Appeal 6003454

The appeal is dismissed.

It appears that the appellant originally applied for both planning permission and listed building consent for the proposal. However, the Council appears to have only had concerns in relation to the planning permission and that is the appeal before me. I have therefore limited my consideration to this matter and used the description of development in the Council’s decision notice as this better describes the proposal.

Although the Council appeared to find no harm in relation to designated heritage assets, I have a statutory duty under sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. I have included consideration of these matters within the main issues to reflect this statutory duty.

Since the Council issued its decision, a new Uttlesford Local Plan has been adopted (March 2026) (ULP). This supersedes the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005). The Council has referred to the emerging local plan in its appeal statement and following adoption I have sought comments from both parties. I have assessed the appeal proposal against the policies of the up-to-date development plan including the ULP 2026.

The main issues are • The effect of the proposal on the vitality and viability of [site address] Town Centre, and • The effect of the proposal on designated heritage assets.

The appeal property is situated at the lower end of [site address] near to the point where the road turns into [address]. It has a commercial use on the ground floor and a residential flat above. On the ground floor, the building frontage has two sash windows to either side of an entrance door.

[site address] is designated as a Primary Shopping Area where the Council seeks to promote the continued role and function of town centres to positively contribute towards their viability, vitality, character and public realm. The evidence indicates that the appeal premises lies within the Primary Shopping Frontage Area. Within this area, ULP Core Policy 50 relates to a proposed loss of a Main Town Centre Use, including retail and offices, and several criteria must be met. This includes demonstrating that the unit has been proactively and appropriately marketed for at least 12 months and that there is no longer a realistic prospect of securing E Class uses for the foreseeable future, that it would meet the needs of local residents, and that it would not have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the centre as a whole.

The appellant indicates that the property was last used as a commercial building in 2022 and states that it has been on the market for well over 3.5 years with two separate agents with virtually no interest. However, little evidence has been provided to expand on the marketing exercise through the agents such as advertisements, booked viewings or detailed feedback. Nor do I have any adequate details of the price sought by the appellant. The property may sell more easily as a single residential unit, but that does not mean that I should set aside the adopted planning policies within town centres seeking to protect their wider vitality and viability.

The premises may not look like a traditional shop, having smaller, elevated windows limiting visibility into the ground floor premises, and there are steep steps to enter. However, these factors do not necessarily rule out such buildings from a commercial use, and a thorough marketing exercise would explore these matters. Therefore, although the marketing exercise appears to have been more than the time specified by the policy, the submitted marketing evidence does not satisfy me that there is no longer a realistic prospect of securing an E Class use for the foreseeable future.

[name] have found that the appeal proposal fails the first criterion of the policy, for the sake of completeness, I have also considered the other criteria. I have little information before me to indicate how the proposal would meet the needs of local residents. The property already appears to provide residential accommodation on the upper floor so although the Council appears to not have a Framework compliant housing land supply, there would be no increase in housing units which may weigh in favour of the proposal. Therefore, I am not satisfied that this criterion is met.

Nor is there adequate information before me to demonstrate that the loss of this commercial unit would not harm the vitality and viability of the centre as a whole. Whilst residential uses can add to an area’s vitality and viability, the building already has a residential use, and it appears to me that a mixed use with a commercial use on the ground floor, with a public appeal when occupied, offers far more to the vitality and viability of the area. The incremental loss of even one unit within a primary shopping frontage has the potential to weaken the appeal of the centre as a whole and there must be compelling evidence to justify such a loss. In this case, inadequate information is before me.

The appellant has listed several planning approvals for residential accommodation in the conservation area with a similar location. However, there are few details to explain how these permissions are like the appeal proposal before me, so I am not assured that they reflect these exact circumstances. I will therefore consider this appeal based on the submitted documentation.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the vitality and viability of [site address] Town Centre. It would be contrary to ULP Policy 50, as explained above, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure the vitality of town centres.

The list description for [site address] [site address] ([name].1142449, [name]) describes the building as a late 16th century house, timber framed and plastered with a tiled roof and of two storeys. It describes the arrangement of openings and other features of interest. In relation to this appeal, the building’s significance relates to the age of the building, its historic fabric, plan form and architectural features. Given the evidence before me, including my visit, and the absence of physical changes to parts contributing to the building’s special interest, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s findings that the proposal would cause no harm to the building’s significance.

From the submitted evidence and from my visit, the significance of the conservation area, insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, encompasses the historic core of the town centre. It is an area of mixed character with mainly historic buildings lining the town centre roads, many with shops on the ground floor. I consider that its significance is mainly drawn from the range of built development within it, and the relationship of the buildings to each other and the spaces around them.

The appeal building lies within the historic centre of the settlement and is an attractive historic property within a streetscape of high heritage value. The list description mentions that the premises was originally a house and in many respects the sash windows of more domestic proportions and steps to the front door reflect this historic use. However, little assessment is before me from either party to describe the effect that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Although there may be no physical changes proposed, I have found that the loss of the commercial unit would have some impact on the range of shops and offices in the area which may impact the vitality and viability of the retail area. It therefore follows that this potential erosion would, to a small degree, harm its character and appearance. Therefore, in the absence of more information, the proposal would most likely result in a small degree of harm to the significance of the conservation area.

[name] find no harm to the significance of the listed building, I find a low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of the conservation area. The Framework requires me to weigh this against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The proposal would provide a larger, single dwelling but it would not increase the number of dwellings overall so it would not appear to assist with housing land supply. The appellant suggests that the proposal would be far better for the wellbeing of the listed building, meaning that it could be sold and fully occupied. However, there is little to suggest that the proposal would represent the optimum use of the listed building to secure its future, as the case for changing its current use from a commercial unit has not been adequately made. The proposal may be acceptable regarding amenity space, living conditions, and in other planning respects, but these are neutral matters which do not weigh in favour of the proposal. Taken together, I consider that the above carry limited weight as public benefits.

The public benefits identified would be of insufficient weight to outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the significance of the conservation area. In addition, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Act and Framework, along with ULP Policy 63 which seeks to ensure that changes make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of conservation areas.

The appellant may have received positive pre-application advice which resulted in the submission of this application. However, whilst I recognise the frustration this may have caused, it does not mean that I should conclude differently in assessing the proposal against planning policy or my statutory duty.

I have found harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre and harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. I have concluded that the benefits, including the public benefits examined above, do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

For the above reasons, and having taken all other matters raised into account, there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.