Appeal 6004477

The appeal is dismissed.

The flue pipe that is the subject of this appeal has been installed. It appears to be broadly in accordance with the drawings, albeit topped with a cap that is wider than shown. For clarity, I have determined the appeal based on the development as it is illustrated on the plans. As the Council also considered the appellant’s proposal to reduce the height of the flue pipe and incorporate a flue cube, I have done likewise.

The site falls within the Boston Spa Conservation Area (CA). Accordingly, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, as required by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the terrace of which it forms part, and the CA.

The appeal property is a 3-storey end-terrace dwelling in the CA. From what I saw, and the evidence before me, the CA largely derives its significance as a designated heritage asset through the historic buildings within it, many of which have a classically derived Georgian architecture. The consistent use of external materials, symmetrical facades, fenestration patterns and roofscapes that appear to retain their original form are unifying features of properties within the CA.

The appeal dwelling, and the estate to which it belongs, display these key characteristics. Consequently, No. [address] of which it forms part add to the strong sense of unity and cohesion in the existing built form within the CA. For these reasons, No. 11 makes a significant and positive contribution to the character and appearance of this designated heritage asset.

The development comprises a flue pipe that projects upward from the main roof slope of No. 11. While relatively slender and finished in a dark matt colour, the flue pipe protrudes noticeably above the roof plane. It forms a distinct vertical element that markedly contrasts with the otherwise uniform roof form of the terrace that appears to be free of significant later additions or external alterations.

As the flue pipe is positioned to one side of the dwelling it is not readily evident from the road nor from most properties that address [address]. However, the upper section of the flue pipe is clearly visible from [address] and the public open space adjacent to it. It is also evident in more distant views from a car park off [address]. While these public vantage points do not form part of the immediate street frontage of the appeal property, they nonetheless encompass the characteristics of the CA as it is experienced and appreciated.

Due to its elevated position and the angle of view from ground level, part of the flue pipe is seen with the sky beyond from each of these locations. The visual effect is to visually accentuate the presence of the structure within the roofscape. [address] in particular, the flue pipe draws the eye as a visually disruptive and uncharacteristic addition within an otherwise unaltered and uncluttered roof slopes. It therefore undermines the deliberate design approach of the terrace and the estate, which has sought to maintain clean roof lines and coherent roof slopes. It has also introduced a conspicuous and unsympathetic feature that detracts from, and therefore fails to preserve, the character and appearance of the CA.

I have considered the appellant’s suggestion that reducing the height of the flue by approximately 1-metre and incorporating a flue cube would lessen its visual impact. A photograph has been provided to illustrate the modified structure. However, even with these changes, the flue pipe would remain clearly visible and would continue to appear as a discordant vertical feature in the roofscape. These amendments would not, therefore, overcome the identified harm.

The appellant has referred to another property within the same estate as No. 11, where an external flue pipe was recently approved, with a photograph and background details provided. From what I saw, this flue pipe is associated with a ground floor rear extension to a 2-storey property. [name] agree that it is a prominent feature in the local street scene, this flue pipe does not protrude from the main roof slope nor form part of a 3-storey terrace. Therefore, it is not directly comparable with the appeal scheme. In any event, each development must be determined on its own merits, which I have done.

I acknowledge the appellant’s position that the flue pipe represents the least intrusive and the only technically feasible solution, having regard to the characteristics of the building and the requirements of Building Regulations. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, and that great weight should be given to their conservation. It also states that development should add to the overall quality of the area and be sympathetic to local character. Given this background, I attach no more than limited weight to this consideration in support of the appeal.

On the main issue, I conclude that the development results in harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, the host terrace and the CA. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policies P10, P11 and P12 of the Council’s Core Strategy, Policies GP5 and N19 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), Policies Des1 and Des2 of the Boston Spa Neighbourhood Development Plan and the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document. These policies collectively promote high quality design and aim to ensure that development respects the predominant characteristics of existing development and responds sensitively to the historic environment. There is also a conflict with the statutory duty and the policies of the Framework in relation to the historic environment.

Given the modest scale of the flue pipe relative to the size of the CA, the harm caused would be less than substantial. In those circumstances, the Framework states that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

In this case, the flue pipe serves a wood-burning stove, which provides a private benefit to the occupiers of the dwelling. No public benefits have been put forward and none would outweigh the harm that I have identified.

I note that the appellant was unaware of the conservation area status of the appeal property and that permitted development rights had been removed. I also note that no objections were raised by neighbouring occupiers and agree that the flue pipe does not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of others. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified in relation to

The development conflicts with the development plan. There are no material considerations, including those of the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.