Appeal 6003257

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the 14no. air conditioning units to the right-side elevation and a galvanised steel canopy.

The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the remainder of the application, and planning permission is granted for the installation of 1no. air conditioning unit to the front elevation, 2no. air conditioning units to the rear elevation, perimeter fencing and sliding gates at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application 116365/FUL/25, so far as relevant to the development hereby permitted, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the following approved plans so far as they relate to the installation of 1no. air conditioning unit to the front elevation, 2no. air conditioning units to the rear elevation, perimeter fencing and sliding gates only. The plans are referenced: B.1 – Existing Site Plan B.2 - Existing [address] [name].3 - [name].4 - [name] B.2 - Existing [address] Plan B.3 - Existing 1-200 [name].4 - [name].6 - [name] /Section B.7 - [name]

In the banner above, and in my formal decision, I have amended the description of the development from that within the application form and decision notice of the Council. This is for clarity and to distinguish between the different locations of the air conditioning units that are proposed.

On my site visit I observed that the development proposed was in situ and complete. Permission is therefore sought retrospectively. I am satisfied that the submitted plans reflect the development which has taken place. Therefore, I have considered the appeal based on the submitted plans and what I saw on site.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the building, as a non-designated heritage asset, and the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a two-storey detached building which occupies a corner plot at the junction of [site address] and [address] within [site address] . The building is in use as a restaurant and bar. The building has been subject to various alterations and extensions. The surrounding area includes a mix of uses. Industrial development is particularly prevalent close to the appeal site, while the adjacent building on [site address] is a former school building, known as [address], which has been converted to offices.

Roadside boundary treatment is noticeably absent along this particular stretch of [site address] , with frontages predominantly landscaped. However, mesh security fencing is present along [site address] adjacent to the industrial buildings to the south of the [address] crossroads.

It is understood that the appeal building was originally constructed as a [name] club and is one of the remaining components of the [site address] Village which was situated in this area. Much of [site address] village has now been demolished. Therefore, the building serves as a historic reminder of the areas past. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the building ought to be considered a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). Given the historic use of the building, the significance of the NDHA primarily lies within its historic and social value.

Other buildings associated with [site address] Village also remain along this part of [site address] . This includes [address]. This building has been sensitively converted to offices appearing to retain much of its original form, materials and architectural detailing. This is also an NDHA. There is disagreement between the parties with regard to what aesthetic significance the NDHA at the appeal site holds. I agree that some aesthetic value has been diluted by recent alterations. However, the original form is still legible. There also remains a clear visual appreciation, in terms of materials and form, between the appeal property and the adjacent [address]. As such, I consider that the building still holds some significance in its group and aesthetic value.

The fence is installed along both the [site address] and [address] frontages of the site. This introduces a feature which is not prevalent along this particular part of [site address] . However, its design is highly permeable which allows for views of the building behind. As the building is not obscured to any significant degree, visual appreciation of the existing building remains. Furthermore, the colour of the fencing draws reference from the more contemporary features of the building, ensuring that there is clear visual harmony at the site. In views along [site address] , the design and permeability of the fence ensures that it does not appear visually anomalous or prominent. The view along [address] from the crossroads is less sensitive due to the presence of industrial buildings and tall fencing along the street. In this context, the fence and gates are seen as a feature which is characteristic to the street.

The air conditioning unit on the front elevation is small and positioned at a low level, and is set back from [site address] . This represents only a minor addition to the overall elevation and is relatively discreet. The two air conditioning units on the rear elevation are positioned some distance from the street. They also appear as small scale additions on a façade which is visually less sensitive within the streetscene. As such, these air conditioning units do not visually compete with the building or detract from the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, I do not consider that the fencing, gates, or the air conditioning units to the front and rear elevations to be harmful to the significance of the NDHA, its grouping or the character and appearance of the area.

The canopy projects from the side elevation towards [address]. This occupies the gap between the building and the public highway. The canopy is of significant depth meaning it appears as a bulky protrusion which is visible above the height of the fence. The prominence of the canopy is exacerbated further by its materials and colour finish resulting in a stark addition. This results in a feature which contrasts markedly with the form and red brick materials of the original building. In addition, it also fails to assimilate with the design, materials and colour finish of the more contemporary extensions and alterations to the building. The lack of harmony with either the original form or later additions means the canopy only adds visual confusion to the side elevation.

