Thoresbrook, North Thoresby

Thoresbrook, North Thoresby

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 21 December 2012
by A J Davison BA(Hons) LLB(Hons) MSc MBA DipLD RIBA FRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 10 January 2013

Appeal Reference: APP/D2510/A/12/2182281/NWF
Thoresbrook, Station Road, North Thoresby DN36 5QS

  • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a grant of planning permission subject to conditions.
  • The appeal is made by Mr Kevin Cain against the decision of East Lindsey District Council.
  • The application Reference N/133/00605/12, dated 27 March 2012, was approved on 2 July 2012 and planning permission was granted subject to conditions.
  • The development permitted is the erection of a detached house, to include a waste/recycling store, erection of fencing and gates to a maximum height of 1.8m with provision of parking on the site of an existing bungalow which is to be demolished.
  • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: “Notwithstanding the submitted details, full details and samples of all external materials must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted materials must be
  • based on the details outlined in the application forms and annotated on the plans except for the colour of the bricks which must be red/orange/rust colour. Only the materials agreed by this condition must be implemented and must be retained in perpetuity.”
  • The reason given for the condition is: “To ensure the materials are appropriate for the overall design of the building and how it relates to its surroundings, having regard to paragraphs 17, 56-63 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration 1999 Policies A5 and H12.”

Procedural Matter
1. The description of the development as stated on the planning permission differed from that on the original application. I have based my consideration of the appeal on the revised version, which had been agreed by the parties.

2. The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Reference N/133/00605/12 for the erection of a detached house, to include a waste/recycling store, erection of fencing and gates to a maximum height of 1.8m with provision of parking on the site of an existing bungalow which is to be demolished at Thoresbrook, Station Road, North Thoresby DN36 5QS granted on 2 July 2012 by East Lindsey District Council, is varied by deleting condition 2 and substituting for it the following condition:

  1. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. The Appellant does not question the reason given for imposing the condition and the disagreement between the parties relates solely to the requirement that the bricks must be red, orange or rust coloured, as opposed to the grey proposed in the application. The main issue in the appeal is the effect that the choice of brick colour would have on the character and appearance of the area.

4. Houses on Station Road vary widely in their size, design and materials. The Appellant points out that, while most of them are of brick construction, about 30% are either rendered or of brick combined with render, tile hanging or timber. I saw during my site visit that the appeal site was on a part of the road where diversity of design and materials was greatest and that, where brick had been used, it was in a variety of colours.

5. It is evident that a great deal of thought has gone into the design of the proposed house and that it would add a degree of interest into a street scene where, for the most part, the existing buildings are of no particular architectural distinction. The materials – natural slate, render, dark grey aluminium doors and windows and grey bricks – have clearly been selected to form a unified whole. The use of anything other than a grey brick would, in that context, detract from the overall appearance of the building. Given the wide variety of brick colours that already exists in the area I see little merit in trying to impose on the appeal building a material that would not harmonise with the overall composition.

6. My conclusion is that the use of a grey brick would not harm the character and appearance of the area and that the appeal should succeed. The Council has suggested that, if the appeal is allowed, the condition could be amended by omitting the sentence that refers to the colour of the bricks. That being the case, I see no reason why the remainder of the condition should deviate from the standard wording in Circular 11/95. I shall therefore vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition and substituting that recommended in Circular 11/95.

Anthony J Davison