Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority

Transcription

1 Yard 1 2 Plane Tree The Reading Room Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Application Code: Committee Date: 08/12/2015 Location: Prospect, Und FW Blea Head Path Track Track Bridge Path Und New Cowside Beck Track River Skirfare Bridge St Oswald's Church Madgillere Lych Gate Smith Vicarage Stables Smithy Buck Laithe The Old Vicarage Gate Raikes The Holme Old ers Rose Croft Rylands Stable Rylands Coach Low Hall Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School FB Prospect The Falcon (PH) Village Pp (dis) Lane Top Lane Top The Old Post Office TCB West View Ferndale Carr The Coach River Skirfare Tel Ex Sheepfold Elm Mitton Hotel Cattle Grid Studdleber Botany End Cowside Beck St Oswald's Church Lych Gate Stables Raikes The Gate Holme Old ers Rose Croft Rylands Stable Rylands Coach Low Smithy Buck Laithe Hall The Reading Room FB Prospect The Falcon (PH) Village Pp (dis) Lane Top Lane Top The Old Post Office Plane Tree TCB The Coach West View Ferndale Yard 1 2 Carr Tel Ex Sheepfold Elm Mitton Hotel FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. NO FURTHER COPIES TO BE MADE Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey Additional information: Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority

2 Schedule No:5 Application No: District: Parish: Applicant's Name: Grid Ref: Craven Ms K North, SD Received by YDNP: 03/11/2015 Officer: Adam Perry PROPOSAL: LOCATION: full planning permission for erection of replacement conservatory (retrospective) Prospect, CONSULTEES PM Area Ranger (Lower Wharfedale) PUBLIC RESPONSES No response received. Proposals do not affect the PROW or other public access. No public response received. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES B8(06) - Conservation Areas B13(06) - Listed Buildings B14(06) - Extensions and Alterations to Buildings 1(06) - National Park Purposes 2(06) - General Design Policy 4(06) - Landscape Enhancement Schemes OFFICER OBSERVATIONS REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The application is reported to Planning Committee, as Members previously refused a substantively similar scheme at the Planning Committee meeting in May The item was called in at the April meeting by Mr Welch, for the following reason: The decision is marginal and the concerns could potentially be overcome. We should try to come to an amicable solution before enforcement procedures begin. The decision to refuse the application followed the Authority s reference back procedure. APPLICATION SITE The application relates to Prospect,, Littondale. The dwelling occupies a prominent position to the west of Village and is within 08 Dec 2015 Page: 32

3 Conservation Area. Schedule No:5 Prospect is a detached mid-19th century Grade II listed building. The listing of the property also for group value reflects its contribution to the appearance of Conservation Area. Almost all of the properties in the village that have an outlook onto the Village are also listed. The proposal concerns the south west (side) elevation of Prospect. The garden to Prospect is bounded by high walls (1.8m 2.2m) along three of its boundaries. PROPOSAL The application is for planning permission for the erection of a replacement conservatory. The conservatory has already been erected and the application is retrospective. The conservatory in-situ replaced an earlier similar structure, built following the grant of listed building consent in The replacement conservatory has a larger foot print than the one it replaced and measures approximately 3.3 metres by 5.2 metres. The timber framed conservatory has a random rubble natural stone plinth for its lower walls. These walls have been extended from pre-existing walls that served the previous conservatory. The timber superstructure is painted grey and has large top-hung casement windows, above which is a moulded timber cornice. The roof is constructed with a hipped profile. The height to the abutment with the gable wall of Prospect would be 3.9 metres. The conservatory is linked into Prospect via the existing door opening and there is access into the garden via paired doors in the east elevation. The application includes the following changes to the earlier refused scheme, aimed at mitigating the impact of the conservatory: -Roof glazing bar: replacement of alloy glazing bars with a self-coloured material to match the finish of the painted timber structure below; -Internal wall / gable wall of Prospect : the wall has been plastered and painted white, the revised proposal is to paint this wall a darker colour to match the original stonework; -Landscaping: prior to the construction of the conservatory a leylandii tree was removed from close to boundary. The proposal put forward is to plant a replacement native tree of an appropriate species, which would help to screen views of the conservatory from the village green. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY - Listed building consent and full planning permission for the retention of the conservatory were refused in May Both applications were refused at Planning Committee, the reasons given for refusing the applications were: 1) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed conservatory by virtue of its design, form and materials would result in substantial harm to the architectural and historical interest of the listed building and those listed in association for group value. The proposal is considered to be contrary to saved policy B13 of the adopted Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2006) and paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 2) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the size, design and materials of the conservatory, particularly its roof height and form, significantly detracts from the 08 Dec 2015 Page: 33

