Appeal 6004916

The appeal is dismissed in relation to the proposed roof and rooflight alterations.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to changing the use of the basement from a shooting range to storage ancillary to the existing office use at [name], [site address] , [name], Gateshead [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01132/FUL, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos A-337-0925-01 [name] and A- 337-0925-03 [name], except in respect of the external roof and rooflight alterations shown on those plans.

The basement shall be used only for storage purposes ancillary to the office use of the first floor and for no other purpose. It shall not be used as a separate or independent storage or distribution use, or for any other independent commercial use.

The proposal has given rise to disagreement between the parties as to the scope of development to be assessed.

The original description of development on the application form refers to “hanging [sic] the use of the Basement from shooting Range to Storage”. The description of development considered by the Council, however, refers to the change of use of the building as a whole to storage use (Class B8), namely: “Change of use from Army cadet [name] (F1 Use Class) to a Storage use for the Storage of Office equipment (B8 Use Class)”. That description was agreed during the processing of the application and the Council assessed the proposal on that basis. Nonetheless, when determining an appeal it is necessary to have regard not only to the wording of the description of development, but also to the application documents taken as a whole, including the application form, drawings and supporting statements, in order to understand the nature of the development proposed and its likely effects.

In this case, the application form refers specifically to changing the use of the basement, and the Design and [name] explains that the change of use relates to part of the building only, with the first-floor accommodation remaining in office use and the basement proposed to be used for storage in connection with those offices. The submitted plans similarly show offices retained above and storage below, without any indication of a separate or independent storage use. There is nothing before me which indicates that the existing office use is not lawful. It is therefore apparent from the context of the application documents and the evidence before me that the intended meaning of the original description is changing the use of the basement only from a shooting range to ancillary storage.

The submitted plans also show physical works, including a new pitched roof and a rooflight. Although these works are not reflected in the agreed description of development, they were nevertheless assessed by the Council as part of its consideration of the application and are physically and functionally separable elements of the proposal.

In these circumstances, I consider it appropriate to distinguish between the change of use of the basement to storage ancillary to the existing office use above, and the physical roof and rooflight alterations. Assessing the appeal on this basis reflects the substance of the proposal, causes no prejudice to any party and does not amount to the determination of a materially different development.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on parking and highway safety; • The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; • The effect of the development on protected species, particularly bats; and • Whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blaydon Conservation Area.

The appeal site is located on a steep classified road and does not benefit from on-site parking or servicing provision. However, this is not a new circumstance. The former [name] use, including use of the basement as a firing range, was capable of generating vehicle movements and on-street parking demand.

When the proposal is properly understood as a change of use of the basement only to storage ancillary to the offices above, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that it would give rise to a material intensification of vehicle movements, parking or servicing activity. There is no indication that the basement storage would operate as an independent storage or distribution use, nor that it would generate regular deliveries or the use of large goods vehicles typically associated with a primary Class B8 operation.

The surrounding streets are not subject to parking restrictions. At the time of my site visit, there was on-street parking capacity available on the opposite side of [site address] and within nearby streets. While parking conditions can vary throughout the day, there is little before me to indicate that existing on-street parking operates at or near capacity, or that the appeal proposal would give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety or the efficient operation of the road network.

Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. On the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that this threshold would be met.

I therefore conclude that the development would not result in an unacceptable effect on parking conditions or highway safety, and so complies with the parking and highway safety requirements of Policies CS13 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle upon Tyne 2015 (the CS) and Policy MSGP15 of the [name] for Growing Places Local Plan Document 2021 (the LPD).

The surrounding area contains a number of active commercial and community uses, including a public house, a dance studio and a playhouse. As such, the character of the area already accommodates a degree of background activity associated with people arriving at and leaving premises throughout the day and into the evening, as well as general traffic noise from passing vehicles.

The proposal would involve the continued use of the first floor as offices, with the basement used for storage ancillary to that office use. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the level or nature of activity would be materially greater or different in character from those associated with the former lawful use of the basement, or from other activities typical of the surrounding mixed-use area.

The Council’s reason for refusal is framed on the basis that insufficient information has been provided to assess noise and amenity impacts. However, when the proposal is properly characterised as a change of use of the basement to ancillary storage for the offices above, I do not consider that the submission of a noise assessment would be either necessary or proportionate having regard to the scale and nature of the proposed use. The use would not involve noise-generating plant, industrial processes or late-night activity, and there is no indication that it would give rise to operational characteristics materially different from those previously or lawfully experienced.

