Appeal 6003936

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Frinton and Walton Conservation Area; and, • The effect of the proposal on the significance of [address] as a non-designated heritage asset.

As the appeal site is within the Frinton and Walton Conservation Area (the CA), I have had regard to Section 72(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The significance of the CA, as described in the Frinton and Walton Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan 2023 (the [name] and Management Plan), is primarily derived from its character and appearance as a seaside town that developed as a result of the expansion of the railway line in the late nineteenth century. The seafront architecture, the formal pattern of streets made up of housing of varying age and design and commercial centres, and the presence of historic buildings are important components that contribute to the significance of the CA as a whole.

The appeal site comprises a car park which serves a commercial development that is of a modern design. It is located close to the junction of [address] and [site address] . The CA Appraisal and Management Plan explains that, historically, restrictions were imposed to prevent the development of commercial premises within [site address] , with the exception of what is now [site address] . This road largely remains the commercial centre. The surrounding area was developed in a planned, co-axial arrangement of roads, beginning with [address]. Development along this route included Arts and Crafts style housing with large gardens.

Adjacent to the appeal site is [address] and the [name]. [name] is also next to the site. These are identified as key unlisted buildings within the [name] and Management Plan. While the appeal site itself makes a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole, it occupies a prominent and sensitive position within it. This is due to its close relationship with these notable buildings and its positioning along a key throughfare linking the commercial centre with the surrounding residential areas. As a result, the appeal site plays an important role in how the CA is experienced and understood.

The proposed building would be of an Arts and Crafts style. As highlighted in the appellant's Heritage, Design and [name], this architectural style is found throughout the CA. However, its use in this location would undermine the historic estate planning of the area. This is because the design is derived from the residential estates, but the building would be situated within the grounds of a modern commercial development. This would result in a building that lacks contextual coherence and fails to respond sympathetically to its surroundings.

Although the proposal would continue the building line along this section of the road and would maintain some spacing from neighbouring buildings, the appeal site does not reflect the Arts and Crafts style site characteristics through its limited garden size. It would therefore be incongruous and would read as neither a natural extension of the historic residential estate nor a considered response to the surrounding modern commercial development. As a result, the proposal would blur the clear distinction between residential and commercial areas and undermine the legibility of the historic estate planning that underpins the significance of the CA, causing harm to its character and appearance. This harm could not be mitigated through planning conditions requiring approval of external materials, as the issue arises from the appropriateness of the design concept itself rather than from the detailing or finish. [address]

Built in 1910, [address] served as the [name], where [name] who was responsible for the vision and second stage phase of development of the town, exercised control over the development of the estate. It is identified in the [name] and Management Plan, recognised for its Arts and Crafts style design. Its architectural interest and historic role in the area’s development contribute to its significance as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Located at the junction of [address] and [site address] , the building occupies a prominent corner position and is a distinctive feature of the area.

From certain viewpoints along the roads, [address] and the proposed building would be simultaneously visible. As the proposed building would also adopt an Arts and Crafts style design, and given its relatively wide frontage and overall form, it would introduce a competing focal point within these views. The use of a matching architectural style would heighten this visual competition and would diminish the visual interest and distinctiveness of [address], undermining its historic role. This would be detrimental, albeit to a limited degree, to the significance of [address] as an NDHA.

An identical application was previously approved by the Council in March 2022 (the previous approval)1. As it has now expired and there is nothing substantive before me to demonstrate that works had commenced, there is no real prospect that this previous approval could be implemented. It does therefore not represent a realistic fallback position and is given minimal weight.

The Council has confirmed that at the time of considering the previous approval, the [name] and Management Plan was in draft form, and as an emerging document, it carried limited weight. The CA Appraisal and Management Plan has increased the recognition of NDHAs and strengthened the expected design principles to be followed within the CA. As it has been adopted, the weight attributed to this document has increased. Consequently, there has been a material change in planning circumstances since the previous approval. This previous approval does therefore not set a precedent, despite it being for the same development.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence of the [name] site, which is protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitats Regulations). As the competent decision making authority, if I had been minded to allow the appeal following a consideration of all of the main issues, it would have been necessary to undertake an appropriate assessment before ascertaining if the appeal should succeed overall. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not taken the matter further. Heritage and Planning Balance

Although localised in its effect, the harm caused to the CA would be less than substantial. This attracts considerable weight and importance. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), where a development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would make use of a previously developed site, in a sustainable location, providing two one-bedroom flats. This would support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, and the evidence from the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment [name] – March 2025 shows a need for this size of housing. However, given the number of units proposed, this would make a small contribution to the housing supply, which limits the extent of this benefit. There would also be benefits arising from the construction phase, and future occupiers would bring some trade to nearby shops and services. However, these would amount to limited social and economic benefits in favour of the appeal scheme, because of the quantum of development proposed. When considered 1 Council Ref: 21/02118/FUL individually or cumulatively, the public benefits are therefore of limited weight and are insufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to the CA.

Having regard to paragraph 216 of the Framework, the scale of harm I have identified to the significance of [address], as an NDHA asset would also weigh against the proposal.

The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would cause limited harm to the significance of [address] as an NDHA.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies SP7 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013 – 2033 and [name] Strategic Section 1 Plan January 2021, Policies SPL3 and PPL8 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013 – 2033 and Beyond Section 2 January 2022 and paragraph 135 of the Framework. These policies, amongst other things, require new development to preserve or enhance the special character and appearance of the area, protect assets of historical value and be sympathetic to local character and history. It would also conflict with the aims of the [name] and Management Plan which sets out that new development will relate to the history of the place.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a supply of 3.22 years. However, in light of paragraph 11d) i. of the Framework and the provisions of footnote 7, the harm identified to the designated heritage asset provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance. Even though the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites, paragraph 11d ii) of the Framework is not engaged.

The Council also raised no objections in terms of the sustainability of the appeal site, its location within the settlement boundary, the landscaping, the impact on neighbours, the highway network, ecology, or contamination and flooding grounds. However, compliance with relevant national and local planning policies on these matters would be required in any case. These matters are therefore of neutral weight

I have already identified the benefits of the proposal through an assessment of public benefits in undertaking the necessary balancing exercise in relation to the heritage asset. The associated benefits would be limited and would not outweigh the harm I have identified, including the conflict with the development plan. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.