4 Schedule No:5 architectural style and appearance of the host property Prospect as seen from valuable public views from within and into Conservation Area. As such it is considered that the proposal has a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies 1, 2, and B8 of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2006), the guidance contained within the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority s adopted Design Guide (2002) and Sections 7and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). The proposal also fails to meet the statutory purposes of conservation and enhancement of the cultural heritage of the National Park, as required under Section 61 of the Environment Act (1995). -Listed Building Consent was granted in 1982 for the erection of a sun room extension on the south elevation of Prospect, application reference YD5/3/19A/LB. KEY ISSUES: - Planning law and policy - Principle of development - Appraisal of listed building and conservation area - Impact on the significance of the listed building and conservation area - Residential amenity of neighbours - Other issues PLANNING LAW AND POLICY Section 66 of the Town & Country Listed Building & Conservation Areas Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses when considering planning applications that affect listed buildings. Section 72 of the Town & Country Listed Building & Conservation Areas Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area when considering proposals for development within conservation areas. Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance relating to the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Paragraph 129 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to identify and assess the significance of heritage assets affected by a proposal. This assessment should be taken into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal.' Paragraph 131 states that local planning authorities are required to consider the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Saved policy B13 of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2006) states that proposals for alterations to listed buildings will only be permitted if the development is in keeping with the character of the building and does not detract from or prejudice its special interest. Saved policy 2 is a general design policy that sets out criteria that development proposals must meet if they are to be permitted. Saved policy B8 concerns development within conservation areas and includes the duty under Section 72 referred to above. Development is only permitted by the policy where there is no adverse impact on, inter alia, the character and appearance of the area and important public views from and into the conservation area. 08 Dec 2015 Page: 34

5 Schedule No:5 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT The erection of a replacement conservatory is accepted in principle. The key considerations are the impact upon the fabric and appearance of the listed building, as well as the size and the position of the structure. Given the importance of Prospect to the setting of the village green and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the presence of the conservatory in public views around the village green are of particular importance. APPRAISAL OF LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA In the supporting documents the applicant s appointed heritage expert describes Prospect as not a building in the local vernacular tradition but a standardised pattern-book design of the 19th century. This argument is used to justify the design of the conservatory which has little in common with local building traditions. Officers disagree with this assessment. The use of local stone for walls and the roof places this house in Littondale s vernacular tradition. Modest changes in building traditions began in the late 19th century when railways and improved roads enabled the introduction of a greater range of building materials such as Welsh slate. An example of this being school buildings with the surrounding Dales. The former School building located nearby is one such example. In terms of the historic understanding, there is no doubt that the house was built for an educated client by a competent house-builder but the applicant s expert s statement that the 2-storey double-fronted design and plan form differs from the majority of buildings on the green, implying some lesser significance in its setting, overlooks an important element. The Conservation Area Review (2007) of describes the buildings around the as focussed inwards, essentially vernacular, some with polite touches. A key long view from the far end of the village green focusses on Prospect, and the building name reflects its prominence in the village and its important contribution to the building group. The setting of the village green, which makes an overriding contribution to the appearance of Conservation Area, is made up of a loose group of houses dating from the 17th to the 19th centuries. Within the applicant s submission these buildings are described as quite grand with barns and sheds attached to larger houses. Prospect is therefore a mid 19th century version of the two-storey double-fronted style typical of this and other Dales villages and farms built from the mid 18th century onwards, examples within the site vicinity including Lane Top, Low, and the Falcon Inn. In addition is a prominent house at the entrance to the village. Nearly all are listed, many having group value which is acknowledged by the applicant as being particularly high. Prospect is mapped as a key building in the Conservation Area appraisal, one of those displaying prevalent and traditional building materials, textures, colours and detailing and matches houses fronting the green with quoins and window surrounds of varying grandeur having walled gardens, kneeler stones and timber sash windows. The unity of the village, as seen from multiple high points on surrounding hills, is considered to be of great importance and the addition of a conspicuous addition, requires careful consideration. The Senior Listed Buildings Officer has since acknowledged the construction quality of the conservatory as seen in close proximity to the listed building. Overall, it is considered that 08 Dec 2015 Page: 35

