16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 January 2023 by Mr R Walker BA HONS DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27th January 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/W/22/3310796 16 Hebers Ghyll Drive, Ilkley LS29 9QH • 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 Barchester Healthcare Limited against the decision of City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. • The application Ref 21/02958/MAF, dated 27 May 2021, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2022. • The development proposed is demolition of Hollycroft Care Home and erection of new build care home together with associated car parking, landscaping and amenity space provision. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted a photographic analysis, a Building Condition Survey and Budget Costing. These were not before the Council when it made its decision. The council, and other parties have had the opportunity to comment on them as part of the normal appeal process. As such, no party has been prejudiced by their submission as part of the appeal. Main Issue 3.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision The main issue is the effects of the proposed development on the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets. Reasons 4. The appeal site is within the Ilkley Conservation Area (CA), a designated heritage asset. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of “preserving or enhancing the character or appearance” of a CA. 5. The CA covers a very large area, and the site lies within the Residential Expansion Character Area as set down in the Council’s CA Appraisal. Although there are some recurring features to properties, the significance of this part of the CA, in so far as it relates to this appeal, is derived from the large individually designed dwellings set within spacious plots. Mature trees and planting form important features that contribute positively to the attractiveness of this part of the CA and its verdant and elegant qualities. 6. The appeal building was constructed in 1904 as a single dwelling. It has, in part, been identified as a Key Unlisted Building/Structure within the CA https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W4705/W/22/3310796 Appraisal, and thus, a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). The reasons for this are not set down within the CA Appraisal. However, both parties have drawn from its architectural values and historical interests, and I have no reason to disagree with these findings. 7. The original core of the appeal building was designed by local architects. Despite unsympathetic alterations and extensions, the gable façade facing Hebers Ghyll Drive has a striking appearance that makes a positive contribution to the street. The historic core of the building, period design features such as the window and door openings, and external stonework, remain legible and positively contribute to the significance of the NDHA resulting from its Edwardian vernacular. In my view, the degree of significance of the building is commensurate with its identification as a NDHA. 8. The appeal building is not prominent in key views within the wider CA. However, it is prominent in closer views when moving along Hebers Ghyll Drive and in gaps between buildings along Grove Road. The appeal site consequently makes a modest, but positive, contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. 9.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision The demolition of the entire building would result in the complete loss of the architectural and historical values associated with the NDHA and its modest contribution to the overall CA. 10. The replacement building’s function has resulted in a design with a level access on each floor. However, this has expressed itself in a design with an extensive built form and roof slopes, that when seen from the north and south, would have a consistent height across the development. This does not reflect, nor positively respond to, the form and appearance of buildings within this part of the CA. The inclusion of dormers, chimneys and a central gable would assist in breaking up the roof slope but only to a limited extent and the proposed building would still appear as being significantly and overly extensive in its plot. 11. The proposal would visually and spatially dominate the undeveloped part of the site and would, as a result, be at odds with the overall spatial pattern of buildings in this part of the CA. Within its plot, the combined height and width of the building would appear cramped and would erode the spaciousness between buildings along the road.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision Given that the existing building is highly visible in local views, the retention of existing boundary planting and the proposed stone wall would have a very limited influence on the considerable intrusive effect from the scale of the development. 12. The proposed use of natural slate, natural stone and timber windows and doors, chimney stacks and the position of the front façade of the building in relation to the footway would be compatible with the surrounding grain of the built environment. However, any such positive elements of the design would do very little to alter the harmful effects of the scale and massing of the building. 13. The increased scale and massing of the proposed replacement building with its continuous roof form would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of this part of Hebers Ghyll Drive and in close views along Grove Road. As the harm would be expressed in localised views, in the context of the overall CA, the degree of harm to the CA would be modest. