A man locked in a feud with officials over controversial cladding on his property is now embroiled in a new row over a barn on his land.
Peter Albon, who has already run foul of the Broads Authority (BA) after covering his home in Shipmeadow in light-green cement boards, now has a new battle on his hands after using the same material on an outbuilding.
The BA has turned down his retrospective planning application for the barn, prompting him to appeal its decision to the Planning Inspectorate, which oversees planning disputes and it already investigating the earlier row.
The authority has objected to the cladding and other amendments Mr Albon made to the storage barn, including metal roller shutter doors and black aluminium windows and door.
Officials say the changes are “detrimental to the character and appearance of the local landscape”.
READ MORE: Retrospective bid for dog training facility in Starston
He also has two large shipping containers between the barn and boundary fence, that the BA said, are "stark and abrupt”.
Mr Albon has defended his changes, which he says are important for the maintenance and security of his property.
In the appeal statement, he says: “The cladding used to encase the barn was changed from treated timber cladding to a composite board cladding to provide a durable weathering exterior which would require no maintenance over the life of the building.”
READ MORE: Bid at Gillingham services for charging units withdrawn
READ MORE: The Car Shop in Beccles under new management after 9 years
The document adds that the doors were also changed “for reduced maintenance and to provide a much more secured building".
It also says that the shipping containers will be covered in black timber cladding to "disguise" them.
CLADDING WARS
The Planning Inspectorate is already investigating the dispute between Mr Albon and the Broads Authority over the cladding on his house, which is on the B1062, which runs between Beccles and Bungay.
He says the material is needed to "improve the appearance of the dwelling and to address dampness and heat retention”.
But the BA insist it is not suitable, and "impacts on the historic and rural character by creating uniformity and an urban appearance”.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel