Appeal 6007817

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, which seeks retrospective planning permission.

The description on the application form includes explanatory text. For clarity and ease of identifying the development to which the appeal relates, I have taken the description from the decision notice. This does not alter any fundamental aspects of the proposal, nor prejudice the ability of any party to make their arguments on the appeal. I have taken the text into account in my findings. The main issue in which is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a three‐storey, end‐terraced dwelling with the uppermost floor set within the roof space. It forms part of a well‐preserved terrace of sandstone Victorian properties. The principal elevation is characterised by a continuous projecting porch canopy at ground floor level, supported by decorative posts and brackets. This is complemented by a regular arrangement of window openings and a series of steeply pitched gabled dormers set within the roof slope. Together, these features create a well‐balanced and finely detailed composition. Low boundary walls and planting further soften the frontage, which is set behind a pedestrian footpath adjoining a tree-lined green strip.

By virtue of its position at the end of the terrace, the appeal property is particularly prominent in views along the row and from the adjoining street. The starkness of the render finish to the entire exterior of the dwelling unacceptably contrasts with the predominantly brick sandstone facades of surrounding properties, further accentuating its visibility within the street scene. The render results in a visually incongruous feature that unacceptably disrupts the strong sense of cohesion and material consistency that currently exists, obscuring the legibility of the building’s architectural detailing. These problems could not be overcome by altering the colour of the render.

Consequently, the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the area. As such, it is contrary to Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District, [name] 2017. These, amongst other things, require development to achieve good design, putting the quality of the place first and be appropriate to their context in terms of details and materials.

It remains the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that any necessary permissions are obtained prior to any works taking place. It is unfortunate that they were incorrectly advised by a third party and that there would be a significant cost to remedial works, but I am unable to give these matters more than very limited weight. The energy efficiency improvements afforded by the render are noted, but this would be at the expense of the above and it is unclear as to whether the same or similar benefits could not be achieved by potentially less harmful means.

Aside from two road names, no substantive evidence has been provided of cited examples of rendered properties within the wider area. I am unable therefore to draw any meaningful comparison with the appeal development. My objections to which are based on the specifics of its immediate context. Support from the local member of parliament is noted, but it has not altered my findings on the main issue.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that 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.