Appeal 6002888

The appeal is dismissed.

With the agreement of the parties, I have modified the description of development in the banner heading above, removing superfluous text.

Prior to the Hearing the appellant made modifications to the proposed palette of materials, offering use of timber windows rather than plastic, and natural rather than synthetic slate. This helped to address 2 areas of objection from the Council. Whilst significant in themselves, I am satisfied that these modifications do not cause a fundamental change to the overall proposal. I am also satisfied that it would not cause procedural unfairness to any party were I to take these modifications into account.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the significance of heritage assets.

The [site address] occupies a corner plot at the junction of [address] with [address], directly opposite and within the setting of the [address], a [name]* Registered Park and Garden (the RPG). [address], the [site address] and the [address] are all included within Central Conservation Area, the section of [address] opposite and west of the site forms part of The Park Conservation Area. Insofar as it is relevant, the significance of Central Conservation Area resides in the Gardens and the historic townscape mix of residential, commercial, leisure and entertainment uses which surround it. Together, these form the heart of the historic spa town.

As the hotel has a physical and visual presence within [address] it also forms a key component of the setting of The Park Conservation Area. Again, insofar as it is relevant, the significance of The Park Conservation Area lies in its spacious planned layout, and its collection of large [postcode] dwellings and hotels.

The [site address] was originally built in 1876 as a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Their use as a boarding house and furnished apartments from at least the 1880s, and as a hotel from the early [postcode] , helped to cater for the increase in visitors to the spa town following the arrival of the railway. The mid-late [postcode] was indeed a key period of growth which saw [address] and many other streets laid out, and similar establishments constructed.

As was typical of the period, the building was constructed from local gritstone and roofed with heather blue Welsh slate, each of which continue to strongly characterise development across much of the town. Though in need of external attention, the building generally retains its original form and features, with modifications principally restricted to the rear elevation. It remains a both prominent and positive component of the historic streetscene within both [address] and [address].

[address] had themselves been laid out in 1871, part of the broader response to an increase in visitors, adapting an earlier landscape likely to have originated in the [postcode] as private grounds. Once again, insofar as it is relevant their significance lies in their historic origin, design and context as a key feature of the historic spa town. Registered at [name]*, they are a designated heritage asset of the highest significance. They would have been one of the main attractions for those staying at what was to become the [site address] , and this presumably continued to be the case until the hotel closed in 2022. Though the relationship between the [site address] and Gardens has been obscured by modern use of the land immediately opposite as a car park, it remains clearly perceptible within the broader townscape.

By providing historic context to the [address], the [site address] assists appreciation of their significance. Given that the hotel otherwise forms a prominent, typical and functionally important component of the broader [postcode] townscape, it makes a positive contribution to the significance of Central Conservation Area. For much the same reason, it makes a positive contribution to both the significance of The Park Conservation Area and to its appreciation. All these and the above attributes contribute to the significance of the [site address] itself as a non-designated heritage asset.

The appellant has owned the hotel since 1999, and as noted above, operated it until 2022. The appeal scheme represents the fifth attempt since 2016 to demolish the hotel and redevelop the site. The most recent of these previous applications, which related to construction of a new hotel rather than an aparthotel, was itself the subject of an appeal dismissed in 2023 (the previous appeal).

I have been provided with a number of reports produced at various points since 2013 relating to the condition of the building. Some were commissioned on behalf of the appellant, some on behalf of the Council. I have also been provided with a [name] of [name] produced to assist the previous appeal. The parties agree that this remains valid, albeit with costs adjusted to 2026, and with some minor additional costs agreed after its production, added.

This evidence is useful in setting a baseline of sorts around 2013, after which, as acknowledged by the appellant at the Hearing, nothing was done to address major defects and little done to maintain the building. That is not to say however that a necessarily proactive approach had been taken prior to this point, as the 2013 Report on the Condition of The [site address] attributed a range of minor defects to a lack of maintenance. Aside from structural issues, this also noted that the lift was subject to breakdowns and the heating system faulty. Failure of the lift and subsequent failure of the heating system were each identified as key milestones by the appellant which ultimately resulted in the closure of the hotel.

Consultants for both main parties confirmed that the normal maintenance cycle for a hotel would see regular repair, with refurbishment every 10-15 years. Failure to adhere to his pattern can result in a cycle of decline. The appellant again confirmed that no significant refurbishment had ever occurred, and this is reflected in the heavily dated nature of much of the internal decor and fixtures.

