Appeal 6007804

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans have been submitted with the appeal depicting the replacement of the existing ground floor render finish with brickwork, and the relocation of the bike store to the rear. These plans were however not referenced in the Council’s decision notice and based on the evidence were not considered as part of its assessment of the application. Moreover, no reference to the amended finishing materials is made in the appellant’s statement which maintains that the render conforms to local character. The Council has not provided any comments on the amendments through this appeal. I have therefore considered the appeal solely on the basis of the plans assessed by the Council.

I saw on my site visit that works to the front elevation including rendering of the ground floor frontage and installation of a uPVC window, new front door and a clear canopy have already been carried out. The appeal is thus considered, in part, retrospectively.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed loss of employment space is acceptable, with regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area, including the Bedminster Conservation Area (CA); and • Whether the proposal would provide adequate bicycle storage; and refuse and recycling facilities.

Policy DM12 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (the SADMP) Local Plan document, adopted July 2014 states that employment sites should be retained for employment use unless the development would comply with one of the listed exceptions. This includes, where it can be demonstrated that there is no demand for the employment use.

Policy BCS7 of the Bristol Development Framework Core Strategy [name] 2011 (the [name]) seeks to retain local shopping and service provision in smaller frontages or single shops away from the identified centres where it remains viable and provides an important service to the local community. Policy BCS8 likewise seeks retention of employment land outside of the designated areas where it makes a valuable contribution to the economy and employment opportunities.

Though the evidence suggests the site has been used at least in part as a massage parlour, the application describes the existing use as offices and the planning history reflects this. There is no substantive evidence before me regarding the viability of the use as an office or the contribution of the services provided at the site to the local community, local economy or local employment opportunities.

[name] 2025, the appellant advised that the property had been marketed as an office since January of that year, but this did not yield any market interest. However, no substantiated evidence of marketing activity has been provided. It is thus not clear how the site was marketed, the terms on which it was offered or the total length of time it was available. Moreover, the length of the marketing period may not be sufficient to demonstrate the office use is not viable.

It has therefore not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed loss of employment space would be acceptable, with regard to the relevant provisions of the development plan. The proposal would conflict with Policy DM12 of the SADMP and Policies BCS7 and BCS8 of the [name]. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure that employment and business opportunities are located close to where people live; and to retain important local service provision and locally important employment opportunities where viable.

The appeal site comprises a late-Victorian building set across 3 levels and sits in the middle of a short terrace. It is predominantly finished in a red brick with yellow feature bricks and stone detailing on the upper floors. The ground floor front elevation has been rendered in a grey colour. Windows and doors are white uPVC and there is a transparent canopy over the front door, projecting into the street.

The site is located within the eastern part of the [name], known as the [address] Character Area. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

[address] Character Area is described in the Bedminster Conservation Area Character Appraisal Adopted 12 December 2013 as having an urban character, with buildings predominantly 3-4 storeys in height, on narrow plots, with a common material palette. Key views include those west from [address] to the [name] skyline, and southwest from [address] across to [address] and beyond. The appeal building is identified as a character building, defined as making a positive contribution to the overall character and sense of place, with value in its overall consistency of scale, form and materials.

Though similar render has been used locally, at this site the proposal is inconsistent with the design and finish of the rest of the appeal building and fails to replicate any of the detailing of the original facade. Moreover, the uPVC window, door and clear canopy are unsympathetic to the traditional appearance of the upper floors and the dimensions and alignment of the original openings.

The uPVC frames are ultimately uncharacteristic of the age of the building, and the insertion of a new uPVC window of this nature does not contribute to the prevailing characteristics of the appeal site or surrounding area, nor the enhancement or preservation of the CA. While the front door canopy could be removed through a planning condition, this would not remedy the harm arising from other elements of the development.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area, including the [name]. It would conflict with Policies BCS21 and BCS22 of the [name] and Policies DM26, DM27, DM30 and DM31 of the SADMP. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure development is high quality, contributes positively to an area’s character and identity, creates or reinforces local distinctiveness, reflects locally characteristic architectural styles and the predominant building materials, and will safeguard or enhance heritage assets, including CAs. They also seek to ensure alterations to existing buildings respect the materials, details and overall design and character of the host building and the broader street scene, including by reinstating traditional architectural features and fabric.

With respect to paragraph 215 of the Framework, less than substantial harm would be caused to the significance of the CA, a designated heritage asset. Paragraph 212 of the Framework is clear that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. While the proposal would provide one additional housing unit in the form of a 4-bedroom HMO, this is a limited benefit given the scale and context of the development and insufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

Policy DM32 of the SADMP requires all new development to provide sufficient space in shared housing for shared recycling facilities and refuse bins of sufficient capacity. Refuse and recycling storage should be separate from cycle storage and key circulation areas. Policy DM23 requires development to provide for cyclists, while Policy DM2 indicates that shared housing will not be permitted where the development would harm residential amenity or the character of the locality as a result of inadequate storage for recycling/refuse and cycles.

The proposed floor plans depict a bike store and separate vented bin store located centrally within the ground floor of the HMO and accessed via the hallway. It is not clear however from the floor plans provided whether the proposed internal bin store would be of sufficient size to accommodate the required set of bins. Moreover, access to the bin store would be through the interior hallway, which is the main circulation space. The requirement to carry bins into and out of the property for collection would likely encourage future occupiers to leave them on the pavement, which would cause further harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Likewise, while a condition could be used to secure bike storage to the rear of the site as suggested by the appellant, it is not clear from the plans before me whether the rear garden area would be accessible directly from the street for future occupiers. If not, bikes would also need to be carried through the property to and from the bike store, which would be an inadequate arrangement that would not encourage cycling.

Accordingly, the proposal would fail to provide adequate bicycle storage; and refuse and recycling facilities. It would conflict with Policies DM2, DM23 and DM32 of the SADMP and Policies BSC10 and BSC15 of the Local Plan. These policies, among other provisions, seek to ensure developments provide adequate space for and access to refuse and recycling facilities and maximise opportunities for cycling.

The appellant contends there is a shortage of 8000 homes in Bristol, and the Council is unable to meet its housing requirements. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework indicates that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date.

This includes, for proposals involving the provision of housing, situations where: the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year [name] (HLS); or where the [name] (HDT) indicates that the delivery of housing was less than 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years.

Paragraph 11(d) stipulates that planning permission should be granted in such cases, unless policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. While substantiated HLS and HDT figures have not been provided by either party, Footnote 7 of the Framework confirms that such policies include those relating to designated heritage assets. Given my conclusions on the effect of the proposal on the CA, the heritage policies within the Framework provide a clear reason for refusing the development, and thus the proposal cannot benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development in this case.

The development would conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.