Appeal 3328234

I have concluded that the operations which are the subject of this appeal fall outwith the definition of development and that, therefore, planning permission would not be required. In consequence no further action will be taken in connection with this appeal.

The appellant appeals the refusal of a Certificate for operations which have been carried out, namely the replacement of barge boards to the appeal property (No.32) an unlisted house within the [name] (Conservation Area). The Appellant and Council presume that the replacement of elements of the roof, identified as barge boards which trim the verge of the existing main tiled roof, fall within the definition of ‘development’ prescribed in Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) such that the works identified in this matter require(d) planning permission as prescribed by Section 57 of the TCPA. I therefore consider the main issue to be addressed in this application are:

Whether the works which are subject of this appeal constitute development within the terms of the TCPA 1990 and, if so, whether such works are permitted by The Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (The GPDO).

Section 191 (1) (b) of the TCPA 1990 states that if any person wishes to ascertain whether any operations which have been carried out in, on, over or under land are lawful they may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the land and describing the use, operations or other matter. Section 55 of the TCPA 1990 states that the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which affect only the interior of the building, or do not materially affect the external appearance of the building1 are excluded from the definition of development, such that planning permission is not required.

The operations which are the subject of this appeal arise from the replacement of barge boards on the side gable of the main roof of No.32 with preformed black uPVC material (‘the operations’). No.32 is a three-storey building with a steep pitched clay tiled roof with both front projecting and side gables. No.32 is identified as a positive building on Map 9 of the [name] (CAA) although this designation appears to exclude the later two-storey side extension which is located below the main roof side gable to which the barge boards that are the subject of this appeal are attached at height.

Other parts of the main roof retain black-painted moulded timber bargeboards whereas those to the side gable and the rear facia appear to be of lengths of black uPVC signified by capping closure pieces where lengths join. The replacement of original timber bargeboards were likely due to need for maintenance and repair of parts which have become difficult to access, however it is appropriate to consider if any material change of external appearance has resulted. I consider, due to a combination of the dark colour together with the height at which these elements are mounted and distance from available public viewpoints, this change is not apparent in a normal views from ground level and the change does not materially change the external appearance of the property.

Although in other circumstances operations such as those which are the subject of this appeal might result in a different conclusion, having regard to the references set out in the CAA for the [name] (Conservation Area) and other reasons given, I conclude that the change of material and profile2 of the barge board found at No.32 does not materially alter the external appearance of this unlisted building or its contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area overall. This directs a conclusion that the operations do not fall within the definition of development as defined by the TCPA 1990 and that, in consequence, planning permission would not have been required. Having reached such conclusion it is not necessary to further consider the arguments put forward by either party.

[name] have concluded that the operations which are the subject of this appeal fall outwith the definition of development set out in Section 55 of the TCPA 1990 and that in consequence no planning permission would be required, no further action will be taken in connection with this appeal.