Appeal 6003252

The appeal is allowed and permission is granted for the retention of the existing beach hut at [site address] , [name] to Fields 758 & 766-769, [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/FUL/2024/06387, dated 14 November 2024, subject to the attached schedule of conditions.

The main issue is the effect of the composite cladding on the character and appearance of the hut and the wider area.

Hut 11 lies in the northeast corner of Field 767, one of several grass fields near [name] which are lined along their sides by a series of beach hut structures, albeit in this case not fronting a beach but surrounding a grass field just back from the rocky coastline. The huts are a well-established feature of the exposed headland landscape having been in place since before World War 2. The hut in question is a typical example, about 4.5 m by 3.5 m in size with a felt covered low-pitched roof 2.2 m to the eaves and 3.2 m to the ridge.

Planning permission was granted for the replacement hut for a ten-year period in November 2003 and for its retention for a further ten-year period in December

Originally constructed with horizontal timber planking, in 2020 the hut was reclad with pale green composite cladding to combat the deterioration of the wood. The Council have no objection to the retention of the hut other than the use of this composite cladding material which is said to depart from the simple form and appearance of the original beach hut and the character and form of the wider collection of huts.

The composite cladding material is designed to have the appearance of painted timber planking, being similar in width and laid horizontally. The surface texture resembles timber graining, albeit on close inspection a repeating pattern with too good to be true regularity. The cladding is also attached to the hut structure without the regular nails of timber planking, again only noticed on close inspection. Other than these minor differences that are only detectable within a couple of metres of the hut, it retains the appearance of a painted timber structure and does not appear out of place amongst the other huts. Close inspection reveals that a significant minority of the huts in the fields are now clad with composite material.

Policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 and Policy Port/EN7 of the Portland Neighbourhood Plan 2021 (the NP) require proposals to contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness and to use materials that complement and respect the character of the surrounding area. The most specific policy relating to the beach huts however is NP Policy Port/ST2 which follows an earlier SPG1 and sets out six criteria which proposals must satisfy. There is no conflict with criteria i, ii, v or vi and criterion iv sets out the general principle that there should be no significant impact on the existing and essential character of the site. The objection really turns on criterion iii which explicitly states that the huts should be ‘finished in timber that is stained or painted to match the hut it is replacing or extending’.

I see no objection to the slight change in the hut’s colour from a darker to a lighter green; in my view some variety in the colours of the huts adds rather than detracts from their character in the landscape.

In terms of materials, whilst brick or rendered blockwork walls, tiled roofs and larger windows would undoubtedly change the character and appearance of the hut, the use of composite timber-like cladding as opposed to actual timber planking has only a barely perceptible visual effect2. I agree with the appellant that the different material is only noticeable on close inspection and hence not apparent to any but the most curious passer-by. Unfortunately, the explanatory text of the NP does not mention the use of composite cladding and thus there is no indication that the matter was specifically considered in preparing the NP.

It was noted on the site visit that the hut immediately to the south and five of the six to the west are composite-clad, albeit probably an unusual concentration amongst the [name] huts as a whole. There is no evidence before me as to how this situation has arisen or the steps that are being taken to address it, raising the issue of fairness and the practicality of maintaining a timber-only policy.

Recently an inspector dismissed an appeal seeking to retain light grey composite cladding on a replacement hut in the adjacent Field 768 contrary to a condition which stated it should be clad in brown timber and retained as such thereafter3. However, no condition relating to colour or materials was imposed on Hut 11 when last approved in 2014. The inspector also stated that ‘there were site specific and clear reasons for the hut to comprise brown timber’ which were not fully explained but do not arise in this case. The two cases are thus distinguishable.

Composite cladding is a modern material that has only recently been used to clad this and probably other nearby huts, only time will tell if it can withstand the elements in this exposed location and maintain a satisfactory appearance over time. It may fade/discolour, crack or the fittings fail. Only granting a time limited 1 Portland Beach Huts Supplementary Planning Guidance February 2006. 2 Indeed, the cladding of No 11 went undetected until the application for retention in November 2014. 3 Appeal APP/D1265/W/24/3353552 ten-year permission in accordance with previous practice is thus essential in this case and a necessary safeguard to protect the long-term character and appearance of the hut and the area generally, the importance of which in this sensitive and attractive coastal landscape is not disputed.

For these reasons, notwithstanding the conflict with NP Policy Port/ST2 criterion iii, the composite cladding does not significantly affect the character and appearance of the hut or the wider area at present. The hut can therefore be given a ten-year permission, after which its appearance and continued retention can be reviewed.

Three further conditions are required. It is necessary to define the approved plans in the interests of certainty, with no alterations to the appearance of the hut without further permission, to limit the use to daytime recreational purposes only, and to preclude any external paraphernalia around the hut, all in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

Having regard to the above the appeal should be allowed.

The hut hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan (submitted on 15/11/25), Site showing Access, [name] and Plan View Section (Drawing no. 03/00720/BHUT dated 26 October 2014). No alterations to the external appearance of the hut as shown on the approved plans shall be carried out without express planning permission from the local planning authority.

The beach hut hereby permitted shall not be used other than for daytime recreational purposes only, and in particular shall not be used for overnight stays, as overnight holiday or permanent residential accommodation.

The beach hut hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to grass after a period of ten years from the date of this permission unless a further application for its retention has been approved by the local planning authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no paving, decking, verandahs or permanent garden features shall be laid or erected in the area surrounding the hut.