Appeals

Latest Jobs

UREGNT DC PLANNER - SUSSEX: up to £25 (£47K)
Associate Town Planner- London: Other International; £40000-£45000
Senior Urban Designer vacancy- London, Euston: Other International; £50000-£55000
Town Planner vacancy, London, W1: Other International; £35000-£40000
Planning Officer: Scotland; £23,417 - £31,843
Senior Planner/Urban designer: North West England; Upto £35K +attractive benefits
DC Team Leader - Essex - Urgent: East of England; £negotiable
Principal Planner - London - Urgent: North London
Development Control Planner: South East England; £17,154 - £28,919 pro rata
Associate Planner - EIA Experience: Central London; Up to 46K + Benefits

DC Casebook: In depth - Removal of temporary structure ordered on visual harm grounds

Community facilities

Planning, 16 May 2008

An inspector has refused to accept the retention of a portable building used by a synagogue in an east London conservation area after finding that its removal would be visually advantageous.

The appeal site and adjoining land was proposed for redevelopment providing a new synagogue and housing. Pending a start on site, the portable building was to be retained in its present use as a library, meeting room and function room connected with the existing synagogue.

The timber-framed structure had a utilitarian appearance and its size and form were open to views from the site frontage. The inspector observed that the building was a noticeable feature in the street scene due to its substantial volume, its green painted walls and the fact that it stood slightly forward of the synagogue.

Although there was modern development in the vicinity, he found that its dominant character derived from a wealth of Victorian buildings, many of which were intricately detailed with original design embellishments. He opined that the size, form, style and colour of the temporary building presented a stark contrast with its surroundings.

When the building was originally placed on the site, an adjacent conservation area had not yet been designated. In the inspector's view, the sensitive nature of the conservation area was now a material consideration of importance. He opined that the building's mass and form appeared as a strident feature that severely detracted from the setting and views into the conservation area, contravening paragraph 4.14 of PPG15.

The inspector heard that the appellants were dissatisfied with the council's long-delayed response to a draft redevelopment scheme that had been submitted for its observations. He also heard that this inaction was confounding attempts by the charitable organisation to secure funding for the redevelopment scheme.

While sympathetic to its position, he held that the overriding consideration was the impact on the local environment. In refusing to extend the period for compliance with the enforcement notice to one year, he noted that a slow response from the council was no bar to submitting a planning application for the redevelopment.

DCS Number 100-054-657

Inspector Tony Bingham; Hearing.