Appeal 6004603

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to alterations to external materials for the remaining area of the original rear elevation of the dwelling following the building of the extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey rear extension, and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension as built; replacement rear balcony with glass balustrading and alterations to fenestration at [site address] , Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. PLAN/2025/0822 and the plans submitted with it so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the condition in the Schedule below.

The main issue is the effect of the extent of white painted render on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the adjoining area.

The Officer’s Delegated Report on the appeal application explains that planning permission was granted in May 2025 under reference PLAN/2024/0200 for the erection of a single storey rear extension with white render, replacement of a rear balcony with glass balustrading and alterations to the fenestration. The development has been carried out, but not wholly in accordance with the plans approved in that decision. The appeal application now seeks retrospective permission for the alterations and additions ‘as built’ and these are illustrated on the submitted plans in this appeal application. The changes include a 0.6m increase in the single storey extension’s length, an amended roof design, and an altered support for a glazed balustrade.

The Council has taken account of neighbour objections to the amended scheme, and the [name] explains why, in all but one case, the changes to the development as approved are considered acceptable. The exception is ‘alterations to external materials; namely the rendering of the entire rear elevation of the Appeal Decision Ref. 6004603 dwelling to its ground floor extent (as extended) and also to its first-floor extent’. In short, instead of the white painted render finish being confined to the extension as approved, it has also been applied to the entirety of the property’s rear elevation.

However, the property is one of many dwellings that back on to Goldsworth Park Lake, a designated urban open space and a ‘Character Area’ identified in the [name] 2012 and therein safeguarded by Policy CS21 ‘Design’ and Policy CS24 ‘[name] and Townscape’. These houses all have dark brickwork on their elevations and the [name] explains why this uniformity is important to the Character Area.

Following my visit, I am satisfied that from the footpath in the park the white rendered rear wall can be seen above the garden fence and markedly contrasts with the walls of neighbouring dwellings. I have had regard to the submissions in the grounds of appeal that the staggered position of houses, the vegetation, the fencing, and garden buildings have a screening effect. Nevertheless, I share the Council’s view that the substantial area of rendered wall still visible draws the eye as being incongruous and visually discordant in its context and is thereby harmful to the appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. This harm is sufficient to warrant the Council’s refusal of the appeal application but as the [name] also makes clear, a permission in this case would also make it difficult for the Local Planning Authority, in all fairness, to resist further similar proposals to dwellings within the Gosworth Park residential area.

The Officer’s Report also refers to condition 25 of the original outline planning permission (Ref. WOK/28268) for the Gosworth Park and to the same condition in its subsequent renewal (Ref. 77/1195), in both cases withdrawing permitted development (‘PD’) rights and thereby precluding the rendering of the rear wall of the appeal property. The grounds of appeal contest the current relevance and enforceability of these conditions in asserting that the appellant has the benefit of a PD fall-back position to render or paint the rear wall.

The reference to the conditions on the original permissions is useful in that they clearly demonstrate the importance at that time of ensuring that the Gosworth Park would be a harmonious development. However, I do not agree with the appellant’s argument that they comprise a fall-back of any material weight. This is because the development has already been carried out pursuant to the permission for application ref. PLAN/2024/0200 of which condition No. 03 states that ‘The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling in material, colour, style, bonding and texture unless otherwise shown on the approved plans or listed in the Application Form dated 04.03.2024. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area’.

The application plans clearly show only the extension as being rendered, with the remainder of the rear elevation retaining the original brickwork. Furthermore, the [name] for that application also explained why white render for the extension alone would be acceptable as a contrast to the original external materials of the original dwelling. The carrying out of the development has now activated the condition and paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the GPDO 2015 confirms that a condition takes precedence over the relevant PD category. I am also satisfied that condition No. 03 meets all six requirements for a condition as set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024 (‘the Framework’) and Appeal Decision Ref. 6004603 paragraph 003 Ref. ID 21a-003-20190723 of the Government’s online Planning Practice Guidance.

Overall, I find that the rendering of the main rear wall of the dwelling has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of both the property and the adjoining area in harmful conflict with the policies of the [name] referred to in paragraph 5 above and with Section 12: ‘[name] of the Framework.

I shall therefore dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to alterations to external materials for the remaining area of the original rear elevation of the dwelling. However, because this is severable from the extension and other alterations which the Council has confirmed are on balance acceptable, I shall grant permission as set out in paragraph 1 above and subject to the following condition which was included in permission ref. PLAN/2024/0200.