Appeal 6004940

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application form states that the development has already been started without consent but not completed, and I observed that the baby unit building has been constructed on the site with the external works largely complete. Despite being referred to in the appellant’s evidence, temporary planning permission for the building has not been applied for, and I have determined the appeal based on the development before me.

As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to the setting of listed buildings, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is whether the development preserves the setting of the [name] listed Church of [name] and [name], and whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Ashton Conservation Area (the CA).

The appeal site comprises a small parcel of land to the front of the [name] building (‘the school’) which is located on the southern side of [address], close to its junction with [site address] . The school and adjacent Church of [name] are [name] listed,1 situated within the CA.

The CA developed as a Victorian suburb and is predominantly residential in character, arranged in a distinctive block or grid pattern bound by [address] to the north and [site address] to the south-west. In addition to the grid pattern, in so far as relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is identified in the ‘Ashton Conservation Area Character Appraisal’ (2016) (CAA) as being derived 1 [name] entry numbers 1207244 & 1208998 from the quality of its mid- [postcode] architecture, its consistent building lines and the spacious, formal layout of buildings. The CAA recognises that the addition of some poorly designed shopfronts and the occasional insensitive infill of gap sites have impacted negatively on the historic character and quality of the area, but overall, the CA is well-maintained and has retained its distinctive and legible appearance.

Based on the official list entries, the significance of the school and the Church of [name] is predominantly derived from their mid-Victorian architecture, both built in a Romanesque style. Despite later additions to the school, together these buildings form a visually prominent and attractive grouping on [address], which contributes to their significance.

The setting of a listed building is the surroundings in which it is experienced, and this is not fixed and may change as the asset, and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset or may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

The northern principal gable of the school has a central sandstone pilaster with corner pilasters and two round-headed windows with linked hoodmoulds. Whilst offset to one side, the appeal site is between this gable and a low stone wall topped with metal railings along the frontage. It may have historically been a derelict and underutilised piece of land, but it nonetheless makes a positive contribution to the way in which the significance of the school is appreciated, and the way it is experienced as an architecturally interesting, prominent building set back from [address].

Notwithstanding the laurel hedging which has been planted along the frontage, there is strong intervisibility between the appeal site and the listed building, and although at an oblique angle, from the closest round-headed window the school has largely open views across the site towards [address]. In contrast, the Church of [name] is set well back from [address] behind its churchyard, separated by the front range of the school, and accordingly, the appeal site contributes little to the way this listed building is experienced.

The baby unit building has been constructed to one side of the northern gable of the school close to the railings on the [address] frontage. It is modest in overall scale and has been carefully designed with a simple form, and it would be contemporary in appearance, finished in a natural cedar cladding. However, despite its scale and design, it would be around 2.7m in height and I observed that even though the roof structure is not finished, it is clearly visible above the existing railings and hedgerow, appearing dominant in close views from [address].

When viewed from the east, and particularly from the pavement to the front of the Church of [name], the long side of the building is dominant despite the feather board fencing installed on the eastern boundary. Unlike a parked car or van, which is relatively transient, the building is particularly conspicuous in views towards the school sited in front of its principal elevation and it appears a permanent and discordant addition along the school frontage. The laurel hedging provides only limited screening and softening of the appearance of the building in these views.

In longer views from the west along [address], and from the [site address] junction, the building is seen alongside the high boundary wall of the school and accordingly, appears less conspicuous.

Nevertheless, the building alters and is harmful to the setting of the school and the way in which its architectural interest is appreciated. It further has a detrimental effect on the existing building line and the relationship between the listed buildings and the street, failing to preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification.

The harm that I have identified above would be at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance, but it is nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The ‘Proposed Site Plan’ shows external activity spaces and a sensory path which would provide a purposeful, and safe outdoor space for children. However, whilst it may utilise a previously neglected part of the church grounds, I have no persuasive evidence before me that this activity space is predicated on the construction of the building. Accordingly, I afford this only limited weight. Compliance with Building Regulations and an absence of harm to the living conditions of neighbours, or on the highway, are neutral matters which weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The proposal would contribute to meeting a local need and demand for early years education, and specifically baby places. Although not quantified in the evidence, such a need has not been disputed by the Council. The appellant’s evidence is that the building would allow for the provision of trauma-informed care, SEN support, wellbeing and nature-based learning. This would be beneficial to the children and local working families, and it would support parents and carers in accessing quality, reliable childcare. The St Andrews Pre-school is evidently very well regarded, and there is significant support for an expansion of provision from the Church, local parents, residents and [name]. The proposal would clearly strengthen an existing valued educational hub.

These public benefits would be modest given the small scale of the development, but I nevertheless afford them moderate weight. However, I conclude that they would not be sufficient to outweigh the great weight to be given to the less than substantial harm that I have identified to the listed school and CA.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal fails to preserve the special historic interest of the [name] listed [name] and the character or appearance of the Ashton Conservation Area, thus failing to satisfy the requirements of the Act. It also conflicts with Policy EN8 of the Preston Local Plan 2012-26 (2015) (LP) and Policy 16 of the [name] (2012) (CS). These seek to protect and safeguard heritage assets from inappropriate development that would cause harm to their significance and require proposals affecting a heritage asset to accord with national policy.

It further conflicts with LP Policy EN9 and CS Policy 17 in so far as they require all new development proposals to be designed with regards to architecture and townscape and take account of the character and appearance of the local area, including siting, design, materials, safeguarding and enhancing the built and historic environment.

An interested party has referred me to the siting of a storage shipping container within the school car park, but I did not observe this on my site visit. I have also been referred to a development of three-storey flats opposite and a shipping-container style building sited close to a [name] listed building in central Preston. However, in the absence of full details of these examples, it is not possible for me to ascertain whether they are comparable in nature or context to the appeal proposal, and accordingly they lend little support to it. In any event, every case must be assessed on its own merits and site-specific circumstances.

Finally, I have little evidence to substantiate claims that the proposal would fund wider maintenance and improvements to the school or church buildings, or that the location of the building is the only position available on the wider land. Accordingly, these matters do not lead me to a different conclusion in respect of the main issue.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.