Appeal 6000683

The appeals are allowed. Planning Permission and listed building consent are granted for the installation of one retractable awning (canopy) to the side elevation of [site address] . The permission and consent are granted in accordance with the terms of the respective applications, references PL/2025/04767 and PL/2025/04996, and the plans submitted therewith.

The development / works have already been undertaken.

[site address] is a grade II listed building1 within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA)2.

Part of the LPA’s case is that the awning affects the settings of neighbouring listed buildings. However, neither these, nor their list descriptions, have been identified to me / provided3. I note from the list description for [site address] that all the listed buildings in The Shambles form a group with the [name], Nos. 2, 5 and [address], Nos. 27 to [address] and [address].

The main issue in both appeals is whether the awning preserves the special architectural or historic qualities of [site address] , preserves the character or 1 The provisions of sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) are engaged. 2 The provisions of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) are engaged. 3 Whilst a plan in the officer’s report identifies very many neighbouring listed buildings, it is unclear if the LPA’s concerns involve the settings of all of these buildings. Moreover, it has not been explained how, if at all, the appeal site contributes to the heritage interest (significance) of these neighbouring listed buildings. Appeal Decisions 6000683 and 6000684 appearance of the CA, preserves the settings of neighbouring listed buildings4 and, if not, whether any harm would be outweighed by any public benefits.

The significance of [site address] is primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. These include the layout of this two storeyed, building, its ashlar stone walls, 18th century shop-front to The Shambles, sash windows, circa 15th century rear (facing east onto [address]), passage-way, as well as its surviving original building fabric. Over time, various alterations have been undertaken to this terraced building. This includes the installation of a modern awning above the shop-front (ref. PL/2025/04997). There have also been changes in use. The ground floor is currently in use as a café and delicatessen.

The CA is an extensive area that covers much of the historic core / town centre, as well as some areas of open land, sections of the [name], Kennet and [name] and railway. It includes commercial and residential properties / streets. The significance of this designated heritage asset is also primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. These include the contribution made by the very many listed buildings. [name] noted during my visit, [address] is a predominantly residential street with some commercial uses at the southern end around the junction with The Shambles and [address] (the appeal site and the [name]). There are a variety of awnings on some of the commercial properties within the CA, including those in The Shambles.

The significance of the [name] and Nos. 2, 5 and [address] is also primarily derived from their special architectural and historic qualities. The King’s Arms Hotel is an important corner building with its gable end facing down [address] and windows facing towards the appeal site. Nos. 2, 5 and [address] of two and three storeyed 17th century houses. They are further up the hill and on the same side of the street as the appeal site. The special architectural qualities of [site address] makes a very small contribution to the pleasing settings / significance of the [name] and Nos. 2, 5 and [address].

The awning that is the subject of these appeals is an ‘[name]. It is approximately 4.3 metres wide and, when opened, projects about 1.7m from the eastern elevation of the listed building. The cassette is grey in colour and the awning a dark green fabric. It is similar in size, style and appearance to the one recently approved above the shop front on the southern elevation.

The eastern elevation of the appeal building does not contain a shop front and is not the principal elevation. However, I do not consider that this needs to be a prerequisite for an awning. The rear of this listed building is also in commercial use and as I saw during my visit, customers sitting inside were clearly visible when standing in [address]. I also understand that the small patio area underneath the awning is licenced for outside serving. As form / appearance often follows function, an awning on this (eastern) elevation of the building could not reasonably be described as alien or unexpected.

Comprising modern materials and extending across a sizeable part of the [address] elevation, the awning contrasts somewhat awkwardly with the simple, modest 4 Following my site visit, I consider the awning affects the settings of the grade II listed [name] and Nos. 2, 5 and [address]. Appeal Decisions 6000683 and 6000684 vernacular qualities and appearance of the eastern elevation of the listed building. Nevertheless, the special architectural qualities of [site address] can still be discerned and appreciated. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the awning has disturbed or resulted in the loss of any important historic fabric. The development / works are also easily capable of being removed when no longer required. The awning has a very limited impact upon the special qualities of this listed building.

In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, the development / works comprises less than substantial harm to the significance of [site address] . If there is a sliding scale within this category of harm the impact of the awning would be at the lower end. However, this does not amount to a less than substantial planning objection. Great weight must be given to conserving listed buildings. The harm that I have identified weighs against granting permission and consent.

The awning is apparent from parts of the CA, including [address]. However, seeing development / works does not in itself amount to a harmful impact. The character of [address] remains predominantly residential and the awning is seen in association with both the existing commercial use of [site address] and neighbouring commercial premises, including those on the corner of [address] and [address]. [name] have noted above, awnings, including one of a similar size, style and appearance to the appeal scheme, already exist within the CA. The less than substantial harm that I have found above to the architectural interest of [site address] has an imperceptible effect upon the overall character and appearance of the CA. The awning preserves the special qualities / significance of the CA.

The awning is also apparent from within the settings of the [name] and Nos. 2, 5 and [address]. However, the pleasing vernacular qualities of [site address] are still clearly discernible from the settings of these listed buildings. The awning is not so large or obtrusive as to significantly dilute from the contribution the appeal building makes to the heritage interest of these nearby designated heritage assets. It preserves the settings of these listed buildings.

I am required to weigh the less than substantial harm that I have found above with any public benefits5. In this regard, the awning allows the appellant to provide outside covered seating. This would increase income for the appellant, enhance the viability of the business which operates from [site address] and reduce the risk of these commercial premises becoming vacant.

Very many small businesses are struggling during these challenging economic times and established national and local planning policies6 also recognise the important role of planning decisions in supporting economic activity and growth. [name] saw during my visit, [site address] like most, if not all town centres, has its share of vacant commercial premises. The awning would assist in helping to maintain and / or enhance the viability of the appellant’s business, as well as the vitality and vibrancy of the town centre. These are important public benefits.

In this instance, when undertaking the heritage balance, the public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building. Granting permission / consent would accord with the thrust of national and local 7 planning policies for the historic environment. 5 This heritage balance appears to be absent from the most important development plan policy (policy 58 of the [name]) to the determination of these appeals. 6 [name] 3 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2026 (NP). 7 [name] 1 of the NP. Appeal Decisions 6000683 and 6000684

I conclude on the main issue that the awning detracts, to a very limited extent, from the special architectural qualities of [site address] , preserves the character and appearance of the CA, preserves the settings of neighbouring listed buildings and the harm would be outweighed by important public benefits.

Given the above and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that these appeals should succeed.