# 406-410 Beverley Road, Kingston upon Hull - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Hunter - **Authority:** Kingston upon Hull (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009228 - **Application reference:** 25/01099/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of metal fencing and canvas canopies (attached and free-standing) and proposed metal storage racking to a shop forecourt - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3, TR6(4), S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 Policies 14, 15, 16, 19, 26, 28, Beverley Road CA Appraisal and Management Plan 2025 - **Main issues:** conservation area, highway safety, inclusive access, crime - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tc2-substantial-weight ## Summary Retrospective shop canopies, a free-standing canopy and proposed storage racking on the forecourt of a three-unit shop in the Beverley Road Conservation Area, Hull. The appeal was dismissed on conservation-area harm (HE6) and highway safety (TR6(4)). The S4 presumption was displaced through S4(2)(c) because DP3 and TR6 were treated as policies saying development "should be refused". ## Issues and findings - **Heritage (HE6): HARM.** The canopies' "bold colour, siting, scale and forward projection make them highly visible in the streetscene" and the free-standing canopy "is a wholly discordant feature in the CA" (DL ¶11). Benefits were given limited weight: "it is unclear why canopies of an appropriate and traditional design … could not be installed … to secure these same or similar benefits" (DL ¶16). - **Highway safety (TR6(4), TR4(1)(c)): FAIL.** The dropped kerb was retained and there was a "reasonable prospect" of forecourt parking (DL ¶21). The inspector gave the absence of accident data "little weight" (DL ¶23). - **Inclusive access and crime:** no harm, subject to a layout condition (DL ¶26-31). ## Planning balance TC2 and L2 substantial weight, plus S3/S4, were on the benefit side (DL ¶35). "Policy S4 criterion 2 c. states that failing to comply with one of the national decision-making policies that state development proposals should be refused, is likely to mean the benefits of a proposal are outweighed … the conflict with Policy DP3 … the unacceptable highway safety impacts and conflict with Policy TR6 …, that both state development should be refused, along with the conflict with Policy HE6, strongly indicate to me that the benefits … including the substantial weights set out above … are outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The CA management plan specifically targets unauthorised canopies, and the retained dropped kerb created a credible parking risk on a busy road. Two "should be refused" policies (DP3, TR6) engaged S4(2)(c). Once that happened, the TC2 substantial weight could not rescue the scheme. Traditional-design canopies would probably have avoided the heritage objection. ## Transferable points - DP3 and TR6(4) are both "should be refused" policies for S4(2)(c) purposes (DL ¶36). - TC2 substantial weight for local shops does not survive S4(2)(c) engagement (DL ¶35-36). - Benefits get limited weight where a less harmful design could deliver them (DL ¶16). - The inspector did not state whether the S4 test was met as "substantially" outweighed; the letter says "outweighed" (DL ¶36). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm.** canopies and racking fail to preserve the CA; business-viability and active-frontage benefits given limited weight and do not outweigh (DL 15-17) - **DP3: conflict.** fails to respond to history and character of the terrace (DL 18) - **TR6(4): fail.** retained dropped kerb, small forecourt parking and supports near pavement edge beside a cycle lane on a busy road - unacceptable highway safety impact (DL 20-24) - **TC2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to supporting town-centre vitality and local shops, and L2 better use of land (DL 35) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 and TR6 treated as "should be refused" policies; with HE6 conflict, benefits outweighed (DL 36) ## Key facts - Three terraced shop units in the Beverley Road CA, operated as one shop; canopies in situ, racking not yet installed as per plans - Railings found not harmful (neutral); crime and inclusive-access objections not upheld (condition possible) - Retained dropped kerb opposite Grafton Street junction; cycle lane at kerb, bus lane opposite ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009228 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9c928bb5-3f99-4d66-a140-437e38320b94 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009228.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.