- Decision
- dismissed, 18 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Bhupinder Thandi
- Authority
- Eastbourne (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009620
- Application reference
- 250709
- Procedure
- householder
- Development
- Retention of polycarbonate/uPVC-clad rear veranda to ground-floor flat (greenhouse and store not disputed)
- Site context
- conservation area, inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- No Framework version cited
- Determinative policies
- Eastbourne CS D10a, EBP UHT1
- Development plan policies
- Eastbourne Core Strategy 2013 D10a, Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003 saved UHT1, UHT4, HO20
- Main issues
- character and appearance of host; neighbour outlook
Summary
A retrospective rear veranda of polycarbonate and plastic cladding on a traditional semi in the Mead conservation area was dismissed for harm to the host building. It was not visible from the street, so the conservation area was preserved. The letter does not mention the Framework.
What made the difference
The veranda's scale and materials in relation to the host building, even in private views: it "appears as a disproportionate addition that unacceptably dominates the rear" (DL ¶7). This shows that character harm to a host building can be decisive even where no conservation-area harm is found.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastbourne CS D10a | conflict | sizeable, visually heavy, plastic/polycarbonate veranda disproportionate and incongruous on traditional host (DL 6-8, 13) | |
| HE9 | neutral | not visible from street; Mead CA preserved (DL 18) |
Key facts
- Veranda extends almost full width off an existing rear extension
- Not visible from Darley Road
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.