To install a single-story outbuilding in the southwest corner of my garden which is 5m wide by 4.5m deep and an overall height of 2.95m, the purpose of this room is as a satellite office/golf recreational room. The building will be timber in construction with a composite panel (wood effect), a set of double doors and 2 windows in total. The roof will be a flat roof with natural drainage

@ Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004800 Cemetery Lodge, 6 Hallfield Lane, Wetherby LS22 6JT • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Kyle Smith against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application reference is 25/05081/FU. • The development proposed is to install a single-story outbuilding in the southwest corner of my garden which is 5m wide by 4.5m deep and an overall height of 2.95m, the purpose of this room is as a satellite office/golf recreational room. The building will be timber in construction with a composite panel (wood effect), a set of double doors and 2 windows in total. The roof will be a flat roof with natural drainage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are, firstly, whether the appeal dwelling should be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset and, if so, the effect of the proposal on its significance; secondly, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the local area; and thirdly, the effect of the proposal on trees and the Strategic Green Infrastructure Corridor (SGIC). Reasons Non-designated heritage asset 3. According to the Council, Cemetery Lodge has stood since the late 1800s. It has a distinctive architectural form, including a steeply pitched tiled roof, natural stone walls and detailing that reflect its historical association with the cemetery and chapels that are adjacent to the site. Its historic, architectural and visual interest, together with the position close to the cemetery, give the appeal dwelling a degree of local heritage significance. I therefore agree with the Council that, having regard to the immediate context of the site and the characteristics of Cemetery Lodge, it should be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). 4. In reaching this conclusion, I note the appellant’s view that no formal heritage assessment has been carried out. However, the absence of a formal designation or a detailed assessment does not preclude a building from being regarded as a NDHA. If it is, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect NDHAs, Appeal Decision 6004800 2 the Framework requires a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 5. The proposal is for a detached single storey building to be erected within the rear garden of No 6. Although modest in footprint, it would still be a sizeable addition with walls close to the site’s side and rear boundaries and a flat roof that would emphasise the scale and bulk of the new addition. The box-like shape of the proposal coupled with the use of composite cladding would contrast markedly with the pitched roof, modest proportions and traditional materials of the host building. 6. While clearly separate from the main dwelling, the upper section of the proposed building would be visible above the boundary wall and fence in views from the cemetery, the adjacent recreation ground and along part of Hallfield Lane. From these public vantage points, the sharp contrast in form, massing and materials of the new building and No 6 would appear discordant and would draw attention away from the coherent architectural character of the main dwelling. The proposal would therefore detract from the setting in which the significance of the NDHA is experienced. By introducing an incongruous built form between the main dwelling and the cemetery, the proposal would also erode the historical and visual ties between them, which also contribute positively to the asset’s significance. 7. Taking these factors together, I find that the proposal would result in harm to the significance of Cemetery Lodge as a NDHA. The benefits of the proposal are limited to the provision of a home office and golf studio for private domestic use. Undertaking the balanced judgement required by the Framework, I find that the limited benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm identified. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies P10 and P11 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS), the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the Framework insofar as they aim to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Character and appearance 8. The appeal property lies within a predominantly residential area but occupies a visually sensitive position next to the cemetery and recreation ground. These largely open adjacent areas with their mature vegetation contribute to relatively open and verdant character in the vicinity of the site. 9. The proposed building would project noticeably above the existing boundary wall and fence and would be visible from these public areas and from a section of Hallfield Lane. Due to its built form, height and general appearance, that would contrast with that of the main dwelling, the new building would appear as a prominent and incongruous feature. The difference in design between the new structure and the host dwelling would prevent it from assimilating successfully into its context. Instead, the proposal would appear as a discordant addition that fails to respond positively to the established character and distinctiveness of the area. 10. Consequently, the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area. Accordingly, it is contrary to CS Policies P10 and P12, Policies GP5 and BD6 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and the SPD. These policies promote high quality design and expect development to respond appropriately to the local context. It is also at odds with the Framework’s requirement that development should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area. Appeal Decision 6004800 3 Trees and Strategic Green Infrastructure 11. The site lies within an area of SGIC. Mature trees just beyond the rear boundary of the site make a positive contribution to the visual amenity, biodiversity, and the wider environmental functions of this designated area. The trees also provide a landscaped setting to the cemetery. That the trees are not statutorily protected does not diminish their contribution in these respects. 12. The proposed building would be close to some of these trees. However, no detailed information has been submitted to identify the species, condition, root protection areas (RPAs), or the likely effects of the development on them. In the absence of such information, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal could be implemented without harm to these trees. 13. An email from Wetherby Town Council has been provided which states that the appellant has permission to cut back overhanging branches. However, this opportunity does not address the potential for harm arising from possible ground disturbance, excavation or construction activity within the RPAs. Nor has any detailed evidence been provided to substantiate the appellant’s view that roots would remain unaffected. In the absence of such evidence, I attach limited weight to this consideration. 14. Given the proximity of the new building to some of these trees, there is a reasonable likelihood of encroachment into RPAs and consequent harm to root systems, which could adversely affect the health and longevity of the trees. 15. I have considered whether this matter could be addressed by the imposition of planning conditions. However, the acceptability of the proposal depends on whether it can be accommodated without harm to the trees. To impose conditions in these circumstances would risk permitting development that could result in irreversible harm. It would therefore be inappropriate to defer this matter to a later stage. 16. Harm to these trees would diminish the verdant character of the local area, the landscaped setting of the cemetery and undermine the environmental and visual functions of the area of SGIC. The proposal would therefore conflict with CS Policies SP13, P10 and P12, Policy LAND 2 of the Natural Resources and Waste Local Plan, the SPD, and the Framework insofar as they seek to protect and enhance the natural environment. Other matters 17. The appellant states that a similar building could be constructed through the exercise of permitted development (PD) rights if its height were to be slightly reduced. I have carefully considered this fallback position. However, because the proposal would be taller and appear more substantial in-built form, its visual and heritage impact would be greater than a PD compliant building. Consequently, I afford the fallback position limited weight in this appeal. 18. Once complete, the new building would provide a home office and golf studio, which would benefit the appellant and his family. No objections have been raised by the occupiers of nearby properties or within the local community. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Appeal Decision 6004800 4 19. Reference has also been made to a proposed school opposite the appeal property, with a location plan and illustration provided. While the new school would have different consequences for the local area than the proposal, there are few, if any, direct parallels to be drawn between them. In any event, each development must be determined on its own merits. Having done so, I find the proposal objectionable for the reasons given. Planning Balance and Conclusion 20. The proposal would result in harm to the significance of a NDHA. It would also cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area. In addition, there is a reasonable likelihood that it could harm trees that make a positive contribution to the SGIC. 21. I have undertaken a balanced judgement in respect of the NDHA and have had regard to all other material considerations, including the limited private benefits of the proposal and the fallback position. These considerations attract limited weight. When taken together, the identified harms are not outweighed by the limited benefits of the proposal. 22. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including those in the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR