Appeal 6004397

The appeal is dismissed.

I observed at the time of the site visit that the outbuilding has been constructed on the land. Therefore, the development is retrospective, and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. However, the constructed development does not fully reflect the plans that I have before me. In particular, there are additional windows in the south and west elevations of the building that are not shown on the submitted elevation plans. I consider that this discrepancy does not affect the issues in this appeal which I have determined on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are:  whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the [address] / [address] Conservation Area (the CA) and the setting of the listed buildings comprising 33 and [address] and 35, 35A and [address];  whether the development responds to climate change objectives; and  whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the development having regard to flood risk.

The appeal property is a grade II listed building, located within the CA. The building is a seventeenth century (C17) former house that has now been split into two commercial premises. Likewise, 35, 35A and [address] are a C17 listed building. The building previously comprised a house, but it is now three shops. The buildings form a terrace row of two storey properties that front [address].

The ground floor of the row of buildings is in commercial use with shop fronts and small rear service yards. The outbuilding is located to the rear of the appeal property, behind the row of two storey buildings that front [address]. It is constructed from timber and has the appearance of a traditional garden building.

As required by sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess; and paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The significance of the CA, in my view, is primarily derived from the many buildings of architectural and historic interest, some of which are grade II listed, located along the high street, which has a vibrant, commercial character. The buildings have a linear form along the high street and contribute to the historic core of the settlement. Behind the row of buildings that front the road, the rear aspects of the properties primarily have a commercial character. They largely have an open appearance, used as parking and service areas. There is also an abundance of trees which contributes to the verdant appearance of these areas. The character of the buildings, with similar features, aligned along the road, as well as the largely open rear aspects of the buildings make an important contribution to the CA’s significance.

The appeal building, and 35, 35A and [address], derive a great deal of their significance from their appearance and historic interest within the settlement. The rear elevations and open aspects of the buildings, also make a meaningful contribution towards the building’s setting, and the significance it derives from it.

With a sizeable footprint, the outbuilding dominates the shallow rear yard area, which has a limited size. Due to its size and juxtaposition next to the row of buildings, it obscures a significant proportion of the rear aspect of the listed building. Positioned close to the rear elevation of the row of buildings, the outbuilding also has a cramped appearance within the rear yard area.

Combined with the preponderance of external storage, the outbuilding exacerbates the unsightly appearance of the site. Also, viewed as a traditional garden building, within the context of the commercial setting of the site and the adjoining buildings, the appeal scheme has a functional appearance. Indeed, although the rear elevation of the appeal building includes painted timber cladding, the untreated timber appearance of the outbuilding has a stark appearance. Particularly due to the size of the building and the amount of timber cladding, compared to the more traditional materials of the appeal property and neighbouring buildings. On this basis, the outbuilding is an incongruous building that significantly changes the visual appearance of the site. It also changes and results in harm to the character of the row of buildings, which is a significant part of the setting of the listed buildings. As a consequence, the proposal fails to preserve the setting of the listed buildings and the CA.

Overall, I conclude that there is moderate harm to the significance of the CA and the setting of the listed buildings. Accordingly, the development fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and the setting of the listed buildings comprising 33 and [address] and 35, 35A and [address], contrary to the expectations of the Act. The outbuilding therefore has a harmful effect on the area’s character and appearance and the setting of the listed buildings, which conflicts with Policies SP7, SP9, DM9 and DM10 of the [site address] Local Plan Review 2023-2041 (the Local Plan). These, together and amongst other things, seek high quality design and require development to be sensitively designed which reflects the form and layout of the area contributing to the character of the historic environment and prevent harm to the setting of listed buildings.

Policy SP5 of the Local Plan is clear that the principles of climate change mitigation and adaptation will be required to be embedded into new development, and that proposals should be accompanied by a [name] which demonstrates how these principles have been embedded into the development. The level of information provided should be proportionate to the scale and nature of the development proposed. Policy DM4 of the Local Plan also requires new non-residential development of [address] metres (sqm) or more to demonstrate a reduction in energy and meet minimum specified standards of construction.

