Appeal 6002338

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension and remodelling of existing bungalow and incorporation of integral garage at Oaklands, Northwich, [name] and Chester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02644/FUL, 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 [name]: - • SK12 – Location Plan; • SK11 – Existing Site Plan; • SK07 [name] – Existing Ground Floor Plan; • SK08 [name] – [name]; • SK10 [name] – Proposed Site Plan; • SK01 [name] – Proposed Ground Floor Plan • SK02 [name] – Proposed First Floor Plan • SK03 [name] – [name] and [name] • SK04 [name] – [name] and [name]

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025. Given that this is at the consultation stage and taking into account the matters before me, I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow and its gardens in a rural location, surrounded by open undulating countryside. There is an adjacent two-storey detached house, [address]. There is also an equestrian arena visible from the rear of the property looking southwards. The proposal would include extensions and alterations that would remodel the bungalow into a one and a half / two storey dwelling. Amongst other things, this would add an entire first floor to the property and include an integral double garage. The appearance of the dwelling would be substantially altered.

The existing dwelling is a traditional bungalow of modest size providing two bedrooms and an integral garage. A conservatory has been added to the rear elevation. The existing dwelling is low key and unobtrusive in this rural setting, being set back from the road, but it lacks any particular architectural merit. Whilst substantially increasing the size of the existing dwelling; a four bedroom dwelling would be created, the design includes retaining mostly low eaves heights with oak framed gable features, dormer windows and roof lights which retain elements of the character of the bungalow. Whilst the varying ridge heights have resulted in a more complex design than the simple form of the existing bungalow, I do not find this harmful.

Oaklands is very different in appearance to [address], the nearest dwelling, in scale, design and appearance. The adjacent house being a much taller two-storey property and both are surrounded by open countryside. The proposal would not be subordinate to the existing property but there is no reason why it should be. It is a detached property that even when extended would not be any taller than the adjacent house although it would be a more linear property with a wide frontage. It would have a greater impact on the landscape because it would be larger but it would not be so large as to appear over dominant or intrusive in this setting. There is some dispute about the suitability of the facing materials but these can be addressed through a planning condition.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the surrounding area and would not conflict with the development plan policies. In particular, it would be consistent with the aims of Local Plan ([name])1 Policy ENV 6 and Local Plan ([name])2 Policy DM 3, together with the Council’s SPD for House Extensions3. Collectively these seek to achieve high quality design that respects local character and ensure development is sympathetic to the characteristics of the development site, its relationship with its surroundings and where appropriate, views into and out of the site. Also, although Local Plan ([name]) Policy DM 21 requires the resulting building to be subordinate to the original dwelling, it also requires development to be in keeping with surrounding properties, and the wider setting, which this proposal would be. 1 [name] and Chester Council Local Plan Part One: [name], Adopted 29 January 2015. 2 [name] & Chester Council Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name], Adopted 18 July 2019. 3 [name] & Chester Council Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name], January 2021 (SPD).

The appellants refer to the ability to extend the dwelling by adding an additional storey to the property under permitted development4 (PD). I acknowledge that this could occur and although examples of other appeal decisions have been submitted, no details have been submitted which illustrate how this dwelling could be extended utilising PD rights. In any event, I have found the proposal acceptable and so there is no need for me to assess it against a fall-back position.

In addition to the standard time limit a condition relating to the submitted plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The existing property comprises red brick walls with brown concrete pantiles to the roof. The application form indicates that the walls would be mixed heritage brick with render panels and natural slate roof. The existing windows are white uPVC but the application form indicates black aluminium windows. None of these materials are indicated on the submitted drawings but they would clearly be different from the existing materials. I therefore consider it necessary to impose a condition requiring the materials to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. This is to ensure a satisfactory appearance.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.