Appeal 6005942

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). As the works proposed have already taken place, the appeal considers the effect of retention of those works.

The Council refers to unauthorised external alterations including erection of a rear shelter and railings. However, as these are not included in the description of development and are not shown on the submitted plans, they do not form part of the appeal scheme considered in this decision. Similarly, as the description refers to the first and second floors, any alterations to the ground floor rooms are not taken into account in this decision. Appeal Decision 6005942 and 6005944

The main issues are the effect of the works, that have been completed, on the special architectural and historic interest of the [name] listed building known as “[address]” (Ref: 1287202) (the LB), and the extent to which it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area (the CA).

The CA comprises the historic market town centre of Dudley. Key features include its surviving medieval street pattern, together with a wide range of building styles and ages that illustrate the evolution of the town including during its industrial heyday and as a civic and commercial hub. Accordingly, I find that the significance of the CA, insofar as it relates to these appeals, to be primarily associated with its range of buildings of architectural and historic interest and their role in demonstrating the historic functions of the market town. The appeal building is a valuable element of the CA in comprising a notable historic building in a prominent location. It thus makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

From my site visit it was apparent that the extent to which the appeal scheme is appreciable from the public realm is highly limited. Moreover, that the temporary living accommodation is not harmful to the character of the CA given that first and second storey residential accommodation is not an unusual feature for a town centre building such as this. Accordingly, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole is preserved.

The LB is described as being Regency and is of three storeys. It occupies a corner plot, fronting on to [address] but at the junction with [address]. Its front elevation has three sash windows to the first and second floors, with those on the first floor in moulded architraves. It has a moulded stone doorcase on slim columns and 3-light bay windows to either side. A two-storey wing adjoins to the left hand side. Its side elevation on [address] has three sash windows to ground and first floor, with two at second floor level. Internally, the building retains much of its historic floor plan. Many of its original features have been lost, however there are some examples of historic cornicing and fireplaces remain in situ, some of which appear to have been boxed in.

In addition, the room identified as bedroom 3 on the submitted plans has segmental arched headed niches to either side of its fireplace, one of which is currently visible and the other is partially hidden by the appeal scheme. These features also contribute to an understanding of the building’s significance. Given the above, I find that the special interest of the LB, insofar as it relates to these appeals, to be primarily associated with its historic plan form and surviving internal features that are characteristic of a Regency building.

With respect to the internal alterations to the LB, the appeal scheme comprises the conversion of its first and second floor rooms to temporary living accommodation. This has primarily involved the addition of en-suite bathrooms achieved by the installation of partition walls in the corner of each bedroom. The ensuite bathrooms are modest in size relative to each room such that I consider the historic room proportions remain evident. It appears that the rooms marked as bedroom 1 and 2 were previously accessible from one another. However, I am not persuaded that Appeal Decision 6005942 and 6005944 the current separation of those rooms, one of which is within the side extension to the building, harms the building’s significance.

The bathroom partitions have generally been installed around historic features such as cornicing, beams and fireplaces meaning that these features remain in situ. I see no reason to doubt that where this has occurred the works would be reversible. Nonetheless, while the bathroom walls remain in place, they detract from the ability to appreciate these historic features, particularly where the bathroom wall has been cut round the profile of the fireplace, for example in bedroom 5. In addition, some features have been wholly obscured. For example, the bathroom in bedroom 3 obscures one of a pair of arched headed niches. Also, evidence before me indicates that a fireplace in the second-floor room now marked as an office has been subsumed by an ensuite bathroom, to the extent that it is no longer visible.

In addition, the materials used in the bathroom partitioning are of varying quality. For example, in bedroom 5 the bathroom walls have a glossy finish with silver flecks and chrome effect corner strips. Consequently, the materials used to construct the walls of that bathroom appear alien in the context of this historic building. Also, the positioning of the walls relative to the fireplace, which it partially obscures, further detracts from the ability to appreciate its characteristic features.

Given the above, I find that the appeal scheme harms the special interest of the LB. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification.

Given the scope of the works to the interior of the building, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The appellant is of the opinion that the proposal is beneficial because it increases the choice of accommodation available in Dudley by providing for the specific housing needs of people requiring short term living space while working in the area. Given the limited number of bedrooms provided, the benefit of this provision is modest and the extent to which it reduces pressure on permanent housing stock is also limited. The occupation of those rooms on a temporary basis likely provides limited benefits to the local economy through increased spending. Given the short-term nature of the accommodation, the extent to which its occupants help sustain local services is likely to be very modest. There would have been small economic benefits associated with its conversion. It also makes use of an existing building in a sustainable location. Even so, given the scale of the proposal the combination of these benefits attracts only modest weight.

I recognise the challenges to the hospitality sector and therefore to the ongoing viability of the public house at the appeal site. The appellant submits that the pub has not made a profit since opening in 2013 and no substantive evidence is before Appeal Decision 6005942 and 6005944 me to the contrary. However, there is a lack of evidence of any alternative uses that might support the viability of the public house in a way that is less harmful to its significance. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the proposal represents the optimum viable use for the building.

Moreover, as it is for temporary accommodation without kitchen facilities or living space for its occupants, I find that it does not meet the day-to-day needs necessary for it to be considered private living accommodation. Therefore, it does not contribute to the Council’s housing land supply and the so-called tilted balance as set out in paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework does not apply here.

Accordingly, I find that the public benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified to the listed building in this instance. Given the above and in the absence of public benefits that outweigh the harm caused, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal fails to preserve the special historic interest of the [name] listed building. For the reasons given, with respect to its effect on the CA it does not conflict with Policy S9 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (March

and Policy 22 of the Dudley Area Action Plan (March 2017), both of which address conservation areas. This is a neutral consideration.

However, given the absence of sufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm to the listed building, the proposal as a whole fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210(a) of the Framework. It also conflicts with Policy ENV2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (February 2011), Policies S8 and S10 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy, and Policy 21 of the Dudley Area Action Plan. These seek, among other things, to ensure that proposals are designed to respect the historic environment.

Dismissing this appeal may put at risk the occupation of the accommodation by any current residents. This would represent an interference with their rights under Article 8 of the [name] on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life) as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998. However, these rights are not unfettered and can be interfered with by a public authority in accordance with law in a number of circumstances.

In this case, there is a legitimate and established planning policy aim to protect the listed building. No case has been made that the personal circumstances of any existing occupants requires them to remain in the accommodation, which is any way said to be let on a temporary, short-term basis. As such, I attach greater weight to the public interest. Dismissal of the appeal is proportionate and so it would not result in a violation of the residents’ human rights.

With regard to Appeal A, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations that outweigh that conflict. Consequently, given the above and considering all other matters raised, the appeals should be dismissed.