Appeal 6004027

The appeal is dismissed.

The extension is already in place so I have treated the appeal proposal as being retrospective.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal concerns an existing restaurant, referred to by the appellant as The Eating Inn, located within a row of hotels, bars and restaurants close to the [name]. The buildings along this stretch of the Promenade vary significantly in size, age and style, but share a similar front building line, set back from the pavement behind deep forecourts. The forecourts are used for various purposes, notably parking and outdoor seating. Some have low walls or glass screens, but are generally free of other permanent buildings and structures. The result is that this area has an expansive and open character, which extends from the building frontages out to sea, and allows for long views along the seafront.

The two-storey main building occupied by The Eating Inn is lower and narrower than its neighbours, and without the front extension, it would form an innocuous feature within the wider streetscene. However, the visual impact of the premises is significantly increased by the single storey extension which occupies the full width of the building’s frontage and most of the depth of the forecourt.

The front extension, used as a seating area, comprises of a long, metal framework with a solid, low roof. The use of powder coated grey aluminium and extensive glazing gives a contemporary appearance to the structure, which appears to have been constructed to a good standard. However, projecting front extensions such as this are not a feature of the area, and the structure does not reflect the architectural style of the appeal property or its immediate neighbours.

Although the front extension incorporates large amounts of glass, when viewed from the street, the overall impression is of a solid structure. According to the Council, the timber hut on the forecourt of the neighbouring property has been in place for a considerable number of years and would not be permitted under current policies. Nonetheless, the appeal extension and timber hut are immediately adjacent, and together read as continuous built form along the full depth of the frontage. This significantly interrupts the otherwise open character of this section of the Promenade. As a result, the development fails to protect the open view along the sea front, which is of strategic importance to the town and which Policy DM19 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 2 (2023) (Local Plan) seeks to protect.

Local Plan Policy DM10 supports quality improvements and enhancements to buildings and frontages between the North and South pier, and says that piecemeal development on the forecourts of commercial buildings will not be permitted. Further explanation as to what is meant by ‘piecemeal’ development in this context is not provided in the policy. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the overall policy intention is to raise the quality of the environment along the Promenade, which includes controlling the type and appearance of development in the forecourts.

As an isolated structure in an area characterised by open frontages, the appeal development fails to respect the character of the area, and does not represent the type of quality improvement sought by Local Plan Policy DM10. Furthermore, the retention of the structure could make it more difficult for the Council to resist other, ad hoc forecourt developments, which could result in additional harm if replicated along this section of the Promenade.

Overall, I conclude that the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Local Plan Policies DM10 and DM19 for the reasons set out above. As it disrupts the uniform front building line, the development also fails to comply with the requirements for extensions and alterations in Local Plan Policy DM20.

There is further conflict with the requirements set out in Policy CS7 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1: [name] 2016 and Local Plan Policy DM17, both of which require high quality design which has regard to the characteristics of the local area.

The appellant has explained that the extended seating area was added following the COVID pandemic, to provide additional personal space for customers. However, no evidence has been provided to support the suggestion that this is an ongoing requirement within the hospitality industry, or that the extra floorspace is needed to ensure the financial viability of the business. Similarly, it has not been demonstrated that the extension is necessary for accessibility reasons.

Notwithstanding that, I acknowledge that retaining the extension would have economic benefits for the business, and that its removal may have implications for staffing levels. However, Local Plan Policy DM10 is concerned with the appearance of the area as well as the economic function of developments. The extension does not improve the appearance of the area, nor does it enhance the building or its frontage. Given the clear policy objective for improving the appearance of the wider area, the visual harm outweighs the economic benefits in this appeal.

The appellant’s comments about the age of plan policies are noted, but Part 2 of the Local Plan was adopted in 2023 and would have been examined having regard to the longer term impacts of the COVID pandemic. Core Strategy Policy CS7 is older, but as a general design policy remains consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The development plan policies referred to in the Council’s decision notice are up-to-date and provide an appropriate basis for determining this appeal.

The Framework seeks sustainable forms of development, including the requirement in paragraph 135 for visually attractive developments which are sympathetic to local character. These are important objectives, which as set out above, outweigh the economic and any social benefits in this case. The lack of biodiversity harm is neutral in the planning balance.

For the reasons set out, the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with the development plan and the Framework, and other material considerations do not outweigh this harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.