Appeal 6001776

Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed.

The two appeals concern the same scheme under different, complementary legislation. I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.

The appeal site is the [site address] , a [name] listed building. The site is within the Cathedral and City Centre Conservation Area. It also lies close to [name] listed [name], [name] listed [name] and [name] listed Exchequergate. Additionally, the site lies within the setting of the following [name]* listed buildings: [name] and Railings, 6 and [address], [address], and the [name] listed building [name].

I have therefore had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). Appeal Decisions 6001776 & 6001777

The main issues are whether the proposals would preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, whether the proposals would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name] and City Centre Conservation Area and the effect on the setting of the nearby listed buildings, including the [name] listed [name], [name] and Exchequergate.

The [site address] occupies a prominent corner at the junction of Eastgate and Bailgate. A substantial building, it is constructed of red brick with stucco to the ground floor. The oldest section of the building dates to 1722 and it was re-fronted in 1844, with several additions and alterations from the early to mid-twentieth century, with the most recent major addition being the 1962 extension.

The special interest and significance of the listed building derive from its elegant Classical architectural composition, its evolution over time and its longstanding use as a hotel.

The 1962 extension fronts Bailgate adjacent to the Church of [name] and comprises of two bays over four storeys with a flat roof. With its red brick built form and symmetrical fenestration including first and second floor French windows and balconies, it reflects the older parts of the building, albeit that the detailing is simpler and less elaborate. Its roof is flat with a brick parapet. Flat roofs are also present at the projecting rear wings on both the Eastgate and Bailgate sections of the building, the latter of which includes a small existing roof terrace. The former is one of the tallest sections of the building and includes a sizeable roof mounted water tower which is visible within the wider roofscape.

Established between 1072 and 1092, [name] is one of the most distinctive and important medieval buildings in the country. It is listed at [name], reflecting its status as an asset of the highest significance.

A building of considerable scale and height, it has been a powerful presence and a focal landmark within the city and beyond for many centuries. An example of the Romanesque, [name] and Perpendicular styles, its special interest and significance derive from its outstanding architecture, and its extensive archaeological, artistic and historic interests.

Its deliberate siting, and its setting within the local townscape, the city of Lincoln and beyond, is critical to appreciating those interests. The uninterrupted views of the [name] of the Cathedral gained across the roofs of the historic townscape from the walls of [name] are of considerable importance in those respects.

The orientation of this principal elevation of the Cathedral towards the Castle, a short distance away across the subordinate rooftops (including the [site address] ), is illustrative of the longstanding historic dynamic between the Church and Appeal Decisions 6001776 & 6001777 State, and their shared dominance, a relationship which has endured at this site for almost a thousand years. This view is integral to appreciating and understanding the special interest and significance of the listed building.

Constructed in 1068 for [name], [name] comprises of the quadrangular curtain wall, east gateway and lodges, observatory tower, the keep, west gate, and north-east angle tower. Walls are of coursed and squared stone and herringbone rubble that incorporates twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and nineteenth century fabric.

Occupying a huge site and a prominent siting within the city, its special interest and significance derive from its considerable age and historic value as well as its architectural and archaeological interests. As set out above, observed from the walk along the walls, across rooftops that include the appeal site, the relationship with its historic setting and in particular its longstanding historic dynamic with the Cathedral is an important aspect of the special interest and significance of both of these buildings. Exchequergate, [name] and Railings, 6 and [address], Leigh-Pemberton

A number of historic buildings lie close to the appeal site. These include the landmark building, Exchequergate, the imposing [name] listed fourteenth century gatehouse, a landmark feature of the streetscene. The Grade II* listed purpose-built [name] constructed in 1810 of yellow stock brick lies at a prominent location on the north side of [address]. The pair of [name]* listed three storey brick houses at 6–[address] lie to the south west of the [site address] fronting [address] and date to the early eighteenth century. These lie immediately adjacent to the [name]* listed Leigh‐[address], an impressive surviving sixteenth century timber-framed merchant’s house with jettied upper floors. Adjoining the [site address] and referenced above is the [name] listed [name], a stone built church, fronting Bailgate, that was rebuilt in 1689 and later remodelled in 1882.

Together, these buildings form a highly sensitive and high‐quality townscape. Their overlapping settings contribute significantly to their special interest and significance. As a historic building located within this townscape, the appeal site also contributes positively to the setting of these buildings. Nonetheless all of these buildings, including the [site address] are clearly subordinate in height and scale to the Castle and Cathedral and allow for the views across their rooftops between those buildings that are of such importance here.

