Thank you for your interest in this story

To continue reading this article, subscribe to the Stray Ferret for as little as £1 a week

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

Jun 2020

Last Updated: 03/06/2020

Council 'sets precedent' by breaking listed building guidelines

by Vicky Carr

| 03 Jun, 2020

Going against its own planning guidelines, Harrogate Borough Council will put up a 1m high picket fence adjacent to the 19th century listed Harlow Hill Tower and Tower House. Plans were voted through by a narrow margin yesterday.

Harrogate Borough Council's planning committee has been accused of going against its own guidance in approving plans for a fence on its land.

The council applied for permission to put up a 1m high fence along the boundary between its land and the privately-owned Tower House, which adjoins the Grade II listed Harlow Hill Tower on Nursery Lane, on the edge of the Pinewoods in Harrogate.

The council's own design guide states:

New 2m high timber panel fences used as screens to maintain privacy for neighbours are generally acceptable in back gardens, however in sensitive locations, such as the boundary to a Listed Building or in a Conservation Area, the screen should be of brick or stone as appropriate to the setting.

A planning application was submitted earlier this year for a picket fence running 28m along the boundary behind Tower House. Reporting to the planning committee, principal conservation officer Emma Gibbens said:

"A stone wall of matching stone would be more appropriate, however, there are concerns over the creation of a significantly more permanent solution for what seems to be a short term requirement, whereas the picket fence represents an option that could easily be removed in the future when it is no longer required."

How will use of public money be scrutinised during the pandemic?

The agony of getting a single cycle route built in Harrogate

Tower House was bought eight years ago by Neil and Lucy Hind. The boundary in question is not visible from Nursery Lane because of high hedging, but separates the house from a piece of land owned by the council.

'No change'

Mr Hind addressed the committee during yesterday's virtual meeting, urging members to reject the proposal. He said nothing had changed since the last planning committee meeting in March, when councillors deferred their decision on the proposal, telling officers to reconsider whether a fence was the most suitable option.

Mr Hind told committee members yesterday there had been no change to the fence proposal which they had refused to accept in March, other than limiting its life span to five years. The committee's previous requests for an explanation of why the fence was needed, and for council officers to consult with the neighbours, had not happened, he said.

Among those objecting to the plans was Cllr Pat Marsh, who said:

"I feel that if we're doing this, we're almost setting a precedent which will impact on other parts of our district that have got listed buildings. Why don't we just make it a permanent fixture? Why mess around with temporary fences?"

Her views were shared by Cllr Robert Windass and Cllr Nigel Simms, who said a more suitable material should be used for a boundary so close to a listed building. However, the plans were passed by six votes to five.

After the meeting, Mr Hind told The Stray Ferret:

"The committee members were originally unanimous in their view that the plans were not acceptable, so it is somewhat a mystery as to who or what changed some of their minds over the last few months.

“It was clear from the discussion that these plans are still not in line with the council's own guidance and policy. However, it seems there is one rule for the council and one for residents, especially where cost is a factor.”

Thank you for your interest in this story

Council 'sets precedent' by breaking listed building guidelines

Read more:

'No change'