A Linthorpe enforcement appeal has failed after a Planning Inspector upheld an order requiring restoration of a traditional slate roof, reconstruction of a demolished chimney and removal of an unauthorised rear extension. The decision, issued on 12 November 2026, concerns alterations to an end-of-terrace home in the Linthorpe Conservation Area.
Inspector G Robbie dismissed the appeal against Middlesbrough Council’s enforcement notice, issued in May 2025, and refused planning permission on the application deemed to have been made by the appeal. The notice requires the reinstatement of materials and architectural features that the Inspector found important to the character of the historic terrace.
The Linthorpe enforcement appeal is a useful reminder that conservation-area controls concern more than whether a house looks tidy after alterations. The materials, roof profile and position of a chimney can each contribute to the significance of a protected streetscape, and a separate planning application cannot automatically answer an enforcement appeal about different works.
Why the Linthorpe enforcement appeal failed
The notice alleged three groups of unauthorised works: replacement of natural slate roofing, removal of the original chimney stack and construction of a flat-roofed single-storey rear extension. The property sits at a prominent corner where the terrace meets Linden Grove, increasing the visibility of the roof and the end elevation.
The council’s requirements were specific. It sought roofing in natural slate matching the adjoining house, reinstatement of the chimney’s height, profile, brickwork and moulding, and replacement of two traditional terracotta chimney pots. The rear extension must also be demolished and associated debris removed. The notice specifies a six-month compliance period.
The owner appealed on ground (a) of section 174(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is a request for planning permission for the matters identified in the enforcement notice, rather than a challenge asserting that those works did not happen or that the council was out of time. The Linthorpe enforcement appeal was therefore decided on the planning merits of those particular alterations.
Middlesbrough Council’s Linthorpe Conservation Area guidance confirms that an Article 4 Direction provides additional control over changes to properties within the area. The direction restricts certain works and alterations that would otherwise be permitted development. It does not mean every alteration is prohibited, but it makes the required planning assessment especially important.
Slate roofs and missing chimneys
The Inspector described how the original terraced group achieved a consistent appearance through double-fronted houses, square bays and a continuous roof plane. Repeated chimney stacks, including prominent chimneys on the hipped roofs at either end of the group, helped establish the building rhythm that can also be seen across the nearby junction.
In the Linthorpe enforcement appeal, the removal of the end chimney was found to damage that pattern. Natural slate was another important feature. The Inspector considered the replacement tiles significantly heavier in appearance, with thicker leading edges that made the individual rows more prominent than the understated slate on the remaining terrace.
Location mattered as much as material. Because the property occupies an open corner, its roof and side elevation can be seen from across Cambridge Road and the adjoining junction. What might be less conspicuous elsewhere was especially noticeable here, and the loss of the chimney changed the way the terrace was read as a whole.
The Inspector also rejected the argument for retaining the flat-roofed rear extension. Although its lower parts were partly screened by boundary treatment, the upper walls and fascia remained visible from the corner. The Inspector criticised the heavy fascia, the awkward junction with the existing house and mismatched brickwork.
The rear extension also caused harm
Those details were judged against the pitched and hipped roofs of the terrace, including the paired rear outriggers. A rear extension need not copy every historic feature, but its relationship with the building and its visibility in the conservation area were central to this decision. The Linthorpe enforcement appeal shows why design details cannot be dismissed as minor when they affect an established heritage character.
The appeal involved a procedural complication. The appellant’s submissions made substantial reference to a separate planning application for broader alterations, including a two-storey side extension. That application, reference 24/0524/FUL, had been refused on 30 June 2025.
An enforcement appeal is not a second application
The Inspector stressed that this separate proposal was not the application before the Inspector. The enforcement notice concerned works already carried out, and the deemed application created by the ground (a) appeal related to those works. The two schemes were not interchangeable simply because they involved the same building or mentioned the removed chimney.
For anyone considering an enforcement challenge, this distinction can be critical. Evidence prepared for a refused planning application may help provide background, but an appeal against an enforcement notice needs to answer the allegations, requirements and planning merits of the notice itself. Planning Geek’s guide to enforcement appeal grounds explains those routes and their different tests.
The Inspector considered Middlesbrough’s design and conservation policies alongside the revised national planning policy published in August 2026. The Inspector observed that the Framework no longer used the earlier expression ‘less than substantial’ harm in the passage relevant to assessing heritage significance, but still required a balance between identified harm and public benefits.
The Inspector’s heritage assessment
In this case the appellant had not set out any public benefits, so there was nothing to outweigh the harm to the Linthorpe Conservation Area. Turning to the Framework’s presumption in favour of development within settlements, the Inspector concluded: The harm arising substantially outweighs any benefits
. That was a finding about this particular roof, chimney and extension, not a ruling that every modern alteration in a conservation area will fail.
The Linthorpe enforcement appeal was therefore dismissed and the notice upheld without alteration. The decision also refused permission for the existing works through the ground (a) deemed application. It did not decide the merits of the different, already refused planning application described in the appellant’s supporting documents.
The requirement to use matching slate and rebuild an appropriately detailed chimney demonstrates how precise remedial steps can be when enforcement is used to protect the historic environment. It is not enough to assume that a broadly similar appearance will satisfy a notice calling for particular profiles, finishes and materials.
What property owners should take away
Owners of older properties should establish whether a conservation area and an Article 4 Direction affect their land before replacing roof coverings, removing chimneys or extending the house. Planning Geek explains how to check an Article 4 Direction and what additional restrictions may apply. The direction must be read alongside the relevant permitted development rules and any previous planning conditions.
The Linthorpe enforcement appeal also offers a practical lesson for professional advisers. A successful response needs to identify the exact alleged breach, the actual works and the policy tests the Inspector must apply. Submissions addressing a different development may leave the central enforcement issues unanswered, even if the schemes overlap in some respects.
The appeal is recorded under reference APP/W0734/C/25/3368407. The decision is also available on AppealBase. The quoted passage is from the Planning Inspectorate’s decision, under the Open Government Licence.
0 Comments