# 23-24 Brunswick Square, Hove

- **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James
- **Authority:** Brighton and Hove (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6007266
- **Application reference:** BH2025/01368
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Retrospective LBC for replacement of historic black-and-white tiles, marble nosing and landings on the entrance steps of a Grade I Regency terrace
- **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One 2016 CP15, City Plan Part Two 2022 DM27
- **Main issues:** Grade I listed building, conservation area
- **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, conservation-area, retrospective, alternatives-not-explored, grade-i, loss-of-historic-fabric

## Summary
Retrospective listed building consent for re-tiling the entrance steps of a Grade I Regency terrace on Brunswick Square. Dismissed. The appellant had removed all the 200-year-old tiles and marble nosing and replaced them with metric "like-for-like" tiles and a waterproof membrane, without a condition survey. The inspector found harm "at a low level" but, because the building is Grade I, applied HE6(1)'s "the more important the asset, the greater the weight" limb. The limited benefits did not outweigh the harm.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). Footnote: the HE policies apply to LBC through Framework footnote 63 (DL ¶17 fn 2).
- **Loss of fabric.** "their worn surfaces and evidence of long-standing use formed part of their historic value, demonstrating their age and authenticity" (DL ¶13).
- **Justification — HE4(2).** "there is no clear and convincing justification before me why all the tiles and the marble nosing needed to be replaced or why the tiles and nosing could not have been carefully lifted and reused" (DL ¶12).
- **Weight.** "The Framework is clear that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. The appeal scheme has resulted in harm to a Grade I listed building, which is a building of exceptional interest and importance" (DL ¶17).
- **Grading.** "this harm is at a low level. Nevertheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶18). This is the same wording the same inspector used in PINS-6004605.
- **Benefits.** "I am not convinced that the appeal scheme represents the least harmful option for achieving these objectives" (DL ¶19).

## Planning balance
HE6(4): low harm to a Grade I asset, carrying considerable importance and weight, against limited benefits. Harm prevails (DL ¶20).

## What made the difference
No evidence of condition, and wholesale replacement where careful lifting and reuse was possible. With a damp or condition survey showing the tiles could not be saved, the repair and safety benefits might have carried real weight.

## Transferable points
- Patina and wear are part of significance, not a reason to replace (DL ¶13).
- HE6(1)'s gradation by asset importance is applied expressly for Grade I (DL ¶17).
- "Like-for-like" claims fail where modern metric tiles change pattern, grout and finish (DL ¶11, 14).
- Repair and safety benefits carry limited weight unless the works are shown to be the least harmful option (DL ¶19).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading "this harm is at a low level. Nevertheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection"; HE6(1) substantial weight incl. "the more important the asset, the greater the weight" (Grade I, "exceptional interest"); HE6(3) considerable importance and weight; s16(2) and s72(1) cited; loss of worn historic tiles and marble nosing, metric replacements with different pattern, darker grout, shinier finish (DL 11-14, 17-18)
- **HE6(4): benefit (limited weight).** small economic investment; damp/health-and-safety/access repair "not convinced ... least harmful option"; use would not cease without works (DL 19-20)
- **HE4(2): fail.** "no clear and convincing justification" for extent of works, full replacement of tiles/nosing or waterproof membrane; no damp or condition survey (DL 10, 12, 15)

## Key facts
- Grade I Nos 1-29 Brunswick Square (1187544), mid-1820s, Brunswick Town CA
- Works already done after landings collapsed from water ingress; some historic tiles survived the collapse but were removed (DL 10, 12)
- Footnote notes the Framework's HE policies apply to heritage consent regimes (fn 63) (DL 17 fn 2)
- Earlier consent at No 7 distinguished (tiles there damaged by asphalt) (DL 16)
- Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 4)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007266
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/faa1ae9b-beb0-414b-af21-9e32e35fbde5

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007266.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.