Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3349179

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

9 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

to change tile hanging to weather boarding to match weather boarding on first floor extension.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to change tile hanging to weather boarding to match weather boarding on first floor extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/00261/DOM, subject to the following

  2. Section 03

    condition:

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: [name] - L01 Block Plan - B01 [name] - A102 [name]

  3. Section 04

    Preliminary Matters

    The site address on the application form refers to [address] whereas the Council’s decision notice refers to [address]. It was evident from my site visit that [address] is correct and so I have used it in the banner heading above.

    Weather boarding had been installed on the front elevation of the dwelling at the time of my site visit. I have had regard to the works which have been carried out, however, for the avoidance of doubt I have based my decision on the submitted plans.

  4. Section 05

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the Chichester Harbour National Landscape.

  5. Section 06

    Reasons

    The appeal site lies on the southwest fringes of Nutbourne, one of a number of villages arranged in a linear fashion along the A259. These villages are surrounded by relatively flat open countryside of a pastural nature interspersed with tree belts and individual buildings. The countryside around and covering the appeal site is within the designated Chichester Harbour National Landscape (CHNL).

    Policies in both the adopted Chichester Local Plan and emerging Local Plan seek to ensure the natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the National Landscape are conserved and enhanced. This is broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty of National Landscape, and which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

    The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling with a one and a half storey side projection. It is one of a small ribbon of houses positioned along [address]. These houses have a variety of sizes and designs and whilst most have brick finishes with brown tiled roofs, there are examples of light-coloured rendered finishes and white painted brick. Similarly, whilst there are some properties that are clearly more historic, some houses are more modern additions to the area.

    As such, not only is there variety in size and design of houses along [address] but there is variety in their appearance and finishes. None of this detracts from the overall spacious and verdant, semi-rural character of the area.

    The existing side projection to Kimlas has recently been extended and the use of the weather boarding approved on the upper part of the side gable and around the dormer window. It does have a textured finish although this is less obvious when viewed at a distance. Being a relatively new addition to the building means that it also has a less weathered appearance and this together with its lighter colouring does contribute to its visibility.

    However, the colouring would not be out of keeping with some of the lighter colourings found on one or two of the nearby properties. Furthermore, whilst such materials are often intended to require less maintenance, this does not mean that they do not slowly weather, losing some of their sheen, and so becoming more muted over time.

    Extending the cladding across the upper part of the front elevation of the dwelling does help to ensure a visual consistency across the building as a whole. Whilst this does also increase the visibility of the cladded parts of the dwelling when stood in [address] close to the site, they are not seen as an overly dominant element of the building. The use of brick on the building is still evident and together with the brown roof tiles forms the main component of the building’s overall appearance and which continue to anchor it within its setting.

    The dwelling is not visible from most vantage points along [address] and is not prominent within the wider landscape. As such, the wider visual effect of the boarding is limited, and the rural surroundings and character of the National Landscape is not harmed.

    Bringing these matters together, I find that whilst the proposal would extend the use of the weather boarding, its use in this instance would not be so at odds with the materials and design of the existing building or the surrounding properties so as to be harmful to the wider character and appearance of the area.

    Consequently, I do not find the proposal to conflict with Policies 2, 33, 43 and 48 of the Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029 or Policies S1, S2, P1, P2, P8 and NE13 of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 ([name]) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development and the use of materials respects local character and landscape and that the designated area is conserved and enhanced. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Supplementary Planning Document (2017) which provides guidance for development in the protected area.

  6. Section 07

    [name]

    [name] recognise the Council’s concerns regarding the wider application of what it sees as an unnatural material, I have considered this proposal on its own merits based on my observations on site and the evidence before me. It does not automatically follow that the same circumstances would apply to other sites and other proposals.

  7. Section 08

    Conditions

    As the works have been implemented there is no need for the standard time condition but a condition listing the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty.

  8. Section 09

    Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the stated condition.

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 272No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    3 February 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    22 January 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3349179
Application reference
SB/24/00261/DOM
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Chichester District Council
Planning authority code
E07000225

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Householder developments
Appeal type reason
1. Refused planning permission
Appeal reason
Refusal
Type detail
Unknown
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
Not recorded
Floor space
0 m²
Number of residences
0
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
No
Affects setting of a listed building
Not recorded
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
31 July 2024
Valid date
31 July 2024
Start date
9 September 2024
Planning authority decision date
8 July 2024
Appeal decision date
3 February 2025

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
No
Bespoke
No
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Horizon
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
63930
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:28
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:25
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21