Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 April 2024 by Mr A Spencer-Peet BSc(Hons) PGDip.LP Solicitor (Non Practising) an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 April 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/F0114/W/23/3326744 Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, Bath BA1 3JX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Viney Ltd against the decision of Bath and North East Somerset Council. • The application Ref is: 23/01478/FUL. • The development proposed is the change of use of ground floor and basement from Use Class E(c) (Professional Services) to Use Class C3 (Residential Dwellinghouse). Alterations to fenestration and provision of roof lights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The development plan includes the policies of the Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy (July 2014), the policies of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (July 2017) (the Placemaking Plan), and the policies of the Local Plan Partial Update (2023) (the LPPU). Main Issue 3.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the vitality, viability and diversity of the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached building formerly used as a bank, located within but on the edge of a local centre which is concentrated on Chelsea Road. The submissions indicate that the ground floor is used by an estate agent, with that use falling within Use Class E(c) as confirmed in the description of development included on the planning application. 5. The Council maintains that the appeal scheme would conflict with the requirements of Policy CR3 of the LPPU. However, Policy CR3 of the LPPU seeks to resist the loss of retail floorspace unless it can be demonstrated that a healthy balance and diversity of uses is retained, with concentrations of uses other than retail to be avoided. It is therefore clear that this policy only concerns proposals where there would be a change of use away from retail. Given that, as above, the current use of the appeal building would fall within Use Class E(c) (Professional Services), there would be no loss of retail floorspace.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Consequently, I do not find that the appeal proposal would conflict with the provisions, aims or objectives of Policy CR3 of the LPPU. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Consequently, I do not find that the appeal proposal would conflict with the provisions, aims or objectives of Policy CR3 of the LPPU. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F0114/W/23/3326744 6. Nonetheless, Policy CP12 of the Placemaking Plan which concerns “Centres and Retailing”, stipulates that centres listed within a hierarchy of shopping centres will be maintained and enhanced. That policy further provides that “Uses which contribute to maintaining the vitality, viability and diversity of centres within the hierarchy will be encouraged. Active ground floor uses will be maintained and enhanced”. 7. The appeal building is located within the Chelsea Road area, which the hierarchy identifies as being a ‘Local Centre (Urban)’. Whilst noting that Policy CP12 of the Placemaking Plan, in part, encourages uses which contribute towards the vitality and viability of centres, that policy also requires that such centres will be maintained and enhanced, and which is reinforced by the requirement that active ground floor uses will be maintained and enhanced. Consequently, it is necessary to establish whether the current usage of the appeal building accords with the definition of an ‘active ground floor use’. 8. The adopted LPPU resulted in changes to some of the glossary definitions of terms applied to the development plan.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Amongst other things, the current glossary definition of ‘active ground floor use (within designated centres)’, provides that such uses are generally those falling with Use Classes E(a) and E(b), but this is not a closed list and can also include other town centre uses which are visited by large numbers of people. The glossary definition continues by confirming that residential uses and “offices (Use Class E(g)(i)) would not normally be considered as active uses for ground floors”. 9. As noted above, the current use of the ground floor of the appeal building as an estate agent falls within Use Class E(c). In my view, the types of businesses and services that fall within that use class are suited to town centres locations and typically attract large numbers of visiting members of the public. As such and given that the glossary definition does not specifically state that Use Class E(c) is not normally considered as an active ground floor use, as is the case in terms of Use Class E(g)(i), it is reasonable to consider Use Class E(c) would therefore fall within the definition of ‘active ground floor use’ in terms of the development plan. 10.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision I acknowledge the Appellant’s submissions that the business at the appeal building has not been operating in the same manner as a typical high street estate agent, and currently is not visited by large numbers of people. However, the building is not overtly residential in appearance, maintaining a commercial appearance befitting its former bank use, and it is not how a particular business operates that determines whether the use would fall within the definition of active ground floor use, but rather it is whether the use class, here Use Class E(c), would fall within that definition. 11. It is acknowledged that Policy CP12 of the Placemaking Plan also provides support for higher density residential housing in centres where there is a high level of accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking. However, the appeal scheme is for the conversion of the lower floors of a building to residential. Therefore, the appal scheme cannot be described as higher density housing and as such there is no support for the proposal from CP12 of the Placemaking Plan. 12.