Fitting of agate grey composite cladding to the upper half of the front elevation of the property
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Heritage & Conservation
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 4 October 2022
by R Hitchcock BSc(Hons) DipCD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 6th October 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/B3438/D/22/3302592
Willow House, 57 Ostlers Lane, Cheddleton, Staffordshire, ST13 7HS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mrs Joanne Johnson against the decision of Staffordshire
Moorlands District Council.
• The application Ref SMD/2022/0019, dated 14 January 2022, was refused by notice
dated 26 April 2022.
• The development proposed is the ‘Fitting of agate grey composite cladding to the upper
half of the front elevation of the property’.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The Council’s Decision Notice refers to development which was not described
on the planning application form. This relates to the removal of a former bay
and addition of a small front extension to the dwelling. For the avoidance of
doubt, this lies beyond the description of development for which planning
permission was sought. Accordingly, I have considered only the matter of the
upper floor cladding as referred to in the planning application and shown on the
submitted plans.
3. At the time of my site inspection a development as shown on the appeal plans
was substantially complete. I shall therefore deal with the proposal as one
under s73A of the Act for development already carried out.
4. The site lies adjacent to, but outside of the Cheddleton Conservation Area (CA).
There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposed development
would not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area. Pursuant to the duty under s72(1) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, having considered the proposal
and visited the site, I concur with that view. This is because the edge of the CA
in the vicinity benefits from a high degree of tree coverage providing a visual
buffer between the houses set beyond the CA boundary and the southern
extent of the CA. Accordingly, it is my view that the development proposed
would preserve the character and appearance of the designated area and I
shall make no further reference to this matter.
Main Issue
5. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and
appearance of the building and its location.
Appeal Decision APP/B3438/D/22/3302592
2
Reasons
6. The site features a detached 2-storey dwelling set behind an area of
hardstanding used for vehicle parking. This is enclosed by hedging and gates.
It lies on an inclined access track running parallel to Ostlers Lane which serves
a row of houses on its eastern side. The site and track are set above a
vegetated embankment containing mature roadside trees.
7. The house has a hipped tiled main roof with an asymmetrical frontage including
3 projecting gables. The side elevations retain original smooth-faced red brick.
The frontage has been remodelled with the lower section finished in a smooth
painted render. The upper section is clad with textured horizontal composite
uPCV boarding described as agate grey in colour. This matches the colour of
the front door, garage door, window frames (and reveals), and the gable barge
boards. The new render and cladding replace areas of red brick and rendered
panels on the upper gabled sections.
8. The site lies towards the higher southern extent of the row of houses. In
contrast to the more regular inter-wars semis on the northern section of the
lane, the buildings nearby have a higher degree of variety in their age, scale,
design and architectural detailing.
9. The differences in the buildings include a variety of material finishes and
colours. Along the more consistently designed length of the row to the north,
rendered panels are painted in various colours to provide a degree of variation.
Elsewhere, individual properties are built in different coloured brickwork
revealing their age and complimenting their design. Some have later additions
in contrasting materials, however, these tend to appear recessive with
subordinate scaling.
10. In combination with the window framing and barge boards, the use of cladding
across the entirety of the upper frontage, including a central return wall,
results in an unusual monochromatic appearance. The resultant expanse of a
single colour appears bold and has largely concealed the architectural detailing
of the principal elevation of the original building. It substantially lacks
contrasting elements or finer detailing to provide visual interest. This draws the
eye and dominates the appearance of the building.
11. Although the appellant asserts that the colour is recessive and muted, it is
conspicuous by virtue of its expanse and disparity to the traditional materials
on the flanking elevations. Whilst it appears compatible with the lower
rendered part of the elevation, the modern material does not harmonise well
with the original style of the building or the surrounding traditionally styled and
finished development.
12. Despite that the site has a limited degree of prominence and benefits from
some screening by hedging and seasonal greenery in the adjacent plot to the
north, the effect on the building is stark. Although there is some variety in the
colour of brickwork and renders found locally, these are substantially original
materials (or authentic replacements) which are faithful to the individual
buildings’ designs and character. Unlike the cladding, they provide a coherent
and consistent appearance of consolidated character.
13. I note an example of similar cladding used at 92 Ostlers Lane. Although there
is little to demonstrate that this was carried out with the benefit of planning
Appeal Decision APP/B3438/D/22/3302592
3
permission, it is notable that the cladding is substantially more limited in area.
I also acknowledge that other examples of cladding are present on Hillside road
and elsewhere, however, these are very much in the minority. Moreover, the
existence of development elsewhere does not represent an appropriate reason
to find in favour of development that causes harm in this case, or lead me to
alter my findings on this issue.
14. For the above reasons, I find that the cladding relates poorly to the original
character and appearance of the building and stands out as an incongruous
element in the context of local development. It thereby conflicts with
Policy DC1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan [2020] and the
Staffordshire Moorlands Design Guide as they seek and use of materials
appropriate to the area to reinforce local distinctiveness and which respect the
site and its surroundings.
Other Matters
15. I note that the appellant indicates that the supplier’s website concluded that
planning permission was not required for the cladding given its location outside
of certain designated areas. However, this is not a strong or persuasive
argument in favour of the development.
Conclusion
16. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would
conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material
considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in
accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I
conclude that the appeal should not be allowed.
R Hitchcock
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.