Appeal 6001569

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant indicates that there is an extant permission for conversion to 9 apartments dating from 2008 and this is not disputed by the Council.

These are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the setting of the [name] listed [name] 121 and of the Leeds and [name] as a non-designated heritage asset; • Whether living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed apartments would be satisfactory; and • The effect on the provision of public open space.

The appeal building is a late nineteenth century former public house and hotel. It is constructed of stone with a front bay and window surrounds on the attractive front facade. Despite the unsympathetic works undertaken, including the roof extension, the building retains a charm and presence befitting a structure of this age and type. However, it has been unoccupied since 2007 according to the appellant. The boarded up windows and other signs of deterioration give it a neglected appearance but the building nonetheless contributes positively to the area due to its design qualities. This is also partly due to its physical connection with the adjacent Leeds and [name] and the bridge over it.

The proposed three-storey rear extension would more or less double the depth of the building and would extend across just over half of its width. The ridge of the roof would project above the existing eaves line. Because of its size, the proposed addition would not be subservient to the former public house but would swamp and overwhelm the existing building. The connection between the two would be ungainly and awkward. The overall effect would be of a disproportionate and excessively bulky extension that would seriously detract from the original building.

In addition to its scale, the proposal has other flaws in terms of detailed design including the mean and overly regimented fenestration on the canalside elevation; the eaves level glazing; the use of Juliet balconies and the paucity of openings on the south-west elevation. All of these facets of the proposed extension would give rise to a bland and poorly related external appearance.

[name] 121 dates from around 1800 and is of coursed sandstone blocks with stone detailing. It is a good example of a canal bridge and its special interest derives from its architecture and history. There is a duty under section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The Canal itself played a significant role in the [name]. Policy HE1 of the Burnley Local Plan specifically refers to protecting the heritage assets associated with, and that contribute to, the character of the Leeds and [name], including bridges.

Although not immediately next to it, the rear extension would be seen in conjunction with the simple form of the bridge in views from the towpath. Because of the objections identified it would spoil the setting and appreciation of this heritage asset, albeit to a modest degree. The level of harm would therefore be at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm, as referred to by the National Planning Policy Framework. There would be a limited adverse impact on the Canal itself.

The Council is criticised for not formally consulting its own Heritage Specialist before deciding the application but I have been able to reach my own view in relation to the impact on these heritage assets.

In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the setting of the listed bridge and of the adjacent Canal. It would not achieve the high standard of design expected by Local Plan Policies SP5 and HS4. It would also fall foul of the expectations of Policy HE1 in relation to Burnley’s historic environment and Policy HE3 which concerns non-designated

Local Plan Policy SP5 on development quality and sustainability indicates that development should not result in unacceptable conditions for future users and occupiers.

Only about half of the headroom of Flats 8 and 9 on the top floor would be above 2.1m. Although these apartments would have vaulted ceilings in excess of 3m much of the living space would be significantly affected by their restricted height. The upshot would be unduly cramped units. Although this was accepted in 2008, the policy position has moved on and the Framework establishes that there should be a high standard of amenity for future users. That would not be the case for these flats.

The rear extension would be close to and have an overbearing impact on the ground floor bedroom window at Flat 4. The depth of the unit and the limited privacy within the lounge which faces directly onto [address] are further constraints. The layout can be distinguished from Flat 5 directly above as the visual consequences of the addition would not be as great. Indeed, when taken together with the other limitations, the size and proximity of proposed extension would not lead to a suitable internal environment for future residents.

There would be a parking space next to the bedroom windows of Flat 10. However, such arrangements are not uncommon and the likely frequency of use of that space and the function of the rooms means that this is not an unacceptable aspect of the proposal. Similarly, in conversion schemes of this kind, some limitation on outdoor amenity space is likely. In any event, a communal area would be provided between the building and the parking area and there is no objection in this regard.

Nevertheless, living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed apartments at Flats 4, 8 and 9 would not be satisfactory for the reasons given. There would be conflict with Policy SP5 in this respect and, in turn, with Policy HS4.

