Appeal 6001307

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development set out in the application form refers to proposed development being a revision to an earlier planning application. However, as this not an act of development I have omitted this reference from the description set out above.

There are inconsistencies in the Council’s Delegated Report. The report states that habitable rooms would be provided with adequate light, outlook and ventilation. However, it then concludes that the occupiers would have poor living conditions due to inadequate lighting and outlook. In the absence of any evidence in support of this conclusion, I have considered the appeal on the basis that the Council’s concern in respect of living conditions relates to noise and disturbance only.

Therefore, the main issues are: • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brentwood Town Centre Conservation Area; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a part 2-storey, part 3-storey building located on the corner of [address] and [address]. The property comprises commercial use at ground floor level and vacant office space at first and second floor levels.

The appeal site is located within the Brentwood Town Centre Conservation Area (CA). As such, I have a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The special interest and significance of the CA results predominantly from the variety of building typologies and architectural styles present and the contrast between different styles. Indeed, the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (2007) identifies that there is no unifying architectural style in the [address].

I observed on site that there are a variety of property sizes and architectural styles present within the vicinity of the appeal site, with building heights ranging from 2 storeys to in excess of 5 storeys. There is also a varied roofscape within this part of the CA, both on individual properties and across the street scene. This variety contributes positively to the character and appearance of CA, providing a pleasant sense of contrast and variation. The appeal property includes elements of 2 and 3 storeys in height, thereby contributing positively to the CA’s character and appearance and its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The proposed development is the conversion of the vacant office space within the existing first and second floors to residential use and a second-floor extension to provide additional residential floorspace. In total, the proposed development would provide 4 dwellings.

The second-floor extension would result in changes to the [address] frontage of the appeal property, extending the built form to a height broadly comparable with the existing 3-storey element of the property. Although the extension would sit slightly below the ridge height of the 3-storey element, the proposal would not appear as subservient to the existing 3-storey element due to its height. In this regard, it would appear incongruous.

Moreover, the proposed development would substantially reduce the variance in the building heights and roofscape of the property, to the detriment of its character and appearance.

As a result, even though the materials would complement the existing building, the extension would be of a relatively moderate scale and the roof would reflect the pitch of the existing roof, the proposal would erode the pleasant sense of variety in building height and roof form along this part of [address]. By reason of its location at the corner of [address] and [address], the extension would appear unduly prominent in the street scene, harming the character and appearance of the area.

Consequently, the proposed extension would, by reason of its height, erode the contribution of the appeal property to the significance of the CA. Therefore, the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

With regard to the extent of such harm, I find that the harm would be less than substantial. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I am, therefore, required to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed development would provide new homes, a benefit to which I attach significant weight. The proposal would also support the vitality of the town centre and there would be economic benefits connected to the construction and once occupied. There is not, however, clear evidence that these benefits are dependent on the particular scheme before me. Accordingly, I afford these benefits limited weight in favour of the proposal.

In my view, and mindful of my duties under the Act, the public benefits of the proposal do not present a clear and convincing justification for the less than substantial harm that would arise to the CA.

Taking account of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brentwood Town Centre CA. In this regard, it is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policies BE14 and BE16 of the Brentwood Local Plan. Among other matters, these policies seek development which responds positively and sympathetically to its context, builds upon existing strengths and characteristics and sustains and wherever possible enhances the significance of heritage assets and their settings.

The Council raises concerns about the potential for noise and disturbance due to the internal arrangement of the proposed development. However, the plans before me show that the flats would be stacked such that the layout on the first floor would copy that of the second floor. Thus, quieter rooms such as bedrooms would not be above noisier rooms.

Moreover, a planning condition could be attached to any grant of planning permission to require additional noise attenuation to be provided in the fabric of the building. There is no evidence before me to suggest this matter could not be appropriately addressed by such a condition.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to noise and disturbance. As such, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks development which safeguards the living conditions of future occupants.

Although the appeal property is not listed, it is located close to, and forms part of the setting of 5 [name] listed buildings, [address], 110 and [address], [address], [address] and 120 High Street1. Mindful of the statutory duty under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their settings. The listed buildings front onto [address] and their setting comprises the built form along [address], including the appeal property. The built backdrop, including the varied built form and roofscape, contributes positively to the significance of the listed buildings.

[address] is located at the junction with [address], opposite the appeal property. [address] elevation of the appeal property is, consequently, visible from [address]. While the proposal will alter the roofscape visible 1 List entry numbers 1355187, 1197219, 1187197, 1197220 and 1298819 from [address], due to the distance between the appeal property and the listed building and the oblique nature of views of the appeal property, I consider that the proposed development would preserve the setting of the listed building and the contribution this makes to its significance.

By reason of the siting of the proposed extension on the [address] elevation of the appeal property, I consider that the proposed development would preserve the setting of the listed buildings at [address] and the contribution this makes to their significance.

The proposed development would contribute towards housing supply in the Borough and, consequently, the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the 2023 [name] and the [name]. However, the Council is currently able to demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is, therefore, not engaged. Moreover, by reason of the scale of the proposed development, the contribution towards housing supply would, inevitably, be limited. Consequently, this matter attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would contribute towards the local economy during construction and once occupied. It would also support the vitality of the town centre through utilising vacant office space and enhancing the residential offer, in doing so increasing footfall in the town centre as well as natural surveillance of this part of the town centre. I attach moderate weight in favour of the proposal to these benefits.

The proposed development would accord with relevant standards relating to parking and, subject to appropriate conditions, renewable energy and water consumption. The development would not result in ecological harm or an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Nevertheless, these are normal expectations of new development and, as such, have a neutral effect on the planning balance.

My attention is drawn to comparative improvements made as part of the appeal proposal relative to a previous planning application made at the property. However, I must make my decision on the basis of what is before me not the respective merits of any alternative scheme.

The appellant advises that they would accept planning conditions if they would render the proposal acceptable. Nonetheless, there are no planning conditions which I could impose which would overcome the harm I have identified above in respect of character and appearance.

The proposed development would contribute towards housing supply in the Borough, delivering dwellings which would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. The development would also provide economic benefits and support the vitality of the town centre. However, these cumulative benefits do not outweigh the harm I have identified from the proposal.

In conclusion, therefore, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.