Installation of weatherboarding to external walls

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 September 2026 by R Kent BA (Hons) MTP DipM MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006672 Highbeech, Lower Church Street, Cuddington, Buckinghamshire HP18 0AS • 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 & Mrs Collins against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/25/4059/FA. • The development proposed is Installation of weatherboarding to external walls. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. On 17 August 2026 a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. The Council and the appellants have had the opportunity to make comments on the new Framework in so far as it relates to this appeal. I have taken account of the comments which were made and the 2026 Framework in my decision. 3. During my visit I was shown a sample of the proposed weatherboarding material. However, it is not clear to me whether the Council or other interested parties have had the opportunity to inspect the sample material or provide comments on it. Therefore, having regard to the Holborn Studios1 judgement, this is new evidence which could result in procedural unfairness if I were to take it into account in this appeal. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the proposed plans and illustrative photographs on which the Council based its decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the Cuddington Conservation Area (CA) and on the setting of nearby listed buildings. Reasons 5. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The statutory approach is reflected in policy BE1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 (VALP) and in the detailed criteria set out for the design of new development in the CA in policy CDN 04 of the Cuddington Neighbourhood Plan 2022 (CNP). 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) Appeal Decision 6006672 2 6. The CA appraisal indicates that the CA derives significance from being a good example of the local witchert villages with narrow winding lanes, grassed banks and enclosing walls. The CA contains buildings of various ages with common building materials consisting of limestone, brick and timber frame and witchert. The CA also derives significance from the grade II* listed Parish Church of St Nicholas2 opposite the site which is identified in the CA appraisal as ‘a focal point of distinction’. 7. Lower Church Street runs along the northern side of the church and contributes to the significance of the CA as a whole through its attractive mix of 16th, 17th and 18th century cottages and houses. These include the grade II listed Beam Cottage3, ‘Thistledome’4 (also referred to as ‘Inglenook’ in the evidence), ‘Bay Cottage Prospect Cottage’5, Box Cottage6, and The Old Place7. The grade II* listed Tyringham Hall8 lies at the western end of Lower Church Street a short distance from Highbeech. The buildings around the church are identified in the CA appraisal as a ‘fine group.’ 8. From the evidence and my observations on site, the significance of the CA therefore is principally derived from its architectural and historic interest as a well- preserved West Buckinghamshire witchert village. That interest is expressed through its informal street pattern, narrow winding lanes, grass banks, enclosing walls, traditional building forms and the concentration of buildings constructed in characteristic local materials. The church and the historic buildings grouped around it provide a particularly important focus within that wider townscape. 9. Highbeech itself is a relatively modern two storey detached house with a flat roof double garage between it and the road. It has been extended on its northern side by a single storey rear addition. The dwelling is constructed of light coloured render with concrete interlocking tiles to the main pitched roof. Although modern in design and appearance and clearly visible from Lower Church Street and the church yard opposite, its light rendered finish is consistent in appearance with some of the older buildings in the vicinity of the site and the wider CA. As a consequence, the external finish of the existing building currently has a neutral effect on the significance of the CA. 10. Policy CDN 04 of the CNP requires that where practicable, local materials and techniques should be used to create connections with existing buildings in the CA. It identifies mixed finishes including timber frames, stone, lime render and red brick as the local materials. I note that fibre cement weather boarding is not one of the local materials identified in policy CDN 04. In my judgement, the proposed material would not be consistent in character or appearance with the local materials prevailing in the CA. Moreover, the profiled nature of the boarding and its grey finish would be jarringly at odds with the stone, witchert, light render and painted finishes of the buildings in the CA as a whole. 11. Although the dwelling is set back into the plot, the proposed fibre cement cladding on both its front and side elevations would be clearly visible from the road and 2 Historic England official list entry number 1118334 3 Historic England official list entry number 1332895 4 Historic England official list entry number 1118327 5 Historic England official list entry number 1158739 6 Historic England official list entry number 1118359 7 Historic England official list entry number 1158751 8 Historic England official list entry number 1118328 Appeal Decision 6006672 3 from the church yard opposite. It would also be visible in views across the church yard northwards from the corner of Upper Church Street with Lower Church Street. As a consequence the proposed grey weather boarding would have a discordant effect on the character and appearance of the CA and would not respect and enhance its built character. This would result in harm to the CA as a whole. 