Local Plan Policy HS4 expects new housing developments of this scale to provide public open space in line with the relevant standard or to pay a commuted sum if this is impractical. No such payment is put forward. Although there is an extant permission for conversion of the building, the policy is more recent and the number of units would be higher in any event. Furthermore, the Green Spaces Strategy 2015-2024 identified a deficit of 1.25 ha of amenity green space in Hapton. The additional households created would add meaningfully to the resident population and so increase demand and worsen the existing shortfall.

By failing to make provision for public open space commensurate with the scale of the development proposed, there would be a negative effect in this respect and a failure to comply with Policies HS4 and IC4 on contributions.

The proposal would bring a long disused building in the village on a derelict site into beneficial use. The Framework indicates that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes. These considerations strongly favour the proposed development.

The appeal scheme was submitted on the basis of detailed pre-application advice from the Council. This concluded that the principle of the conversion and rear extension on the site was acceptable. Furthermore, it did not question the scale and mass of the proposal or raise the issue of internal living conditions within the flats. It is clearly unsatisfactory for applicants to be unable to rely on advice given before an application is made, even taking account of the usual caveats.

The judgment in North Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 65P & CR137 established the importance of consistency in decision-making and that like cases should be decided in a like manner. However, the Council did not make a decision in respect of a similar proposal but merely offered professional advice and opinion which is not the same. Therefore, whilst the appellant’s frustration is understandable these events have little bearing on the assessment made and do not alter my findings.

The appellant has provided a unilateral undertaking including a covenant to pay to the Council an unspecified biodiversity net gain contribution. However, the development may not commence until a biodiversity gain plan has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority as per paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 7A of the Act. As a result, the obligation is of very limited weight. Equally it is not necessary to be satisfied at this stage that the statutory biodiversity gain condition is capable of being discharged. Indeed, Planning Practice Guidance indicates that it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers to refuse an application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met. As such, there would be no conflict with Local Plan Policy NE1.

The proposal includes storage areas for cycles and bins within the building on the basement floor. This would be a discrete but secure way to make such provision in line with Policies IC1 and SP5. The floor plan indicates that the openings would be narrow for these purposes but details of the door widths, other internal arrangements and ventilation could be secured by condition.

Policy SP5 expects that measures to minimise energy and water consumption should be incorporated. No such details have been provided. However, the Council has not indicated what its expectations are in this respect or how accepting this scheme would make them unachievable. Therefore, this matter could be dealt with by condition along the lines suggested by the Council.

The appellant’s green infrastructure audit and statement concludes that there will be no negative, long-term effects on green spaces and that the development would provide an enhancement. These findings are not disputed by the Council. It is also accepted that waste collection could be made from [address]. These original reasons for refusal are no longer contested and there would be no conflict with Policies SP6, NE2, IC1 and IC3.

Local residents raise numerous other concerns which are covered in the officer’s delegated report. In particular, the proposal would comply with relevant parking standards and there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The extension would be sufficiently separated from dwellings in [address] and [address] so as to maintain privacy. Hapton is identified in the Local Plan as having a reasonable range of facilities and therefore able to accommodate some growth. Finally, the proposal is for 12 flats and not a house in multiple occupation and has been considered accordingly. None of these matters therefore add to the harm that would be caused.

There would be less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed Canal bridge and limited harm to the Canal as a non-designated heritage asset. Set against this, there would be significant public benefits in bringing an empty building in Hapton back into use and adding to the stock of housing in the Borough. In the balance referred to by the Framework and Local Plan Policy HE2 these considerations outweigh the heritage objections.

However, in addition to the adverse effect on the historic environment, the proposed extension would harm the general character and appearance of the area. Three of the proposed flats would be unsatisfactory for future occupiers. The proposal also fails to make provision for public open space as expected by development plan policy. The Framework establishes that brownfield development should generally be approved. However, in this case, the combination of harms identified would be substantial and they therefore outweigh this national policy.

The extant permission is for a lesser amount of development and was permitted under a different policy regime. From the information provided it does not form a good reason to allow an unacceptable scheme. Indeed, there is nothing, including the pre-application advice, which overrides the objections identified.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.