Our client had planning permission for a new house on a site in the London Borough of Croydon. A condition had been imposed requiring details of the external materials to be approved, and this had been discharged without issue.
When the client came to start work, he discovered that the zinc cladding originally approved for the roof was significantly more expensive than expected. He therefore proposed an alternative material that was more affordable but still appropriate for a contemporary dwelling.
The replacement material was a fibre cement slate product by Cedral, known as ‘Thrutone Smooth’, in a blue-black colour. It is a low-profile, modern product specifically designed for use on contemporary buildings.
The council refused the application to change the approved roof material.
Their reasoning was weak. They said that the alternative material was not of the same high quality as zinc, but did not explain why. They also suggested that the tiles were easily damaged, again without explaining how they had reached that conclusion or providing any supporting evidence.
We appealed the decision, and the inspector allowed the appeal.
The council’s core mistake was a simple one. They compared the zinc and the fibre cement slate and decided that they preferred the zinc. That is not the correct planning test. The issue is not whether one material is better than another in abstract terms. The issue is whether the proposed material is acceptable in its own right.
The inspector also noted that the site was not in a sensitive location. It was not within a conservation area, there was a wide variety of architectural styles and materials nearby, and there was no zinc cladding elsewhere in the immediate area.
In short, there was no planning harm.
This case is a good example of how planning decisions can drift into personal preference rather than proper planning judgement. Planning law does not require the most expensive or ‘perfect’ material to be used. It requires that development does not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area.
Although this was a Croydon appeal, the same issue arises frequently elsewhere, particularly with contemporary housing schemes. We deal with these types of cases regularly as part of our planning appeals work in Croydon.
If your application has been refused because a council has taken an overly rigid view on materials, it may well be worth challenging the decision.
