Appeal 6004069

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form notes that the works have started, but have not been completed. In following the planning history of this appeal, I note that a previous appeal was dismissed. This appeal was made retrospectively. The application which is the subject of this appeal sought to address the reasons for refusal in the previous appeal. Some elements of the proposal before me do not yet appear to have been incorporated. My assessment is therefore based on the proposed plans.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision maker to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. I have had regard to this duty within my decision.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [address] Conservation Area (CA).

The CA is centred on [address], from which a network of streets, including [address], extends and is lined with Victorian commercial buildings. The significance of the CA is therefore derived from its historic townscape, spatial arrangement, and the survival of its traditional built form. The evidence before me indicates that, prior to the works undertaken and considered under a previous appeal, [site address] retained several notable historic features. These included a continuous stone plinth and sill, ventilation grilles, a recessed doorway, and a large shopfront window. Collectively, these elements meant that the appeal property made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

Following the previous application and subsequent appeal relating to No. 8, a number of revisions have been implemented. These include a revised door design, the reinstatement of ventilation grilles, the recessing of the fenestration, and the replacement of the external black roller‐box shutter with internal shutters.

However, the proposed design of the entrance to the appeal building would not provide an appropriate replication of the original stone plinth, which previously formed a defining element of the large shop window it bisected. The materials now proposed would further accentuate a contemporary appearance that is at odds with the traditional character of the frontage. The loss of the plinth, and consequently the loss of the large, traditionally proportioned shop window characteristic of Victorian commercial buildings, has diminished this architectural feature and the contribution to which No. 8 made to the character and appearance of the CA. Moreover, the operation of the new entrance, particularly the opening and closing of the proposed doors, would further draw attention to this alteration and reinforce the erosion of the building’s former contribution to the CA.

The harm arising from the proposed development would be less than substantial, and at the lower end of that spectrum, as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework makes clear that great weight must be given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm identified. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, this harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The benefits associated with [name], particularly within Merseyside, are well documented in the evidence before me, including the [name]: The Social Impact of [name] (2023) report. These benefits include positive links to mental health, the wider financial value generated, the maintenance of in‐person relationships through a physical high‐street presence, the operational advantages for customers, and the potential to increase public footfall around the appeal site, amongst others.

However, I am not persuaded that these benefits could not have been realised prior to the broader retrospective alterations undertaken, particularly given that the relevant report was published in 2023. Nor does it follow that the changes now proposed are essential to sustaining this success, or that such benefits could not be delivered through an alternative design or an internal remodel. I also recognise that the internal alterations already carried out would provide some improvement in terms of accessibility.

In this case, the identified public benefits, taken together, do not outweigh the harm that would result to the character or appearance of the CA. In the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly, the scheme conflicts with the approach to heritage assets set out in Section 16 of the Framework. As such, the Framework does not lend support to the proposal through the application of the public benefits to this heritage balance.

As such, the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It is therefore in conflict with Policies LPA02, LPC11, and LPD01 of the [site address] Borough Local Plan 2022. These policies stipulate that, amongst other things, that the impact of development proposals on the significance of heritage assets will be considered in accordance with legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Grade II listed building at [address], dating from the 19th century, lies in proximity to the appeal site. It retains several historic features reflecting its former use as a bank. In accordance with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have given special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest. The proposal does not involve any physical alteration to the listed building. Given the presence of several intervening properties between it and the appeal site, the minor changes to the shopfront would have a negligible effect on the building’s setting. I therefore conclude that the proposal preserves the setting of [address].

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. The material considerations explored within the evidence do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should be dismissed.