Appeal 6000694

[name] and C are allowed. Appeal B is dismissed.

Listed building consent is granted for the repair and restoration of windows, installation and rationalisation of soil vent pipes and extract vents and internal works, including a replacement staircase to basement level with new stair to upper floors within new internal lobby, installation of fire doors, noise and fireproofing ceilings and the insertion of partition walls to compartmentalise the building at all levels at [site address] . Consent is granted in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/0120/LBC and subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule 1.

Prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2 [Part 3, Class G] of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696 (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the change of use from commercial (Class E) to a mixed use comprised of commercial space and 2no. self-contained flats at [site address] . The approval is granted in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/0837/PD and the accompanying 1:1,250 scale site location plan (ref. 001 [name]), 1:500 scale site layout plan (ref. 005 [name]), 1:50 scale basement level plan (ref. 110 [name]), 1:50 scale ground floor plan (ref. 111 [name]), 1:100 scale first floor plan (ref. 112 [name]), 1:50 scale second floor plan (ref. 113 [name]), 1:100 scale elevations and sections (ref. 300 [name]), 1:100 scale general arrangement floor plans (ref. 100 [name]) and subject to the conditions set out in G.1 of the Order and the other conditions in the attached Schedule 2.

The appeal site is a grade II listed building within the Central Conservation Area (CA) and is immediately adjacent to the Riverside Conservation Area 1. The site also sits atop the [name] part of the City Wall. Whilst much of this wall is a Scheduled Monument (SM), I understand that the section of wall below the appeal building does not form part of the SM2.

The appeal site also lies within the buffer zone for the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). In respect of appeals B and C, the appellant has submitted Agreements under the provisions of section 111 of the Local Government Act

These include financial contributions that are based upon the provisions of the South East Devon European Site [name] (MS).

Some of the plans submitted in respect of appeal A have, in effect, been amended (minor alterations) by plans submitted in respect of appeal [name] of these plans have been considered by the LPA3 and no party is likely to be prejudiced. I shall therefore take these amended plans into account in determining appeal A.

Applications for an award of costs have been made by the appellant against the LPA. These applications are the subject of separate decisions.

The four main issues are: firstly, whether the public benefits of the proposals would outweigh any harm to the significance of the listed building at [site address] and/or the CA (appeals A, B4 and C); secondly, whether proposed flat No. 2 results in the proposal falling within the scope of permitted development rights (appeal B only); thirdly, whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for occupiers of the proposed flats, having particular regard to any noise disturbance from neighbouring commercial premises and the proposed bin/waste storage arrangements (appeal C only) and; fourthly, whether the proposed development would be likely, in combination with other plans or projects, to result in a significant effect upon the integrity of the SPA and, if so, whether there is a mechanism in place to mitigate any likely adverse effect (appeal C only). 1 The LPA has not identified any harm, arising as a consequence of the proposals, to the heritage interest (significance) of this adjoining conservation area. 2 The LPA has not identified any harm to this designated heritage asset and there is nothing to indicate any likely adverse impact. 3 Interested parties have also been afforded an opportunity of commenting upon the proposals/both sets of drawings. 4 Whilst the LPA’s reason for refusal does not allege harm to these designated heritage assets, it is evident from the officer’s report that the LPA has similar concerns (bin storage) to those raised in respect of appeal C. Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696

The development plan5 includes the Exeter Local Plan First Review (LP) and the Exeter Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS). My attention has been drawn to various policies. The most important policies to the determination of these appeals are LP policies C1 (conservation areas), C2 (listed buildings) and CS objective 8 (city’s character) and objective 9 (design).

In determining these appeals, I have also had regard to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the [name] 2015 (as amended). First Main Issue – [name], B and C

[site address] is a 18th century three storey building with basement and a modern shop front. It forms part of a group of listed buildings within [address]. The significance of No. 2 is primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. These include its timber sash windows6, painted walls, cornice, parapet and surviving 18th and 19th century building fabric such as the fireplaces.

[name] saw during my visit, some of the glazing in the sash windows has been painted black, whilst other windows have black painted timber/plywood over the glazing. The sash windows that I was able to inspect from inside the building7 all appeared to be in need of repair8 and were fixed shut. I also noted the various internal partitions and works that had taken place over many years and the damage caused by water penetration to parts of the building.

The CA covers a sizeable part of the city centre. It includes buildings of various sizes and designs, reflecting the development and growth of Exeter over time. There are also a mix of uses, including residential, which provides much vibrancy. The significance of this designated heritage asset includes the below ground archaeology, the city walls, historic street plan and the special architectural and historic qualities of the very many listed buildings, including the outstanding grade I listed [name]. Lying on the periphery of the city centre, West Street9 is somewhat less vibrant and includes a number of vacant or under-used premises. Several buildings within this street are also in need of repair.

