Appeal inspector: chalet has 'overly dominant and harmful impact' on character of Fitties

 

Subject of controversy - the chalet on Humberston Fitties

AN uncertain future beckons for a chalet on Humberston Fitties.

Its owner appealed when North East Lincolnshire Council refused  consent for the chalet on the grounds that, as built, it failed to comply  with planning conditions.

However, independent planning inspector Graham Wraight has come down on the side of the council and dismissed the appeal.

The chalet - number 124, First Main Road - was constructed on the site of a previous structure which was demolished.

In his report, the inspector states: "The original planning permission, granted in 2023, allowed for the construction of a replacement chalet on the appeal site. 

"Whilst there is now a completed chalet present, it has not been constructed in accordance with the plans approved under that application. 

"The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Fitties conservation area.

"The Chalet Design Guide, 1997, explains some of the context of how the conservation area evolved, and it refers to the casual holiday home atmosphere, with the community bound together by the individuality and diverse appearance of each chalet which combine to create a unique and equally rare local character. 

"What exists today is an area of great character to which the appearance of each chalet is a major contributor. 

"As the appellant notes, there are many different chalets of varying types, appearances, materials and shapes, and there is an emphasis in the design guide on the need for chalets to be individual in style whilst according to the overall theme of the Fitties site."   

The inspector continues: "Whilst there is great diversity in design, there are some general consistencies in terms of the scale of the chalets, certainly in the area closest to where the appeal property is located.

"The chalets for the most part have low eaves heights at the point where they are closest to the access road. 

"This creates a character where the chalets do not impose on the street by reason of their height and massing. 

"Although I accept that both the now demolished chalet and the replacement approved had a mono-pitched roof which would have been at its highest closest to the road, both the original dwelling and the replacement that was approved had a lower maximum height than the appeal chalet. 

"The difference in the height of the approved replacement chalet and what has been built is said to be approximately 400mm. 

"This represents approximately a 750mm increase over the height of the original chalet that stood on the site. 

"The impact of this increase in height occurs most notably across what is a wide chalet frontage on the most visually sensitive part of the site. 

"The result is a chalet which has an overly dominant and visually harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area, in particular in terms of its scale in relation to the more modest nearby chalets.

"This impact is not aided by the omission of a lower rear section, which would have served to lessen the overall massing of the building, whose side elevations are prominent in views from the road. 

The inspector goes on: "The use of cement-based horizontal tongued and grooved board as the external facing material also does not aid integration of the constructed chalet into the street scene. 

"This material accentuates the visual dominance of the building as opposed to what would have been the softer visual impact of the approved timber. 

"That the material will weather and may become less stark and that the cream facing-colour is what could be considered to be a muted colour choice do not  overcome the overall harm caused. 

"The bi-fold doors to the rear and metal balustrade/glass, although screened to some degree along the site boundaries, are retrograde modern additions in comparison to the more traditional French doors and rear decking enclosure that hd been approved.   

" The substitution of timber, which was the facing material used on the now demolished original chalet, with a visually inferior modern material has not served to preserve or enhance the conservation area, notwithstanding what exists on some other plots in the wider area."

"It is necessary to weigh the public benefits of the development against the harm that arises to the conservationa area, but no public benefits of the appeal development have been advanced."  

The inspector does not consider  the development  to be harmful in highways, drainage or ecological terms.

Nor has therre been  harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent chalets.

But he concludes:  "These are not considerations which justify the harm that I have identified, and, for the reasons I have given, the appeal should be dismissed". 

Appeal inspector has ruled that facing material is "visually inferior" to timber 

                                                    

The now-demolished chalet that previously stood on the site