The appellant claimed that the building had been individually designed to suit the site. In the inspector's eyes, it appeared to represent the company's standard double-sided corridor arrangement of floor plans. He considered that this approach would produce a monolithic building with a substantial mass that had no meaningful connection to the distinctive local street pattern.
The arrangement of pitched and flat roofs, gable ends and other external features seemed little more than an artificial attempt to mitigate the impact of such a large building, he complained. The use of industry standard materials such as render, artificial stone, UPVC and concrete tiles showed little respect for local distinctiveness, he found. He concluded that the design was fundamentally flawed and failed to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area.
DCS No: 100039192; Inspector: Colin Ball; Inquiry.