Just in time for Christmas but still nearly 6 months longer than it should have taken! Two HMOs in Hove with internal works that do not constitute 'development'! Even after obtaining legal advice, BHCC insist that the percentage loss of un-contained units is not lawful development. Despite knowing we are correct in our advise, the plans had to be amended reducing the number of flats with a higher percentage of studio/bedsits retained. Fortunately we received the Certificate which ensure lawfulness of self-containment but a revisit at a later date! Partial success.
PINS bring christmas cheer to an Appellant awaiting the outcome of the decision for an additional floor improving her living accommodation. Being on the top floor of a flat in a small 1960s block with a small floor plate, the only option was to go up! After an encouraging pre-app, formal planning permission was refused.
Eimear assisted the client in moving an appeal forward and on 10/12/13, the decision notice arrives - appeal upheld.
The Inspector considered the existing arrangements between building heights created a visually 'jarring discord' which the appeal proposal would improve. In sharing the views expressed in the appeal statement, the Inspector considered that:
' … the small addition would improve the visual relationship between the block and the adjacent residential building and contribute to the character of the area, enhancing its significance, through a more appropriate stepping in height …' .
'I conclude that the development would not harm the appearance of the appeal property or the block of flats if forms part of … the improved relationship with the adjacent Victorian building would enhance the character or appearance of the West Hill Conservation Area' .
To note - the scheme was designed by Atkins Blair Ings Richardson Architects.
The Appeal decision can be viewed at: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.6072795&NAME=/DECISION.pdf