Appeal 3314570

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in January 2023, while the appeal was in progress. The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the implications of the SPD for the appeal scheme.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached house in a residential area, characterised by similar detached properties, finished in brick, stone cladding and hanging tiles. The similar styles of properties results in a consistent and harmonious character and appearance. There is a white rendered property nearby. However, it is on a corner plot and set further back from the road, and as such, is not readily seen in context with the appeal site, such that it does not inform the immediate character of the area.

While the proposal would introduce a mixed palette of high-quality materials, including stone cladding and timber, the entire property would be rendered in white, which would draw the eye and look harmfully out of place. Consequently, due to its appearance, the proposed development would be a discordant feature that would detract from the otherwise harmonious character and appearance of the area.

I have considered the examples of properties in the wider area which have introduced different materials and colour palettes to modernise the appearance. The context of the examples differs in overall appearance and relationship with the street scene. They are on a different section of Longdean Park or a different street, and as such would not be seen with the appeal scheme and are not directly comparable. The other examples do not, therefore, lead me away from my above findings.

While the SPD advises that the use of contemporary materials may be permitted, the use of such materials at the appeal site would not reflect or respect the characteristics of the original property or the surrounding streetscape. The extensive use of white render would result in such a marked change in appearance that it would not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. While there were no objections from neighbouring occupiers to the scheme, this is not a reason in itself to allow harmful development.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policy 29 of the County Durham Plan (2020). This policy requires proposals to contribute positively to an area’s character.

The proposed development is also contrary to the guidance set out in the SPD regarding high quality design standards, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework at Section 12 in relation to achieving well designed places.

The proposal would improve the thermal efficiency of the property without reducing internal space, which is a clear benefit of the scheme. Tackling climate change and reducing heat loss from homes is a key aim of the Council, however there is also a policy requirement for proposals to contribute positively to an area’s character. In this case, I have found there would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the area, which is not outweighed by the improvements the appeal scheme would make to the thermal efficiency of the property.

While the appellant has expressed frustrations with the Council’s handling of the case, this has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the scheme.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.