Columbia/Brunswick Wharf, 53-55 Laburnum Street, London, E2 8BD

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

• Appeal A ground (c): whether the matters stated in the notice constitute a breach of planning control
• Appeal A ground (a): the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Regent's Canal Conservation Area and the setting of neighbouring listed buildings
• Appeal A ground (a): the effect of the appeal development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents
• Appeal A ground (a): if there is harm arising from the effects of the appeal development, whether the harm is outweighed by public benefits of the appeal development to justify a grant of planning permission
• Appeal A ground (f): whether the steps required exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach or injury to amenity
• Appeal A ground (g): whether the period for compliance falls short of what should reasonably be allowed
• Appeal B ground (b): whether the matters stated in the notice have occurred
• Appeal B ground (c): whether the matters stated in the notice constitute a breach of planning control
• Appeal B ground (d): whether it was too late for the Council to take enforcement action due to the time limit in section 171B(3)
• Appeal B ground (a): the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Regent's Canal Conservation Area and the setting of neighbouring listed buildings
• Appeal B ground (a): the effect of the appeal development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents
• Appeal B ground (a): the effect on the vitality and viability of existing town centres
• Appeal B ground (a): if there is harm, whether it is outweighed by public benefits of the appeal development

What decided it

For Appeal A, the finding that Wikkelhouse, Structure 4 and the roof-level fences constituted incongruous 'conspicuous clutter' causing less-than-substantial heritage harm not outweighed by public benefit was decisive in refusing permission for those elements, while the platform and decking were found not to cause such harm; for Appeal B, the absence of demonstrated harm to character, living conditions or town centre vitality (once controlled by conditions) was decisive in allowing the appeal.

Appeal A: the less than substantial harm to the conservation area from Wikkelhouse, Structure 4 and the fences was not outweighed by the limited public benefits attributable to them, so permission was refused for those elements, but no harm arose from the platform and decking, which was allowed; Appeal B: no harm was found on the main issues (subject to conditions), and this, together with the benefit of re-using buildings in the conservation area, outweighed the conflict with Policies LP10 and LP32, so the appeal was allowed.