Appeal 6004763

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s decision notice describes the proposal as being “retrospective”. I noted on site that there were a roller shutter and signage in situ and both main parties agree that the plans before me show what has been installed. I have no evidence before me to conclude differently.

The description of the proposal on the application form includes reference to the illuminated signage. The advertisement itself falls outside the scope of development that I can consider in this Section 78 appeal. The frame for the signage is part of the development proposed, in addition to the roller shutter, and I have considered the appeal on this basis.

There is common ground between the main parties regarding the acceptability of the signage frame. I have no evidence before me to conclude otherwise.

The main issues are the effect of the roller shutter on: • the character and appearance of the St. [name] streetscene; and, • the setting, and therefore significance, of the nearby St. [name]/[address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site (the site) is a ground floor shop unit within a retail frontage in Reading town centre. The shop front is characterised by glazing extending from floor to ceiling height with no stall riser. This permits unobstructed window browsing by passers-by. Very similar shop fronts exist in the same row with displays evident at several premises. The floors above the appeal site are cantilevered out forwards over the footway. This area is used by people waiting for buses as well as by window browsers. CCTV cameras are mounted on columns in proximity of the site. There is also lighting set into the ceiling of the covered walkway immediately in front of the appeal site, in addition to streetlights.

The character and appearance of the site and the streetscene are modern. However, the site is within the setting of the CA. I noted that the site is clearly within view when one stands near to the intersection of St. [name] and [address] looking towards St. [name] (the Church). Likewise, the appeal site and the [address] junction are part of the visual experience when standing next to the Church. The sense of Reading's history and the grain of the more historic areas of the town centre is clearly apparent from such viewpoints.

The shutter was raised at the time of my visit, but the plans show it is of the open mesh type that provides a degree of translucency, albeit the overall ability to window browse through it would be markedly reduced. The shutter when lowered would also, because of the small gaps in the mesh, appear nearly solid when viewed from a distance and at an angle. This degree of visual solidity would be particularly marked when the shutter would be viewed from the [address] junction looking towards the Church, and vice versa. The appearance from these viewpoints would not present an active frontage, despite the presence of the glazing behind.

Active frontages are important to the socio-economic character of the town centre and specifically primary frontages such as this part of St. [name]. This includes at all times, especially given the increasing importance of the evening economy to town centres. Even when a shop has closed for the day, its clearly visible shop display will have an important role in complementing other open premises. It is acknowledged that the shutter would be raised when the premises is open and, therefore, the harm to the character and appearance of the St. [name] streetscene is tempered, but still moderate in scale.

The harm to the character and appearance of the St. [name] streetscene would result in conflict with policies CC7, CR2, CR7 and OU5 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (2019) (RBLP). Policy CC7, amongst other things, requires that developments respond positively to their local context and create or reinforce local character and distinctiveness, including protecting and enhancing the historic environment. Policy CR2 seeks to ensure that frontages engage with the street at lower levels. Policies CR7 and OU5 provides more detail on this provision, advising that shop fronts should present an active frontage to the street at all times. The policy acknowledges that security may be essential, but security features should be internal.

In reaching these findings I have had regard to the [name] for [name] (2022) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It states that this is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Paragraph 215 continues by advising that, where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

The setting of an active town centre contributes to the CA’s significance and, as I have already set out, there is clear intervisibility between this designation and the site. Setting is just one quality contributing to the overall significance of the CA. There are also other areas bordering the CA that contribute positively to its setting. As such, the harm to the CA significance, when the shutter is lowered, would be at the lower end of the less than substantial spectrum.

There are public benefits derived from an occupied commercial premises within the Primary Shopping Area (as designated in the RBLP). The provision of security in some form for such commercial uses is reasonable. The appellant has commented that the shopfront’s uneven angled floor has had an impact on what security systems could be erected on site. They also state that an internal shutter was originally sought but its installation was not possible, and that limited budgets for small commercial premises restrict the types of security measures that can be used.

However, I have no evidence before me as to why a roller shutter is the only solution to provide security for the site and its contents. I also have no evidence before me as to whether the existing measures beyond the site such as the lighting and CCTV are effective. I therefore find that only minor weight can be afforded to the security benefits provided by the roller shutter. Such public benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA.

This harm would result in conflict with policy EN1 of the RBLP. Policy EN1 requires that developments protect and enhance the historic environment.

The appellant’s evidence cites other examples of where roller shutters have been granted planning permission within Reading town centre. From the Council’s evidence, it is clear that there are material differences in either the development plan and/or site context with all of these examples. Specifically, the permissions with the Council’s references PL/17/1603 and PL/08/1215 predate the adoption of the RBLP. [name]/20/1755 relates to the glazing of only a lobby and door rather than the whole shop front. The appeal property includes a recessed doorway, but the shutter closes over the whole shop front. Given these differences, I afford these examples very minor weight as material considerations in my

The appellant also cites further examples in their evidence of where shutters have been installed without planning permission having previously been granted. [name] have had regard to these examples and saw them after my appeal site visit, I do not know the circumstances under which they were installed or their status regarding planning permission or enforcement action. I therefore cannot draw any direct comparison with the proposal that would weigh in its favour or afford these examples weight as a material consideration in my decision. The presence of these does not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found.

The appellant has suggested 2 conditions to mitigate the effects of the shutter on the character and appearance of the streetscene and the CA. The first of these is to ensure the shutter is translucent from a 10m distance. Such a condition would not address my concerns relating to the harm to the setting of the CA. This is because the viewpoints I have cited above are over 10m distant from the appeal site. I also have concerns about the ability to precisely frame a condition requiring translucency at this distance and its consequent enforceability. The second condition suggests time limits within which the shutter could be lowered. This would not address the harm arising from the lack of active frontage when the shutter is lowered.

There is common ground between the main parties regarding the acceptability of the type of materials used for the roller shutter. However, this does not overcome the harm that would arise from the design and positioning of the shutter when lowered.

For the above reasons, having assessed the benefits of the development against the harm, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.