The CA extends across the city centre incorporating [name] and [name], which together, for the reasons set out above, contribute significantly to its exceptionally high historic and architectural interest. The resulting townscape character is complex, with development evident from the Roman period onwards. [address]’s character is strongly defined by the iconic medieval buildings of the Cathedral and Castle, and the aforementioned relationships between them, while views along the historic streetscapes significantly enhance the area’s overall appearance. Appeal Decisions 6001776 & 6001777

As a distinctive Georgian building located on a prominent corner and set within the historic streetscapes formed by Bailgate and Eastgate, the appeal building contributes positively to the CA. The 1962 extension, owing to its design and materials, reflecting the older parts of the building, forms part of that positive contribution. Its inconspicuous flat rooftop, alongside other the surrounding roofscape, facilitates the views between the Cathedral and the Castle that contribute to their special interest and significance and that of the CA. Proposals and Effects

The proposed roof terrace would occupy almost all of the existing flat roof of the 1962 extension and would be used for outside dining with access from the adjacent part of the building. It would involve the addition of a 1.8 metres high glazed balustrade located on the edge of the roof, set in from the parapet wall.

The proposal would represent a significant change to the roof of the building, occupying a sizeable area with the balustrade extending to a considerable height. The extensive glass balustrade would represent a modern and intrusive element that owing to its scale, form and materials would relate poorly to the Classical architecture of the rest of the listed building.

Furthermore, the placing of furniture and other paraphernalia here as well as the heavily concentrated human activity amongst a roofscape historically devoid of such activities would add to the visual impact of the structure, exacerbating its incongruous appearance. For these reasons the proposal would erode and undermine the special interest and significance of this designated heritage asset.

The proposal would introduce a modern design feature that would intrude into the views of the [name] from [name]. The tall, glazed balustrade and the concentrated human activity as well as the potential for noise within this space would represent a significant distraction amongst the passive and historically subservient roofscape that facilitates these views. Whilst the [address] [name] limits illumination to low level table lights, in my view, given the lack of existing lighting within the roofscape, this would still draw attention to the roof top activity and the modern balustrade when daylight levels are low.

I acknowledge that the proposal would only obstruct 4% of the Cathedral in this field of view. However, the principal harm arises from the design and appearance of the structure and the activity that would ensue rather than it obstructing a particular part of this historic view.

For the above reasons, the proposal would significantly erode the quality of the view of [name] from [name], diminishing the ability to appreciate [name] as a designated heritage asset of the highest significance. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve its setting to the detriment of its special interest and significance.

Through being incongruous, intrusive and visually distractive, the proposal would interrupt the views between [name] and [name], diminishing the Appeal Decisions 6001776 & 6001777 ability to appreciate their historic relationship. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve the setting of this listed building, adversely affecting its special interest and significance. Exchequergate, [name] and Railings, 6 and [address], Leigh-Pemberton

I have had regard to the supplementary information supplied by the appellant with regard to the visibility of the balustrade and the roof terrace from within the [address] area. Whilst it is clear that views of the structure would be much more limited from ground level than from the castle walls, the balustrade at least would still be discernible amongst the historic roofscape from several viewpoints. In these views the incongruous nature of the proposed balustrade within the historic roofscape would be seen alongside [address] and [name], adversely affecting their setting. The proposal would also, to a lesser degree, be experienced within the surroundings of [name], 6 and [address] and Exchequergate. As an intrusive form of development within their wider setting, the proposal would erode the ability to appreciate them within their historic context.

For these reasons the proposal would fail to preserve the settings of Exchequergate, [name] and Railings, 6 and [address], [address], and [name] to the detriment of their special interest and significance.

As set out above, the proposed glass balustrade would represent a modern and intrusive addition to the rooftop of the [site address] , at odds with the architectural language of this distinctive Georgian building. This would be visible as an incongruous feature within the roofscape from within the historic streetscape of [address]. The proposal would also significantly erode the quality of the important view of [name] from [name] across the roofscape here, through the introduction of an incongruous structure and distracting elements, diminishing the ability to appreciate the longstanding historic relationship between these two buildings.

