Appeal 6003669

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the demolition of existing conservatory and porch, single storey side/rear extension, render cladding, changes to fenestration and new front porch is refused.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. The Council has indicated that had it been able to issue a decision, it would have refused permission for the development on the grounds that the proposed white render cladding would harm the character and appearance of [address] and in doing so would cause harm to the Chilterns National Landscape (CNL) formerly known as the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The Council has not raised any objections to the proposal in terms of its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, parking and highway safety, biodiversity and the Green Belt. Nor has it objected to the form, height and scale of the extension, the proposed roofing materials, fenestration and front porch.

Having regard to the above, the evidence before me, and my observations at the site visit, I have no reason to take a different view to the Council and I therefore consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal’s walling materials on the character and appearance of the area, giving special regard to the location of the site within the CNL.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow located in a residential cul de sac of similar style bungalows, which are predominantly constructed from the same brick material. The united style and materials give the Close a high quality and distinctive identity. In this context, the proposed white render finish would be a marked change to the prevailing character, which would be visually conspicuous, eroding the unity of the Close, and in turn, it would undermine the appearance of the property.

My attention has been drawn to examples of pebbledash render and artificial cladding in the Close and previous cladding to the gables. However, from what I saw, the use of these materials is not widespread enough to have adjusted the Close’s distinctive brick material palette to support its further dilution.

The appellant has also referred to the common use of render elsewhere, including examples of its use on properties on [address] and [name] and has highlighted the material’s alignment with the broader Chiltern landscape and the local vernacular. However, the rendered properties are some distance away and despite the property’s corner position, they are not noticeable in the same views as the appeal property, particularly from [address], where the development would be most visible.

The appellant is of the opinion that the existing brickwork is poor quality and the proposal would be beneficial because the home would be more energy efficient due to better insulation. With regards to the quality of the brick finish, from what I saw on my visit, the brickwork did not appear to be deteriorating. Also, whilst I accept that a render finish could improve the building’s thermal efficiency, this could also be achieved within the cavity of the wall or internally. Therefore, whilst there would be some environmental benefits arising from the increased energy efficiency, based on the scale of the proposal and the existence of other methods of insulation which would not affect the external appearance of the building, this benefit is limited and insufficient to outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area I have identified. Therefore, whilst paragraph 167 supports energy efficiency measures, set against the Framework’s aim to create high quality, beautiful buildings, and the resultant development plan conflict in this regard, it does not outweigh the harm I have found.

I am mindful of my duties to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes, whilst I have found above that there would be a harmful impact on the unified character and appearance of the area, that impact, would be localised, as the scale of the development is not substantial enough to undermine the scenic qualities or beauty of the wider landscape designation. On that basis, the proposal would not conflict with the general statutory duty or provisions of Policy LSQ1 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (CDLP) which attaches great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the local area and would conflict with Policy CS20 of the [name] for Chiltern District which requires development to maintain local character and Policy H15 of the CDLP which requires materials to match or harmonise with the existing dwelling. It would also conflict with Policy GC1 of the CDLP which states in areas where certain facing materials predominate, such as bricks of a certain colour, development should use matching or similar materials. It would also be contrary to the [name] and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (September 2013) which highlights the importance of identifying and reinforcing local distinctive characteristics.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.