Appeal 6002661

The appeal is dismissed.

As the appeal site is located within the Cowes Conservation Area, and there are several listed buildings nearby, I have had regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

I have removed details that are not development from the description above.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, including the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cowes Conservation Area (CCA) and the effect of the proposal on the setting of several nearby listed buildings; and • archaeology, with specific regard to the Area of [name] (AAP).

The appeal site, which includes the [site address] and the [name], together with Town Quay and much of the [address] is located within the Town Centre Character Area of the CCA. The Cowes Conservation Area Revision1 document describes this part of Cowes as a small scale, historic and lively centre of the town. Due to its proximity to the Solent and 1 As approved by the Executive; undated the [name], this area has a strong connection to the waterfront and the numerous waterborne activities both water bodies support.

It is understood that the historical importance of Cowes as a prosperous centre of commerce emerged as a result of its trade links with the American colonies in the 17th century, with the role of ship and boat building growing as the core of the town developed through the following two centuries. For the most part, buildings facing the [address] are densely arranged, with long and narrow plots, many with secondary ‘frontages or rear elevations that also address the water. However, due to the incremental growth of the town, a diverse range of ages, architectural styles and materials used within the built form is present throughout this part of the CCA, including modern infill development and replacement buildings. Consequently, few consistent or unifying features are evident.

Therefore, the significance of the CCA, insofar as is relevant to the appeal site, is derived from its historical importance as a trading port, including the uses and activities which support this, and the evolving connections between the sea and the town buildings which are documented in the broad variety of built form. The differing architectural styles, features and materials of the built form that define Town Quay, including the appeal site and several [name] listed buildings located nearby, are reflective of these variations: from the grandeur of the nearby Fountain Hotel2 (the Fountain), the use of wood panelling on the [name] and the balconies of 1-9, The Arcade, 95 and 96, [address] (the Arcade)3 through to the more contemporary appearance of the [name] (the Pinnacle) on the site.

The proposal comprises the erection of a narrow raised platform to provide an external seating area for up to 16 people associated with the [name] within the Pinnacle, extending from its rear elevation towards the river, terminating approximately in line with the edge of the adjacent parking area. Beneath the platform, the existing walled pathway would be retained.

Although comprising a modest quantum of floorspace, the height of the proposed platform would be more than twice that of the existing walls, with the multi gable/m-type roof form a similar height above that. Although having a lower overall height than a previous design, nonetheless, customers would be sat at a level considerably higher than those moving through the adjacent public spaces within Town Quay. Together with its overall height, this would result in the structure having a domineering and overbearing effect on Town Quay. It would also be a discordant feature in the backdrop to Town Quay when viewed from public and private spaces nearby, such as from the [name] and the water.

Despite the use of cladding to match the Pinnacle, the alternating application of slate tiles and glass within the proposal’s roof form would represent an incongruous arrangement of materials, even within the context of a varied townscape. Furthermore, little detail has been provided regarding how these differing materials would be joined nor has it been confirmed whether or not the galvanised posts would be fixed to the existing walls. As such, I am unable to conclude with certainty that these aspects of the design of an already dominant and discordant feature would not deepen the harm to the character of the area. 2 [name]: 1267500; date first listed: 17 August 1951 3 [name]: 1222992: date first listed: 9 August 1979

While the platform would provide some screening of [name] from Town Quay, including the largely unsightly cargo containers, these, alongside the boats themselves, are transient features typically present (and reasonably expected to be so) within an operational port environment. Nonetheless, as I observed during my site visit, the containers positioned close to the site boundary were not stacked and, being of a dark colour and not significantly taller than the existing walling, did not visually intrude into Town Quay. In any event, [name] is an integral part of the town and contributes to the significance of the CCA through its role as a working recreational centre.

Located on the opposite side of Town Quay from the site, the Arcade comprises a long, narrow terrace of two storeys with its attic space served by series of hipped dormers in the tiled roofscape. Although with modern shopfronts at ground floor level these are recessed from the white columns that form the arcade structure and support the white wood panelled balconies above. Two projecting bay gables are located towards each end of the stuccoed terrace, both with a feature oriel window at first floor level. Therefore, the special interest of the Arcade, insofar as is relevant to the appeal scheme, is derived from its use as well as its functional and physical relationship with the Town Quay.

The Arcade has the strongest intervisibility with the appeal site, despite being located furthest away from it of the three listed buildings. Nonetheless, the openness of the Town Quay between the site and the Arcade means that there is sufficient distance to ensure that the proposal would not encroach upon the setting of the Arcade.

