Planning Appeal Case File


?


In the Planning Appeal Case File the Club looks at recent appeal decisions and comments on any significant findings. When planning permission or listed building consent is refused by a local planning authority, the applicant has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State who is represented by the Planning Inspectorate.


However, he objected to the proposal for a deeper and wider extension which took the full width of the rear yard and connected to the fire escape stair on the basis that it would erode a significant part of the outdoor plan form of the house, reducing the legibility of the closet wing.


Existing and proposed architect’s axonometric of the rear of the house


External light well


Appeal against the decision of Brighton and Hove Borough Council to refuse permission for a rear extension at 28b Brunswick Square, Hove. (Q1445/Y/16/3162614 and Q1445/w/16/3162599)


The proposal was for a single-storey rear extension in place of an existing flat-roofed extension. The extension was to extend the full width of the rear yard and would be constructed of timber boarding and roof glazing in a contemporary style. The house is part of Brunswick Terrace which is a Grade I listed building.


The planning inspector identified the key issue in both appeals (planning and listed building consent) to be the effect of the proposed extension on the architectural and historic significance of the listed building and its setting


108 Listed Heritage Magazine September/October 2018 Kitchen/living/dining External courtyard


within the Brunswick Town Conservation Area. He referred to national planning policy which states that in considering proposals for development, great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and observed that ‘the courts have determined that considerable importance and weight should be given to harm found to the significance of listed buildings.’


He noted that the historic plan form of the terrace rooms was clearly visible and that the existing small single storey flat-roofed extension, the inappropriate rear windows, the visually obtrusive fire escape stair and the plumbing were of no architectural interest or merit.


He raised no objection to the demolition of the single storey flat-roofed extension or its replacement on the same footprint.


With respect to the impact of the development on the character of the conservation area, the inspector noted that there were no public views of the rear of the house but there were numerous private windows which overlooked the site from which the harmful effect of the large extension would be apparent.


He concluded that the extension caused harm to the special interest of the listed building and to the character of the conservation area and that, in the balance, the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the harm. As a result he dismissed the appeal and refused to grant planning permission and listed building consent.


LPOC comment: This appeal decision demonstrates the importance that policy places on preserving the plan form of listed buildings externally as well as internally. Good design was recognised by the inspector but not to the extent that it justified the scale or form of the proposed extension.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152