Appeal 6005214

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for demolition of existing buildings, removal of storage container and redevelopment of disused tennis court to provide single detached dwelling at [site address] , [site address] , Styal [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/1580/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle are limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. These considerations, whilst appearing as limited, can encompass various issues which relate to these matters. The PPG does not explicitly state what should or should not be considered within these considerations.

The appeal site is located within the setting of the [name] listed [name]. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 notes that in considering whether to grant planning permission, or permission in principle, for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. It is also located within the Styal Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. I have had due regard to these duties within my decision.

The main issue therefore is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site is accessed from [site address] via a private drive that also serves [name] and several other residential properties. [name] is a [name] listed 19th‐century building. The official list entry describes it as being constructed in Flemish‐bond orange brick with pink sandstone dressings, a Welsh slate roof, and distinctive octagonal‐stacked chimneys, all characteristic of the Elizabethan style. Its south elevation comprises a two‐and‐a‐half‐storey, four‐bay frontage with stone‐mullioned windows, a two‐storey canted bay, and gabled dormers. The north elevation features a prominent four‐stage lookout tower with corbelled turrets and a lead cupola.

During my site visit, it was evident that the gardens and surrounding fields contribute significantly to the hall’s sense of separation from the wider settlement of Styal. The building occupies a secluded position at the end of a long, tree‐lined private drive, the gentle curvature of which further limits visibility from public vantage points. Consequently, the significance of [name] derives not only from its special architectural interest but also from its landscaped and isolated setting, which reinforces its historic character and its position away from public view.

Turning to the CA, the Styal Conservation Area Appraisal 2008 identifies the special interest of Styal as being derived from its historic settlement pattern, characterised by dispersed farmsteads, the presence of [address], and its associated industrial village, all set within the densely wooded landscape of the [name] valley. Its significance therefore stems from both its built form and spatial layout, as well as its historical evolution from an agricultural community to a textile‐based industrial settlement during the 18th century.

[address] is situated at the principal entrance to the wider estate associated with [name]. [address] is a two‐storey, white‐rendered building designed in a [name] style, incorporating elements of half‐timbering. The appeal site is positioned at the entrance to the driveway serving [address] and currently accommodates a tennis court, a garage structure, and based on observations during my site visit, an area used for the storage of miscellaneous items.

Both the tennis court and the garage are of considerable age and now present as dilapidated and worn. Their design, materials, and overall condition are incongruous with the architectural character of [address] and [name]. Furthermore, their presence diminishes the significance of the Hall’s setting, which is derived in part from its separation from the public realm and the quality of its immediate verdant surroundings. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the appeal site, in its current form, makes a negative contribution to the setting of the [name] listed [name] and to the character and appearance of the wider CA.

The Council contends that introducing built development along the approach to [name] would undermine the significance of its setting. However, a substantial distance separates the appeal site from the Hall. This, combined with the curvature of the driveway between [site address] and [name], and the mature trees and hedging that line the route, results in a pronounced lack of intervisibility between the two. [address] is also situated at the end of this driveway, thus providing an even greater obstacle which further hinders visibility of the Hall from the appeal site. I am also mindful that the appeal site sits to the side of the driveway rather than directly along its main axis. Consequently, any views of the proposed dwelling when travelling along the drive would be limited to brief, side on, passing glimpses.

During my site visit, I also observed that the driveway is not devoid of built form. Several structures including an outbuilding, a treehouse, a second lodge positioned closer to [name], and the buildings forming [address] are all located nearer to the listed building than the appeal site. Therefore, once the appeal site has been passed, and given that visibility would be momentary, the presence of further development along the route is already an established feature. From public vantage points on [site address] , visibility of any building on the appeal site would be significantly restricted due to the position of [address] close to the site’s boundary with the highway.

[address] would continue to be read as a standalone gatehouse building, marking the entrance to the wider estate when viewed from [site address] . This is due to the separation distance between the Lodge and the appeal site. The appeal site itself would be largely screened by the Lodge, as well as by the intervening trees and hedgerows within the estate, significantly limiting its visibility. Therefore, it would continue to be read as its own building which would respect the significance of the CA, which is derived from its built form and spatial layout between properties.

I am also mindful of the existing condition and appearance of the appeal site. At present, it appears tired and dated, with structures that bear little relationship to the historic context in which they sit. As previously outlined, the site in its current form makes a negative contribution to the setting of the [name] listed [name] and to the character and appearance of the wider CA. The removal of these incongruous and deteriorated structures, and their replacement with a sensitively designed dwelling, secured at the technical details consent stage, would represent an enhancement over the existing situation, which currently causes harm to the significance of both the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the CA.

To conclude, for the reasons set out above, and when considered collectively, the proposal for a single dwelling in this location, subject to a sensitively designed scheme secured at the technical details consent stage, would preserve the significance and setting of the [name] listed [name], as well as the character and appearance of the CA. This would result in a neutral effect upon these heritage assets.

The scheme would therefore comply with the statutory requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It would also accord with Policies SE1, SE7, SD2 and SD1 of the [site address] Local Plan Strategy 2017, [name] 1, HER 1, HER 3 and HER 4 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 and Policy S1 of the Styal Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that development achieves high‐quality design and avoids harm to designated and non‐designated heritage assets, including listed buildings and conservation areas, amongst other things.

Consultee comments suggest that outstanding planning enforcement matters should be resolved before any new application is determined. However, such matters fall within the Council’s own enforcement responsibilities and lie outside the scope of this appeal.

The PPG indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include the site location, type of development and amount. Without having to specify such by way of a condition, the default duration of permission in principle is 3 years, with any [name] application to be determined during this period.

For the reasons set out above, in having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.