In contrast, the Fountain has a grander appearance, incorporating classically proportioned and arranged fenestration, stone quoins and matching coloured stucco, cornice and parapet features. A carriage archway leads from the [address] into Town Quay before looping around the Fountain’s single storey rear projection and external seating area. In combination, the historic function of the Fountain, its age, architectural style and details provides the foundation of this listed building’s special interest.

The appeal site is located away from the Fountain, with a parking area, the loop access to Town Quay and various street paraphernalia located within the intervening spaces. Despite the fact that the proposed platform would be visible from the external seating area, few features of this area make a meaningful contribution to the significance of the listed building’s setting. The proposal would not result in harm to the setting of the Fountain.

The closest listed building to the site is the Vectis Tavern4 (the Vectis), a diminutive structure in comparison with the Fountain, which the official list entry indicates is a timber framed building from the 17th century, albeit much of its exterior has now been rendered with stucco and painted light blue. Although orientated towards the [address], the side elevation of the Vectis adjoins the exit lane from Town Quay. This elevation partially comprises red brick and plaster, with tarred weatherboard cladding, thereby providing evidence of its traditional construction whilst also contrasting with the light coloured stucco of the Fountain. The special interest of the Vectis is, therefore, principally derived from its historical use and as one of a few visible examples of 17th century timber framed buildings in 4 [name]: 1222993; date first listed: 24 July 1978 the town. However, despite being the nearest of the three listed buildings to the appeal site, little physical or visual relationship between the Vectis and the site exists due to the [name] position to the rear of the tavern. The proposal would not, therefore, have an adverse effect on the setting of the Vectis.

[name] have found that the proposal would preserve the setting of the nearby listed buildings, nevertheless it would result in the introduction of an overbearing and discordant structure within the townscape, which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area as well as the CCA.

I conclude that it would harm the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CCA. It would, therefore, be contrary to policies DM2, DM11 and DM12 of the Island Plan Core Strategy ([name]) which, amongst other things, seek to conserve and enhance the special character of the Island’s historic built environment.

The proposal is also contrary to s72(1) of the Act. The level of harm in this case would be less than substantial. Given the scale of the platform structure, in particular its height, together with its prominent location on the edge of Town Quay, the magnitude of this harm would be moderate on the less than substantial scale. In these circumstances, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) requires that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification and should be balanced against the public benefits which would be derived from it. This is addressed further in the heritage balance below.

The site also lies within an AAP which the evidence before me indicates was defined by English Heritage in 1999. However, no further information has been provided by either party regarding what this may comprise. Additionally, details of the construction of the raised platform, in particular whether the design includes foundation pads or piles, together with the proposed depth of the galvanised steel posts, are not before me. This information would assist in determining the potential impact the posts would have on any buried archaeological deposits.

Nonetheless, given the scale of the appeal site and the number of posts proposed, I see no reason to conclude that an appropriate archaeological field evaluation could not be secured via the imposition of a pre-commencement condition, were I to allow the appeal. A further suite of conditions could also include the approach to be taken in the event of the discovery of archaeological deposits.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on archaeology, with particular regard to the AAP, and would accord with Policy DM11 of the [name] in this respect.

The proposal would provide economic benefits directly to the appellant’s business and indirectly to the local economy, including the tourist industry, through assisting in sustaining a local business in the area. This supports the objectives of providing high quality tourism set out in Policy SP3 of the [name]. The increase in the number of covers the [name] is able to accommodate enhances the availability of locations for socialising. Through providing natural surveillance of the Town Quay, when in use it would contribute to the safety of those moving through the area, and the long term viability and vitality of the town centre. In addition, the use of high-quality, durable materials and the improvements to the pedestrian pathway would deliver some environmental benefits. However, due to the scale of the proposal, such benefits would be small.

The lack of harm to archaeology is a neutral factor in my decision. As is the fact that the proposal is of a scale which does not meet the de minimis threshold beyond which a mandatory biodiversity net gain of 10% would be required.

Consequently, whilst some public benefits would be derived from the proposal, the totality of those outlined above do not outweigh the moderate level of less than substantial harm identified to the significance of the CCA. As such, clear and convincing justification for this harm has not been demonstrated. The proposal would fail to conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CCA. This carries considerable importance and weight, consistent with the statutory duty in the Act and reiterated within the Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.