It was quite clear to the inspector, contrary to the appellant's claim that development would infill an historic frontage, that the site was in fact originally rear garden land and intended to be open. On this basis, development in this location would not reflect the historic grain and would erode an important space intended to provide separation between the surrounding original Georgian buildings, a significant aspect of the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The inspector also found the contemporary design out of keeping and cramped, parking provision to be inadequate and residential amenity for occupiers and neighbours poor. A policy requirement of meeting ten per cent of energy needs from onsite renewable resources had also not been demonstrated to be satisfied. Overall the development was judged to be unacceptable and the appeal dismissed.
Inspector: Jonathan Price; Written representations