Appeal 3322633

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to render the front and side elevation at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 22/04203/FUL, dated 11 November 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans referenced 01 – Plans as Existing, and 02 [name] – Plans as Proposed.

Prior to the application of the render finish, details of its texture and colour finish shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The render shall be applied in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.

[name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording from that which is within the application form has been entered. I have received written confirmation from the Council that, during the course of the application, a revised description of development was agreed. Accordingly, I have used this revised description in the banner above and in my formal decision.

The appeal scheme originally included the erection of a wall along the roadside boundary. During the course of the application amended plans were received which removed this element from the scheme1. In addition, planning 1 Dwg 02 [name], dated 20/03/23 permission2 has been granted for a two-storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension, and an outbuilding. These approved works are detailed on the appeal plans. On my site visit I observed that these works had commenced. In their consideration of the application, the Council did not assess the effect of these works and focussing on the development described in the amended description of development. As planning permission has been granted for the extensions, I have not considered any matters relating to these developments. Accordingly, I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the amended proposals described in the banner.

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

The surrounding area comprises a mix of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings forming ribbon development on one side of Forest Road. The dwellings are set back from Forest Road behind generally well vegetated front gardens, which provide a verdant and semi-rural feel to the area. The prevailing facing materials within the surrounding area is a mixture of facing brickwork and white render/pebbledash. There are a variety of dwelling designs and appearance along Forest Road including a variation in the extent and coverage of render/pebbledash.

The appeal dwelling is a semi-detached property with its front elevation comprising brickwork at ground floor, and white pebbledash at first floor. Some of the original architectural detailing remains including the brickwork quoins, brick cill detail, and soldier course banding. A decorative arch around the front doorway has been obscured by a recently constructed external porch. The front elevation of the semi-detached pairing (No.91) has a white painted textured finish in its entirety which creates a visually imbalanced pairing. While some of the architectural detailing of that property is still legible under the paintwork, it is not prominent, particularly given the set back of the property from the public highway.

The proposed rendering of the front elevation would result in a consistent appearance and would address the existing visual imbalance between the appeal site and No.91. This is provided that the final finish is similar in colour to that of No.91. It is acknowledged that some of the original brickwork detailing would be lost. However, the more prominent architectural features including the bow window and roof gable would be retained. The retention of these features would ensure that architectural legibility of the original dwelling remains. Furthermore, in the context of creating a visual balance with No.91, and noting the variety of properties in the area, this loss of brickwork detailing would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

It has been suggested by the Council that the works to No.91 have not been subject to permission and that the alteration has been a negative intervention. I do not have sufficient information to determine whether the works to paint the property would have required planning permission. While the appellant also 2 21/03756/FUL suggests that this alteration has been carried out in excess of 10 years. On my site visit I observed that the alteration appeared to be of some age. Therefore, this matter does not alter my conclusions on the main issue.

The proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The proposals would therefore accord with Policy ENV6 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]) [name] (2015), Policies DM3 and DM21 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name] (2019), the Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] (2021) (the “SPD”), and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021). Together, amongst other things, these seek to achieve high quality design in development proposals.

I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development, and to require compliance with the submitted plans to define the terms of the permission. A condition requiring details of the final texture and colour finish of the render is necessary in the interest of the character and appearance of building and area.

For the above reasons the appeal is allowed.