Appeal 6003899

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site lies within the Harrogate Conservation Area (CA) and in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The significance of the CA as a whole is in part derived from the special character and distinctiveness of its historic street patterns, buildings and spaces. Particularly, its grand Georgian and Victorian architecture which defined the commercial expansion of this spa town, aided by the development of the railway. During my visit I observed that the CA largely consists of a high density of architecturally impressive, 2-3 storey, historic buildings, predominately constructed using stone with slate roofs.

According to the Harrogate Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2010), the appeal site is located on the boundary of Character Area A (Town Centre, [name] & the Victoria Park Estate) and Character Area B (North-East Residential Area). This part of the CA therefore represents the transition from the more commercial area to the south, into the residential area which is largely defined by long terrace rows with modest front and rear yard areas.

The appeal relates specifically to an end terrace property on a residential street, with the submitted evidence detailing that it is currently utilised as 2no. flats. To the side of the appeal property is a garden area, enclosed by a combination of a low stone wall and timber fencing. This side garden area provides a sense of openness and visual separation between the gable elevation of the appeal property and the large retaining wall of the railway embankment to the east.

Furthermore, this side garden area also highlights that the chamfered side gable elevation of the appeal property aligns with the front elevations of the terrace properties on [address] and [address], which run perpendicular to the appeal property. This relationship, and the strong building line, is particularly evident when using the narrow pedestrian walkway along the railway embankment, which I observed being used during my visit.

This side garden area therefore retains the established building line of the properties facing the railway embankment and allows views of these terrace properties when using the walkway. I find that in its present state, this garden area to the side of the appeal property provides a visual relief from the surrounding built up development, making a positive contribution to the spatial character of the area and the significance of the CA as a whole.

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 heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The appeal proposal seeks to construct a two-storey side extension to provide additional living space for both the existing flats within the property. Whilst acknowledging that the extension would be set back from the main front elevation of the appeal property, it would infill much of the space between the gable elevation and the boundary of the side garden area shared with the pedestrian walkway and the large retaining wall along the railway embankment.

In this context, I find the two-storey proposal would appear as a cramped form of development when viewed in relation to the large retaining wall to the east and would erode the sense of openness and spaciousness that is currently afforded to the side of the appeal property.

Additionally, the proposed extension would also project well beyond the established building line created by the chamfered side elevation of the appeal property and the front elevations of the perpendicular terraces, resulting in a conspicuous and anomalous interruption to this existing building line and harmfully disrupting the spatial pattern of the street.

Even with its set back, the extension would be plainly visible from views along the pedestrian walkway, as well as from certain public vantage points at the eastern end of [name]. I therefore find that the proposed two-storey side extension would represent an unsympathetic, dominant and incongruous addition.

Furthermore, I find the proposed use of brick on the front elevation of the proposal would be harmfully at odds with the stone materials used in the front elevation of the appeal property, and other properties in this terrace row. In coming to this view, I note that the side and rear elevations of the appeal property, and other properties in the area, are constructed in brickwork. However, I find that there is a clear distinction between the stone frontages and the use of brickwork to the side and rear of these properties, reflecting the difference in the status and function of the side and rear elevations in comparison to the frontages.

The appellant contends that the appeal site is located away from the historic core of the CA; that the proposal would not harm any important views within the CA; and that the appeal site contributes minimally to the CA as a whole. The appellant goes on to reference relevant case law1 which establishes that harm only occurs when the relationship a site has with an asset is more than remote and ephemeral, and that Section 72 of the Act directs that impact should be assessed in relation to the conservation area as a whole rather than particular aspects of it.

However, I identified that the significance of the CA as a whole lies not only in prominent views and the historic core, but also in the cumulative quality of the historic street patterns, its townscape and the relationship between buildings and spaces. Therefore, even the side garden area adjacent to the appeal property, particularly given its relationship to the railway embankment and the established building line it preserves, makes a positive and meaningful contribution to the significance of the CA as a whole.

As such, and for the reasons given, I therefore find that the appeal proposal would not preserve the character or appearance of the CA as a whole and paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

In this regard, I am aware that planning permission2 has previously been granted for a single-storey side extension and the submitted details explain that the appeal proposal would be built on the same footprint. Nevertheless, given the single-storey nature of this approved extension, I find its lesser scale would retain a sense of openness and maintain some views of the front elevations of the perpendicular terrace rows beyond. The proposed two-storey extension would, however, be more substantial and visually prominent in comparison.

Consequently, I do not find that the previously approved planning permission for a single-storey side extension provides clear and convincing justification for the identified harm that would be caused from the proposed development to the significance of the CA.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA as a whole, with the level of harm being at the lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, mindful of my statutory duties, I give this harm considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In this regard, the appellant has referred to case law3 which identifies that enhancement of the historic environment should be considered a public benefit. 1 Catesby Estates Ltd and SSCLG v Steer [2018] [name] 1697; [name] v SSE & [name] (March 1991, CO/1440/89). 2 Council Ref: HGTZC25/00169/FUL 3 [name] v SSGCLF and Ribble Valley Borough Council [2020] EWHC2292 (Admin), 21 August 2020; City & Country Bramshill Ltd [2019] EWHC 3437 (Admin). However, for the reasons detailed above, I have found that the proposed extension would in itself cause harm to this designated heritage asset (the CA) and does not represent a public benefit to a heritage asset that weighs in favour of the appeal proposal.

The appellant also refers to a public benefit arising from providing additional residential amenity for occupiers of the flats. Furthermore, I consider there would be some economic benefits arising from the proposed building works.

However, I have limited evidence that the appeal proposal is the only means to extend the appeal property and the additional living space that would be created would largely be a private benefit for the occupiers. Even so, I give the economic benefits and the improvements to the residential amenity of occupiers of the flats some limited weight in favour of the proposal.

Nevertheless, the public benefits arising from the appeal proposal do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight I must attach to the harm, and the special attention that I must pay to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

Consequently, I conclude the proposed development would not preserve the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies HP2, HP3 and HS8 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (2020) (LP), where they together seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development affecting heritage assets be determined in accordance with national planning policy; protect or enhance elements that have been identified as making a positive contribution to the character and special architectural or historic interest of conservation areas; respect the spatial qualities of the local area, including scale, appearance and use of spaces about and between buildings or structures; and do not have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would also fail to satisfy the relevant sections of the Framework and the requirements of the Act.

I note the Council’s reason for refusal also refers to conflict with LP Policy HP4. However, this policy relates to protecting the amenity of occupiers and neighbours, and thus I find this policy is not determinative in respect of this main issue.

I am cognisant of the appellant’s concerns regarding the lack of any comments from the Council’s Conservation Officer. However, I have assessed the proposal on its planning merits and the evidence before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.