Appeal 6005468

The appeal is dismissed.

In its first reason for refusal the Council alleges that the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area. Although that reason does not refer to the impact on heritage assets, the site falls within the St. Anne’s Conservation Area (‘the SACA’), and numerous representations at application stage, allege that its character and appearance would be harmed. I have framed the first main issue accordingly, and I have considered the scheme against, amongst other things, the planning policies cited in those representations and in the officer report.

My second main issue reflects the concerns raised in representations regarding the impact of the scheme on nearby occupiers’ living conditions.

My third main issue reflects the Council’s second reason for refusal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host building and the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the SACA; • nearby occupiers’ living conditions, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and • the convenience of highway users, with particular regard to on-street parking. Appeal Decision: 6005468

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Policy EN6 of the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 (2020) (‘SKLP’) says that the Council will seek to protect and enhance heritage assets and their settings in keeping with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’).

Section 16 of the Framework sets out that in determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. It says that the level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance, and that, as a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. It continues that great weight shall be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, such as conservation areas, and that harm to their significance requires clear and convincing justification.

The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should also be taken into account in determining an application. The Framework says that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The appellant states that a comprehensive planning application package was prepared. However, although the Design and [name] (‘DAS’) states that it includes a description of the key issues and constraints which informed the proposal, and that it followed a detailed analysis of the site and its local context, neither it, nor the other application documents, refer to the SACA, and there was no assessment of the conservation area’s significance, or the impact of the proposal on it. Additionally, although the DAS states that the host building has significant architectural merit, there is no evidence of a consideration as to whether it could be considered a heritage asset, despite the fact that it is so described at [name] of the Grantham Townscape Assessment.

Having regard to the [name]. Anne’s Conservation Area Appraisal (‘the CAA’), the submitted documents including the appellant’s statement (‘the AS’), and my observations, the northern part of the SACA includes substantial buildings, large areas of open space and many fine trees. The stretch of [address] close to its junction with [address] is characterised by large buildings, some, including the host, dating from the Victorian/Edwardian period, which are set back from the highway on spacious plots amongst trees and landscaping. The urban grain becomes denser and less verdant further to the south. This part of the SACA is largely residential and, other than passing traffic, it had a tranquil ambiance at the time of my visit. These characteristics all contribute to its significance.

The host is a grand building, two to three storeys high to the front and three to four storeys to the rear, which sits centrally within a sloping plot behind a low wall and a hedgerow, with large trees visible through the gaps to its sides. It is finished predominantly in red brick and slate. Its well-ordered and symmetrical front face Appeal Decision: 6005468 includes features typical of its era, such as arched and bay windows, contrasting string courses, and ornamental masonry and ridge tiles. I understand that the buildings at this end of [address] were designed to house managers associated with the town’s industrial works and they therefore contribute to an understanding of the area’s history and evolution. For these reasons I consider the host to be a non-designated heritage asset which makes a positive contribution to the streetscene and to the SACA.

The proposal would include the subdivision of the front-facing ground floor lounges to provide bedrooms, with internal dividers reaching the centre point of the bay windows. I have no detailed drawings to show how that would be carried out but, whilst the elevation plan shows that it would retain the front elevation’s symmetry, I have concerns that it would appear clumsy and awkward in the streetscene, and that it would disrupt the existing fairly characteristic fenestration pattern whereby the windows diminish in scale going up through the building.

I have been provided with few details of other items, associated with the proposed use, that may be needed to comply with HMO licencing requirements or to address security measures, some of which are listed in the DAS or are suggested by [name]. This includes motion sensor lighting, alarms, CCTV and secured windows and doors. Such measures could have a harmful impact and, as noted in the CAA, cumulative alterations to properties which make a positive contribution to the area can harm the SACA as a whole.

The DAS states that the bin stores would be to the rear of the building rather than to the front where it acknowledges they can have an adverse impact on amenity. However, the site plan shows that they would be behind the parking areas close to the site frontage. Contrary to the claim in the DAS, there is no route through to a private road called [address] to the rear from where bins could be collected.

It is stated that the store would be a timber enclosure, but I have no details. Whilst the appellant says that the design of refuse storage areas is a matter routinely and appropriately dealt with by means of a planning condition, there are inconsistencies in this proposal, and I have concerns that in their depicted positions the bin stores and the proposed cycle stores, could have a utilitarian appearance which would harmfully impact the SACA in these prominent locations.

As noted by the Council and local residents, there is also very limited information regarding the bins’ size or number, and whether they would be sufficient for the intended use, with appropriate provision for recycling. Should the bin stores be insufficient, this could result in bins being left elsewhere, or the spillage of refuse beyond those areas, adding to the harmful visual impact.

Based on the proposed site plan, the northernmost bin store would be located close to a tree, which I observed to be a tall and visually attractive specimen, that contributes to the streetscene and to the verdant character of this part of the SACA. The Council’s Tree Officer also states that the proposal may necessitate the removal of a tree, although it is unclear which tree is being referred to. As the application was not accompanied by a tree survey or an arboricultural impact assessment, I share the concerns that it is not possible to adequately assess the proposal’s impact on trees, including their canopies and root systems. I cannot therefore be reasonably certain that trees which make a positive contribution to the SACA would not be harmed. Appeal Decision: 6005468

An appraisal of a conservation area’s character typically includes an assessment of how it feels and how it is experienced. I noted the area’s generally tranquil character at the time of my visit, and I understand that the former 14 bedroom care home was occupied by up to about 15 or 17 residents.