The canopy is positioned above a cluster of 14 air conditioning units. These units are all sited close together, with a bank of stacked units positioned perpendicular to the building. Therefore, they project towards [address] and are positioned very close to the adjacent pavement. The installed fence, due to its permeability, affords the cluster of units very little screening meaning they are highly visible. When viewed with the inappropriately designed canopy above, the installed features result in an overly industrial appearance to the side elevation.

I accept that [address] has a more commercial character and, in some vantage points the canopy and air conditioning units are viewed in this context. However, this does not overcome the development as a visually discordant addition with the host building. In addition, these features are visible in views along [site address] from the nearby crossroads. From here the discordant design of the canopy and air conditioning units draw undue attention away from the vista, visually competing with the materials and form of the original building and [address]. The development therefore visually diminishes the appreciation of the grouping.

Given the bulky design of the canopy and its position close to the street, I am not persuaded that the harmful effects could be adequately addressed by an alternative colour treatment. Similarly, given their proximity to the street and the space available, there is little before me to be convinced that the visual effects of the air conditioning units could be mitigated by landscaping.

Therefore, I find that the canopy and air conditioning units to the side to have a harmful effect on the significance of the NDHA, its grouping and the character and appearance of the area generally.

With regard to the effect on NDHAs the Framework indicates that a balanced judgement will be required, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss, and the significance of the heritage asset. I consider that the scale of harm to the significance of the NDHA is modest. This is because the development erodes the aesthetic and group value of the site. Notwithstanding this specific harm, I consider that the development is also harmful to the character and appearance of the area in general terms.

It is understood that the canopy houses the kitchen extraction equipment, and that both the canopy and the AC units are required to serve the lawfully approved restaurant. While this may be the case, there is no clear evidence to demonstrate that the appeal proposal represents the only available solution in terms of siting and design, or that the proposals are the minimum necessary to meet the operational requirements.

I accept that there are examples of air conditioning units within the surrounding area. However, those examples cited do not appear to be as prominent or of the high concentration of units compared to the appeal proposals. In addition some appear to be provided in a more industrial context. Therefore, I do not find any of these examples to be directly comparable.

I also note that a canopy is detailed on the approved site plan for the planning permission to carry out works to the property1. However, this is not detailed on the approved elevations. I do not have full detail of the planning permission but understand that it does not require details of a canopy to be provided. Nonetheless, as it is not detailed on the approved elevations I am not persuaded that a canopy can be installed without further approval. Even if the detail of the canopy was reserved by condition, it does not mean that any canopy regardless of its design would be acceptable. In this instance, I considered the appeal on its merits and have found the canopy due to its size, positioning and materials to be a harmful installation.

For the above reasons, I find the canopy and 14 air conditioning units to the side elevation to have a harmful effect on the significance of the host property as a NDHA, and the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the development conflicts with the aims of [name]-P1 and JP-P2 of Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document (2024) and Policy R1 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] (2012). Together amongst other things seek to preserve and enhance the historic environment and local history, while taking account of historic distinctiveness.

However, the perimeter fence and gates, the air conditioning unit to the front elevation, and two air conditioning units to the rear elevation do not have a harmful 1 Application Ref: 108014/FUL/22 effect on the significance of the host property as a NDHA, or the character or appearance of the area.

As the development is complete it is not be necessary to attach the standard commencement condition. A plans condition, insofar as it relates to the approved elements, is required for clarity. The Council have suggested a condition for the fence and gates to be powder coated in a colour finish to be approved by the Council. [name] consider the boundary treatment to be visually acceptable as installed, I do not consider that further alterations are necessary. Therefore, I have not imposed the suggested condition.

The elements of the scheme with which I take issue are severable from the remainder of the proposal. Therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed in relation to the 14no. air conditioning units to the right-side elevation and the galvanised steel canopy. However, the appeal should succeed in relation to the perimeter fencing and sliding gates, 1no. air conditioning unit to the front elevation, and 2no. air conditioning units to the rear elevation.