Appeal Against Conditions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 October 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/D/18/3209173 1 Hungerhill Cottages, Coolham Road, Coolham, Horsham RH13 8QE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land carried out without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Christopher Aldhurst against the decision of Horsham District Council.  The application, Ref. DC/18/0717, dated 3 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 May 2018.  The application sought planning permission for a two storey side extension and porch without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref. DC/16/0422, dated 13 April 2016.  The condition in dispute is No. 3 which states that: The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved details associated with the application.  The reason given for the condition is: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension and porch at 1 Hungerhill Cottages, Coolham Road, Coolham, Horsham RH13 8QE in accordance with the application Ref. DC/18/0717 made on the 3 April 2018 without complying with condition No. 3 set out in planning permission Ref. DC/16/0422 granted on 13 April 2016 by the Horsham District Council, but otherwise subject to the condition that within three months of the date of this Decision the weatherboarding shall be repainted in accordance with details and / or samples first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter retained in that form. Preliminary Matter 2. The appeal application sought to depart from the approved plans in the original permission in respect of three proposed amendments: (i) the use of painted blue weatherboarding on the exterior of the extension; (ii) a choice of roof tiles different to those on the main roof of the dwelling, and (iii) minor changes to the fenestration, but in particular the addition of a Juliet balcony to the first floor of the west elevation in place of a proposed triple glazed casement window. 3. The officer’s report concluded in respect of (ii) that although of a different appearance the tiles used for the roof of the extension would weather down to Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/D/18/3209173 2 blend with the existing, and on balance would be acceptable. As regards (iii) it was considered that the different fenestration and the Juliet balcony do not change the character and appearance of the dwelling and were in accordance with Policies 32 & 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015. 4. For the above reasons, the Council’s Notice of Refusal dated 23 May 2018 refers only to the weatherboarding as the reason for rejecting the application for a variation of condition No. 3 imposed on permission ref. DC/16/0422. My definition of the main issue below reflects this point. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the variation of the condition to allow the retention of weatherboarding would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings. Reasons 6. The Council considers that the blue painted weatherboarding is harmfully out of keeping with the host dwelling and its surroundings, in particular the adjoining property, No. 2 Hungerhill Cottages. In addition, it would not complement the distinctive character and heritage of the Hungerhill Estate. I note that the Estate itself has objected to the appeal application on this basis and points out that the decision to grant permission for the extension was in part predicated on explicit references to the existing materials, namely facing brickwork matching that used in the host dwelling. 7. However, whilst I understand these points, it is a well-established design principle that an extension can be deliberately constructed in a different external material to contrast with and differentiate from a host building. In this case No. 1 Hungerhill Cottages is on the periphery of the enclave of development and is bordered by open countryside such that the extension reads with that setting. Even if the other buildings in this cluster of dwellings are taken into account, they exhibit a degree of variety rather than appear as having a wholly consistent appearance where a contrast of this type would be overtly incongruous. 8. Bearing this in mind, I consider that the weatherboarding is an acceptable contrast to the brick on the original building. However, I do agree with the Council that its blue colour is not appropriate given the constraints of the site and its surroundings. I therefore agree with the Parish Council’s suggestion that it should be painted a more subdued colour, presumably a shade of brown, and this can be the subject of a new condition. In these circumstances I do not consider that Policies 32 and 33 of the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015; Thakeham 6 Design Policy of the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan 2017 and Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 are so prescriptive as to preclude this different appearance to the main part of the building. 9. The appeal is therefore allowed subject to the repainting condition. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR