Appeal 6004171

The appeal is dismissed.

The works as described above has already taken place onsite. This appeal has therefore been assessed on a retrospective basis.

The main issues of the appeal are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Devonshire Park and Cliffe Castle Conservation Area (CA); • The effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook, light and amenity space; and • Whether planning permission can be given having regard to the ownership of the land.

The appeal site relates to land to the rear of [address], Keighley. It comprises a shared courtyard enclosed by the rear elevations of terraced properties along [address] to the west, [address] to the south and [address] to the east. A narrow access runs to the north linking [address] and [address].

An outbuilding measuring 9 metres by 6 metres with a height of 3.2 metres has been constructed in the partially enclosed, shared courtyard. It has been constructed in blockwork that is partially rendered and has a flat roof. It features uPVC French doors to the southwest elevation and guttering is in place.

As set out earlier, the appeal site sits within the CA. I therefore have a duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. I have also had regard to paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which explains that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The value of the CA has survived largely in its original form of large houses and vast areas of parks and gardens with little infill twentieth century development. The building materials used for the construction of the vast majority of the buildings in the CA are sandstone and grey slate. The local stone of the walls of the properties has weathered to a black finish and, as the same stone has been used to construct the boundary walls throughout the CA, a uniformity in colour and texture is evident.

The design and appearance of the building is poor and unsympathetic to the traditional character of the site. This is by virtue of its unsympathetic flat roof, use of modern materials and poor design detailing. It is easily visible from public vantage points including nearby streets and from the rear of properties surrounding the site. It appears discordant and out of place with the character and appearance of the CA. I cannot agree that the materials used are consistent with the surrounding area as they are clearly more modern than the more traditional materials used locally. Conditions could control the final finish/materials etc but given the site’s location within the CA, I find it more appropriate to have this information prior to the grant of planning permission opposed to leaving for a condition. In any event, I am not sufficiently convinced that changes would sufficiently mitigate against the harm identified and I would need further information to be able to consider this fully.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore fails to preserve the character and appearance of the CA causing less than substantial harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset. Taking into account the location, nature and scale of the development, the extent of harm is considered to be moderate on the spectrum.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework explains that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

I note the appellant’s claims regarding environmental, visual and community benefits by preventing fly tipping and provide a shared utility etc. Such benefits would however be limited by the small-scale nature of the proposals and would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the CA which is unacceptable. Additionally, I am not convinced that this is the only solution for the site to overcome the associated issues. Taking the stated benefits of the proposal together, there would be a moderate level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. I must attach great weight to this as advised by the Framework. I am not therefore persuaded there are public benefits of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the great weight to the assets’ conservation and the considerable importance and weight to this harm.

The development is therefore contrary to Policy EN3 of the [name], 2017 (CS) which amongst other matters, explains that the Council, through planning and development decisions, will work with partners to proactively preserve, protect and enhance the character, appearance, archaeological and historic value and significance of the District’s designated and undesignated heritage assets and their settings.

Additionally, the development is also contrary to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Chapter 16 of the Framework relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

The building is a sizable building located less than 5 metres from the rear elevations of properties to [address] and [address] and around 9 metres from those of [address]. The size and siting of the building, in close proximity to habitable room windows of neighbouring properties is unacceptable and results in a loss of outlook and daylighting.

Additionally, the loss of the former shared yard has residential amenity implications and has restricted the shared amenity use, parking and circulation areas. This is to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers.

For the above reasons, the development unacceptably harms the living conditions of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook, light and amenity space. It is therefore contrary to Policy DS5 of the CS which amongst other matters, requires proposals to make a positive contribution to people’s lives through high quality, inclusive design. In particular they should, not harm the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents.

The Council has explained that the land is not within the applicant’s sole control and has been constructed on land within a shared ownership. The appellant has signed [name] but the correct publicity regarding land ownership certificates under Article 14 - Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) has not been undertaken, and permission could not be given without fulfilling the correct procedure. Given that I am dismissing this appeal for other reasons, I do not find it necessary to consider this matter further. [name] were minded to allow the appeal, I would have engaged in further discussions with the parties about this.

I appreciate that the outbuilding was constructed to address long standing issues at the site in terms of fly-tipping etc and the appellant has tried to overcome such issues which have become unmanageable. I also appreciate that discussions have taken place with local Councillors, the Council and neighbouring residents. Such matters would not however alter my findings on the above main issues nor outweigh the harm I have identified. A lack of objection from neighbouring residents does not mean that the outbuilding is not harmful.

The development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework that would individually or cumulatively outweigh this harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.