Appeal 6004182

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form indicates that a variation of conditions 2 and 3 is sought. However, condition 3 relates to landscape materials, and the accompanying cover letter makes clear that the appellant seeks only to vary roof materials. This would only require a substitution of approved drawings referred to in condition 2.

It is clear from the decision notice that the Council has dealt with the application as a variation of condition 2 and from the appeal form that its refusal of permission for that now forms the basis of this appeal, and I have dealt with it as such.

The address on the application form differs from that on the decision notice. As the appeal form has been completed using that on the notice, I have taken that as agreement to the change and used it in the banner heading above.

Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The main issue is the effect that varying the condition would have on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises part of a field and a strip of land alongside a hedgerow leading to it from the road with permission for stables and an indoor arena. At the time of my visit, the access, levels and groundwork had been laid with hardcore, and the arena was covered with sand, but no buildings had been erected.

The surrounding area is rural, comprising arable fields lined with hedgerows and occasional woodland. The only recent buildings are agricultural with corrugated mineral fibre or metal roofs. Older farmhouses and farm buildings converted to residential have a mix of red clay tiles or slate for their roof covering.

The appellant states that the cost of covering the stables and indoor arena with slate as planned would be over five times that of coated and insulated steel panels. Whilst sympathetic to the issue of increasing costs, I have no evidence that using the originally specified materials would jeopardise the development.

Whilst the site may not be in a sensitive location, it is nonetheless in countryside, the intrinsic character and beauty of which is a material consideration recognised at paragraph 187 of the Framework and the use of high-quality materials was a benefit of the original proposal.

I am not persuaded that the proposed panels would be hard to differentiate from natural slate, not least as coated metal would weather and reflect light differently. I therefore consider that their effect on the character and appearance of the area would be more harmful than the originally approved materials.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would be contrary to [name] 7 and LPP 52 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 (BDLP), which require materials to complement local character and context, and to advice at paragraph 140 of the Framework that quality should not be diminished between permission and completion, for example, as a result of changes to materials.

I accept that the proposal would afford a further opportunity to comply with BDLP Policy LPP 72, which requires a minimum BREEAM rating of ‘very good’ for larger non-residential buildings, but I have no evidence that a similar result could not be obtained using insulation foils or sheets under the approved slates.

Finally, I note that the appellant intends to install solar panels on part of the roof, but these have a fixed lifetime and removing them would expose any underlying materials. Whilst the renewable energy benefits of in-roof panels might outweigh additional harm to appearance, no such proposal is before me.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.