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision In summary of the above, the appeal scheme proposes a change from a use in a Use Class that could be reasonably expected to attract large numbers of visiting members of the public to residential, a class of use that the glossary https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision In summary of the above, the appeal scheme proposes a change from a use in a Use Class that could be reasonably expected to attract large numbers of visiting members of the public to residential, a class of use that the glossary https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F0114/W/23/3326744 specifically provides is not normally considered to be an active ground floor use in terms of the development plan policies. Consequently, the appeal proposal would fail to accord with the requirement contained within Policy CP12 of the Placemaking Plan that active ground floor uses, within identified centres, will be maintained. 13. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 14. It has been put to me by the Appellant that the vitality, viability and diversity of the local centre at Chelsea Road would be preserved by the appeal proposal. The Appellant maintains that given how the estate agent business has been operated, there has been a consequent loss of pedestrian footfall to and from the appeal site. As such it is considered that the appeal site has not been contributing to activity levels within the local centre, with the Appellant maintaining that the Chelsea Road local centre has operated successfully for many years without the appeal site contributing to its vitality or viability.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision The Appellant considers that the change of use to residential would result in an increase in pedestrian movements to and from the site when compared to the existing position. 15. The Appellant has further put it to me that there are a number of vacant commercial premises within the Chelsea Road local centre, and that therefore there are opportunities available for new businesses to take up those commercial units. In that regard, it is maintained that this demonstrates that the loss of commercial space at the appeal site would not prohibit new businesses from coming to the Chelsea Road local centre. 16. As I observed on my site visit, there were a very small number of commercial units within the Chelsea Road local centre which were empty or appeared to be in the process of being refurbished for occupation by new businesses. However, I have not been provided with any firm evidence to show that vacancy of units in this area was an appreciable issue. 17.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, whilst it is noted that the Appellant has chosen to operate the business in a manner that does not attract significant footfall, the lawful use of the appeal building has the potential for more active use which is likely to result in a greater level of pedestrian movements when compared to a residential use. The overarching aim of Policy CP12 of the Placemaking Plan is to maintain and enhance centres, and there is no substantive evidence provided by the Appellant to demonstrate that the change of use to residential would maintain, and not adversely affect the vitality or viability, of the local centre. 18. The identified conflict with Policy CP12 of the Placemaking Plan weighs significantly against the appeal proposal. Weighed against that conflict, I accept that the scheme would provide very limited benefits in terms of the contribution of additional housing to local stock in an area where there is convenient access to a range of services and facilities. There would also be very limited short term economic benefits in terms of employment opportunities relating to the conversion of the site to residential, although the employment potential of the site would be lost.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F0114/W/23/3326744 19. The Appellant further considers that the proposed alterations to the front of the building would provide a visual enhancement to the area. The proposed alterations include removing the “no parking” hatch markings within the front courtyard, as well as replacing the current front door opening with a sash window. The Appellant maintains that the replacement of the door with the proposed window would provide a better reflection of the prevailing character of triple bays featured within the surrounding area. 20. The appeal site is located within the Bath Conservation Area (the Conservation Area) and enhancement of the character or appearance of the Conservation Area would be a benefit in favour of the proposed development. In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area in reaching this decision. 21. I have not been provided with the Conservation Area appraisal, and it is noted that the Conservation Area covers a large portion of the city.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Appeal Decision For the purposes of this appeal, I consider that the significance of this part of the Conservation Area predominantly derives from the historic nature and architectural quality of buildings within it. 22. Whilst the replacement of the door with a window opening would result in a triple bay at ground floor, that bay would still replicate the somewhat square like frontage at ground floor that currently exists. The appeal building currently reflects and contributes to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and, as such, the alteration to the ground floor would not result in enhancement. In my view and overall, while I find that the proposed alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, they would not enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Consequently, this matter has neutral weight in the planning balance. Conclusion 23. The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as whole. The limited weight to be attached to the benefits of the appeal scheme would not outweigh the harm resulting from the development plan conflict to which I attach significant weight. 24. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

Viney Ltd, 18 Newbridge Road, BATH, BA1 3JX — Bath and North East Somerset Council — Mr A Spencer-Peet INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4