Appeal 6002505

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form describes the applicant as [name]. However, the appeal is made in the name of Guru Ramdas Ji Limited. Nevertheless, it has been confirmed that the latter is the correct legal entity. I am therefore content that the appellant can make the appeal.

I have taken the site address above from the appeal form, which is slightly different to that used in the application form. I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate than that used in the application form. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result of these matters.

The main issues are: (1) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and its surroundings, including the building itself, [address] Conservation Area (CA) within which the site lies, and on nearby listed buildings, (2) whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in respect of noise, and (3) whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in respect of outdoor space.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. Section 66(1) of the same Act requires that I have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and their settings, or any features of special architectural or historic interest.

The CA includes buildings with a wide range of architectural styles within the tightly grained town centre. It includes a continuous frontage of 19th and early 20th century commercial buildings, many of which retain traditional proportions, materials and fenestration. These include the adjacent [name] listed Victorian Arcade1, a well-preserved shopping arcade, and the [name] listed [name] building opposite. Relevant here, their significance is their age and attractive appearance. Given its close proximity, the appeal building lies within their setting.

In addition, the street scene includes properties which have unusual late-20th century frontages, such as number [address] and its rare and striking Brutalist façade. Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is its attractive, historic and architecturally varied buildings and street scenes. I am mindful that the CA is identified as being 'at risk' on the National Heritage Register.

The appeal site is a significant mid-to-late 19th century building with subsequent modern alterations. This includes a concrete façade with distinctive and prominent fully glazed protruding windows and a functional aesthetic. The appellant states that the building has limited architectural merit and is intrusive. They refer to Council guidance said to state that the building detracts from the CA, although this document is not before me.

However, the façade of number 9 and [address] plays a significant role in the historic setting of the area. It has an architectural interest as a result of its use of sculptural concrete, and its windows are unusual and innovative. I understand that the building has been nominated for the Local List by the 20th Century Society. Its remaining historic internal fabric also requires sensitive treatment. Consequently, I find that the building makes a contrasting but positive contribution to the CA and the setting of the nearby listed buildings, and constitutes a Non- Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA) in its own right.

The proposal seeks to convert the upper floors of the building into nine units of accommodation. To reconcile heritage advice with noise mitigation requirements, the appellant has stated that high-performance secondary glazing would be installed behind the retained historic windows. This would be fully reversable, although the proposal is for the permanent change of use of the building.

That said, I have few details of the secondary glazing, with the submitted plans instead referring to timber double glazing. Nor would this be consistent with the Heritage Survey Report (HSR), which states that the metal front windows would be retained and repaired only, that single glazing should be maintained, and that double glazing would not be added. In the absence of further details, inappropriate treatment including of the prominent protruding front windows would undermine their appearance and that of the building.

The interior is mostly modern, although some elements such as the layout of the staircases and internal openings retain historic evidential value. Changes to the interior are likely to include new plastering, render and flooring, new internal walls and partitions, noise insulation, heating, ventilation and other services. These could affect and diminish the appearance and interior of the building. However, despite submission of the HSR and its narrative, plans of sufficient detail, marked- 1 Including nos. 59, 61 and [address], 39 and 40, [address] and 2 to [address] and those premises at the first and second-floor level above these. up to show such changes are not before me. As such, I cannot conclude that the alterations would be acceptable.

The proposal would re-use what are currently vacant floors, adding to the vibrancy of the town centre. It would also address maintenance issues. Nevertheless, on the evidence available to me, I am not satisfied that the proposal would maintain the historic interest or appearance of the appeal building, and therefore would not preserve the attractive, historic and architecturally varied buildings and street scenes of the CA. Instead, the proposal would risk further deterioration of the area, to an extent that could be significant, thereby harming the character and appearance of the area and its surroundings, including the building itself as a NDHA, the CA, and the setting of the nearby listed buildings.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies ENV27 and ENV29 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (UDP), and policy APPLV5 of the Walsall Town Centre Action Plan (AP), all adopted in January 2019. It would similarly conflict with policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS), adopted February 2011. Together, these policies require proposals to conserve and not erode Conservation Areas or the setting of listed buildings, to strengthen the character of the Town Centre, and have a high-quality design. However, I find no conflict with UDP policy BX3, which states that the Council will provide appraisals to guide the future enhancement of Conservation Areas.