The number of people living in the building would significantly increase as a result of this scheme and, unlike a care home, the residents would typically lead independent and active lifestyles. In the absence of a detailed assessment of the SACA, including a comparison of the building’s former and proposed uses, I am unable to reach a firm conclusion regarding the impact on the proposal on its character, including from noise and activities, along with the comings and goings of residents and visitors.

The proposed removal of short, low sections of hedgerow behind the retained front boundary wall would not harm the character of the area, and neither would slightly extending the existing hardstanding parking area to one side of the building.

However, for the above reasons, and having regard to the statutory duty, I am not persuaded that the scheme would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the SACA. It would also cause harm, albeit limited, to the host building as a non-designated heritage asset.

The scheme would therefore conflict with SKLP Policy EN6, along with the more general requirements in SKLP Policy DE1 for high quality design which makes a positive contribution to local distinctiveness, vernacular and character, and which requires the retention of important features such as trees.

In accordance with the Framework, the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset is a matter to which I attribute great weight. However, in the language of the Framework, and having regard to the limited changes to the external appearance of the building and in the context of the SACA as a whole, the harm caused would be less than substantial. I will later weigh that harm against the scheme’s public benefits.

The proposed bin stores would abut the side boundaries of the plot, close to the main entrance doors and side facing habitable room windows at 4 and [address]. Whilst a modest degree of disturbance from householders putting refuse into storage bins is inevitable in many residential environments, given the large number of occupants leading individual lifestyles in these proposed HMOs, and the proximity of those bin stores to those adjacent houses, I share the concerns expressed by local residents that the scheme would result in harmful noise and disturbance as a result of frequent visits to those areas, along with potential odours. Such impacts could be even greater if the proposed stores were inadequate to meet the needs of the occupants.

The historical photographs at page 24 of the AS showing a few bins informally scattered in various locations between the side walls of the host and the plot boundaries provide limited evidence of the former arrangement when the building was a care home. However, in general they depict the bins positioned further from neighbouring doors and windows compared to this proposal. Appeal Decision: 6005468

For these reasons, and based on the available evidence, the proposal would have a harmfully adverse impact on adjacent occupiers’ living conditions. It would thereby conflict with that part of SKLP Policy DE1 which requires development proposals to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses in terms of matters including noise.

The Council’s second reason for refusal states, amongst other things, that the application was accompanied by insufficient evidence to assess the impact of the proposal on on-street parking. Page 28 of the AS refers to the results of a parking survey, which was undertaken after the application was determined. However, I have not been provided with that survey, and whilst the results show how many cars were parked on [address] on three occasions, they do not show how many spaces were available.

At the time of my visit on a weekday morning there were very few on-road parking spaces available. Whilst that represents a snapshot in time, local residents attest to high parking pressure on [address], and I have no reason to believe that my experience was atypical.

That said, as evidenced at page 12 of the AS, the site is located within very easy walking distance of Grantham Town Centre, which has a wide range of facilities and services, along with public transport connections to destinations elsewhere. This is not therefore a location where the residents would necessarily require a private car to access employment or to meet their day-to-day needs. The scheme would also include two cycle stores to encourage alternative modes of transport.

In that context, and as the former use would have attracted some parking requirement by visitors and staff, I am not persuaded that the 8 off-road parking spaces would be significantly deficient for the proposed use, or that it would result in a harmful increase in parking pressures on [address] and adjacent streets.

Whilst SKLP Policy DE1, which is referred to in the Council’s second reason for refusal, does not address the highways impact of proposals, on this issue the scheme would not conflict with SKLP Policy ID2 which directs development to locations where travel can be minimised and sustainable transport modes maximised, and which requires development to make appropriate provision for cycle parking and to not severely impact the safety and movement of traffic.

The scheme was recommended for approval by officers, and the decision was contrary to representations from the Council’s Conservation Officer and from Lincolnshire County Council as local highway authority. However, whilst I have found that the scheme would not have a harmfully adverse impact on the convenience of highway users, matters of design and the impact on the character and appearance of an area involve a planning judgement, and Councillors are not bound to follow the advice of their officers. Moreover, I have also found that significant information was absent from the planning application.

In its favour, the scheme would have economic benefits as a result of increases in town centre spending and Council Tax revenue, and it would make an effective use of a sustainably located, vacant building. It would also provide relatively affordable Appeal Decision: 6005468 accommodation, and would help to address the Framework’s requirement to meet the needs of different groups in the community.

However, this scheme is not necessarily the only way in which those, or similar benefits, could be achieved, and I have very limited evidence before me regarding the need for HMO accommodation in the area. I therefore attribute those benefits limited weight in my overall planning balance.

The Council acknowledges that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, as required by the Framework. Given that the proposal would make a modest contribution of two units to its housing supply, I attach moderate weight to that benefit.

I have found that the scheme was accompanied by very limited information regarding its impact on heritage assets. On the basis of the available evidence, I have concluded that it would cause limited harm to the character and appearance of the host building, which is a non-designated heritage asset, and that it would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the SACA. It would also fail to appropriately protect adjacent occupiers’ living conditions.

Given that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by Framework paragraph 72, those development plan policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out of date, and its paragraph 11d) is engaged. This sets out that permission should be granted unless at i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

The harm caused to this designated heritage asset is a matter to which I have attributed great weight. [name] have identified modest public benefits as a result of the proposal, having regard to Framework paragraph 215, they would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to it. The harm to that asset therefore provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan, and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, including representations by interested parties, the appeal is dismissed.