, clarity and reasonableness and not imposed others.

For certainty, I have set out the timescale for the commencement of development. A condition is also necessary, for certainty and enforceability, requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I have imposed a condition requiring the development be carried out in accordance with the tree protection plan to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

I have imposed a condition relating to materials and another relating to window reveals to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Given details of materials are specified on the plans, a condition requiring the submission of additional details is unnecessary.

A condition requiring the implementation of the car parking is required in the interests of highway safety.

A condition requiring the submission of cycle storage details is required to promote travel by means other than private car.

For the purposes of proper drainage, protecting against surface water flooding, and to ensure water quality, a condition is necessary requiring the submission of drainage details and for foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems.

A condition is required to ensure that there is no piped discharge of surface water prior to the completed surface water drainage works to protect against surface water flooding.

The Council’s suggested conditions 4, 8, and 9 relate to the provision of biodiversity. The development would be subject to the statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition as set out in Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Thus, the inclusion of suggested conditions 4, 8, and 9 would be duplication and therefore unnecessary.

It is an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or to take, damage or destroy any wild bird’s nest while it is in use or to take or destroy an egg. Further, bird species listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 also have additional protection, making it illegal to intentionally or recklessly disturb them while they are nesting or to disturb any dependent young. Consequently, there is considerable scope for development activities to result in criminal offences which are an enforcement matter for the police rather than local authorities. Therefore, a separate condition for the protection of nesting birds would be duplication and unnecessary.

Given the proposed dwellings are notably set back from [site address] , a condition requiring the submission of additional details regarding ambient noise levels would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

The Council has suggested a condition to remove permitted development rights under [name], AA, B and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The Framework advises that conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. I have not been presented with any evidence that the site circumstances are such as to justify the removal of these permitted development rights or that harm would arise to the significance of the [name] listed The Triangle, or openness of the Green Belt in the absence of this condition. As such, this condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

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: 2453A.14B; 2453A-13F; and 2453A-12B;

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with 2453A.13 – Tree Protection Plan within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan ref 2453A-12B.

The window reveals of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed to a minimum of 75mm and thereafter retained.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking shown on plan ref 2453A-13F has been fully implemented. The car parking shall thereafter be retained for that purpose.

The development shall not be occupied until details of a secure internal cycle store at each dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The store shall then be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter.

No drainage works shall begin until full details of foul and surface water drainage, sustainable systems of drainage (including the provision of water butts), sub-soil drainage, and external works for the development (taking into account flood risk on and off site and including details of any balancing works, off-site works, existing systems to be re-used, works on or near watercourses and diversions) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development and retained thereafter.

There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development prior to the completion of surface water drainage works. If discharge to the public sewer is proposed, this shall not occur until the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: i. evidence that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted; and ii. the means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate not to exceed 3.5 litres per second.