Formation of a new access, with parking and turning areas to the existing property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 November 2017 by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22nd November 2017. Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/D/17/3180128 38 Main Street, Burley in Wharfedale, Ilkley, LS29 7DN  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Ms Jane Thompson against the decision of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref 17/02382/HOU, dated 6 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 May 2017.  The development proposed is the formation of a new access, with parking and turning areas to the existing property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Since the Council determined the planning application, the Local Plan for the Bradford District Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) (Core Strategy) has been adopted. The policies contained within the Core Strategy have replaced those in the Replacement Unitary Development Plan for the Bradford District (2005). As such, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the policies contained within the Core Strategy. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Burley in Wharfedale Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is well set back from Main Street, with the intervening area comprising of a spacious front garden. The site frontage is enclosed by a stone wall, on top of which is a wooden fence, which is in a state of disrepair. Adjacent to the site is the access to Clarence Place, the boundary with which is also enclosed by a stone wall, and beyond this is Dial House, a grade II listed property. The front of this property is enclosed by a stone wall topped by a black painted railing arrangement, and this is also apparent along a number of the site frontages of other properties along this part of Main Street. On the opposite side of the site to Clarence Place is a new housing development, which presents a stone wall to Main Street and then a wall and railing arrangement. Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/17/3180128 2 5. The enclosed nature of the site frontages with stone walls, or where railings are set into the top of the stone walls, appreciably contributes to the significance of this part of the Conservation Area. Where off street car parking is provided, this is generally discretely sited back from the front areas of residential properties. 6. The proposal would result in the loss of some 2.5m of the wall along the site frontage, with a railing type double gate set in the resulting gap that would divide the remaining areas of the wall. With the resultant fragmented wall arrangement, the enclosed nature of the front of the site would be significantly diminished. The double gates would not be in keeping with its surroundings because they would not portray an enclosed site frontage, and therefore would detract from the significance of the Conservation Area. 7. The interruption of the wall with the width of the double gates would not be reflective of the arrangement along the frontage of Dial House, despite that there would be some consistency with the lowering of the height of the wall with the railings set in. The boundary wall in front of the new housing, although it displays some variance from its surroundings, does maintain the characteristic of a well enclosed solid frontage. This would not be achieved by the proposal with the loss of a significant part of the wall and the insertion of the double gates. 8. The proposed parking area that would be accessed through the gates would be prominent in the streetscene due to its proximity to the site frontage. This would not represent a discrete arrangement but would be visually harmful as it would lead to the parking of vehicles to the front of the property, which is not a characteristic which contributes positively to the qualities of the Conservation Area. 9. The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of other sites in the Conservation Area. Although the convenience store and the adjoining garage have open frontages to allow for off street car parking associated with their business operations, this is not a prevailing characteristic of the Conservation Area. Similarly, and whilst I am not aware of the particular circumstances of each case, where there is an absence of a front boundary wall, this does not significantly diminish from that boundary walls are an important constituent of the Conservation Area. A number of the sites that have been cited are also some distance away, and the part of the Conservation Area where the appeal site is found does, in particular, has largely uninterrupted boundary walls as an important component. I am satisfied that the circumstances on these other sites are sufficiently different so as not to alter my conclusions. 10. The statutory duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (Act) is of considerable weight and importance. Having regard to the above, I conclude the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This weighs significantly against the proposal. 11. Similarly, I also conclude the proposal would not comply with Policy EN3 of the Core Strategy that requires proposals to conserve the significance of Bradford’s heritage assets. It would also not comply with Policies DS1, DS2 and DS3 of the Core Strategy which, collectively, require proposals to have regard and respond to their context, and secure good design which responds to local character. Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/17/3180128 3 12. The National Planning Policy Framework allows for public benefits to be balanced against the harm to designated heritage assets. The appellant has stated that the current car parking arrangements are not overlooked and therefore represent a security concern. However, I have no evidence before me that this has raised a particular issue as regards crime prevention, or that less intrusive forms of security would be any less effective. The broader parking benefits to the appellant, themselves, are of a largely personal nature. 13. Whilst I note that lowering the height of the wall would likely improve visibility at the Clarence Place junction, and the proposal would provide an opportunity to reduce on street car parking, I am also aware of the Council’s Highways Officers comments seeking that the proposed access is to be widened. This would increase the harm to the Conservation Area because it would result in more of the wall being removed. The removal of the fence would be of minor benefit, although it does not significantly diminish from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Overall, the benefits would not outweigh the harm. Other Matters 14. The proposal would be physically separated from Dial House by Clarence Place and the stone wall which faces this listed building would largely be unaltered, apart from nearest the junction with Main Street. The proposal would therefore preserve the setting of the listed building and accords with the statutory duty under Section 66 (1) of the Act. This does not however address the conflict with the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Act. Conclusion 15. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The harm to the significance of the heritage asset would not be outweighed by the benefits. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. Darren Hendley INSPECTOR