Appeal 6002847

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

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

The two appeals concern the same scheme under different, complementary legislation. I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.

The planning application form states that the development and works were completed in March 2023, prior to the submission of the applications. At the time of my site visit it was apparent that the proposed development and works had been carried out on site. However, as I cannot be certain that what has been built is fully in accordance with the plans before me, I have assessed the development and works as shown on the submitted plans.

A main issue in Appeal A and the main issue in Appeal B is:  whether the development and works would i) preserve the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it Appeal Decisions 6001597, 6002847 possesses; and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area.

An additional main issue in Appeal A is whether the development and works would preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings.

The appeal site comprises a [name] listed1 building situated on [site address] overlooking [name]. The listed building is of four storeys with commercial premises at ground-floor and residential flats above. It is of Georgian design dating from around 1780. The front elevation is mainly rendered brickwork set under a parapeted slate roof. At ground-floor level there is a shop front to the left of a semicircular-arched doorway with key moulded arch. The upper floors comprise sash windows with keyed flat arches.

The appeal building, No [site address] , forms part of a group of properties that are designated as [name] listed buildings. The group (Nos 86, 87 and [site address] ) were designed by [name] and built of similar materials and architectural features.

Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of this listed building is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests. Pertinent to the appeals, these are drawn from its illustration as an 18th century building of neo-classical design, constructed in rendered brickwork, with pleasing fenestration details and arched doorway feature to its front elevation. It is also from its surviving historic fabric and its group value with the adjacent listed buildings.

The appeal site is located within the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area (CA). The CA encompasses the buildings and spaces along [site address] , which includes the appeal property. The special interest and significance of the CA mainly stem from the variety and architectural richness of the buildings that denote its evolution and the distinct form and layout of the seaside town. The listed building largely retains its external historic character and form from the front elevation. Consequently, it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and thereby to its significance as a designated

The appeals relate to an existing ground-floor shop which fronts directly onto [site address] . The appeal building’s external security shutter is a roller-style design, predominantly metal, and finished in a bold blue colour. The shutter spans most of the ground-floor frontage of No [site address] . The submitted drawings (ref: 70/24-01) illustrate that behind the shutter the shop front is fully glazed, incorporating a centrally positioned glazed door. When lowered, the shutter completely conceals the glazed frontage, creating a blank and inactive elevation that detracts from the architectural quality of the listed building’s upper floors.

The shutter’s housing box is notably bulky and visually intrusive, projecting awkwardly from the building’s frontage. Its excessive scale and utilitarian design 1 [name]: 1038281 Appeal Decisions 6001597, 6002847 introduce a significant visual clutter, disrupting the listed building’s architectural coherence.

The shutter’s bold colouring and heavy industrial appearance sit in stark contrast to the building’s elegant neo-classical proportions, pale cream render, and overall restrained aesthetic. This discordance results in a visually jarring intervention that erodes the integrity of the listed frontage and diminishes the building’s historic character and significance. Furthermore, this abrupt change in character at ground-floor level stands in sharp contrast to neighbouring units, which largely retain open frontages that contribute positively to the vibrancy and visual interest of [site address] .

Taking into account the appeal building’s prominence along [site address] with public views from the sea front, it follows that the identified negative effects to the listed building would also harm the positive qualities of the CA as a whole. In these regards, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and thus harm its significance as a designated heritage asset.

My attention has been drawn to an existing shutter on the front of No 79 Esplanade, known as the [name]. However, this shutter is punched with polycarbonate glazing providing a see-through appearance. It is set back from the building line, and its shutter housing box is discreetly fixed behind the fascia panel. It therefore appears less intrusive than the proposal before me. I have also been referred to No 76 Esplanade. However, the Council indicates that the shutter on this unit was granted planning permission in 1999. Therefore, this existing shutter was granted permission prior to the adoption of the [name], Weymouth and Portland Local Plan, which was adopted in 2015.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a big blue wooden shack providing external seating at No 86, and other roller shutters within the vicinity of the appeal site. However, it is not clear if these other developments benefit from planning permission. In any event, the presence of unsympathetic development elsewhere does not amount to a justification for allowing further harm. For the reasons given, the appeals development represents an unsympathetic addition.

Drawing all the above together, I conclude that the development and works would not i) preserve the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area. In doing so, it would harm the significance of these designated heritage assets.

The appeal building is near to other listed buildings, including the [name] listed2 [name] and [name], the Grade II3 listed [address] with area railings, 86 and 87 Esplanade, and the [name] listed4 promenade shelter. The special interest and significance of these listed buildings is largely derived from their historic and architectural interests. Of relevance, it also stems in part from their value as part of a wider group of listed buildings and their seaside setting. 2 [name]: 1365861 3 [name]: 1038280 4 [name]: 1328297 Appeal Decisions 6001597, 6002847

Given the positioning, industrial design and extent of the security shutter, the setting of these listed buildings would not be preserved and the contribution it makes to the asset’s significance would be harmed.

With reference to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the extent and fairly localised nature of the proposal, I find that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets assessed above would be ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. To my mind, this is towards the middle of the range of the less than substantial harm in each instance. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

There would be social and economic benefits by the continued use of the ground-floor of the listed building as a commercial premises. These public benefits are in line with the objectives of the Framework and carry moderate weight in favour of the appeals.

The appellant contends that the security shutter is needed to act as a deterrent and to prevent the glazing being smashed and vandalised. I have no doubt that security is a concern for the business, which holds valuable items on the premises. However, there is insufficient evidence before me to show if the appellant has explored alternative options that may cause less harm to the character and appearance of the listed building. Such alternatives could include open grille or perforated shutters instead of the solid roller shutter design, or a combination of internal and external measures. Therefore, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that appropriate security measures could not be achieved in an alternative and more sensitive manner.

I accept that the continued use of the ground-floor of the listed building as a commercial premises would retain the optimal viable use of the heritage asset. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that the only way of securing such benefits would be via the particular development and works. Due to the harm identified above, the shutter compromises the building’s conservation to an unacceptable degree and does not conserve it in a manner appropriate to its significance.

On balance, the moderate weight that I ascribe to the public benefits which would accrue from the development and works is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets.

Consequently, I conclude that the development and works would not i) preserve the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and ii) preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area. It would also have a detrimental effect on the significance and setting of the nearby listed buildings. As such, it would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with Policies ENV4, ENV10, ENV12, ENV14, ECON4 and WEY1 of the [name], Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Appeal Decisions 6001597, 6002847 (adopted 2015). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure developments conserve or enhance the quality of the heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, and respect the character of the surrounding area.

The appellant has questioned why they cannot retain their shutter, which they claim has been in place for a few years, when shutters exist on other shop fronts. It is not clear if the Council has investigated other premises and taken enforcement action, or if permission has been granted elsewhere. That is a matter between the appellant and the Council which does not have a bearing on my decision. I have determined these appeals based on its individual merits.

The appellant states that a metal canopy was previously built outside Nos 87, 88, and [site address] . However, the historical presence of previous structures does not justify unacceptable development and works to a listed building.

It is clear from the evidence submitted that the appellant has suffered from racial abuse. They are of Asian background, which is a protected characteristic of race in the Equality Act 2010. As part of determining these appeals, I have therefore had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. I accept that in light of that and to provide security it may be necessary to provide some form of shutter. However, as I outline above, I am not convinced that the chosen scheme is the only way of achieving security and that other less harmful solutions are available to the appellants. Consequently, in its current form, the harm caused to heritage assets outweigh its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with protected characteristics of race, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others. I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeals.

Appeal A: The development would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.