The condition of the building fabric has not been subject of monitoring. However, photos within the reports evidence deterioration in its condition and that of external areas between 2013 and 2023, and this appears to have accelerated since. Though the appellant claims to have nonetheless maintained the building in a watertight condition, broken and leaking downpipes and gutters were apparent during my visit, as well as missing slates and rotted soffits. The building is largely unheated. It is plainly apparent that it is being allowed to actively decay.

Given the projected costs of repair and refurbishment the argument presented is that neither the hotel nor any alternative use of the building is now viable.

Paragraph 209 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision. For reasons unclear, this is not a matter addressed within the decision relating to the previous appeal. The relevance of paragraph 209 has however been indicated by the Council in relation to the current appeal. Amongst other things, deliberate neglect logically includes a failure to carry out maintenance or to take action to address defects where the need for each has been clearly flagged up. It also includes ceasing to do anything to properly maintain a building. On the strength of the evidence before me, deliberate neglect has both occurred and is continuing to occur in this case.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes the effect that disrepair can have on viability. This obviously increases costs which can grow over time. Within this context the Council has sought to take account of paragraph 209 by omitting the costs it associates with neglect from its viability assessment relating to hotel use. These are essentially costs related to all non-structural works. Setting aside the fact that the appellant’s failure to address structural defects forms part of a broader pattern of neglect, the problem with this approach is that it produces an unrealistically positive outcome. The hotel could clearly not return to operation if only subject to structural repairs, and even then, requires far more than light refurbishment. Whilst use of the building as a hotel represents its optimum use, unfortunately this is no longer a viable proposition.

The Council’s approach is nonetheless helpful in illustrating that the hotel use would have been viable had maintenance of the building, and maintenance of its operation not been deliberately neglected. Returning to paragraph 209 of the Framework, the link between deliberate neglect and lack of viability forms a basis for lack of viability to be disregarded as a consideration justifying demolition.

The appellant’s case is not otherwise convincingly made. No recent marketing of the property has been undertaken and only limited past marketing has occurred. However, the consultants for both parties agreed at the Hearing that if it was to be now placed on sale at a price that took account of costs related to structural works, it would most likely find a buyer. Albeit that buyer would then seek options for an alternative for use.

One alternative use identified by the Council is residential. This was something also explored within the context of the previous appeal. At that time its identified viability was again based on excluded costs. Recognising that these costs nonetheless need to be taken into account, residential conversion is no longer considered viable. Sensitivity testing does however show scope for movement. Though the potential for value engineering through design is disputed, there is no evidence before me which definitively disproves that a successful scheme could be devised.

I cannot therefore conclude that the building itself is beyond viable use. Even if I had, my findings above indicate that this would not be something that should be taken into account. The difficulty in finding a way forward in circumstances such as this helps to explain why the PPG ultimately flags up use of compulsory purchase powers as a remedy. That is however a matter for the Council, and beyond the scope of this appeal.

Insofar as the proposed development has itself been presented as viable, the evidence presented generates significant doubt. Indeed, sitting at around £2million either side of zero, the gap between the expert valuations is so wide that it provides very little certainty that the proposed scheme would be deliverable.

Notwithstanding my findings above, it remains necessary to assess the proposed replacement building. This would seek to largely replicate the existing design, reusing some of the existing stonework. Whilst a range of conditions relating to methodology and recording could be imposed, based on the limited supporting evidence provided, I share the Council’s scepticism that a true replica could be achieved. Any replica would in any case lack the historic authenticity and interest of the existing building, whether or not some echo of existing patina could be retained through reuse of stonework.

The integrity of the historic design would otherwise be undermined by the change to a more regular rectilinear building form. This would see loss of the 2 projecting wings to the rear and introduction of a crown roof. Notwithstanding low-level infill, the wings remain appreciable features of the existing building, visible from [address]. They provide variation and interest to the historic design, and identity to the 2 original parts of the building. In contrast, the proposed homogenised form would appear both less interesting and bulkier due to its increased massing.