The proposed flats would entail a more efficient use of an existing city centre building and would add to the choice and supply of homes available within Exeter. This would also help fund much needed repair/maintenance of a listed building within the CA, including the restoration and re-use of traditional sash windows. Occupiers of the flats would increase vibrancy within the street/CA and be likely to 5 Whilst the provisions of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 are not engaged in respect of Appeal A, the policies relating to designated heritage assets are a material consideration in the determination of the appeal. 6 Some of which are curved in shape. The shop front has a traditional design, but I understand that it dates from the 1950s. 7 Some of the windows were inaccessible due to shelving and storage of goods associated with the use of the ground floor shop. 8 Some of the panes and cords were broken and the paintwork was not in a good condition. 9 This lies within the [name] character area of the city, as defined within the LPA’s published Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. Amongst other things, this document identifies [address] as one of Exeter’s architectural gems, as well as a lack of maintenance to some properties in the street and shops that struggle to maintain business. Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696 support local services and businesses. Whilst works were in progress, there would also be some support for the construction industry. Although only small in scale, the totality of these social, environmental and economic gains are important public benefits that carry considerable weight in the heritage balance.

The proposed internal works would include the construction of a new staircase. This would be necessary to provide access to the upper floors and to meet current Building Regulations. The existing staircase, part of which, seems to be the original location for accessing the upper and lower floors, would be removed. This would be unfortunate. However, as noted within the appellant’s Heritage Statement, there has been significant modern intervention into this staircase. This includes some replacement steps and a modern handrail. The loss of original internal fabric would be very limited and would not impact upon the CA.

I note the LPA concerns that the repairs to the windows have not been fully explained or justified. However, as I noted during my visit, it is readily apparent from an internal inspection of the building that the proposed works would be necessary in order to safeguard the integrity of this important building.

Very limited external alterations are proposed. The intervention arising from the proposed small extract vents/pipes would be insignificant and could be offset by the removal of some, or all, of the existing commercial paraphernalia such as security bell boxes and wiring. These elements of the proposed works would not harm the heritage interest of [site address] or the CA.

I also note the concerns of the LPA and the Exeter Civic Society regarding the proposed fire prevention measures and insertion of partition walls. Whilst, amongst other things, a new internal entrance lobby would be created, I agree with the appellant that the original layout of the building would still be discernible. The proposed partitions and fire safety measures would not erode the integrity of the building or this part of the CA. To ensure that the proposed bin/recycling facilities do not appear unsightly when viewed from the street, a condition could be attached requiring the submission of further details. This would avoid the risk of any harm to the appearance of this part of the CA.

When considering the impact of a proposal upon the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The loss of surviving original fabric would, in the context of the Framework, amount to less than substantial harm. If there is a sliding scale within this category, the proposal would be at the bottom end. When this is weighed with the public benefits, including the repairs to the building and an increase in vibrancy within this part of the CA, then the balance tips firmly in favour of an approval.

I conclude on the first main issue that the public benefits of the proposals outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of [site address] and the CA. The proposals accord with LP policies C1 and C2 and CS objectives 8 and 9.

Article 3 (9A) of the Order provides that Schedule 2 does not grant permission for, or authorise any development of, any new dwellinghouse where the gross internal Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696 floor area is less than 37m2 in size or does not comply with the [name] (‘the standards’).

The LPA has calculated that proposed Flat 2 would have a gross internal floor area of 37.1m2 and a bedroom floorspace of 13m2. Whilst the appellant’s Planning Statement states that this would be a single person flat10, the internal floor area exceeds the 11.5m2 floor area contained within the standards for a 2-person bedroom. I concur with the LPA that Flat 2 should therefore be assessed against the standard for a 2-person, 1 bedroom flat11. As the gross internal floor area for Flat 2 would be below the standard for a 2-person, 1 bedroom flat the proposed development falls outside the remit of the Order.

I note the appellant’s argument that the proposal has been formulated with regard, amongst other things, to the historic layout of the listed building. I also note the suggestion that a planning condition could be attached to an approval restricting the use of Flat 2 to single occupancy. However, I must determine the appeal in accordance with the Articles and terms of the Order. I do not have the flexibility to go beyond that when assessing whether or not a proposal falls to be considered as permitted development.

I conclude on the second main issue that proposed [name]. 2 would result in the proposal falling outside the scope of permitted development rights.

Give the city centre location of the appeal site, the impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the proposed development is an important material consideration. In this regard, during my visit, I noted the mix of commercial and residential uses within [address].

However, these commercial uses appeared to be operating, in the main, from small shops, as well as some vacant premises that were previously used as a café and bakery. I have not been informed of, nor did I notice, any neighbouring commercial premises that would be likely to cause undue noise disturbance to occupiers of the proposed flats. There is also nothing before me to indicate that any existing commercial premises have resulted in noise complaints.

When consulted on the application that is now the subject of appeal B, the LPA’s Environmental Health Officer recommended that a planning condition be attached to any approval requiring an acoustic assessment to be undertaken. A condition to this effect would be necessary to ensure that occupiers of the proposed flats did not experience any harmful noise disturbance from any neighbouring commercial premises/uses. I note that the appellant has agreed to the use of such a condition.

