Appeal 6004264

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a single storey building to provide canteen facilities at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0635, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme for surface water drainage, is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 6 months of the local planning authority’s approval, the use of the building hereby approved shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a scheme is approved and implemented. If no scheme in accordance with this condition is approved within 6 months of the date of this decision, the use of the building hereby approved shall cease until such time as a scheme approved by the local planning authority is implemented. Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, that scheme shall thereafter be maintained and retained in use. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

Since the planning application was submitted, the development has been started, and I observed the external works to be largely complete. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

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

The appeal site forms part of the [site address] Bispham campus which comprises several large educational buildings surrounded by sports fields, landscaping and areas of car parking. A single storey canteen building has been constructed, connected to the southern elevation of the existing seven storey Cleveleys Building which faces towards [site address] .

The ground floor southern elevation of the Cleveleys Building originally comprised eight bays of large, floor to ceiling windows divided with dark grey glazing bars and transoms below a wide, dark grey metal plinth. Four of these bays are obscure glazed. In contrast, the southern elevation of the canteen building has six wide, reasonably high-level windows and two taller, larger windows. Whilst these windows are not floor to ceiling in height, they nevertheless allow visibility into the canteen, giving an active frontage to the building not dissimilar to the pre-existing.

Moreover, although the fenestration contrasts with the distinctive horizontal bands of windows on the upper floors of the Cleveleys Building, the canteen building is consistent with guidance in The National Model Design Code (2021) in so far as it recognises that ground floors may be treated differently from upper floors to create a relationship with the street.

The cladding of the canteen building is a light and dark grey below a wide light grey soffit panel. Although the colours do not exactly match existing cladding panels, when viewed from the approach to the entrance of the campus off [site address] , the building assimilates well with the existing buildings viewed against the dark grey cladding of a lower projection of the Cleveleys Building to the north-east. The canteen also appears a very modest addition next to the taller, bulkier cream rendered gable of the Reception Building, despite the absence of a setback in building line. Further, whilst of modular design, it appears high-quality with the joins between cladding panels only discernible close-by and the fixings not visible.

Although the Cleveleys Building is very prominent from [site address] , I observed that there are limited views of the canteen building due to its low height, the distance from the road and the intervening existing grass mound. From the pavement along the northern side of [site address] , only the tops of the windows and contrasting coloured cladding panels can be seen. The building is not prominent or pronounced, appearing subservient to the existing collection of buildings on the wider campus which vary in architectural design and fenestration.

I therefore conclude that the development does not cause harm to the host building or the surrounding area. It accords with Policy CS7 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1: [name] 2012 to 2017 (2016) (CS) and Policy DM20 of the Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2023) (DM). Together, these require that new development is well-designed, attractive and is appropriate in scale, appearance and that materials match or are complementary to an original building, enhancing the character and appearance of the local area.

It would also accord with policies CS15 and DM17 where they require high-quality new education facilities and that development provides active frontages.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

In situations where the development has already taken place, it is not feasible to impose a condition precedent or to require that outstanding details be agreed prior to the commencement regardless of the importance of the details. In any event, as I have found the windows and architectural detailing of the building to be acceptable, the submission of profile details is not necessary. Further, as the external works are largely complete, it is not necessary to control working hours, or other construction works and operations on the site.

In the interests of securing proper drainage of surface water and to manage pollution and flood risk, a condition requiring details of a surface water drainage scheme is necessary and reasonable. Such details should include the requirement for foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems. I have rephrased the wording of the Council’s suggested condition to reflect the retrospective nature of the matters to which it applies.

Where there is a requirement for [name] (BNG), the PPG makes it clear that a planning condition should not be imposed as any permission will automatically be subject to the BNG deemed condition, as prescribed by the relevant legislation. To deliver a BNG, the appellant’s [name] (August 2025) proposes to plant 15no. urban trees to the south of the canteen building. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that landscaping is otherwise necessary in the interests of visual amenity or surface water drainage. Accordingly, the BNG and landscaping conditions suggested by the Council have not been imposed.

For the above reasons, the development accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.