Appeal 6002449

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission for the timber decking to the front of the café included conditions (2 and 5) which require the use of the area to cease and all tables and chairs to be removed between the hours of 21:00 and 08:00 each day. The reason for condition 5 given on the Decision Notice is to safeguard the interests of occupiers of nearby residential properties. However, the Council’s submissions indicate that the condition is also necessary to prevent harm to the character and appearance of the area, including nearby heritage assets. The appeal seeks to amend the conditions to allow the tables and chairs to be fixed and to remain in place overnight and the siting of wooden planters to the perimeter of the decked area.

At the time of my site visit I notes the planters had been constructed, I have therefore considered this aspect of the scheme retrospectively.

Taking the above into account the main issues are: • whether the conditions are reasonable or necessary in the interests of noise, crime and disorder; and • whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interest of the character and appearance of the area including the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The appeal site comprises an existing area of decking contiguous with the promenade to the front of [name]. It is located on the seafront at [name] beach, the surrounding area includes rows of beach huts, a public car park and kiosk building. In addition, residential properties are located within nearby flatted developments on rising ground close to the appeal site.

[name] indicate that crime, including criminal damage, drug possession, and violence is prevalent in the area. Anti-social behaviour and public safety incidents are also higher than average within beachfront areas particularly during the summer months. There is a specific police operation to target crime and anti-social behaviour in the area, with the aim of preventing further aggravating factors that could contribute to the issue, such as seating areas, which are a natural place to congregate.

I am mindful that existing benches on the promenade and various other fixed structures may provide the opportunity for members of the public to gather during the evening and potentially generate noise. However, they are modest in scale compared to the extent of the seating on the decking area, the proposed fixed nature of which, together with the planters, would be likely to provide an attractive meeting point during the evening, with potential to attract larger groups, together with opportunities for concealment. Consequently, the convergence of individuals would be likely to increase noise, disturbance, crime and anti-social behaviour, which would potentially undermine the area’s peaceful nighttime ambience and harm the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties.

The appellant contends that, despite the furniture not being removed overnight for some time, it has not resulted in any antisocial behaviour. However, this does not mean that activities or behaviour which others may find inappropriate or disruptive would not happen in the future. Moreover, while I note it is anticipated the decking area would be covered by the café’s CCTV, this cannot be relied upon to entirely deter antisocial behaviour.

I therefore find that the conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interests of noise, crime and disorder, in accordance with the aims of Policies PP23 and PP27 of the Poole Local Plan, adopted November 2018 (PLP), which require development to avoid harm to residential amenity in terms of noise and to be compatible with surrounding uses.

The site falls within the [name] and Shoreline character area, where Policy PP31 of the PLP, seeks to preserve and enhance the features that contribute to the distinctive shoreline character of Poole. The site is also beyond but close to the Branksome Park and [address] Conservation Area (CA). The Branksome Park Conservation Area [name] and Management Plan, Supplementary Planning Document 2006, sets out that the special interest of Branksome Park is derived from a number of characteristics including its spacious sylvan character which creates a peaceful residential setting. The Council’s submissions indicate that the [name], comprising 2 buildings, a café and a shop, is a Locally Listed Building and thus a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). The significance of which is said to derive from the design, which exemplifies the history of municipal seaside development in the area in the interwar period. Having regard to the age and architectural merit of the buildings I have no reason to disagree.

The appeal site is seen in the foreground in views towards the heritage assets from the beach and in views from vantage points both within the CA and the NDHA across the beach and out to sea. I appreciate the siting of decking and associated outdoor furniture at the appeal site may have changed the contribution the site makes to the setting of the heritage assets and the way in which they are experienced and had an impact upon the [name] and Shoreline character area. Nevertheless, the decking and its use for the siting of tables and chairs between the hours of 08.00 and 21.00 now forms an integral part of the established character and appearance of the area.

The addition of planters to the decking area, which are relatively low-profile structures, alongside the tables and chairs does not significantly affect the overall appearance of the site. Moreover, the retention of the tables and chairs beyond the times specified in condition 5, would not be harmful, as much of this period falls within the hours of darkness, when both open views of the heritage assets and outwards from them, would be limited. As such, there would be no adverse impact on the visual appreciation of the character and appearance of the area or the visual aspect of the contribution the setting makes to the significance of the heritage assets.

However, for the reasons set out above, the presence of tables and chairs on the decking area beyond 21.00 is likely to facilitate gatherings of members of the public. The introduction of such activity at the appeal site, which may be anti-social in nature, could subsequently give rise to noise and disturbance. The introduction of such would disrupt the relatively peaceful and tranquil nature of the seafront location during the late evening and at night, which would undermine the experience of the heritage assets. This would harm the character of the area and diminish the significance of the heritage assets through harm to their setting.

For the foregoing reasons, while the proposal to vary the conditions would not harm the character and appearance of the area in visual terms, by virtue of the noise which could arise from the use of the area beyond 21.00, it would harm the tranquil character of the area during the late evening and at night, that contributes to the setting of the CA and NDHA. Although the harm in this case would be less than substantial in the Framework’s terms, as it is time limited and relates to only a small part of the setting of the CA.

Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant has not put forward any specific public benefits arising from the proposal.

Accordingly, taking these factors into account, while the conditions are not reasonable or necessary in the interests of the visual attributes of the character and appearance of the area, they are however, necessary in the interests of the character of the area, including the setting of the CA and NDHA, having regard to tranquillity. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy PP31 of the PLP and the aims of Policies PP27 and PP30 of the PLP which expect development to be of a good standard of design and to preserve or enhance Poole’s heritage assets, and their settings.

While the requirement for the daily removal and replacement of the tables and chairs may have implications for the business which may negate the benefits of the decking area, I have not been presented with any particular evidence to demonstrate that this would render the provision of the decking area unviable. I therefore attribute this very limited weight.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.