Appeal 6002458

Appeal A is allowed and the planning permission reference RR/2025/669/P for refurbishment of exterior paintwork to both 43 and [address]; rebranding of [name] to [name] to [address]; change of use from [name] to Class E for [address] to provide additional seating for the bakery and coffee shop at [site address] , Rye [postcode] granted on 29 September 2025 by Rother District Council, is varied by deleting condition 3. Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6002467 and Appeal B: 6002458

Appeal B is dismissed.

The description of the development/works for both appeals contains typographical errors, in respect to the road name. I have amended the description so that it accords with the road name provided by the appellant on the application form.

As the appeal site lies within a conservation area and relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

In respect to Appeal A, the Council has confirmed within their Statement of Case that the imposition of Condition 3 on RR/2025/669/P was an error and should have been noted as an informative for the appellant. The Council raises no objection to the removal of this condition. I concur with the Council that Condition 3 is not necessary. Accordingly, it does not meet the tests set out at paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). As this matter is not in dispute, I have not covered it further in my reasoning below.

The reason for refusal for Appeal B relates solely to the loss of historic fabric as a result of demolition of a section of party wall between 43 and [address]. The Council raises no objections to the proposed change of use or other alterations to the buildings, including external decoration. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find no reason to reach a contrary conclusion to the Council on the other parts of the scheme and find that they would preserve the special interest of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appellant has submitted an amended plan with the appeal scheme, which shows a reduction in size of the opening between Nos. 43 and 45. However, the amended plan also shows other changes, which among other things include the removal of an existing ‘non-structural’ wall, the installation of a new partition wall, works to the area surrounding the fireplace and a raised floor. The Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals – England states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve proposals. The guidance is clear that revision intended to overcome a reason for refusal should normally be tested through a fresh application.

Having regard to the Holborn Studios1 judgement which follows on from Wheatcroft2, the nature of the amendments proposed, and in the interests of fairness, I have determined Appeal B on the basis of the plans and information that were before the Council when it made its decision and which were subject to public consultation.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building, known as ‘43, [address]’ (Ref: 1251490) and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v the Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [JPL, 1982, P37] Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6002467 and Appeal B: 6002458

43, [address] is a [name] listed building, which dates back to the 18th century and has a late-19th century rear projection. The building is two storeys high, with further accommodation within a mansard roof. It is constructed of red brick, which is laid in Flemish bond. The front elevation displays a sense of symmetry, with a central front door and a symmetrical window arrangement. The front elevation features two large, modern shop windows, which are constructed of timber. The building has been significantly altered internally. Internal walls have been removed at ground floor level, which has formed an open plan arrangement.

Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to this appeal is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of architecture from the 18th century. The building’s surviving historic fabric, presence of traditional materials and its pleasing architectural design make important contributions in these regards.

43, [address] is currently vacant. The proposal seeks to change the use of the building from [name] to Class E, which would provide additional seating for the bakery, which is sited at 45, [address] (No. 45). No. 45 is not listed but is of some age and makes a positive contribution to the street scene.

[name]. 43 and 45 are attached, they are from different periods and are of differing architectural designs and scales. While the two buildings would share the same corporate branding, externally the buildings would remain clearly legible as two separate buildings.

The proposal would require the removal of a section of party wall to provide an internal opening between the two buildings. The appellant advises that the party wall contains historic bricks, with lime mortar and is finished with lath and plaster. The party wall is currently obscured on both sides by modern interventions, including plasterboard and shelving units.

The appellant argues that the works are reversible and that the historic bricks could be stored and reused at the end of the tenancy. However, there is no appropriate mechanism before me to secure this. There is also no compelling evidence before me that once the works have been carried out that the historic bricks would ever be reinstalled. Accordingly, I give this argument limited weight in my decision. The proposal seeks to retain a small section of the party wall and provide wall and ceiling nibs to demarcate the historic wall. However, given the size of the opening there would be some loss of appreciation of the internal separation between the buildings. The appellant advises that they can be flexible on the size of the opening; however, I am required to determine the appeal based on the plans before me that were considered by the Council.

I appreciate that the removal of the modern interventions would allow the remaining section of the historic wall to be better appreciated. However, the proposal would result in the loss of historic fabric. Even if the historic brick wall was to be reinstated, there would still be a loss of historic lath and plaster and lime mortar, which would cause harm to the special interest of the listed building.

The proposal seeks to remove the existing suspended ceiling and modern wall coverings. The suspended ceiling is visible through the glazing on the front elevation and detracts from the special interest of the listed building. The removal Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6002467 and Appeal B: 6002458 of some of the unsympathetic modern interventions would result in a modest enhancement to the listed building. However, overall, I find that the proposal would cause harm to the special interest of the listed building.

The appeal site lies within the Rye Conservation Area (CA). The CA includes the historic core of the town, which has a medieval street pattern and contains a vast array of high quality, historic buildings. The significance of the CA insofar as is relevant to these appeals derives from the high quality architecture of different styles and periods, its distinct topography and maritime history. Nos 43 and 45 by reason of their architectural design and use of traditional materials make a positive contribution to the significance of the CA. The Council concludes that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find no reason to reach a contrary conclusion to the Council on this matter.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other examples of properties within the town, where listed and non-listed buildings have been amalgamated. However, full details of the circumstances of the other schemes are not before me and I therefore give them limited weight in my decision.

The appellant suggests that further details, including a reduction in size of the opening and a methodology for exposing the fireplace could be secured by condition. However, such works are likely to result in a materially different scheme that would not accord with the plans before me and therefore cannot be dealt with by condition.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 states that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have clear and convincing justification. Given the nature and extent of the appeal scheme, I find that the harm to the significance of the listed building to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight.

Where a scheme leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, including, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The proposal would result in investment into the property, which would have a small economic benefit. The proposal would also support the growth of a local business and is likely to create new jobs and investment into the locality. Furthermore, it would provide an improved café facility, which would benefit the local community and support the local tourism industry. The proposal would also provide a viable long-term use for No. 43, which the appellant states has been empty since September 2024. While the appellant advises that there has been limited interest in the building, there is limited evidence before me in respect to the Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6002467 and Appeal B: 6002458 marketing campaign that has been carried out and whether the proposed use represents the optimum viable use for the building.

There is also no clear and convincing justification before me that the size of the opening and associated loss of historic fabric, is the minimum required to meet the appellant’s objectives. Overall, I give the economic benefits of the proposal moderate weight in my decision.

The appellant argues that the proposal would result in an enhancement to the listed building by removing modern interventions and exposing the historic fireplace. However, there are limited details before me of such works. Some works, including exposing the historic fireplace are also not included on the proposed plans. Accordingly, I give these matters limited weight in my decision.

No. 45 currently has a stepped access. The proposal would provide accessibility improvements and a greater circulation space, which would make the café more accessible to the elderly and those with mobility issues. I give the social benefits of the proposal moderate weight in my decision. I find that the external redecoration works would preserve the special interest of the listed building. As such, it is a neutral consideration in determining this appeal.

Overall, I give the public benefits moderate weight in my decision. Consequently, in attributing great weight to the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that there are insufficient public benefits arising from the appeal scheme to outweigh this harm.

Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, Appeal B fails to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, it fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. Appeal B conflicts with Policies RY1 and EN2 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, September 2014. These policies among other things seek to preserve and ensure clear legibility of locally distinctive vernacular building forms, features, fabric and materials.

Appeal A: For the reasons given above, Appeal A is allowed and I vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.

Appeal B: For the reasons given above, Appeal B is dismissed.