Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 30 October 2012
by John Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 21 November 2012
Appeal Ref: APP/Y2620/A/12/2175559
57 Church Street, Cromer, Norfolk NR27 9HH
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Iceland Foods Ltd against the decision of North Norfolk District
Council.
The application Ref PF/11/1082, dated 26 August 2011, was refused by notice dated
11 November 2011.
The development proposed is replacement shopfront.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. I have been referred to PPS5, Planning for the Historic Environment. However,
it has since been replaced by the National Planning Policy Framework and,
therefore, I have considered the appeal in the context of current national
planning policy.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the
character or appearance of Cromer Conservation Area.
Reasons
4. My attention is drawn to recent linked appeal decisions1 concerning the existing
shopfront of the appeal building. Given the relevance of those decisions to the
current appeal I have had regard to them and refer to them where appropriate.
5. No 57 is a two-storey building located on the south side of Church Street,
within both Cromer Town Centre and Conservation Area. Church Street is a
main shopping street and includes mainly two-storey buildings of various ages
and architectural styles, predominantly in retail and commercial uses at street
level. The large Parish Church, which is in the centre of the Conservation Area,
stands close by to the north-east.
1
APP/Y2620/C/10/2122581, APP/Y2620/A/10/2122529 and APP/Y2620/H/10/2122549, dated 11 October 2010.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/12/2175559
6. While this part of the Conservation Area includes buildings of various ages,
including a number of modern buildings adjacent to No 57, I share the view of
the Inspector who determined the previous appeals that it forms a coherent
and contiguous part of the Area as a whole. Moreover, I agree that it is in a
prominent location on one of the main routes through the town centre for
pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
7. The Council accepts that the re-positioned sign in the centre of the fascia would
improve the symmetry of the frontage. While I agree that the proposed
position of the sign above the central structural column would be an
improvement, this does not overcome the concerns expressed by the Inspector
who determined the earlier appeals, which I share, that the subdivision of the
shopfront and the disposition of glazing either side of the central column give
an unbalanced appearance to the ground floor façade. This is in contrast to the
uniformity of the windows at first floor level and this unbalanced appearance
would be exacerbated by the proposed picture frames on the stallriser, which
would serve to underscore the lack of symmetry that currently exists to the
frontage.
8. I note the appellant’s contention that a second ‘dummy’ recess, which had
been raised in discussions with the Council, would not be practicable for
operational reasons. However, such a feature is not part of the proposal before
me, which I must consider as submitted. My attention is drawn by the
appellant to appeal decisions2 for a shopfront proposal within a Conservation
Area in Great Malvern. I accept that this is similar in some respects to this
case, in that the doorway was positioned to one side of the frontage and the
Inspector considered the centrally positioned fascia sign and strong central
pilaster to be positive features. He also found that the width and rhythm of the
glazing panels acceptably responded to the upper level fenestration. However,
on this last point both the previous Inspector who dealt with the appeals in this
case and I have found differently in regard to the effect on No 57 and its
setting. For this reason, and as I do not have the details of the specific
proposal in Great Malvern before me or the wider context within which it was
set, I have given this matter limited weight.
9. The addition of posts and panels to and around the entrance door, the
proposed timber cornice on the fascia and the picture frames are all intended
to address the lack of depth to the frontage. While I acknowledge these would
add some detailing to the current shopfront, which I agree with the Inspector
who determined the earlier appeals is currently of a flat and featureless design,
these would appear somewhat contrived additions, rather than an integral part
of an overall coherent approach to address this issue.
10. The existing fascia is much deeper than those on any of the surrounding
buildings, including the modern neighbouring shopfronts, and appears as a
visually dominant feature that is out of proportion with the remainder of the
façade. In my view, for the reason already given, the addition of the timber
cornice would have a limited effect in overcoming these concerns. The
appellant contends that it is not possible to reduce the fascia’s depth because it
covers internal ducting above the shop’s ceiling. While I accept that this issue
needs to be addressed, I am unaware of any other design solutions that might
2
APP/J1860/A/09/2111695 and APP/J1860/H/09/2111699, dated 8 April 2010.
2
Appeal Decision APP/Y2620/A/12/2175559
have been considered, and therefore give this matter limited weight in the
context of the current proposals before me.
11. The appellant asserts that the frontage of the building’s previous retail use did
not make a positive contribution to the area’s character and appearance. As
concluded by the Inspector in the earlier appeals, I consider that this is not a
good reason for permitting a replacement shopfront that harms the
Conservation Area.
12. I have had regard to the assertion that recent decisions in relation to the
shopfront have placed an unnecessary burden on the appellant and are
contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the
recent Portas review of town centres. However, I note that the Council’s Core
Strategy was adopted in September 2008 and that the relevant policies relied
upon in this case are not at odds with the new Framework. Moreover, neither
the national Framework nor the review referred to has changed the statutory or
policy requirements for assessing the effects of development on the character
or appearance of a Conservation Area, which is the main issue in this case.
13. I acknowledge that the appeal building’s current use provides local employment
and a good service for residents, and the appellant’s assertion that retail uses
need to be encouraged to avoid vacancies. I note also the results of an opinion
poll about the shopfront by a local newspaper. However, all these matters
need to be weighed against the above findings and, while I have had full regard
to them, none of these matters are sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have
found with regard to the proposal’s effects.
14. Accordingly, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause
unacceptable harm to Cromer Conservation Area and so would not preserve its
character or appearance. As such it is contrary to the following policies in the
North Norfolk Core Strategy: EN4, which requires all development to be
designed to a high quality; and EN8, which requires development proposals to
preserve or enhance the character and appearance of designated historic
assets.
15. Where there is a harmful effect on the significance of a heritage asset which is
less than substantial harm, which would apply in this case, the National
Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 134) requires the public benefit of the
proposal to be weighed against the harm. While the appellant refers to the
importance of the economic and retail benefits of the use to which this proposal
relates, in this case these do not outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area
from the proposed development that has been identified.
Conclusion
16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, it is
concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.
John Bell-Williamson
INSPECTOR
3