Appeal 6001328

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development above reflects that on the original planning application form, albeit I have removed reference to the works being retrospective as this is not an act of development.

The roller shutters have already been installed at the appeal site and were apparent during my site visit.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character of the host property and surrounding area, including designated heritage assets.

The appeal property is a commercial unit located within the Basingstoke Town Conservation Area (the CA). The CA is rather extensive, covering a large proportion of the town centre’s historic core. It comprises a wide-ranging townscape of buildings, from several periods, many of which are of a high architectural quality and of historic importance. The character of the CA is therefore diverse, though the appeal site is located in the top of the town where the character is a commercial one, reinforced by prominent civic and commercial buildings.

Based on the evidence before me and my own observations, I find that the significance of the CA, in relation to this appeal, primarily derives from its well-preserved historic street pattern and the generally high quality of its townscape.

The appeal building is situated on a relatively narrow street lined predominantly by ground floor shopfronts to both sides. The precise designs of shopfronts along [address] varies, but the appeal building shares a sense of continuity with neighbouring properties due to its proportions, including its large-glazed display and recessed entrance door.

The Council’s appeal submission refers to the appeal property as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) defines a NDHA as “buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets”. The PPG further recognises that a substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance, with only a minority having enough significance to merit identification as a NDHA.

From the evidence before me the Council has not formally identified the appeal building as a NDHA either through its local plan or a local list. Furthermore, the building is not identified as a ‘building of local interest’ within the Basingstoke Town Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2015) (the SPD). The glossary to the SPD sets out that buildings of local interest are NDHAs as they normally make a special contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area due to their age, integrity and historic and architectural interest.

Moreover, no robust reasons have been presented by the Council as to why the appeal property is an NDHA. As such, whilst the building may be a ‘notable structure’1, that positively contributes a sense of place and adds to the character and appearance of the CA, I do not consider it to be an NDHA.

The appeal property is located near several listed buildings. Notably, the [address]; [address]; and the [name] (all [name] listed). The significance of these listed buildings is largely derived from their traditional architectural interest, with the historic role of [name] also adding to its significance. The setting of the listed buildings, within the commercial heart of the town centre, amongst a generally high-quality townscape also contributes to the significance of each of the listed buildings.

The colour of the roller shutters and casing box matches the décor of the appeal building’s shopfront. Nonetheless, when closed the solid roller shutters display a somewhat industrial appearance and creates an inactive and visually sterile frontage. Additionally, the casing box/housing is bulky with its projection jarring awkwardly against the shopfront and associated fascia. Despite its modest size, the roller shutter is prominent within the streetscene and detracts from the character and appearance of the host building and the wider conservation area.

Given the absence of a meaningful visual relationship between the appeal development and the [name], and in light of the lack of any evident historic connection between the properties, I do not find that the proposal harms the setting of that listed building. However, the appeal development is visible in key views along [address], where it appears alongside the listed buildings at 5–[address] and the [address]. In these views, it detracts from their setting, resulting in harm to their significance. 1 Notable structure as defined within the SPD.

The roller shutters may only be closed outside the operating hours of the unit, when the street may experience reduced footfall, but this does not suitably negate the development’s harm. Indeed, there is likely to remain footfall related to the wider nighttime economy in the town centre. In any case though, the significance in respect of heritage assets is not dependent on its number of visitors.

Although the building was designated as a ‘notable structure’ within the SPD when previously fitted with similar roller shutters, this does not mean the earlier shutters were acceptable or contributed positively to its appearance. The lack of earlier enforcement action against the previously unauthorised shutters does not alter that position. Furthermore, the replacement of previously broken roller shutters, which did not benefit from planning permission, with this further unsympathetic development does not provide suitable justification for the appeal scheme.

From my observations the town centre was mainly free from solid external security shutters with box housing, albeit some limited examples were present within the wider CA. It is unclear though whether these benefit from planning permission. In any case, the presence of other poorly designed development also does not provide suitable justification for allowing further harm.

The harm that I have identified to the CA and relevant listed buildings would be ‘less than substantial’ in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Still, the Framework requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets.

The roller shutters are likely to function effectively as a security measure, deterring crime and offering protection to the shopfront. By safeguarding the shopfront and potentially reducing negative impacts on trading, the development may to some extent support the preservation of local character. However, I do not find the public benefits to outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified to the relevant heritage assets.

Moreover, alternative security measures—such as perforated shutters or grilles— are likely to be more sympathetic to the host property and historic setting by allowing views of the shopfront to be maintain when in use. Indeed, where required, the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2018) promotes the use of decorative security grilles that allow visibility of the shopfront and its displays, while advising that solid shutters should be avoided unless robust justification is provided. No such justification for the unsuitability of alternative measures has been offered in this instance.

Bringing the above together, the appeal development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area including designated heritage assets. The appeal scheme therefore conflicts with Policies EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029. Together, amongst other matters, the policies seek to promote high quality design that protects the historic environment.

Compliance with other development plan policies, for example in respect of the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers, are neutral matters that do not overcome the above identified harm.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan, and there are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.