Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3336294

Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.

A clearer next step

See how Inspectors approached issues like yours

Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.

  • See which issues the decision appears to turn on
  • Compare the facts and open the full appeal records

One private comparison

How the refusal review works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

7 sections

Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.

Section 01

Development description

rendering of house to white.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rendering of house to white at [site address] , [site address] , Stanley, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/02370/FPA, dated 1 August 2023, subject to the following conditions:

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

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and specifications: Location Plan; Site Plan; drawing No 23/65 – 101; and, render specifications.

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    The description of development in the heading above and my decision is taken from the application form, albeit I have omitted superfluous wording that is not a description of development.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    [site address] is a brick building set on rising ground where [site address] follows a broad sweep around a corner giving it a degree of prominence in the streetscene. Two phases of development of the house are evident from the slightly different shades of brick colour as well as contrasting bricks displayed on lintels and a string course. Whilst this is not unsightly, it gives the exterior of the building a somewhat awkward appearance at close quarters.

    The buildings either side of the site are of different sizes, configurations and appearance, both with different brick colours. The dwellings farther along the frontage in either direction, although predominantly of brick, also display a variety of configurations and brick colours, with the stone [address] presenting a noticeable rendered side elevation to its garage. The prominent [name] pub opposite has extensive areas of light coloured rendered walls. Although in a different use to, and is set apart from, other buildings in the immediate vicinity, the pub nevertheless forms part of the townscape and built context within which [site address] is seen.

    There is little consistency or harmony in either building configurations or external wall finishes and colours of buildings in the vicinity of the site. The proposed render finish would be of a different texture to most of its neighbours. The white colour would change the appearance of the building and make it stand out within the street. However, set within the variety of different designs and configurations of houses and bungalows, themselves displaying a variety of finishes, this would not be a harmful contrast. The dwelling would not appear incongruous as a result.

    The proposal would consequently accord with County Durham Plan, 2020 Policy 29’s sustainable design requirements. Similarly, it would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) design policies. Whilst the proposed materials would clearly not reflect that of the host property, the Council’s Residential Amenity Standards Supplementary Planning Document, 2023 largely relates to extensions and the proposal does not fall into any of the householder development categories it deals with. Any conflict in that respect would not weigh materially against the proposal. Although not matching them, the materials would respect the varied characteristics of the surrounding streetscape. The development would accord with that aspect of the guidance.

    In the Longdean Park appeal decision1 the Council have referred to, that dwelling was set in what the Inspector noted were similar styles of properties that resulted in a consistent and harmonious character and appearance. In the Callender appeal decision2 it was noted that a particular brick colour was characteristic of the area. The same cannot be said of [site address] ’s situation which is not within a street or estate of similar buildings finished with largely comparable materials. These appeal decisions relate to clearly different circumstances and do not consequently suggest that the proposal would be unacceptable. Indeed illustrate that the established configuration and materials of buildings in an area is an important consideration.

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    A condition specifying the approved plans gives certainty to all parties.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    The development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with the development plan considered as a whole, and the Framework, and would not conflict with Council guidance considered overall. The appeal is therefore allowed.

Planning inspector and document dates

The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.

  • Appeal Decision

    Extracted inspector · page 1
    Inspector attribution ID 91No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    10 May 2024Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    15 March 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3336294
Application reference
DM/23/02370/FPA
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Durham County Council
Planning authority code
E06000047

Casework details

The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.

Casework type
Householder (HAS)
Procedure
Written Representations
Development type
Householder developments
Appeal type reason
1. Refused planning permission
Appeal reason
Refusal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
Not recorded
Floor space
Not recorded
Number of residences
0
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
No
Affects setting of a listed building
Not recorded
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Not recorded
Flooding is an issue
Not recorded
Site within an AONB
Not recorded
Site within an SSSI
Not recorded

Decision and dates

The published outcome and every imported case date.

Official decision
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
3 January 2024
Valid date
3 January 2024
Start date
10 January 2024
Planning authority decision date
26 October 2023
Appeal decision date
10 May 2024

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
No
Bespoke
No
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds count
Not recorded
Enforcement grounds
Not recorded

Source and catalogue history

When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.

Source
Planning Inspectorate casework database
Source data system
Horizon
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
50870
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:27
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21