Appeal 3285227

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that revised plans were submitted to the Council which amended the design of the first floor window opening. My decision is based on the revised plans.

The Council amended the description of the development and I note that the appellant’s agent has also utilised this description on the appeal form. I have used this description as it is more detailed.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

The appeal relates to a three storey detached property located along the eastern side of [site address] . There is a wide variation in the age, design, scale and materials of the dwellings on [site address] . This makes for an attractively diverse streetscene. The topography of the area is such that the development on the west side of the street is at a significantly lower level to that on the east side of the street. This gives those properties on the east side a particulary prominent position within the streetscene.

The appeal property is the first, when approaching from a northerly direction along [site address] , in a distinct set of three relatively modern brick built properties sited close to the road. Whilst they have a simple design, their high level of coherence in terms of design and materials are prominent features in this part of the streetscene due to their location and high elevations. Their distinctive features as a group add to the variety of the general street scene in this location.

The proposal would see the application of render to the front elevation of the appeal property. Such rendering would be the first of its kind to this group of properties and as such the coherence of the group would be lost. I acknowledge that the size, siting and proportions of the appeal property would not be altered. I also recognise that in some instances the application of render can fall within permitted development rights. However, in this instance the extent of the render across the whole of what is a high front elevation would appear incongruous and at odds when viewed alongside the other two properties in the group.

I appreciate that there are a number of rendered properties in close proximity to the appeal property which lend to the diversity of the streetscene. However the majority of these are well set back from the highway in elevated positions and as such do not have such a prominent position as the appeal property. The closest property to this group, which is also partially rendered, has a distinctive design and appearance in the streetscene. Due to a mixed use of materials and design it does not represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. In any event the existence of this development does not justify development which would otherwise be unacceptable.

As part of the proposal a first floor level window would be replaced by an enlarged window with associated Juliet balcony. I note that whilst the Council expresses concern about the impact of this element of the proposal, they have not referred to it within the reason for refusal. Nonetheless, this alteration would further distinguish the appeal property from the neighbouring properties resulting in it appearing out of place within this group.

I acknowledge that there are no formal designations relating to the design and appearance of the appeal property nor the area, and the appellant’s wish to improve the property. The National Planning Policy Framework also indicates that design should not be used as a reason for objection to development where the design accords with clear expectations in the Development Plan. Nonetheless, Policy ENV6 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan ([name]) (Local Plan) requires development to respect local character and achieve a sense of place. In this instance the application of render would be at odds with the surrounding development and would increase the visual prominence of the appeal property.

I appreciate that the enlargement of the window would provide additional light and enable the appellant to enjoy expansive views of the area. However, these are not matters which outweigh the harm I have found.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and as such would conflict with Local Plan Policy ENV6 together with Policy DM21 of [name] of the Local Plan. These require, amongst other things, development to respect local character and distinctiveness and to be in keeping with the original dwelling and wider setting. It would also be in conflict with the expectation within the [name] and [address] Extensions and [name] for materials to match the existing building.

The appellant has asked that I consider a split decision in relation to the window enlargement but given my conclusions as to the harm caused, a split decision would not be appropriate.

For the reasons given and having regard to all matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.