Appeal 6005069

All three of the appeals relate to separate application submissions for elements associated with the proposed change of use of the ground floor from retail (Class E) to [name] ([name]) at the appeal site, which is [site address] . I have dealt with all three appeals within the same Decision Letter so as to avoid any unnecessary duplication.

The appeals are against failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on two applications for planning permission and one application for express consent to display an advertisement.

The Council have stated that had they determined application Ref 25/00654/FULL which relates to Appeal B - Ref: 6005071 that application would have been approved. They consider that this proposal would comply with the provisions of the Hull Local Plan (2017) (LP).

The Council has also submitted statements relating to Appeal A and Appeal C which indicate that those applications would have been refused by the Council had they determined them. The issues raised within those statements form the basis of the main issues for those appeals.

The appellant has indicated that there was an oversight on the advertisement plan which formed part of the original application and on which the Council has provided comments. That plan, which is referenced 901-PL-103 Rev 06 included text which indicated that the fascia sign was to be fitted with internal illumination. That same plan also showed a fitting which would house lighting external to the sign.

[name] am not aware that any consultation has been made on the basis of the revised plan, which shows externally illuminated fascia signage only, it does correct an earlier erroneous drawing and does not represent a significant change to the advertisement proposed introducing a more subtle form of illumination. The application also appears to have been advertised on the basis of including externally illuminated fascia signage. I do not therefore consider that any interested parties would be prejudiced in accepting the drawing as part of the appeal. I have therefore determined appeal C on the basis of the corrected drawing 901-PL-103 Rev 07.

With regard to Appeal C, the scope of my assessment is limited to consideration of amenity and public safety. The Council have raised no concerns with regard to public safety and I have no reason to disagree, and I therefore focus on amenity.

The description of development on Appeal B varies between the application form and the banner heading above. The revised description appears to have been agreed between the parties. Appeal Decisions 6002751, 6005071 & 6005069

With regard to Appeal A the first main issue is whether the proposal would have any significant adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers. The second is whether flood risk at the appeal site has been adequately addressed. The third main issue is whether the proposed change of use would undermine the health, vitality and viability of the Spring Bank Local Centre. The fourth main issue is whether the proposal would undermine the aims of promoting healthy and inclusive neighbourhoods and lifestyles.

With regard to Appeal B, the main issue is the effect of the external alterations to the shop front including access ramp on the character and appearance of the Spring Bank Conservation Area. With regard to Appeal C, the main issue is the effect of the advertisement on the visual amenity of the area.

The appeal site sits on the busy [name] which has a strong commercial character, within the Spring Bank Conservation Area. It is proposed that the centre would open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. It is located within the primary shopping area of the Spring Bank Local Centre. Appeal A

The Council indicate that the property immediately to the west of the appeal property, No. 174 [name] (No.174) is a domestic property having been in single dwelling house use since 1997 according to Council records. From my site visit on which I was able to view the neighbouring property from the outside, there was nothing to indicate that this property was not in residential use at both ground and first floor level. Given this, there would be the clear potential for noise transference between the attached appeal property and that adjoining. This is a particularly important issue given the opening hours which would include very late evening and very early morning hours.

A noise assessment is included within the evidence1. At the outset, the noise report identifies the nearest sensitive receptor (NSR) as a first floor unit situated above the adjacent commercial premises. The location of the NSR is identified broadly in the location of No.174. The report then states that the site is surrounded on all sides by commercial premises and storage. It concludes that commercial premises are not noise sensitive and goes on to state that potential impacts from internal noise transmission have been scoped out of the assessment and will not be considered further.

Given the apparent presence of an adjoining dwelling, I consider it fundamental that potential noise impacts through potential noise transference should have been considered, given the clear potential for noise transference.

I consider this particularly important regarding the proposed use, which has the potential to draw more excitement and therefore noise from its patrons than a retail store may do. This is particularly the case given the extensive opening hours that are sought. It would also be the case even on the basis that I was to accept the 1 [name] – [name] – [site address] , 09/07/2025. Appeal Decisions 6002751, 6005071 & 6005069 proposed condition which would limit 24 hour opening for an initial period. [name] note that the [name] team do not appear to object to the proposal, the apparent misidentification of the NSR draws doubt upon the suitability of purpose of the noise assessment as a whole including with regard to its wider conclusions.

There is therefore a significant likelihood that the proposal would give rise to significant adverse impacts on the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers. The proposal would therefore with regard to this main issue conflict with Policy 14 of the LP which amongst other things requires that development should demonstrate how its design supports the delivery of a high quality environment in Hull with regard to the relationship between the development and the surrounding built form in terms of character and use and surrounding uses. There would also be conflict with the Framework2 which amongst other things states that planning decisions should create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The evidence from the Council indicates that the site is within flood zone 3a (i) as identified within Hulls Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and I am advised that change of use applications to a less vulnerable use such as that proposed must submit a Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment (SSFRA) and confirm compliance measures as detailed within [name] 3.

The proposal is accompanied by a SSFRA – July 2025 (second issue) and November 2025 (third issue). Citing the SFRA this identifies that the site is located in an area at risk of flooding to depths ranging 0.30-0.60m which would suggest that [name] 4 of the [name] applies. The Council contend that the site is within an area where flood depths could reach up to 900mm, therefore suggesting that [name] 3 should apply.

My ability to conclude on the correct approach to managing flood risk for this proposal is however limited given that I have not been provided with the SFRA or the mitigation notes. It is therefore hard to assess in definitive terms what mitigation measures could reasonably be required at the site or the correct approach to take at the outset given the lack of information.

Given that is the case, even if I were not dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it would not be possible to condition mitigation measures given this lack of certainty. It is therefore the case that flood risk at the appeal site has not been adequately addressed. The proposal would subsequently conflict with Policy 40 of the LP which states amongst other things that development which requires a Flood Risk Assessment must demonstrate that appropriate flood mitigation and resilience measures have been incorporated into its layout.

Whilst noting changes to the use class order that were made after the adoption of the LP, Policy 12 of the LP amongst other things requires that within local centres change of use to non-A1 uses will be permitted where the proportion of non-A1 ground floor frontage units within the primary shopping area would not exceed 50%. I am advised that were the use of this unit to change as proposed, the 2 National Planning Policy Framework 2024. Appeal Decisions 6002751, 6005071 & 6005069 percentage of units within the relevant area occupied by non-A1 units would stand at 56%, therefore exceeding the policy threshold.

The policy however further advises that where stated proportions would be exceeded, development should demonstrate that it would not undermine the vitality and viability of the centre.

The appellant has submitted a footfall, pedestrian flow and linked trip survey document. This survey includes data relating to three of its premises, including a local example of a site at [address], Hull. Setting aside the [name] store at [address] and the [name] at [address] North, Lowestoft, the surveys demonstrate that Merkur premises have attracted a higher footfall than many of the adjacent units. The survey also indicates that a significant percentage of people visiting the premises stated that they were visiting other shops or services in the centre in which the survey was undertaken.

Ultimately, the evidence before me on this matter provided by the appellant is fuller than that which has been provided by the Council. [name] accept that food stores are likely to drive large footfall, evidence is presented which leads me to believe that permitting this use within this location would not serve to undermine the vitality and viability of the centre given it would likely have a good degree of footfall and would support linked trips. On that basis, I do not find that the proposal would conflict with Policy 12 of the LP.

The Council sets out that they consider an additional adult gaming centre within the area to be harmful to health. It is cited that there is a strong association between deprivation and gambling harm and advise me that the appeal site sits within one of the most deprived wards within Hull and the country as a whole.

I am also advised that Hull has the highest rate of GAMSTOP self-exclusions within the country, which it suggests indicates that the City has a high level of problem gambling on the basis of 2.7% of the City’s population having self-registered with GAMSTOP.

I am further advised that suggested known factors and characteristics which increase the risk of gambling are particularly high within the ward within which the appeal site sits and that problem gambling can also be linked within other factors which are highly prevalent within the ward which includes higher levels of deprivation and poverty, debt and financial insecurity and poor mental health.

