Appeal 3364997

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The plans show a porch to the front of the dwelling. The Council refer to this in the delegated report and do not find it to be harmful. [name] have no reason to disagree, the porch is not referred to in the description of development which solely mentions the extension. I have considered the appeal accordingly and the main issue therefore, which is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a two storey semi detached dwelling in red brick with a grey tile roof. It is part of residential estate of very similar buildings in terms of design and materials. Some have been extended but, on the whole, in matching materials and clearly subservient in scale. This lends a high quality originality and consistency to the street scene which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed white painted render external finish to the walls would contrast with the prevailing red brick exteriors in the street, unacceptably reducing the quality of the area’s consistency. The forward siting of the appeal building relative to the nearest non adjoined neighbour would allow clear views of the side wall of the extension making it more obvious in the street scene. An effect exacerbated by its projection.

A similar sized extension might be possible under the permitted development regime, but this would also be dependent on seeking prior approval which is neither a scheme I have before me nor is it sufficiently clear what the outcome one would be. In addition, it is unclear as to whether the other examples cited have the benefit of planning permission or what circumstances were taken into account should they have. Energy efficiency improvements through the use of the external materials proposed would be positive but limited in their overall effect given the size of the extension and I am unclear, based on the evidence, whether the painted render would be the only way of achieving this.

These matters would therefore neither sufficiently sway me from my findings nor justify the harm that would arise from the proposals which would, for the above reasons, unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2024 and Policy CP10 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development respects and enhances the locality.

The Council’s alleged lack of engagement and their reasons not to accept amended plans to make the appeal scheme acceptable are matters that should be taken up with them directly and are not for me to resolve here.

For the reasons given above, the scheme would conflict with the development plan and there is nothing sufficiently compelling to make me find otherwise. I therefore recommend the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.