In dealing with an appeal against the refusal of retrospective planning permission and listed building consent for alterations to a house in Tyneside (DCS Number 400-020-918) an inspector has corrected a couple of common misconceptions.
The inspector acknowledged that the list description was a single entry comprising multiple properties. She explained, however, that “List entries of this kind were a short-hand method allowing a number of buildings with very similar characteristics to be included on the statutory list without the unnecessary duplication of a separate entry for each one. This does not diminish the significance of No 51 as a heritage asset in its own right. It is therefore not possible to infer, as the appellants suggest, that the effect of the appeal scheme should be judged proportionately against the total number of buildings named in the list entry.”
The inspector also noted the appellants’ assertion that it could be seen from the list description that the significance of the heritage asset was described in relation to the frontage features. Again, however, she explained that “..buildings are listed in their entirety. The earlier list descriptions tend to be brief, and it is not uncommon for them to mention only the features of the front elevations, primarily for identification purposes. They are by no means exhaustive records of the significant features of individual assets. Therefore, no inference may be made by the omission of, for example, descriptions of interiors, or other parts of listed buildings.”
The inspector considered that the rendering and replacement doors and windows constituted inappropriate features that were inconsistent with the architectural character of the building, concluding that the harm to the heritage asset was unacceptable.
Section 27.23 of DCP Online concerns alterations to listed buildings.