Appeal 6002706

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit the food cabin was already in place. However, ‘retrospective’ as referred to in the application form does not constitute an act of development. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought for the siting of a food cabin.

The main issue is the effect of the food cabin on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the setting of the locally listed non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) known as the former [name].

The appeal site comprises land situated within the enclosed frontage of the former [name] (the building) which is an attractive English baroque style building dating from the early part of the 20th century, currently in use as a shopping centre. The heritage significance of the building as a NDHA stems from its history as a prestigious civic building, the quality of the traditional materials and craftmanship and the number of decorative features that remain intact. Additional significance comes from the mature and protected trees surrounding the site, which make a notable contribution to the building’s setting.

The building fronts onto [site address] and a small area of green space with other notable buildings opposite, including the locally listed Pear Tree Baptist Church to the north-west, and the [name] listed Church of [name] the Apostle to the north-east. The immediate area is therefore characterised by high-quality attractive heritage buildings and a mixture of traditional terraced houses and commercial uses beyond.

The development comprises a small food cabin, with associated signage to the front and side. It is temporary and functional in appearance, resembling a domestic shed, and is painted black with a full-length serving hatch to the front. Operating hours are between 4pm and 11pm on any day.

The food cabin’s design and siting, set directly against the building’s front elevation to one side of the main entrance, results in the partial obstruction of this principal façade, including some large ground floor windows that are a key part of the buildings architectural character. The developments poor-quality, incongruous appearance is highly visible in the street scene, despite the boundary treatment and presence of mature trees across the frontage. The food cabin does not therefore represent high-quality development, is not in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area and causes harm to the setting and significance of the NDHA.

In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) the harm identified would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm. Paragraph 216 of the Framework establishes that the effect of an application on the significance on a NDHA should be taken into account. The paragraph also suggests a weighting exercise that has regard to the scale of harm or loss.

The development provides some support to the local District Centre by contributing to its shopping, service and evening economy offer, including for local residents and families. It could also be easily removed from the land without damage being caused to the fabric of the NDHA. However, these modest socio-economic benefits do not outweigh the harms that I have identified above.

For the above reasons, I find that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the NDHA. This is contrary to Saved Policy E19 of the City of Derby Local Plan Review (January

and Policies CP3, CP4 and CP20 of the Derby City Local Plan – Part 1 [name] (January 2017) insofar as these policies seek high-quality development which do not detract from the character of the surrounding area, preserve and enhance the special character and significance of heritage assets, and set out that development that would have a detrimental effect on locally listed buildings or structures shall not normally be approved.

No objections have been raised with regard to highway safety or the living conditions of neighbouring residents in terms of noise, disturbance or odour. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not amount to a benefit, rather they are expectations of local and national planning policies.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan considered as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.