Appeal 6002266

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is situated within the Clacton Seafront Conservation Area (CA). I have therefore born in mind the statutory requirements placed upon decision-makers by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

The main issued are: i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, having regard to whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or the appearance of the [name]; and ii) whether the proposal would be acceptable from an accessibility and highway safety perspective.

The CA comprises the seafront either side of a substantial pier, and streets back from this. The CA predominantly comprises of commercial, residential and hotel buildings, with areas of open space encapsulated within its boundary. The special interest of the CA principally derives from its design as a seaside resort, built around a formal street pattern which is still discernible today.

The Clacton Seafront Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) 2006 details a history of railway and steam ship travel influence during the later 19th and early 20th century, during which the area was developed as a resort with hotels, boarding houses, open spaces, promenades, pier and coastal defence works.

Whilst there are attractive Victorian and Edwardian architecture throughout the town developments are varied in terms of quality of design and the CAAMP indicates, there have been unsympathetic designed developments. Near the appeal site, commercial properties, have generally retained their original features at upper stories only.

The commercial centre of the town includes [site address] , which is characterised by its dominant commercial frontages, particularly of gaming arcades, which although are modern twentieth century developments, are typical of the seaside resort

The appeal building is identified in the CAAMP as a neutral contributor to the CA's. special interest. The appeal site forms part of the pavement in front of the amusement arcade. The section of pavement provides a distinct pedestrian setting to surrounding buildings. It is relatively wide and is occupied by a number of items of street furniture. Whilst the road is flanked by modern commercial premises it forms part of a main thoroughfare within the CA and therefore forms part of the historic environment of the area. The site features in identified key views 2 (looking from the square on [site address] towards the sea) and 3 (looking from [name] across [site address] ) of the CAAMP. Its prominent location, and its relatively open and uncluttered nature, makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA as a whole.

The appeal scheme is substantial in size in that it would span across the frontage of the premises, approximately 27m. The proposal would also extend considerably deeper than existing frontages within the immediate vicinity of the site, eroding the wide pavement that is a characteristic feature of this part of the CA. The physical enclosure, and the subsequent narrowing of the pavement, would detrimentally affect pedestrian movement and therefore diminish the way this part of the CA can be experienced and appreciated.

Whilst the buildings, and their fascia’s, either side of [site address] are significant features within the streetscene the space in-between occupied by the road and footpaths, are predominantly open and spacious. The proposal would be a large addition to the street scene that would add visual clutter, to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the CA.

The use of glazing would not be significantly at odds with the property’s modern frontage and fascia. However, this does not outweigh the harms identified.

The description of development indicates that the proposal would be retractable stating that during the summer months all the doors will be pulled back to open up the entire forecourt and during the winter months it will be closed. However, this would be difficult to condition and subsequently enforce.

The appellant advances that there is a historic precedent for projecting structures from buildings fronting [site address] . [name] observed kiosks/small structures to the front of some premises they are not comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Furthermore, the photographs submitted in evidence show traditional awnings not comparable to the current proposal.

For the reasons stated above, the proposal would significantly detract from the character and appearance of the street scene and would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. Conflict would therefore arise with Policies, Policies SP7, SPL13 and PPL8 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 (LP). Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek developments to respond positively to local character and context to preserve and enhance the quality of existing places and their environs and to protect and enhance assets of historical or natural value.

Given the scale of the impact of the proposals, the degree of harm to the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that this harm should be outweighed by wider public benefits. The scale of harm to the significance of the CA would be moderate, which requires a balanced judgment. I turn to this in the overall planning balance later in my decision.

The evidence indicates that the appeal site forms part of the pavement and that the proposal would encroach onto the publicly maintainable highway.

This section of pavement is relatively wide and whilst I observed a number of items of street furniture, including paraphernalia associated with the amusement arcade, they do not unduly restrict the passage of pedestrians along this section of pavement, as pedestrians are able to meander between the main part of the building and the elements set out on the pavement.

The width and depth of the proposal is such that it would significantly reduce the section of available footway. This would hinder the safe and convenient access for pedestrians. This infringement would be significant when compared to the current situation.

The appellant asserts that they would apply for a [name] to permanently remove the land from the public highway. I recognise that this would be considered under a formal process separate to the appeal currently under consideration, and that should I be minded to allow the appeal that any approved development would not be able to proceed unless there was a discharge of highway rights over relevant parts of the land.

Notwithstanding the above, for the reasons stated, the proposal would fail to provide a safe and convenient access for pedestrians contrary to Policies CP1, CP2 and SPL3 of the LP. For the same reasons, there would be additional conflict with the Framework which seeks to create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible.

My attention has been directed to other development in the locality that the appellant considers provides support for the proposal, notably No 2-4 [name]. The information before me indicates that the description of development differs as this was a proposal for decking/terrace area to a restaurant. Nevertheless, these premises are located on a different road and therefore the context is materially different. In any case, the example does not justify the appeal proposal.

The Framework makes clear, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. In accordance with the Framework, the type of harm identified above would be less than substantial and would be moderate when considering the spectrum of harm. It is necessary that this identified harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant advances that the proposal would provide social and economic benefits by allowing for all-weather protection which would have a positive impact on visitor numbers to the premises. It is recognised that the extension would enable the machines located within the front forecourt area to be more usable in all weathers and therefore the proposal may result in increased use of the premises. Nevertheless, given the scale of the proposal in the context of the existing premises I attach limited weight to these considerations.

The appellant advances that the proposal would protect against anti-social behaviour experienced within the town. However, I am not satisfied that the appeal proposal is the only means of securing such benefits.

On the other hand, the proposal would result in dis-benefits to the public by way of the obstruction of the pavement in a busy sea-side location.

Having carefully considered the case put forward by the appellant the public benefits would be limited. Consequently, in attributing considerable importance and weight to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that there would be insufficient public benefits, balanced on an individual basis or cumulatively, arising from the proposal to outweigh this harm. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with LP policy PPL8, which amongst other things requires new development in conservation areas to preserve or enhance the special character of the area especially in terms of design. It would also be in conflict with Policy SP7 of the LP and the Framework which seek new development that respond positively to local character and context to preserve and enhance the quality of existing places. Given my conclusions in respect of the CA this brings the proposal into conflict with the Act.

Even if I found no harm having regard to the [name] [2019] EWHC 2631 (Admin) I have concluded that the proposal would be harmful in respect of the [name] and therefore it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

For the reasons stated, the other material considerations do not justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.