The appellant suggested that the council’s decision was made purely on policy grounds and that, whilst the use was contrary to the letter of the development plan, it was not contrary to its aims. The inspector did not agree. He noted that the officer’s report also expressed concern that the development might set a precedent for further changes of use, and that it might lead to difficulties in letting premises for such uses in secondary frontages. The council did also take into account the current economic climate, he noted, but based their decision on the assertion that the city had a low retail vacancy rate and that there was no history of premises within the primary shopping frontages being difficult to let. If correct, the inspector remarked, changes of use could reduce the attractiveness of the city centre as a whole as a place for retail investment.
The appellant stated that a nearby unit was let as a sweet shop which, it was contended, was in a style and type more consistent with a secondary shopping frontage. A hairdresser’s and a charity shop were also pointed out. The inspector acknowledged that these might represent changes reflecting the current economic climate but they were all retail uses.
He took into account that the business provided a useful service to visitors to the nearby cathedral, maintained the appearance of a listed building and so preserved its character and the overall quality of the street scene. However, neither these factors nor the circumstances pertaining to the nearby premises, were sufficient to outweigh the aims of the development plan.
Inspector Keith Turner; Written representations
