Appeal 6001748

The appeal is dismissed.

Reference to “retrospective” has been omitted from the description of development above as it is not a form of development. However, the application form confirms that the development has been completed, and I was able to see this during my site visit. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and street scene.

The appeal property is a shop located within a three-storey terrace in Reading town centre. While not listed or otherwise designated as part of a conservation area, the appeal property contributes to a mixed commercial character, and is part of a street scene of shopfronts to the ground floor and patterned brickwork to the upper levels. In common with neighbouring properties, [site address] has a modern shopfront and surround, with a fascia sign over it.

Reading Borough Council’s Design Guide for Shopfronts Supplementary Planning Document, (the SPD) 2022, states that security shutters can detract from the character of shopfronts and that solid internal or external shutters are generally inappropriate. It also advises that security measures should be limited to the minimum measures necessary and should be integral to the shopfront itself. It states that every effort should be made to ensure that the shopfront display remains visible both day and night.

The shutter is housed in a box which projects beyond, and is not integral to, the shopfront, contrary to advice in the SPD. Despite the perforations, the shopfront display would not be visible outside business hours, and when closed the appeal site has an inactive ground floor frontage. The shutters have a blank appearance and contribute to an austere and forbidding street scene. Notwithstanding the varied appearance of shopfronts locally, the development harms the character and appearance of the appeal property and street scene. This harm is apparent despite the upper levels of the building remaining unchanged.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of shops in the vicinity with external roller shutters, but I have no information before me as to the circumstances around their installation, such as whether these benefit from planning permission. They do serve to illustrate the harmful effect that external security shutters can have on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. In any case, the existence of harmful development elsewhere does not justify the harm I have found in this case. I have come to a decision based on the individual circumstances of the case and these comparisons do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

For these reasons, the development harms the character and appearance of the appeal property and street scene. It therefore conflicts with Policies CC7 and CR2 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (2019) (the Local Plan), which taken together seek to deliver high quality design that responds positively to local context and makes a positive contribution to the quality of the public realm. There would also be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework where at paragraph 135 it seeks developments that are sympathetic to local character and which create attractive and welcoming places to live, work and visit.

Policy OU5 of the Local Plan is not cited in the Council’s Decision Notice, but has been referred to by both main parties in their evidence. This policy seeks to ensure that shopfronts present an active frontage to the street at all times. It also states that where security is essential, security features should be internal, such as internal open mesh grilles. These requirements are broadly mirrored in advice in the SPD. The metal security shutters at the appeal site do not present an active frontage outside business hours and are contrary to the aims of this policy.

It has been argued that shutters of this design are needed to ensure the security of the commercial premises. Whilst this consideration carries some weight, I have not been presented with any convincing evidence to demonstrate why less harmful alternatives would not provide a satisfactory degree of security. This does not therefore lead me to reach an alternative overall conclusion.

The installation may be a reversible and non-structural intervention which does not alter or remove any original fabric at the appeal site. Although its impacts would be largely, but not entirely, confined to evenings and night time, when the business is closed, this does not justify the harm I have found in this case.

The appellant has drawn attention to an apparent lack of enforcement by the Council against comparable development. The existence of unauthorised development in the vicinity, or possible lack of enforcement by the Council in those cases, is not a reason on its own to allow unacceptable development. Enforcement against potentially unauthorised work on other sites is not a matter for my deliberation in the context of this planning appeal.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.