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W4705/W/22/3310796 14. The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of Policy EN3 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2017) (CS). This, amongst other things, says that the Council, through planning and development decisions, will work with partners to proactively preserve, protect and enhance the character, and appearance, archaeological and historic value and significance of the District’s designated and undesignated heritage assets and their settings. This policy is not entirely consistent with the wording of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of the Framework’s balancing exercises as set down in the following section. Heritage and Planning Balance 15. The Framework’s approach to the harm from the complete loss to the appeal building’s significance, as a NDHA, is that it is taken into account with a balanced judgement made. The harm to the CA would be localised and, as such, would be less than substantial in the context of paragraph 202 of the Framework.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision In accordance with paragraph 202 I must balance that less than substantial harm against the public benefits of the proposal. This classification of harm does not mean that it is diminished though. The Framework identifies that great weight should be given to designated assets’ conservation, the weight increasing the more important the asset. Therefore, although the harm to the overall CA would be modest, this carries great weight and remains of considerable importance. 16. Turning to the public benefits. The government places considerable importance on making effective use of land, including specifically on previously developed land and in sustainable locations. The proposal would deliver a purpose-built care home to modern standards contributing to a market where there is a recognised need for increased accommodation for older people. This would have some associated benefits of reducing demands on healthcare and other services by ensuring older people are well housed and freeing up family housing elsewhere. 17.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision There is a shortfall in a five years’ deliverable housing land supply with the appellant quoting the Council’s current supply figure of 2.08-years from the Council’s Five-Year Housing Land Statement (September 2022). As such, the benefits of providing housing of any type carry a high degree of weight. There would also be associated economic benefits from the construction of the development and its longer-term use. Given the scale of the proposal, these benefits would be modest overall and thus carry modest weight. 18. The appellant indicates that there would be community access to the shared facilities within the scheme. However, the extent of this is unquantified. There would be biodiversity improvements and landscaping incorporated into the development. However, the visual benefits of the landscaping would be limited given the increased bulk and massing of the development and the small increase in hardstanding. As such, I give these matters limited weight. The absence of harm in relation to other matters raised are neutral matters. 19. The opportunity to record and advance an understanding of the NDHA could be secured by way of a condition.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision However, paragraph 205 of the Framework says that the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. It thus carries neutral weight. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision However, paragraph 205 of the Framework says that the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. It thus carries neutral weight. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W4705/W/22/3310796 20. The appeal site has been vacant for several years. The appellant has provided a schedule of works and costings to bring the existing building back into use. However, neither document provides substantive evidence that an alternative use or an alternative built form would not be viable. As such, the evidence does not provide a clear and convincing justification for the harm arising from the demolition and the size of the replacement building. This does not therefore weigh in favour of the proposal. 21. Drawing the above together, the public benefits of the development would be high in the context of the need for this type of specialist accommodation. However, as the harm to the CA and the consequent conflict with the Act carries considerable importance and weight, it would outweigh the public benefits. Moreover, the harm to the NDHA from its loss, would in my balanced judgement be unacceptable, notwithstanding the benefits of the proposal. 22. These findings mean that the Framework’s policies that protect designated heritage assets provide a clear reason for refusing the proposed development.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Appeal Decision Notwithstanding a failure to demonstrate a five years’ supply of deliverable housing sites, the so called ‘tilted balance’ set down in paragraph 11d of the Framework is consequently not engaged. Other Matters 23. The appellant has made changes to the design of the scheme from a previous iteration with a view to finding a solution. However, this is not a matter for my consideration in this appeal and I am only able to make my decision considering the plans that were before the Council when they made their decision. Conclusion 24. To conclude, the proposal would harm the significance of heritage assets. Although Policy EN3 of the CS is not entirely consistent with the provisions of the Framework, the proposal would nonetheless conflict with it, and the development plan, when taken as a whole. Moreover, there are no material considerations that would outweigh this conflict. 25. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

16 Hebers Ghyll Drive , Ilkley, LS29 9QH — City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — Mr R Walker INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4