Appeal 3321029

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development given in the heading above is taken from the appeal decision that granted planning permission with the subject conditions. This current appeal application and the officer’s report dealing with it described the development as “Raise ridge height and form hipped to gable roof extension, install dormers to front and rear to form habitable accommodation in the loftspace, erect single storey rear extension (amended proposal)”. This description accurately describes the development, but it is the original permission that carries the conditions that the appellant seeks to vary.

There is a single issue in this case: the effect of the black vertical cladding on the character and appearance of the dwelling, the streetscene, the rear garden scene and the wider surrounding area.

Following refusal of a planning application, reference 21/02453/FULH, by the Council in February 2022, planning permission was granted on 17th June 2022 at appeal (appeal reference APP/D/22/3292700) for the development described in the banner heading above. The materials to be used in the development, as required by condition 3, now sought to be varied, were to match those used in the existing building, which were render to walls.

The ‘[name] are shown on the plan of the development now built, which this appeal seeks to regularise. Under that heading, are hanging tiles to front dormer and black vertical cladding to apex of gables and rear dormer. The tile hanging to the front dormers, in place of render, is considered acceptable to the council, since they are similar to the main roof tiles of the existing dwelling. Therefore the issue in the case relates solely to black vertical cladding.

The predominant form of development in [address] is that of semi-detached bungalows of similar traditional design, with gabled roofs and original front roof slopes. There is a traditional palette of materials and colours comprising brown roof tiles and brickwork with light coloured rendered infill. The choice of black vertical cladding is in sharp contrast to the finishes on the bungalows in [address]. At my visit I was struck by the difference of the black cladding and its prominence. The cladding on the gables can be clearly seen from the road. Because the appeal property is situated on a bend, from the south-east the gable is somewhat obscured by the roof of the neighbouring bungalow at No.14; nevertheless it stands out as one’s eye identifies an unusual feature.

From the other direction, the gable cladding and that on the northern cheek of the rear dormers can clearly be seen as a strong feature in the streetscene. Whilst not part of the public domain, both gables will feature in views from rear gardens, and again the cladding on the rear dormer is a dominant feature. The private views of neighbours from their gardens deserves consideration, since jarring features in their private amenity areas are naturally unwelcome.

The appellant disagrees with the council’s decision that the material is out of keeping with the property or street scene, as there are various differing materials in use upon properties within the area. It is understandable that the appellant wishes to retain the existing cladding , since that was the choice when the development was underway. But that personal preference does not outweigh the public harm to the appearance of the dwelling and the wider area.

There is mention in the documentation of French doors which have been installed in the rear elevation of the rear dormer. These are not shown on the plans and are not part of the appeal proposal. [name] have not given any consideration to them, nor do I comment on them.

For the reasons that I have set out above, the effect of the black vertical cladding at first-floor level, rising up to the apex of the gables, and to the rear dormer, is harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling, the streetscene, the rear garden scene and the wider surrounding area. [name] will dismiss the appeal.