All these factors may be prevalent within the ward within which the appeal site sits and I appreciate that harm associated with gambling is a serious matter. However, access to gambling opportunities spreads much wider than would be the case with regard to the provision of one gaming premises at the appeal site and it is probably the case that anyone who wished to gamble would be able to seek out that opportunity either in person at an alternative site or online regardless of whether a gaming centre were in this location or not. There is already a betting office close to the appeal site. For the avoidance of doubt, the combination of the existing betting office and the appeal proposal would not to my mind result in a proliferation in premises offering gambling opportunities. Appeal Decisions 6002751, 6005071 & 6005069

Given the broad nature of the evidence there is nothing therefore that would enable me to conclude with certainty that the provision of an adult gaming centre at this site would cause significant adverse health impacts on the local population or draw conflict with the LP policies as presented to me. There is nothing compelling to suggest the use would undermine the aims of promoting healthy and inclusive neighbourhoods and lifestyles.

I must also note that there does not appear to be any policy within the LP specifically restricting the provision of premises where gambling opportunities would be available.

There would be no conflict with regard to this particular matter with Policy 14 of the LP which amongst other things requires that development should demonstrate how its design supports the delivery of a high quality environment in Hull with regard to the relationship between the development and the surrounding built form in terms of encouraging healthy lifestyles. I have not identified conflict with the Framework with regard to this matter. My attention is also drawn to SPD 14, although this appears to only require a consultation with the EH team. I have taken the comments from the EH team into account when coming to my conclusions.

The Council have advised me that were they to have determined the proposal this appeal relates to, they would have permitted the development given that they consider it would accord with relevant LP policy and guidance.

The significance of this part of the Conservation Area sits largely with the form, scale, layout and detailing of its buildings which have a sense of grandeur and which combine to form a historic district centre.

The proposal would provide a well-considered scheme, the design of which would reflect the more positive characteristics of shop fronts within the area. The ramp would provide wide accessibility to the unit and would form a subtle and normal feature close to such a unit. The proposal would therefore not undermine the significance of the Conservation Area and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

I agree that the proposal would not conflict with policies 14, 15, 16 and 19 of the LP which amongst other things seek good quality design which promotes local distinctiveness and which is appropriate to the character of an area whilst protecting heritage assets.

It is the case that advertisements of various types, forms and designs are common on the street. The advertisements which would include fascia signage and a projecting sign would be externally illuminated and would not be internally illuminated which are a type of advertisement that the Shop front design guide3 seeks to avoid.

Whilst the bracket for the projecting sign would be slim in profile, its clean and simple design is rather modern and the bracket when combined with the trough lighting leads the projecting sign to form rather a heavy feature as a whole. This 3 Spring Bank Conservation Area Shop [name] – June 2024 – Hull City Council. Appeal Decisions 6002751, 6005071 & 6005069 would go against Shop Front Design Guidance which requires that projecting advertisements should be hung from a traditional hanging bracket and be slim in profile4.

[name] note the varied nature of signage within the Conservation Area at present, there appears to be a detailed strategy for improvement in the area which should be activated when the opportunities come about to do so.

The bracket proposed for the hanging sign would therefore undermine the significance of the Conservation Area through the introduction of a nontraditional feature and there would be conflict with the guidance. The advertisement proposed would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area.

The Council has cited Policy 20 of the LP and [name] Guidance5 which amongst other things seek to protect amenity and so are material in this case. The Regulations require that decisions are made only in the interests of amenity and public safety. Consequently, although I have taken these policies into account, they have not been a decisive consideration in my determination of this appeal.

With regard to Appeal B a time limit condition and approved plans condition are necessary. Further conditions relating to materials and accessibility are not necessary as the plans that have been provided are sufficiently detailed in these respects.

I accept that there would be likely to be economic benefits associated with the scheme as a whole including bringing the unit into use and the provision of jobs and I have considered these as benefits in relation to the appeals that are to be dismissed. However, with regard to those schemes, any benefits would not outweigh the harm identified. The scheme under Appeal A would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there is nothing to indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it.

Appeal A should therefore be dismissed, Appeal B should be allowed and Appeal C should be dismissed.