12. I note that cedar cladding and stainless steel balustrading have been used to the rear of Beam Cottage and fibre cement weatherboarding has been used at Hesleden in Spurt Street. Whilst occasional buildings in the CA have modern materials, timber cladding or weather boarding, those are not the prevailing materials in the vicinity of the site or the CA as a whole. 13. I saw the timber clad rear extension to the listed Beam Cottage at my site visit. This decision was made some time ago. I am not aware of the planning context to it or the exact details which made this extension acceptable at the time including the considerations that informed its design. Furthermore, it is also materially different from the appeal proposal which would introduce grey profiled cladding across prominent front and side elevations rather than being restricted to the rear. In any case the materials used at Beam Cottage or Hesleden do not justify the harm which would be caused by the proposal to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. 14. Whilst CNP policy CDN 04 recognises that modern materials may be acceptable if they are of high quality and executed to a high standard, I am not convinced from the information before me that the proposed fibre cement material would be of sufficient quality to prevent its installation causing harm to the CA. 15. In accordance with NDMP policy HE6 of the Framework, the effect on the heritage asset and its significance should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. That balancing exercise must take place in the context of the Act which sets a strong presumption against a grant of planning permission for development that would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a CA. I return to this matter in the heritage balance below. 16. Section 66(1) of the Act also requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. Whilst not individually cited in the reason for refusal, the Council’s delegated report identifies a number of grade II and grade II* listed buildings, the settings of which it considers would be affected by the proposal. I shall address these in turn. 17. The grade II* listed stone Parish Church of St Nicholas derives significance from its 13th century origins and subsequent additions in the 14th, 15th and 19th centuries. Whilst the surrounding walled church yard provides its immediate setting, it is experienced in views northwards from Upper Church Street and in views along Lower Church Street, including from Highbeech immediately to the north where it can be viewed from the front drive and through gaps between the dwelling and its side boundaries. 18. The mix of traditional buildings along Lower Church Street and Upper Church Street around the church, within which the appeal site is located, form part of the historic context of the church and the surroundings from which it is experienced. Consequently, the modern cladding would introduce a discordant built element into Appeal Decision 6006672 4 the historic village context from which the church’s architectural prominence and historic role are appreciated. This would not preserve the setting of the listed building and would result in harm to its significance. 19. Immediately to the east of the site and separated from it by an evergreen hedge and fence, is the grade II listed The Old Place. The listed building derives significance as a 17th century house. Set back from Lower Church Street behind a wall and trees it is nevertheless experienced in views from the higher ground in the church yard opposite and is part of the fine group of buildings around the church referred to in the CA appraisal. Highbeech is prominent in part of the view of The Old Place from the church yard. The proposed weatherboarding would jar with the brick façade of the listed building and compete with it in views of the building detracting from its appreciation and causing harm to its significance. 20. Beam Cottage is part of a short terrace of buildings on the south eastern side of Lower Church Street. Adjacent to the church yard, it gains significance from being a circa 16th century timber framed house, now colour washed over roughcast. It too is experienced from Lower Church Street and from the adjacent church yard. Whilst the boundary wall separating The Old Place from the street limits intervisibility between Highbeech and Beam Cottage, the upper storey of Highbeech is visible in the view of Beam Cottage from the street. Consequently, the appeal site forms part of the views towards the listed building which permit an appreciation of it in the street scene and its role in the evolution of the village. 21. Whilst Beam Cottage has a modern, timber clad addition to its rear, the proposed grey weather boarding would not harmonise with the light coloured finish of the main façade of Beam Cottage facing the street. As a consequence the proposal would cause harm to the appreciation of the listed building from the street as a result of the development within its setting. This would have a limited effect on its significance. 