In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers through noise and disturbance, and so complies with the relevant amenity provisions of [name] MSGP17 and MSGP18 in this regard.

The proposal includes alterations to the roof of the building, which have the potential to affect protected species, particularly bats. The presence of bats cannot automatically be ruled out, given the nature and age of the structure and the proposed works to roof elements that could provide roosting opportunities.

No ecological survey or Ecological Impact Assessment has been submitted to establish whether bats or other protected species are present, nor to assess the potential effects of the works or identify any mitigation measures. In the absence of such information, I cannot be satisfied that the roof works would avoid harm to protected species, or that adequate mitigation could be secured.

While the change of use of the basement would not of itself give rise to ecological concerns, the roof works directly engage these issues. Given the above, the precautionary principle applies, and this element of the proposal has not been shown to be acceptable. In this regard, there is conflict with Policy MSGP37 of the LPD which seeks to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on biodiversity in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy.

The appeal site lies within the Blaydon Conservation Area (BCA), which is characterised by late nineteenth and early twentieth-century development. As described in the Council’s heritage consultation response, the area is notable for its consistent use of local sandstone and Welsh slate, its terraced development aligned with the steep topography of [site address] , and the way in which buildings collectively contribute to a distinctive townscape with long views along and across the valley sides. This coherence and consistency of form and materials contribute to the significance of the BCA as a designated heritage asset.

The appeal building forms part of that wider townscape and is prominently located on [site address] . The Council accepts that the building itself is of limited historic merit and that the change of use of the basement would not harm the significance of the BCA. I attach weight to that view. However, the proposed roof and rooflight alterations would alter the form and appearance of the building as perceived within the street and the conservation area as a whole.

No Heritage Statement has been submitted to assess the contribution made by the existing flat-roofed form, nor to demonstrate that the proposed pitched roof and rooflight have been informed by or respond positively to the established character or appearance of the conservation area. Additionally, the submitted drawings are unclear, making it difficult to fully understand the precise detailing and visual impact of the proposed roof, particularly the treatment of the gable ends.

Although there may be practical reasons for wishing to replace a flat roof with a pitched roof and install a rooflight, those considerations do not remove the requirement to demonstrate, through proportionate evidence and clear drawings, that the proposal would preserve the character or appearance of the BCA. In the absence of such evidence, I am unable to conclude that the roof alterations would respect the established consistency of form and materials that underpins the significance of the BCA.

In these circumstances, the proposed roof and rooflight alterations would result in less than substantial harm to the BCA, albeit at the lower end of the spectrum. That harm must be given considerable importance and weight. While the proposal as a whole would bring a vacant building back into use, that benefit is capable of being realised independently from the roof alterations. As such, only limited weight can be afforded to this benefit in the heritage balance. Economic benefits arising from construction activity would be modest and short-term, so also attract only limited weight. Accordingly, the public benefits arising are insufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

Consequently, the statutory duty under section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, has not been met. The proposal therefore conflicts with the Framework’s policies on conserving or enhancing the historic environment, as well as Policy CS15 of the CS, and Policies MSGP24 and MSGP25 of the LPD.

I have found that the change of use of the basement to storage ancillary to the existing office use would not result in unacceptable effects on highway safety or neighbouring living conditions.

However, the proposed roof and rooflight alterations are not supported by sufficient ecological or heritage information to demonstrate that they would avoid harm to protected species or preserve the character or appearance of the BCA. In those respects, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and has not been demonstrated to comply with relevant statutory duties. The limited benefits identified do not outweigh the harm arising from these elements of the proposal.

Given that the change of use and the physical works are physically and functionally distinct, a split decision is justified.

In respect of the allowed elements, I have imposed the standard time limit and approved plans conditions to provide certainty. A further condition requiring the basement storage use to remain ancillary to the office use above is necessary to ensure that the development reflects the proposal and does not give rise to intensification with consequent effects on highway safety and living conditions. The appellant has given their agreement to this condition. No other conditions were suggested by the Council.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in relation to the change of use of the basement from shooting range to ancillary storage, but should be dismissed in relation to the proposed roof and rooflight.