Appeal 6003272

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted 2 schemes for consideration. For clarity, I have taken drawing no PL-01 [name] to be Option 1 and drawing no PL-01 [name] as Option 2.

[name] 1 and Option 2 rely on first-floor window arrangements previously approved under planning permission reference 22/00186/FUL. However, my site visit confirmed that recent works have been undertaken and the current window arrangement at first floor level does not reflect the drawings submitted with this appeal. I have proceeded with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought for the development as shown on the drawings submitted, and this relates solely to the ground floor.

I note that there is a discrepancy within the appellants submission, insofar as there is a singular reference made to the refurbishment of traditional timber elements. However, the drawings show that the proposed new windows and doors would comprise black upvc frames. I have therefore proceeded with the appeal on the basis of the drawings submitted.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of the Borough’s centres within which the appeal site is located having regard to the development plan; and • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Halifax Town Centre Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terrace 2-storey stone building containing 2 vacant ground-floor commercial units, last occupied by a tattoo studio and restaurant. It lies within the town centre and Halifax Town Centre Conservation Area (the HTCCA). The surrounding area is characterised by traditional stone buildings with a range of retail and commercial enterprises in the vicinity, particularly to the south and east. However, the area becomes more mixed further along the street to the north, with a number of residential properties and small-scale industrial buildings evident.

Both appeal schemes would provide 3 new dwellings. The ground floor elevational changes proposed within Option 1 would result in the complete loss of the original timber shopfronts and their replacement with domestic-scale windows and doors in black upvc. However, Option 2 would retain the existing shopfront openings but the window and door fenestration within would be substantially altered and replaced with black upvc frames.

The proposals would result in the loss of 2 commercial units, with active frontages, that could accommodate other main town centre uses. The premises are only a short distance from Bull Green which has a range of ground floor shops in active use. In the absence of substantive evidence regarding the length of time that the ground floor units at [site address] have been empty, and the steps that have been taken to find new occupants, I am not satisfied that the units could no longer contribute to the vitality and viability of Halifax town centre, as envisaged by Policy RT2 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33 (March 2023) (the Local Plan). While future residents may make some use of nearby services and facilities, any such benefit would be limited and would be outweighed by the resulting reduction in footfall from the loss of the commercial uses. Furthermore, the historic frontage of the existing building, which includes timber shopfronts, would not be retained or repaired in either circumstance, in conflict with criterion IV.c. of Policy RT2 of the Local Plan.

While a ground-floor residential use could introduce a degree of activity and natural surveillance, I am not convinced that it would deliver an active frontage. Particularly given the close relationship between the living accommodation and the public highway, future occupiers would be likely to seek a greater level of privacy to their habitable rooms, which would undermine engagement with the street. As a result, the proposal would also be contrary to criterion IV.b. of policy RT2.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development, within either of the 2 options, would harm the vitality and viability of the Borough’s centres. They would therefore conflict with Policy RT2 of the Local Plan. Amongst other matters, this policy seeks to ensure that development proposals within shopping frontages do not harm the character of the centre and complements neighbouring uses within the centre, with active frontages at ground floor level that improve design, layout and attractiveness of the centre.

The town centre contains a strong collection of well-preserved historic buildings that reflect its industrial and commercial heritage. I consider the conservation area’s significance to derive principally from the high quality and variety of these historic buildings, and their coherent relationship within a distinctive townscape. The appeal property retains its original timber shopfronts, a characteristic shared by a number of neighbouring commercial premises which continue to display traditional materials and detailing.

As set out above, the appeal advances two alternative schemes. Option 1 would materially alter the proportions of the elevation through the introduction of domestic-scale openings. In conjunction with the use of black upvc, this would result in a discordant appearance. [name] 2 represents some improvement over Option 1, it would still require the removal and reconfiguration of the existing shopfronts, replacing them with a revised fenestration in black upvc. While upvc window and door frames are present on some nearby properties, many of the surrounding buildings retain their original timber joinery. Neither option would therefore amount to a sufficiently sensitive alteration. In both cases, the use of modern materials and unsympathetic fenestration and detailing would erode the character and appearance of the surrounding area and fail to preserve or enhance the significance of the HTCCA. Given the scale of the proposed development, the harm arising from either scheme would be less than substantial.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. In addition, paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to conservation of heritage assets. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets, that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The provision of 3 additional dwellings would make a modest contribution to the supply of housing and the resulting increase in use of town centre shops and services would be small. The re-use of a vacant property along with the associated visual improvements from the removal of window boarding would also occur. In heritage terms, these limited benefits would not be of sufficient weight to justify the harm to the HTCCA identified above.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the HTCCA. It would therefore conflict with Policies RT2, HE1 and BT1 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, together seek to conserve and repair historic frontages and heritage assets, preserving and, where appropriate, enhancing their significance, and to secure high quality development that respects or enhances local character, distinctiveness and the appearance of its surroundings.

The appellant refers to certain paragraphs of the Framework. Their underlying principles are reflected within Policies HS1 and BT1 of the Local Plan, and I have already identified conflict with Policy BT1. In relation to Policy HS1, whilst the proposal is in a sustainable location, would make effective use of previously developed land and would contribute to housing supply it fails to conserve or enhance heritage assets. Compliance with certain aspects of this policy does not outweigh this conflict or the conflict with Policies RT2, HE1 and BE1 already identified above.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.