Appeal 6005172

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development is taken from the Council’s Decision Notice. The appeal documents contain a discussion1 between the Appellant and the Council where it was agreed to amend the application description to better reflect the individual elements requiring consent. I shall determine the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding locality.

The appeal site is part of a larger residential estate that appears to have been developed along [address] and surrounding streets in the early – mid twentieth century. The surrounding area contains pairs of semi-detached and detached dwellings with an arts and crafts inspired design that has been laid out in a formal speculative housing development which maintains similar designs. The dominant characteristics and materials include two storey construction, hipped roof forms with two storey canted bay windows, with some dwellings having a forward projecting gabled roof. Many of the dwellings have render to the first floor, and red/brown brick to the ground floor, with decorative brickwork such as string coursing and quoins. Dwellings also have large coaxial chimney stacks and side/rear chimneys which are dominant characteristics of the street scene. The dwellings in the surrounding area have been laid out in a regimented fashion with similar setbacks from front and side boundaries with vegetated front gardens behind small brick boundary walls, many of which have a vehicular access. The 1 Email between Appellant and [name] and Chester Council, Dated 15/01/2026 Appeal Decision: 6005172 setbacks and gaps in and around dwellings reinforce a spaciousness and status within the street scene and enables glimpses to the tops of trees in rear gardens. These assist in creating positive elements which reflect the qualities of character, appearance and local distinctiveness for this particular location. Whilst there is evidence of extensions and alterations seen throughout the estate, they are generally subservient to the main dwelling and retain the positive characteristics which contribute to local distinctiveness.

The appeal site appears to be one of the original dwellings of the residential development, and exhibits many of the positive elements of the development being with forward projecting gables over a two storey canted bay window, render to first floor level and brickwork to ground floor, and large chimney stacks to the side and to the centre which is also replicated on the remaining half of the dwelling which creates a symmetrical appearance within the street scene. As the appeal dwelling is located as [address] curves, there is a larger gap between No.16 and the appeal site compared to dwellings along the road with No.16 and the appeal site having larger side gardens to accommodate the curve in the road compared to the dwellings along the straight section of [address].

In assessing new development the [name] and Chester Local Plan Part 2 [name] and [name] (LPP2) Policy DM3 is a design related policies which has a number of design criteria to adhere to such as being high quality, well designed, respond positively and reflect the character of the area in terms of materials, design, architectural detailing, and are designed to respect the scale, character and appearance of the existing building, amongst others. Additionally, LPP2 Policy DM21 is specifically related to extensions and seeks that extensions and alterations are in keeping with the character and appearance and subordinate to the original dwelling, surrounding properties and the wider setting, amongst others. The Chester West and Chester Local Plan Part 1 [name] (LPP1) Policy ENV6 is also a design led policy that seeks that development respect character, make the best use of sustainable materials and management of waste in order to address the effects of climate change. These policies are also supported by the Council's Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] (SPD). The SPD gives further guidance around the considerations for designing residential extensions such as maintaining proportionality and subservience to host dwellings.

The proposed two storey side extension would be set back from the front façade but instead of the side wall of the extension being parallel to the existing dwelling, it would instead follow the line of the side boundary, meaning the extension would have a chamfered appearance that would extend past the rear wall of the existing building. The revised elevation plans and 3D visuals show that the extension would be rendered at first floor and the entire side façade with similar detailing to the existing dwelling except for the rear façade which would have modern cladding.

Given the positive characteristics of the surrounding area as mentioned previously, whilst the proposed extension would be setback from the front façade, the awkward shape and combined massing at two storeys close to the boundary would have an awkward appearance that erodes the visual gap and would give an overcomplicated architectural approach that would not reinforce the qualities of local character and distinctiveness. Appeal Decision: 6005172

I appreciate discussions given by the Appellant in their Statement of Case of the different revisions of extensions and the overall design intentions, together with positive feedback from surrounding residents, particularly with the proposals for more modern and lightweight extension schemes which aim to complement rather than copy or make a pastiche of the existing dwelling. I also agree that modern interpretations and influences with high quality design represent an honest approach that does not aim to deceive can also be appropriate additions to the street scene. To me the matter surrounding the proposal is not around the materials used in this proposal or previous revisions, but the resulting two storey massing and overall shape which has quite a domineering presence, particularly at first floor level when experienced within the street scene.

[name] appreciate that the scheme would be in broad conformity with elements of the SPD, this is guidance and applies suggestions based upon ideal scenarios and commonly found instances. The SPD also comments around proposals needing to be site specific and respond to the context of the location, so sometimes the suggested standards may not be appropriate. This is the case here with an unusually shaped plot where a much larger visual gap between the buildings is present and the location is more exposed than surrounding due to the curvature of the road. This is why the proposal appears more dominant despite meeting some of the suggested distances of the SPD.

In conclusion of this matter, the proposed extension would not be a suitable architectural approach as a result of its massing, design and overcomplicated and dominant appearance that erodes a positive visual gap. The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building, and would not reinforce the positive characteristics of local distinctiveness of the locality. The proposed scheme would therefore be contrary to LPP1 Policy ENV6 and LPP2 Policies DM2 and DM21 as described previously.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.