As a small non-residential outbuilding, which does not exceed a floorspace of 100sqm, I am satisfied that the outbuilding does not need to demonstrate minimum standards of construction, as required by DM4 of the Local Plan. However, there is no such specified floorspace threshold for a [name], and the requirement remains.

A Sustainability Statement has not been submitted and although the outbuilding is small scale, it is a requirement of Policy SP5 of the Local Plan. Without a proportionate level of information, the appeal scheme has not demonstrated how climate change mitigation and adaptation has been embedded into the development.

Consequently, for the above reasons, I conclude that the development has not responded to climate change objectives. Therefore, while there is no conflict with Policy DM4 of the Local Plan, the development conflicts with Policy SP5 of the Local Plan.

Policy SP6 of the Local Plan sets out that development within areas of flood risk from any source of flooding, including areas with a history of fluvial, groundwater or surface water flooding, or from areas suffering sewer flooding from overwhelmed sewers will only be supported if it is demonstrated that it is located and designed to ensure that flood risk from all sources of flooding is acceptable in planning terms, and there are no suitable and available sites at a lower flood risk.

Paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere, and where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Footnote 63 clarifies that, in [name] 1, such an assessment is required for sites of 1 hectare or more; for land identified by the Environment Agency as having critical drainage problems; for land highlighted in a strategic flood risk assessment as being at increased future flood risk; or for land potentially subject to other sources of flooding where the development would introduce a more vulnerable use.

The Council suggest that there is a medium and high risk of surface water flooding on the road outside of the site and a risk of ground water flooding due to the ground water levels being at or very close to the ground level. However, the information provided by the Council is otherwise limited, and it is not known whether the rear of the site, where the outbuilding is located, is also at risk of flooding.

As a small non-residential outbuilding, located within [name] 1, and which does not fall within any of the categories identified in Footnote 63 of the Framework, a site-specific flood risk assessment is not required.

Located at the rear of the site, and in a commercial use, there is no substantive evidence that surface-water flooding poses a risk to the development. Likewise, there is no substantiated evidence that the outbuilding would affect drainage on or around the site. As such, there is also no conflict with paragraph 182 of the Framework.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal site is a suitable location for the development having regard to flood risk. Therefore, the development would not conflict with Policy SP6 of the Local Plan, or the guidance of the Framework.

The moderate harm that would occur to the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the listed buildings would not be severe and therefore it would be ‘less than substantial’ within the meaning of the Framework. Indeed, given the commercial character of the rear aspects of the buildings, with limited views from the wider area, and that the development is a detached, timber building and could be easily removed, I consider that it would be at the lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, still of considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. However, less than substantial harm should not necessarily be equated with less than substantial planning objection when the statutory test in the Act that seeks to preserve a listed building and its setting, as well as preserve the character and appearance of a conservation area, has not been met.

While the appeal scheme does not raise flood risk concerns it has not been demonstrated that the development would provide mitigation against climate change, which also draws the scheme into conflict with the development plan.

As a hot food takeaway, the outbuilding provides additional storage and office space to support the needs of the existing business, as supported by the Framework. Nevertheless, the weight I can attribute to these benefits is tempered as I have limited information which demonstrates that the main building does not already provide suitable storage and office space. In these circumstances, these matters attract modest weight as public benefits, and they do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the heritage assets, the conservation of which the Framework indicates that great weight should be given.

Thus, I find that the harm that arises from the development is not outweighed by its public benefits. Accordingly, there is conflict with Paragraph 213 of the Framework as harm to the designated heritage assets does not have clear and convincing justification.

Given the above, I conclude that the development results in harm to the setting of the listed buildings and the CA, thus it does not preserve the setting of the listed buildings or preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and its significance. There is also conflict with the development plan in respect of climate change mitigation. There are no other considerations or public benefits that outweigh the identified harm. The appeal scheme therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework and the development plan. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.