22. The grade II* listed Tyringham Hall derives significance from being a small country house dating from the 16th century. It is similarly experienced in views from Upper and Lower Church Streets approaching the listed building as well as from the church yard. However, as Highbeech is on the same side of the street as the listed building, separated from it by a substantial, intervening building, and is set back into its plot there is little intervisibility between the site and Tyringham Hall. As a consequence, and in the absence of evidence of a clear historic or aesthetic connection between the asset and the site, the proposal would have a neutral effect on how the listed building is experienced and its significance. 23. The grade II listed The Homestead9 immediately to the south of Tyringham Hall derives significance from its 17th century origins and witchert materials. The Thatched Cottage10, also listed grade II, lies between The Homestead and the adjoining school and gains significance as a 17th century timber framed, thatched roof cottage. These heritage assets are also experienced from Upper and Lower Church Streets including in views from Lower Church Street passing Highbeech. However, the distance between both listed buildings and the appeal site coupled with the intervening buildings and the setback position of Highbeech on its plot means that the proposed weatherboarding would have a neutral effect on the 9 Historic England official list entry number 1158732 10 Historic England official list entry number 1118333 Appeal Decision 6006672 5 experience of the two assets. The proposal would therefore have a neutral effect on their significance. 24. Box Cottage gains significance from being an 18th century, part witchert, thatch roofed cottage. Whilst experienced from Lower Church Street, it is separated from the site by The Old Place and its boundary wall and mature trees. In the absence of evidence of a clear other connection between the asset and the site, the proposal would not therefore have a harmful effect on the appreciation of the listed building or its significance. 25. Thistledome derives significance as a late 18th century house, formerly a pair of cottages. Adjoining it to the east are Bay Cottage and Prospect Cottage referred to on the official list entry as ‘Bay Cottage Prospect Cottage’. The cottages derive significance as a pair of early 18th century cottages constructed partly of witchert. Whilst both listed buildings are experienced from Lower Church Street, the distance from the appeal site coupled with the intervening walls, trees and vegetation means that the proposed weatherboarding would not have a harmful effect on the appreciation of these heritage assets. The proposal would therefore have a neutral effect on their significance. 26. The grade II listed Tibby’s Cottage11 gains significance as a circa 1700 thatched cottage constructed partly of witchert. It is experienced primarily from the footpath running immediately past its southern and eastern sides. It is located to the north of the site separated from it by the grounds around The Old Place and substantial mature hedgerows and walls. As such, the appeal site is not part of the surroundings from which the building is experienced and its significance would not be harmed by the proposal. Heritage balance 27. Even though the proposal would affect only one modern building and would not alter the historic plan form of the CA or cause the loss of historic fabric, it would still cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the CA as the cladding would be prominent in an important part of the CA around the church. 28. The proposal would also harm the ability to appreciate the grade II* Parish Church of St Nicholas and grade II listed The Old Place and Beam Cottage resulting in harm to their significance. The harm to the Parish Church would be moderate because the change would be conspicuous in views from the church yard and would detract from the historic built context in which the church is experienced. The harm to The Old Place and Beam Cottage however would be limited, reflecting the restricted intervisibility and the fact that the principal fabric and broader historic settings would remain unaffected. Nevertheless, in accordance with NDMP HE6 of the Framework, the harm caused to these designated heritage assets is a matter of considerable importance and weight. 29. The proposed weather boarding is intended to address the poor condition of the existing render on the dwelling. Whilst primarily a benefit to the occupiers of the dwelling, this would also have the limited public benefit of maintaining an existing dwelling in a sensitive location. There would also be some limited economic benefits through the purchase of construction materials and the carrying out of the works. 11 Historic England official list entry number 1311329 Appeal Decision 6006672 6 30. The limited public benefit of the proposal however does not provide the clear and convincing justification for the harm that the proposal would cause to the significance of the individual heritage assets identified above, the conservation of which NDMP HE6 of the Framework requires me to assign substantial weight. 31. For the reasons given, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would fail to preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings. It therefore conflicts with policies BE1, BE2 and NE4 of the VALP and CNP policies CDN01, CDN03 and CDN04 which require that development should respect and conserve heritage assets and the historic character and local distinctiveness of the settlement. It would also conflict with the Act and the Framework’s policies to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Conclusion 32. For the reasons given above the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed. R Kent INSPECTOR