6 RECOMMENDATION Schedule No:5 the new conservatory has a negative impact on both the listed building and Conservation Area due to its size and the use of reflective material. In particular the height of the extension fails to respect the appearance of Prospect and is an overly dominant addition to the property, as seen in key public views. IMPACT ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA The height, roof pitch and form, and scale of the structure is not sympathetic to the individual character of Prospect or that of Conservation Area. The conservatory is highly visible from high ground and important long views across the village green, and in terms of materials and design is strongly out of character with the host property as well as other barns and sheds attached to other village houses. It is considered that the hipped roof conservatory has a harmful impact on the significance of the listed building. Officers have discussed amendments to the proposal with Ms North following the refusal of the earlier application. Whilst accepting that the mitigation measures now put forward would modestly improve the appearance of the conservatory, as seen from views within and into the Conservation Area, the revised proposal does not address the fundamental objection to the proposal consistently raised by Officers which relates to the height and bulk of the roof. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY OF NEIGHBOURS The nearest neighbour is at. The single storey replacement conservatory would not result in any significant overlooking or physical impact on the neighbouring property due to the existing high boundary walls enclosing the garden to Prospect. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS In addition to the mitigation measures set out above, the application has been supported by a petition signed by 9 individuals understood to be residents of. The petition is in support of the amended proposal for a well-designed conservatory which is considered to be entirely in keeping with the property. The replacement is considered to be a higher quality that the earlier lean-to conservatory. ANALYSIS AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Committee has by virtue of its earlier decision concluded that the proposed extension has a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting within Conservation Area. This harm is not justified as being exceptional nor has it been demonstrated that the substantial harm is necessary to achieve public benefits that outweigh the harm caused. The sole matter for Members to consider is whether the amendments to the proposal, relating to the colour finish to the roof structure material, the painting of the plaster work to the gable wall of Prospect and the landscaping proposal address adequately the reasons for refusing the earlier planning application. Whilst accepting that the mitigation measures would modestly reduce the harm to the appearance of Conservation Area, Officers do not consider that they address adequately the reasons for refusing the earlier planning application. 08 Dec 2015 Page: 36

7 Refuse planning permission, for the following reasons: Schedule No:5 1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed conservatory by virtue of its design, form and materials would result in substantial harm to the architectural and historical interest of the listed building and those listed in association for group value. The proposal is considered to be contrary to saved policy B13 of the adopted Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2006) and paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 2. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the size, design and materials of the conservatory, particularly its roof height and form, significantly detracts from the architectural style and appearance of the host property Prospect as seen from valuable public views from within and into Conservation Area. As such it is considered that the proposal has a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies 1, 2, and B8 of the Yorkshire Dales Local Plan (2006), the guidance contained within the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority s adopted Design Guide (2002) and Sections 7and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). The proposal also fails to meet the statutory purposes of conservation and enhancement of the cultural heritage of the National Park, as required under Section 61 of the Environment Act (1995). 08 Dec 2015 Page: 37