For these reasons the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

I have found that the proposal would fail to preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. I have also found that the proposal would adversely affect the setting of the nearby listed buildings of [name], [name], Exchequergate, [name] and Railings, 6 and [address], [address], and [name]. This would be contrary to the requirements of sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act. In doing so it would cause harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets.

Having regard to my above reasoning, collectively, I consider the harm to designated heritage assets to be towards the higher end of ‘less than substantial’ harm as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Appeal Decisions 6001776 & 6001777 Paragraph 215 advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There are elements of the proposal that would preserve or potentially enhance the special interest and significance of the listed building of the [site address] , the CA and represent an improvement to the setting of the nearby listed buildings. These include the removal of the existing roof terrace, which, through being screened by the upper floor of the appeal building, is not visible from the [name], but can be seen from the Cathedral itself. The water tower is also proposed for removal which would be beneficial in the above respects, albeit through its recessive colouring and texture it is not a particularly prominent feature of the roofscape.

A twentieth century balcony located on the end of the building facing the Cathedral is proposed to be removed, however, given its small-scale nature, lightweight appearance and location on the building, it is not a prominent feature of the building, nor is it a particularly incongruous element of this elevation. It is not harmful to the CA, and I find that any heritage benefit from its removal would be negligible. For the reasons outlined above, collectively, these heritage benefits would carry limited to moderate weight. Based on the evidence before me, limited economic benefits would also arise, both from sustaining the [site address] business and to the wider local area through visitor spend and potential increased footfall.

The proposal would also represent the creation of a new space from which to appreciate the nearby heritage assets, in particular the Cathedral and the Castle. The appellant has advised that this view would be available through a booking system to members of the public and not just customers of the hotel. This is secured through the [name] (UU). Customers would include diners as well as those attending private functions hosted at the hotel. The appellant argues that the space would provide an opportunity to “showcase” the city. Third-party comments, including from the University, agree with this assessment and support the proposal.

Whilst it would not have any of the historical or cultural importance as the longstanding view between the Cathedral and the [name], the new public viewpoint would provide an opportunity to view the Cathedral and the Castle in the context of the surrounding roofscape. Whilst it is unclear how well used the terrace would be by members of the public, given the need to utilise a booking system, and to a degree being dependent upon the extent it would be publicised, this would nonetheless represent a clear public benefit of the scheme. Additionally, the use of the space for functions would provide opportunities to appreciate the special interest and significance of the Cathedral and Castle for those who otherwise may not have chosen to do so via visiting the Castle, for example.

Nonetheless, as set out in my above reasoning, the creation of the new viewpoint would be at the expense of the existing highly significant view of the Cathedral from the Castle. [name] ascribe moderate to significant weight to the sum of the above public benefits, the Framework requires me to give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets. Mindful of the status of [name], [name], Exchequergate and the nearby [name]* listed buildings as assets of the highest significance, the Framework is clear that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Moreover, any harm to the significance of designated Appeal Decisions 6001776 & 6001777 heritage assets should require clear and convincing justification, which, despite the extent of public benefits as evidenced, I find not to be the case in the appeals before me. As such, the sum of the public benefits referred to above is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets.

The proposals would fail to preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The proposals would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It would additionally fail to preserve the settings of the nearby listed buildings, including the [name] listed [name], [name] and Exchequergate and in that regard, would be harmful to their special interest. This would be contrary to the requirements of sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act.

The harmful impact would conflict with Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Polices S53, S57, and S58 which, amongst other things, together, seek to ensure new development represents high quality design that preserves heritage assets and the historic environment. There would also be conflict with the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets.

As set out above, the appellant has supplied a signed and completed UU dated 23 October 2025. [name] requires that the roof terrace and the fourth floor lounge shall be operated at all times in accordance with the [address] [name], a separate document referred to above which limits, amongst other things, the hours of use, capacity and lighting. [name] states that the roof terrace shall be accessible to the general public without charge during the ‘Public Access Opening Hours’ for up to one hour; whilst [name] requires the removal of the existing roof terrace, water tower and balcony prior to the first use of the proposed roof terrace.

The UU would be directly related, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposal in accordance with CIL Regulation 122 and paragraph 58 of the Framework. I have given the assurances offered by the UU appropriate weight in my assessment.

Appeal A: The proposed development would conflict with the Act, the development plan and the Framework. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight that would lead me to conclude otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the above reasons and having regard to all matters raised I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.