Appeal 6005551

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal has been accompanied by additional evidence, including a sequential test and an acoustic assessment, which were not before the Council at the time of its decision. However, having regard to the relevant procedural guidance, I have taken this material into account. It relates directly to the reasons for refusal, has been available to all parties during the course of the appeal, and has been considered by the Council in its submissions. I am therefore satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by its inclusion.

I have adopted the description of development used on the Council’s decision notice and in the appellant’s statement, as this more accurately reflects the proposal before me. Some of the physical alterations forming part of the development have already been carried out, including external rendering, alterations to the garage gable elevation and boundary treatment. The proposal is therefore part retrospective. The rear canopy shown on the submitted plans was not present at the time of my site visit. Nevertheless, as it remains on the plans, it forms part of the scheme which I have determined.

The appellant has indicated a willingness to amend aspects of the proposal, including the boundary treatments. My site visit also showed that additional works to the shopfront have been carried out which are not reflected in the submitted plans. However, as those amendments do not form part of the formal application before me, they have not been taken into account.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal accords with the sequential approach for main town centre uses having regard to national and local policy; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance.

The proposal comprises a retail use which falls within the definition of a main town centre use. The site lies approximately 250 metres from the nearest defined local centre and is therefore in an edge-of-centre location.

Policy CS4 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1: [name] (2016) requires proposals for main town centre uses outside centres to demonstrate that no sequentially preferable sites are available and that the development would not undermine the vitality and viability of existing centres or the Council’s regeneration strategy. This is consistent with section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

A sequential test has been submitted which considers a number of local centres. Whilst its scope reflects earlier discussions with the Council, this does not in itself demonstrate compliance with Policy CS4.

The assessment is constrained by relatively narrow floorspace parameters derived from the appeal proposal. Whilst some flexibility is applied, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal could not reasonably be accommodated at alternative sites through variation in scale or format.

Furthermore, the treatment of potentially suitable sites within defined centres lacks robustness. At least one site appears to have been discounted on the basis of floorspace assumptions that are not clearly evidenced. The Council has identified discrepancies in these figures, and the information before me does not demonstrate that such sites would be unsuitable.

The geographic scope of the assessment is also limited, without clear justification. The proposal is for a general retail use and there is no compelling evidence that it has specific locational requirements. The approach taken appears to be influenced by the appeal site rather than the policy objective of directing development to the most central locations.

I have had regard to the appellant’s intention to relocate an existing business from nearby premises. However, the sequential test is concerned with the availability of suitable sites and the protection of existing centres, not the commercial preferences of an individual operator. The schemes are not linked in planning terms, and the loss of one out-of-centre retail unit does not justify the creation of another.

Given the proximity of local and district centres serving the area, I am not persuaded that the proposal would not undermine the Council’s strategy of directing retail activity to those areas.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal fails to accord with the sequential approach for main town centre uses and conflicts with Policy CS4 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1 and the Framework.

The site lies within a predominantly residential area characterised by terraced housing with some variation in materials and treatment. It is not particularly sensitive or strongly unified townscape.

The proposed canopy would be a substantial structure covering most of the rear yard. Although open sided, the upper part of the structure would be visible from the street and would form an awkward junction with the existing outbuilding due to the marked difference in eaves heights. Its scale and utilitarian appearance would introduce an overtly commercial feature that would be at odds with the surrounding residential context. It would reinforce the perception of the site as a service or operational yard to the detriment of local character, notwithstanding it is not in a conservation area. Whilst the appellant indicates that the canopy has been removed from the site, it remains part of the submitted scheme. In the absence of amended plans, I have assessed its effects and found that it would be harmful.

I do not, however, share the Council’s concerns regarding the remaining external alterations. The application of painted render, whilst altering the appearance of the building, does not in this instance appear incongruous given the varied character of the area. The treatment of the former garage opening as a plain elevation reads as a simple domestic gable typical of ancillary structures and is not harmful to the street scene. The metal gates at the rear are limited in extent and set between built form. Although more utilitarian than typical domestic boundary treatments, they are not visually dominant or intrusive. The repositioning of the internal staircase would have limited visibility through the shopfront and would not materially affect the external appearance of the building.

Whilst the majority of the external alterations would not harm the character or appearance of the area, the canopy represents a distinct and harmful element of the proposal. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policies CS7 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 1 and DM17 and DM20 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (2023), which collectively seek high quality design that responds to local character.

Local residents have raised concerns regarding noise and disturbance. However, the submitted acoustic assessment concludes that, subject to mitigation, noise effects would remain within acceptable levels.

Whilst some increase in activity is likely, there is no substantive evidence before me that unacceptable harm would arise. Conditions relating to opening hours, deliveries and sound insulation could reasonably address potential effects.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance, and would comply with Policy DM36 of the Blackpool Local Plan Part 2 in this regard. Policy DM5 relates to conversions to residential use so is not directly applicable in this case.

The site is in an accessible location and the highway authority raises no objection. Whilst there may be some localised inconvenience arising from the absence of on-site parking, this is not determinative.

I have noted the potential improvements to the energy efficiency of the building arising from the proposed upgrades, although it appears that some of these measures may already have been implemented. In any event, this matter carries very limited weight.

Matters such as property values, business competition and the retrospective nature of some works do not materially affect the planning merits of the case.

The proposal would introduce a main town centre use in an edge-of-centre location without demonstrating compliance with the sequential approach. This represents a fundamental conflict with the development plan and carries substantial weight.

In addition, the canopy would harm the character and appearance of the area, which attracts moderate weight.

Although there would be no unacceptable harm to living conditions and there are limited benefits associated with the proposal, these considerations do not outweigh the identified harm and conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.