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

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 January 2025 by Stewart Glassar BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd February 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/D/24/3349179 Kimlas, School Lane, Nutbourne, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8RZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Derek Ovington against the decision of Chichester District Council. • The application Ref is SB/24/00261/DOM. • The development proposed is to change tile hanging to weather boarding to match weather boarding on first floor extension. Decision 1. 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 Kimlas, School Lane, Nutbourne, Chichester, West Sussex PO18 8RZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref SB/24/00261/DOM, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: Location Map - L01 Block Plan - B01 Proposed Elevations - A102 Rev A Preliminary Matters 2. The site address on the application form refers to School Hill Lane whereas the Council’s decision notice refers to School Lane. It was evident from my site visit that School Lane is correct and so I have used it in the banner heading above. 3. 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. Main Issue 4. 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. Reasons 5. 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 Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/24/3349179 2 with tree belts and individual buildings. The countryside around and covering the appeal site is within the designated Chichester Harbour National Landscape (CHNL). 6. 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. 7. 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 School Lane. 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. 8. As such, not only is there variety in size and design of houses along School Lane 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 School Lane 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. 12. The dwelling is not visible from most vantage points along School Lane 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. 13. 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. Appeal Decision APP/L3815/D/24/3349179 3 14. 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 (Proposed Submission) 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. Other Matter 15. Whilst I 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. Conditions 16. 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. Conclusion 17. 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. Stewart Glassar INSPECTOR