Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 28 September 2021 by Mr R Walker BA HONS DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 October 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/W/21/3276916 Stubham Rise, Ilkley LS29 0AP • 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 Mr Paul Whitehead against the decision of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. • The application Ref 20/04408/FUL, dated 30 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 15 January 2021. • The development proposed is a lightweight single storey timber garage with attic storage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Middleton Conservation Area, with particular reference to trees. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises of a parcel of land at the end of Stubham Rise within Middleton Conservation Area (CA). The site contains several trees, including a Sycamore tree (T1) near the entrance to the site, which is prominent with other trees in Stubham Rise. This tree is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). 4.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision This part of the CA is characterised by predominantly sizeable houses set in large, landscaped grounds. Mature trees are prevalent, giving this area an attractive spacious leafy character. Given the T1 Sycamore’s height and position in the street scene, it has a moderate amenity value. Whereas the other trees have a more modest amenity value individually, due to their reduced presence. Nonetheless, they do have a group value collectively and, with other trees along Stubham Rise, contribute positively to the significance of the CA.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 5. Paragraph 5.3.1 of BS 5837:2012 states that “the default position should be that structures are located outside the RPAs of trees to be retained. However, where there is an overriding justification for construction within the RPA, technical solutions might be available that prevent damage to the tree”. There is no clear overriding justification before me for the need for the building in this location which would be within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of two Sycamore trees (T1 and T5). Nonetheless, the appellant has detailed how the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/W4705/W/21/3276916 development could be carried out with the aim of not causing harm to these retained trees.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 6. BS5837:2012 states that mature trees recover slowly, if at all, from damage to their woody roots. Damage to, or death of the root system affects the health, growth, life expectancy and safety of the entire tree.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 7. Although the encroachment of the proposal within the RPA of T5 is modest, the encroachment within the RPA of T1 is not insignificant and a small number of piles are proposed within it. It is unclear from the evidence before me, how much flexibility there would be in terms of the location of these piles and whether they would sever any woody roots. Moreover, the evidence before me does not address whether there would be any service connections running through the RPAs and, if so, what implications this may have in conjunction with the other works.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 8. I understand that the appellant’s preference is to establish the principle of development first, prior to establishing the optimal location of the piles and the proposed method would minimise disturbance to the roots. However, it is unclear to what extent any root damage would occur and it is by no means certain that the trees (particularly T1, given its close position to the garage) would recover from any associated root damage. With the precautionary principle in mind, the proposal would therefore risk the long-term health and survival of the trees.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 9. Given the proposed developments position with several retained trees and in particular the close proximity of T1, there would be the potential for future pressure on the trees. As a garage shading is unlikely to be a particular issue. However, where safety is at issue or where damage is being sustained by the trees future pressure may arise. Although this is difficult to quantify, it nonetheless adds to my concerns.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 10. Moreover, I am mindful that any future replacement trees, if necessary, would take years to establish, whereas the existing trees would continue to contribute to the amenity of the area for many years.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 11. Drawing the above together, even though the garage would be compatible with the built form in this part of the CA, the risk to trees would subsequently harm its character and appearance. 12. The harm would be localised and, as such, would be less than substantial in the context of paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Although the harm may be less than substantial, any harm to the CA is a matter that attracts great weight, having regard to paragraph 199 of the Framework and the statutory duty to preserve or enhance CA’s. In accordance with paragraph 202 of the Framework I must balance that less than substantial harm against the public benefits of the proposals. 13. The removal of two poor quality trees and Ivy would provide some small improvements to the site. Additional planting is indicated. However, no firm details are provided and the limited space for planting does limit the weight I afford such matters. Clearing the adjacent right of way would be of benefit to its users, however it is unclear how this is intrinsically linked to the garage or how this would be maintained. The absence of harm in relation to other https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 11. Drawing the above together, even though the garage would be compatible with Appeal Decision APP/W4705/W/21/3276916 considerations are neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the development. 14. Although I recognise as a private garage on a small site the potential for public benefits is difficult, nonetheless, these are modest benefits. In this context, I find on balance that the benefits of the proposal, even taken together, would not outweigh the harmful effect on the character or appearance of the CA, with particular reference to trees. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the requirements of Policies DS2, EN3, EN5 and SC9 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2017). These stipulate, amongst other things, that the Council will seek to preserve and enhance the contribution that trees make to the character of the District. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Stubham Rise, Ilkley, LS29 0AP — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Mr R Walker INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3