conservation areas and adjacent properties - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Sounds like this might be the sort of situation where a lot of things have got lost in translation. I assume if you're talking to the conservation officer then you are possibly talking about 'policies' not 'rules' , and you're probably talking about 'policies' not 'Policies' i.e. their local design requirements for your project. If that's the case then this is not about 'law or legal precedent'. But please do share some more context

It is caught by Policies - the NPPF talks to development in the setting of a heritage asset. 
 

whereas the statuary duty found in the LBCA only talks to development within a con area. 
 

so development in the setting of a con area is caught by Policy but not by the Statutory Duty 

Permitted development rights within and outside conservation areas are broadly similar, except that within conervation areas permitted development rights are taken away such as for demolition of properties for example, where if it has an Article 4, then further permitted development rights may be taken away, where planning permission may be required for further things such as replacement windows and putting in a driveway. A local planning authority also uses conservation area status as a material consideration, such as requiring a higher level of design and this may include sites adjacent to conservation areas, where they may consider that it might impact upon its character and appearance under Section 72. This is not a hard 'rule' as such, though I have read appeal decisions where Planning Inspectors sometimes take the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area into consideration with regards to responsive design, even for sites that do not necessarily lie within it, so this has somewhat blurred the lines.

Thanks for responses. Yes, that's all I can find rather blurred interpretation and nothing concrete!! For my part, my stance is that the property is in a street which runs parallel to the conservation area, so you can not physically look towards the property and the conservation area at the same time, so the property does not affect the setting of the conservation area. It is my stance that policy towards the 'setting' of a conservation area, is centred on views towards the conservation area, not views out of it. So if the property doesn't affect the view of the conservation area and is not in it, it isn't subject to consideration of 'protecting the heritage environment'. It is the conservation officer's stance that just by its proximity to the conservation area automatically makes it subject to protecting the heritage environment, irrrespective if it affects the view of it or not.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Can you give me an example where views from a conservation area would affect the significance of that conservation area, or where planning inspectorate have upheld a refusal based on views from a conservation area? I can't think any Council is this specific in it's policy, there is certainly nothing specific in our Council's that views from a conservation area are to treated with the same weight as views towards it. When there is nothing in policy it just comes down to the individual arbitrary opinion of that conservation officer which is a very ad hoc, and i would have thought, indefensible way to run planning policy.