Appeal 6004114

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit I noted that development has already taken place and appears to be in line with the submitted plans. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The appeal property is situated within the Eye Conservation Area (CA) and near to [address], which is a [name] listed building. Accordingly, I have applied the duties set out in Section 66(1) and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building, and whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [name]; preserves the setting of the [name] listed building at [address] and the effect of the development on the significance of the [name], a non-designated heritage asset.

Insofar as is relevant to the appeal before me, the significance of the [name] is derived by the historic frontage development along [address], which forms the nucleus of the medieval village settlement. Whilst not a continuous or uniform historic frontage, the CA features a variety of building ages. Uses within the CA vary, including both commercial and residential, fairly typical of a high street environment. Many of the commercial units within the CA feature traditional timber framed shopfronts.

The CA features several listed buildings, including the nearby [name] listed [address] (No 48), currently occupied as a public house known as the [name]. Although not immediately adjacent to the appeal site, the listed building at No 48 given its proximity, is visually related to the appeal site. As well as its architectural merit, the listed building’s special interest is derived in part from its age and location within the high street with its various historic buildings, of which No 48 is one. The appeal building falls within the setting of the listed building.

The appeal site is also in close proximity to an attractive [name] on [address], on the opposite side of the road, which the Council has identified as a locally listed, and therefore non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

Policy LP18 of the Peterborough Local Plan (2019) (the Local Plan) relates to shop frontages, security shutters and canopies. For external security shutters, it sets criteria that must be satisfied for planning permission to be granted. These include demonstrating a persistent problem of crime or vandalism affecting the property, that cannot be reasonably addressed by alternative measures.

[name] acknowledge the appellant’s security concerns, there is little evidence before me of persistent crime affecting the premises or of alternative security options having been considered. While such evidence is not required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), it is required by the adopted development plan. In its absence, I find conflict with criterion d of Policy LP18 of the Local Plan.

Policy LP18 of the Local Plan is also clear that the property should not be situated in a CA, and that the shutter should be designed to a high standard, including being an open mesh / perforated style.

The metal roller shutter which has been installed extends almost the entire frontage of the appeal property. Even when the shutter is not in use (i.e. when the premises are open), the projecting box in which it is housed is still a visible and prominent feature of the development. As a whole, the development forms a stark, obtrusive and overly modernised form, which fails to positively respond or assimilate with the traditional shop fronts within the wider CA.

The development has fundamentally altered the traditional form of the shop front within the appeal building, making the architectural proportions difficult to interpret. In doing so, it has created a form of development which negatively detracts from the character and appearance of the host building. It also fails to preserve the character and appearance of the CA, or to preserve the setting of the listed building at No 48 and the non-designated heritage asset of the [name].

The appeal development is therefore contrary to Policy LP18 of the Local Plan. It is also contrary to Policies LP16 and LP19 of the Local Plan which collectively seek for development proposals to positively contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the area, including in areas of high heritage value.

The development has received local support from interested parties stating that the shutters represent an improvement compared to the previous doors at the building. Security benefits are also cited. For the reasons set out in my main issue above, I cannot be satisfied that the development represents an improvement from what I understand to have been a set of timber framed concertina style doors. I have considered the security benefits associated with the development in the planning balance below.

The appellant has suggested that nearby premises are already using shutters which set a precedent for the appeal development. However, very little further information has been provided. [name] did observe the use of roller shutter doors on premises elsewhere along the [address], I have not been presented with the status of these in respect to planning permission. Moreover, none of the examples I observed appeared to be of the same design as the appeal development and therefore I cannot be satisfied that there are existing roller shutters within the CA, which are directly comparable to, or justify the appeal development before me.

Taking all of the above into account, I find the harm to the CA and the setting of the listed building to be at the lower end of less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. I have not been presented with, nor have I identified any reasonable conditions which could be imposed to overcome this harm. Whilst it is suggested that the harm is reversible, the appeal does not relate to a temporary permission and thus I must assess the harm as it exists, as a permanent form of development.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the development. Paragraph 216 of the Framework requires a balanced judgement in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect NDHAs.

The increased security of the building would in my view represent a public benefit insofar as it would secure the viability of an existing business which has associated economic benefits, even in an area where I have not been presented specific associated crime risks. Nevertheless, I remain to be satisfied that the appeal development is the only reasonable, and least harmful means of securing such benefits.

The public benefits are therefore limited in extent and do not outweigh the harm which I have found to the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the nearby listed building.

On this basis, I conclude that the development fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 215 of the Framework, and it is not in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.