Appeal 6005431

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 scheme. The main issue in which is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by render and brick-built detached and semidetached dwellings. A number incorporate brick quoin detailing, traditional window casements of a restrained scale and asymmetrical roof forms which achieve a degree of visual symmetry between pairs.

[site address] is detached and sat in a comparatively large plot. It is finished mainly in painted render and, despite some changes over time, displays a number of the above features as well as a partially exposed chimney stack, covered porch and an over sailing decoratively bracketed gable roof. Although set back from the highway behind a low brick wall, both the front and side elevations are readily visible from the public realm. [site address] is far from uniform in building terms, but the aforementioned recurring traditional features exude a pleasant period character to the street scene which, in association with verdant gardens, contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would materially alter the form and appearance of the host dwelling to an extent that it would no longer relate well to its original character. In particular, the side element’s lack of any discernible set-down in the roofline, would result in a bulky and visually dominant roof form that would unduly compete with the original building. Therefore, the proposal would not appear subordinate as required by the [address] Extensions and [name] (2021) (SPD). While the appeal property does not follow a continuous building line and is set back from the highway, it remains prominent in public views.

The use of red brick would reflect materials found within the surrounding built form, but this would be unacceptably offset by the introduction of a large expanse of glazing to the front gable elevation, which would present as a distinctly contemporary feature. This element would fail to reflect the more traditional materials and detailing that characterise the dwelling and its context. Furthermore, the proposed fenestration as a whole would lack consistency in its design, with varying window styles and proportions appearing at odds with one another. A failure to adopt a clear and cohesive architectural approach would visually jar with the surrounding period feel. Taken together, these elements would result in a discordant and visually unbalanced addition.

Given my concerns stem from the fundamental arrangement and design approach of the fenestration, rather than isolated matters of execution or finish, I am not satisfied that these issues could be adequately resolved through the imposition of conditions without materially altering the scheme. For which the appeal process should not be used in any event. Number 391 [site address] retains restrained fenestration and exhibits a singular design approach. This example is not sufficiently comparable to the appeal scheme for my findings to change.

Were the proposal otherwise acceptable in design terms, appropriately worded conditions to secure tree protection measures during construction could be imposed, having regard to the arboriculture evidence submitted. However, and with my findings in mind, I have not considered these matters further.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would be contrary to Policy ENV6 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan Part One (2015), and Policies DM3 and DM21 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan Part Two (2019), which require that development respects local character and achieves a sense of place through appropriate layout and design, as well as ensuring the resulting development is in keeping with the character and appearance of, and is subordinate to, the original dwelling and surrounding properties, and the wider setting.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there is nothing sufficiently compelling to 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.