The arrangements for the storage and management of domestic waste is also an important material consideration. In this regard, the proposed development would achieve an adequate quantum of space in which to store domestic waste. On behalf of the appellant, I have been informed that this would include ground floor storage at the bottom of the shared stair and partitioned off from the entrance lobby. Given the proximity to the entrance and street, this would be a logical place 10 Although a single person bed is shown on the submitted plans, I agree with the LPA that it would be nonsensical to consider a bedroom as a single person bedroom on the basis of a single bed being shown on the plans. It is important to consider the number of people that could be accommodated within the proposed bedroom. In this regard, Note 4 of the standards states that furnished layouts are not required to demonstrate compliance. 11 Minimum gross internal floor area of 50m2. Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696 in which to provide some bin storage facilities. It is not uncommon, especially in city centre locations, for residents to have to pass their and/or neighbouring resident’s domestic waste bins when accessing their homes.

It has not been demonstrated that the proposed arrangements for the storage and management of waste would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the proposed flats. However, as suggested by the appellant, a condition could be attached to an approval requiring further details so as to ensure suitable arrangements.

I conclude on the third main issue that the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for occupiers of the proposed flats.

Following research published by Natural England (NE), it is now widely recognised/accepted that certain types of development within the buffer zone of the SPA12 would be likely to have a significant effect upon the integrity of this protected area13. This includes the cumulative impact of new residential development, where occupiers would be likely to increase recreational disturbance within the SPA.

On the basis of the information before me, it has not been demonstrated that there is a reasonable scientific doubt that the proposed self-contained flats would not harm the integrity of the SPA. In all likelihood, the proposals, in combination with other plans or projects, would result in a significant effect upon the integrity of the SPA and harm important nature conservation interests.

The financial contributions contained within the submitted section 111 Agreement would be necessary to assist in mitigating the ‘in combination effects’ of the proposals upon the SPA and would accord with the provisions of the MS14. This would reduce the likely effects upon the SPA to a de minimis level. As a consequence, the location of the proposals within the buffer zone for the SPA would not be a sound basis for withholding an approval.

I conclude on the fourth main issue that the proposed development would be likely, in combination with other plans or projects, to result in a significant effect upon the integrity of the SPA, but a mechanism is in place to mitigate this effect.

In addition to the ‘standard’ condition requiring works to commence within a period of three years, for the avoidance of doubt, a condition would be necessary specifying the approved plans. Conditions requiring the windows to be repaired in accordance with a previously approved schedule of works and the removal of any redundant paraphernalia on the external walls of the building would be necessary 12 The SPA encompasses coastal and offshore waters, intertidal mudflats, low lying land and marshes, beaches and dunes. The Qualifying Features include avocet, black-tailed godwit, dark-bellied brent goose, dunlin, grey plover, oystercatcher and Slavonian grebe. 13 Such developments would be likely to compromise the conservation objectives of the [name]. These objectives are maintaining or restoring: the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; the populations of each of the qualifying features and; the distribution of qualifying species within the site. 14 I understand this Strategy has been endorsed by Natural England. Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696 to safeguard the significance of the building and the CA. I have also found that a condition requiring further details of the bin/recycling facilities would be necessary.

As found above, conditions requiring the submission/approval of an acoustic assessment and the submission of further details for bin/recycling facilities would be necessary to ensure satisfactory living conditions for occupiers of the flats.

Given my findings above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that appeals A and C should succeed, but appeal B should be dismissed.

The works hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

The works hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:1,250 scale site location plan (ref. 001 [name]); 1:500 scale site layout (ref. 005 [name]); 1:50 scale basement level (ref. 110 [name]); 1:50 scale ground floor (ref. 111 [name]); 1:100 scale first floor (ref. 112 [name]); 1:50 scale second floor (ref. 113 [name]); 1:100 scale elevations and sections (ref. 300 [name]); 1:100 scale general arrangement floor plans (ref. 100 [name]).

The flats shall not be brought into use until all of the windows have been repaired and made available for use by occupiers, in accordance with a schedule of repairs (including, where necessary, drawings at a scale of 1:10) that has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the insertion of the extract vents and soil pipes into the external walls and roof of the building, details of any redundant paraphernalia, such as security bell boxes and wiring, on the external walls that are to be removed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, neither of the flats shall be occupied until bin/recycling facilities have been provided in accordance with details that shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be retained thereafter. Schedule 2 (Appeal C)

Prior to the occupation of the flats hereby approved, an assessment of ambient Appeal Decisions 6000694, 6000695 and 6000696 noise levels shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. If, having approved the assessment, the LPA concludes that noise mitigation measures are required, the developer/site owner shall then submit a scheme for protecting occupiers of the proposed flats from noise disturbance. This shall be based on the results of the above assessment and shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. All works that form part of the approved scheme shall be undertaken before either flat is occupied. The developer/site owner shall aim to achieve at least the standards for internal and external noise levels specified in BS8233:2014 [name] and [name] for Buildings and [name] for [name].

Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, neither of the flats shall be occupied until bin/recycling facilities have been provided in accordance with details that shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be retained thereafter.