In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the harm to the designated heritage assets and their significance. In the language of Framework paragraph 215, this harm would be less than substantial, and so should be weighed against public benefits. Framework paragraph 216 requires a balanced judgement with regard to the scale of any harm to an NDHA. I shall consider these below.

The site is within the busy commercial centre of Walsall and fronts a public area used regularly for an open market. There are retail uses at ground floor level and servicing passageways to the rear. The proposal is thus in a location where a high degree of noise can be anticipated. Front and rear windows would serve bedrooms within the accommodation.

The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) seeks to determine noise levels through a survey, and makes recommendations about noise mitigation. It concludes that significant adverse effects are unlikely to occur if appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. These include double glazing to the front and rear facades of the property, and a suspended ceiling.

However, the noise survey was undertaken over the period of a Monday to Wednesday. It does not therefore reflect higher noise levels on a Friday or Saturday when the market is busier, and when those travelling to or from football matches generate additional noise. As such, the NIA does not make its assessment on a worst-case scenario, despite this being recommended by professional guidance2 agreed as relevant. Nor is it clear that the use of the recommended double glazing would be consistent with the heritage requirements referred to above. 2 Planning & Noise Professional Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise – New Residential Development, 2017

Moreover, no substantive evidence is before me to respond to technical concerns raised by the Council. These include the extent of information available (including data lost from a microphone), the proximity of external plant and equipment nearby, and the absence of assessment against BS4142. It has not been set out why insulation specifications have not been shown for the walls of residential areas that adjoin commercial uses. In the absence of this information, the NIA does not provide sufficient reassurance that noise impacts could be addressed, risking a poor-quality environment for occupiers.

For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for its future occupiers in respect of noise. It would therefore conflict with policy HC2 of the Walsall Site Allocation Document (WSAD), 2019, and UDP policy GP2. These require consideration of susceptibility to pollution, which in my view includes that from noise, and a satisfactory residential environment. It would similarly conflict with the Framework, which seeks a high standard of amenity for future users. Consequently, I give this harm and conflict substantial negative weight in the planning balance.

The Council states that the proposal would have no outdoor or green amenity space for future occupiers, which would result in a negative impact on their health and wellbeing. However, on the plans before me, the development includes a communal recreational area at second floor level, above Flats 4 and 5.

The recreational area would only be accessed externally via a staircase, but it includes grassed areas, seating and pergolas. The space would be for the exclusive use of residents of the proposal. The Council does not dispute that this would provide a generous area for outdoor relaxation, significantly exceeding the amount necessary for the accommodation. Accordingly, occupiers of the proposed accommodation would have outside space available to them, sufficient to meet their needs.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers in respect of outdoor space. It would therefore comply with BCCS policy ENV3, which requires the inclusion of green space in development. BCCS policy ENV5 only relates to flood risk, sustainable drainage systems and reducing urban heat islands. As such, I find no conflict with this policy. It follows that the third main issue is neutral in the planning balance.

In accordance with the Framework, the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The Council cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites and has failed the [name]. There is no dispute that the tilted balance of Framework paragraph 11(d) is engaged. This requires that I determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits inherent in providing additional residential units, to assist in addressing the undersupply.

I have found conflict with UDP policies ENV27, ENV29 and GP2, AP policy APPLV5, BCCS policies EN2 and EN3, and WSAD policy HC2, which are consistent with the Framework. Against that, the Framework promotes the effective use of available sites to meet identified needs for housing, giving examples that include converting space above shops.

The proposal would make a positive contribution of nine units to the supply of housing, with a mix of accommodation sizes. I give this moderate positive weight. Future occupiers would make positive social and economic contributions, for example to local businesses, and the conversion works would assist the development industry. The proposal would make more efficient use of land, on a site within the town centre which has access to its services and facilities. I give these matters further limited positive weight.

The Framework gives substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes, which it says should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. However, I have already found that harm in excess of this level would result from the proposal.

Given the weight that I have attributed to the public benefits of the proposal, they would not outweigh the harm caused to the designated heritage assets, to which I have given great weight. Consequently, the test of Framework paragraph 215 is not met. I reach the same conclusion in respect of the NDHA and Framework paragraph 216. Furthermore, given the totality of the harms identified, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.