Appeal 3373916

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission for the development was granted subject to conditions including Condition 2 specifying the plans which formed the basis of the permission, and Condition 3 requiring the submission of samples or specifications of materials prior to the commencement of development.

The development has commenced and the Council has set out that these conditions have not been complied with, and it has refused to vary the conditions due to concerns regarding the character of the locality and the existing dwelling. The appellants seek to vary the conditions to amend the approved plans and alter the wording of the materials condition to reflect the as built development.

On that basis, the main issue is whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

With regard to Condition 2, the appellants seek to replace the approved [name]. 01 [name] with 01 [name]. The works carried out have been varied compared to the plans approved under this condition. As set out by the appellants, this includes the removal of brick and cill courses from the front elevation as well as changes to fenestration. The Council’s concerns on this issue relate to the omission of brick headers and cills on the front elevation, which are features of windows on the front elevations of nearby properties. The inclusion of these features would tie the extended dwelling into the wider streetscape, and on that basis I consider that requiring their retention as proposed on [name]. 01 [name] means that Condition 2 is reasonable and necessary in the interests of character and appearance.

However, the appellants have confirmed that the development has been altered to insert headers and cills in respect of the front gable windows. Therefore, even if I was to vary Condition 2 to refer to [name] 01 [name], it would not represent the development as built.

Turning to Condition 3 and the use of materials, the development has been constructed using the [name] brick type. Although the Council considers that the image within the appellants’ [name] does not accurately reflect the brick used, it accepts that the stated brick type is consistent with that installed on the property. As described by the Council, this brick type consists of three different colours described as buff, black/dark brown and red. The Council sets out that there are clusters of individual brick colours with varying amounts on different parts of the building, and this reflects my observations on my visit.

The appeal site is located on a relatively modern estate of an attractive suburban character. There is some variation in the use of materials within the streetscape, including mock-tudor cladding and varying brick types. The bricks include buff coloured bricks and those of redder colour, although each brick type is used in a uniform manner on each dwelling. This gives each dwelling a consistent material palette, and even allowing for the variation of brick colours between dwellings the materials in the streetscape are of an understated and relatively consistent appearance.

Within this context, the variation of colours and the arrangement of the brickwork as used on the appeal site introduces an incongruous and jarring feature into the streetscape. The Council also refers to the marked contrast with the original buff brick of the dwelling, and although the appellants refer to the painting of some bricks on a visible elevation this is not sufficient to mitigate for the incongruous appearance of this brick type in the wider streetscape.

The development also uses anthracite grey window frames, anthracite grey facias/soffits and flat grey concrete roof tiles. These features do not complement other dwellings in the streetscape which have white window frames and brown pantiles. Although nearby properties could change the colour of their window frames and roofs without needing planning permission, I did not observe any cases where this had been done to the same extent as the appeal proposal, and it has not been demonstrated that there is a significant likelihood that this will occur. Potential alterations to nearby properties do not negate my conclusion on the harm arising from the appeal proposal within its current context.

Taken together, these factors unacceptably exacerbate the impact of what is a significant extension to the host dwelling. Whilst the materials used may be of a high quality, this does not mitigate for their incongruous appearance within the context of the prevailing streetscape.

The appellants refer to a property opposite which uses a multi-brick rather than a plain buff or red colour. However, although there are some darker patches on the individual bricks, this is more muted than the range of colour of bricks used in the appeal proposal and does not set a context for the variation in colour and arrangement of the proposal’s brickwork. Furthermore, the property opposite reflects the materials used in nearby dwellings and does not appear as an incongruous feature within the streetscape.

Reference is also made to 3 recently constructed properties on [address] which use a similar multi-brick to the appeal development as well as grey window frames and tiles. However, these are in a distinctly separate location on a self-contained site in a streetscape with much greater variation in designs and materials compared to the appeal proposal. Due to the nature of the [address] site and its context, the use of multi-brick and other materials is an acceptable approach in that instance and does not indicate inconsistency on behalf of the Council.

I am mindful that no objections were received to the proposed use of materials and that several nearby residents have written in support of the proposal. However, these considerations do not lead me to a different conclusion in respect of the identified harm based on what I have seen and read.

I conclude that the amendments proposed would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area, and that some of the proposed amendments do not reflect the development as built. Therefore, the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interests of clarity and the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with the design and materials requirements of Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2024, and the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to achieving well-designed places. The proposal would also be contrary to the advice of the Supplementary Planning Document SPD4: A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations 2012 with regards to reflecting the existing character of the property and respecting the street scene.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.