Appeal 3320965

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 2022/1130/FUL for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Rufford, Lancashire [postcode] granted on 2 February 2023 by West Lancashire Borough Council is varied by deleting conditions 1 and 4.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of West Lancashire Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate

A revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in December

I have had regard to this in reaching my decision.

At the time of my visit, the development had already commenced which included new window openings to the front elevation. For clarity, I have considered the appeal based on the submitted plans.

Planning permission was granted for a single storey extension ([name]: 2022/1130/FUL) which included a condition removing permitted development rights for alterations to the front elevation that would comprise of painting or render. It is this condition which is in dispute and the main issue therefore is whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is an end terrace dwelling that is situated on an estate that contains mainly two storey brick built properties which are setback from the highway behind front garden and parking areas. These features as well as grass verges and other areas of open space around [address] contribute to a pleasant, spacious residential character.

The approved development references a single storey rear extension, but the proposed drawings that were considered by the Council also included alterations to the front elevation. The predominance of brick as a facing material was evident in the area around the appeal site and I accept that render across the front elevation of the appeal dwelling would result in it having a different appearance to the remaining dwellings on this terrace row. There was however variation in the colour and design of windows and doors to the front elevations of nearby properties and I was also able to see more widely in the area the use of render on some front bays and a front porch. Whilst a render or painted finish to the front would be readily visible in the streetscene, unlike the rear and side elevations of the appeal dwelling, I do not consider that such a finish on the front elevation, given the variation that exists on the surrounding built form, would unduly imbalance this short terrace row or detract from the character of the area which is defined in the main by its spacious quality.

I therefore conclude that the subject condition is not reasonable or necessary in the interest of the character and appearance of the area. Thus, the removal of the condition would not conflict with Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan Development Plan Document 2012-2027, which seeks, amongst other matters, development of high-quality design.

As well as deleting Condition 4, as the development has commenced, condition 1 relating to the commencement of development is not necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and the planning permission varied by deleting the disputed condition 4 as well as condition 1.