The appellant’s agreement to use timber windows and Welsh slate on the roof is notable, albeit this has had an adverse effect on what was already an unconvincing position on scheme viability. The proposal otherwise remains to use reconstituted stone for construction of the bay windows. Having had the opportunity to view both the existing windows and various samples, this would represent a poor match. The stonework used for the existing windows is clearly natural, retaining the distinctively droved finish it was given by the masons responsible for carving it. The artificially bonded nature of the reconstituted stone is on the other hand apparent, as too its regular finish, each of which together help to identify it as a synthetic product. This would be further highlighted in contrast to any retained stonework, and relative to other historic buildings nearby.

Other differences resulting from a need to comply with the building regulations would arise, particularly in relation to the dormers. It also seems unlikely that clad GRP chimney stacks would be visually convincing.

The proposed design may be ‘better’ in some ways than that dismissed in the previous appeal. However, in terms of character and quality it would be an inferior substitute for the existing building and would greatly diminish the positive contribution that the site currently makes to the significance of the designated heritage assets considered above.

The loss of the existing building would constitute loss of a non-designated heritage asset. For the reasons sets out above, both this, and its replacement with the proposed aparthotel, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Central Conservation Area. It would also both fail to conserve the positive contribution that the existing building makes to the significance of the RPG and The Park Conservation Area and undermine appreciation of that significance from within their settings. In relation to Central Conservation Area and the [name] share Historic England’s view that a moderate-high level of less than substantial harm would be caused to their significance. Similar would be true of The Park Conservation Area. Whilst the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, harm arising to Central Conservation Area attracts considerable importance and weight. Given my findings in relation to neglect and viability above, none of the above harm has been convincingly justified.

The principal consideration advanced in favour of the development is that it would deliver economic benefits through the demolition/construction and operational phases. These would stem from employment and visitor spend. Clearly, when in active use the existing hotel had the capacity to deliver similar benefits through its simple operation and related maintenance. As these economic benefits have again been lost as a result of deliberate neglect, I can attach limited weight to those now advanced in favour of the development.

The new building could be constructed to take advantage of modern energy saving measures and generation. Whilst to some extent this would be mandatory, energy embodied within the existing building fabric, as too that used to construct the replacement building also need to be taken into account. The performance of the existing building could of course also be subject of improvement. With those considerations in mind, I can attach limited weight to any suggested benefits.

The new building could be constructed to allow easier access than the existing. That said, I have not been provided with a detailed audit of the existing building or details of any measures which could be implemented to make it more accessible. Again therefore, I can attach limited weight to the suggested benefit.

The scheme would deliver a 10% net gain in biodiversity. Whilst beneficial, this is mandatory, and a benefit to which I attach limited weight.

Having attached no more than limited weight to the public benefits of the scheme and raised doubt as to whether either they or the scheme as a whole would be deliverable, my findings indicate that the harm caused would not be outweighed.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the significance of heritage assets. It would therefore conflict with the Council’s objective of protecting and enhancing the historic environment within Buxton as set out in Policy S 7 of the High Peak Local Plan 2016 (the Local Plan); conflict with Policy EQ 7 of the Local Plan which seeks to conserve heritage assets broadly in line with the Framework; Policy S1 of the Local Plan, which seeks to secure sustainable devlopment partly by protecting and enhancing the historic environment; and Policy EQ 6 of the Local Plan which requires new devlopment to be well designed to respect the character, identity and context of [name] townscapes.

The demolition of the hotel would destroy an active bat roost. Though a mitigation strategy was provided, the application was partly refused on grounds that this activity would not be licensed. The Council reached this view on the basis that it opposed redevelopment, and for no other reason. This was confirmed to be a secondary issue, and in this regard, it appears to have been a somewhat unnecessary reason for refusal. Indeed, as I have resolved to dismiss the appeal the matter need not be subject of any further consideration.

A Unilateral Undertaking was submitted securing a contribution towards offsite tree planting in accordance with local policy mitigating loss. Again, as I have resolved to dismiss the appeal this need not be the subject of any further consideration.

The development would have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the Peak District and Dales Special Area of Conservation. This would be due to the increase in overnight accommodation and resultant increase in wastewater production within the [name]. This could cause eutrophication. [name] otherwise resolved to allow the appeal an appropriate assessment would have been required. However, as I have instead resolved to dismiss it for other reasons, this is a matter which once again requires no further consideration.

For the reasons set out above the effects of the development would be unacceptable, giving rise to conflict with the development plan. There are no other considerations which alter or outweigh this finding. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.