Appeal 6004641

The appeal is dismissed.

There is a discrepancy within the appellant’s submissions. The appellant refers to the proposed shopfront being formed from timber; however, the submitted drawings show that the proposed shopfront would combine powder coated aluminium window frames and entrance door, with painted timber stall risers below the windows. For clarity, the Council assessed the application on the basis that planning permission is being sought for the development in accordance with the drawings submitted and I have proceeded with the appeal on the same basis.

The submitted drawings confirm that the existing external roller shutters would be retained. They do not, however, form part of the development for which planning permission is being sought.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hucknall Conservation Area (the HCA).

The appeal property forms part of the shopping parade within the town centre and lies within the HCA. It sits close to several locally listed non-designated heritage assets, including the [name] and [name], Plough and [address] and former [address]. While some shopfronts are modern, some nearby buildings retain traditional timber shop fronts and detailing. Accordingly, although there is some variation in shopfront treatments, when viewed against the historic host buildings and surrounding architecture, the area has a traditional character and appearance. Accordingly, the significance of the HCA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, lies in the traditional character of architecture of a range of types, ages and styles that reflect the evolution of the town centre.

[name] note the previous traditional shopfront, I have considered the appeal based on the existing modern shopfront, comprising full height glazing flanking a fully glazed central entrance door. Owing to its modern design and use of modern materials, this makes a negative contribution to the significance of the HCA.

The proposal would replace the existing shopfront with powder coated aluminium window frames and centrally positioned entrance door, incorporating a fielded panel. Timber stall risers with fielded panels would be installed beneath the windows. It would also entail the removal of the original timber brackets and surround at fascia level and their replacement with a new flashing. Although the scheme acknowledges the HCA’s significance through the inclusion of some traditional materials, detailing and proportions, nevertheless the predominance of modern materials and the loss of traditional features would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the HCA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to conservation of heritage assets. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

Although the proposal would be limited to changes to the appearance of the shopfront at ground floor only, the level of harm resulting to the HCA would, in the terminology of the Framework, be less than substantial. While this would be towards the lower end of that spectrum, it nonetheless remains a matter of great importance.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires me to weigh this harm against the public benefits of the scheme, including where appropriate securing its optimum viable use. There is limited evidence with regard to public benefits arising from the proposal or that the business could not function with a less harmful frontage. Consequently, in heritage terms the limited benefits would not be of sufficient weight to justify the harm to the HCA identified above.

I therefore find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the HCA. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policy ST1 a) and b) and EV10 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review (November 2002) which, amongst other things, seek to safeguard the character, quality and appearance of the area and ensure that development in conservation areas preserve or enhance the character of the area.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.