Appeal 6009908

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single-storey side extension, the removal of a rear porch, and the addition of cladding to the upper half of the front elevation at [address], Horwich, Bolton, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21441/25, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: BL-RE-002-PR-100, BL-RE-002-PR-200, [name]-002-PR-300, with the exception of the single-storey side extension, which shall retain the mono-pitch roof as already constructed.

The Council has accepted that the single-storey side extension would be acceptable in principle, and I agree with that conclusion. The main issue, therefore, is the effect of the design of the side extension and the materials used on the front elevation of the house on the character and appearance of the area around [address].

No 3 is a detached house situated on the western side of [address], which is a short cul-de-sac at the edge of a residential estate to the north of Horwich. It has a gable front, with a rendered ground floor and a pebbledash upper floor. At the time of my visit, the proposed single-storey side extension was under construction, such that the development has already begun, albeit the proposed cladding to the first floor has not been added.

The Council contends that the proposed side extension and the cladding would, by reason of their design, materials and colour, fail to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality. The appellant contends that there are many examples of differing forms and colours of cladding across the estate, and that offers by him to provide alternative designs were not accepted by the Council before the decision was taken.

Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone (PfE) requires that development should be distinctive, with a clear identity that respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality in terms of design and materials used. [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) indicates that extensions should respect and be sensitive to the proportions of the existing house or any particular features such as windows, stone detailing, or materials in terms of colour and texture, and specific features such as bay windows, bargeboards etc.

There are 7 houses on the western side of [address] and they exhibit similar facades with pebbledash upper-floors and stone-style ground floors, though there are variations in window designs and styles. No 1 occupies a prominent corner plot and has a two-storey side extension which may or may not be original, while No 13 has a front canopy. No 3 currently has dark window frames, though it has retained the window proportions and the front ground-floor bay. It also has a black rendered ground floor which replaces the somewhat artificial-looking stone façade of the neighbouring properties, and which makes it distinctive. It has a small side extension under construction, which is uncharacteristic, though acceptable in principle, and which has a pitched roof that is not as per submitted drawings but which is in keeping with the roof designs of the houses along this side of the road.

The houses on the eastern side of the road are very different in appearance with a form of Dutch colonial upper-floor façade, most examples of which are vertically clad with varied tile designs, but one of which (No 8) has dark horizontal cladding, similar to that proposed at No 3, in place of the tiles. There is, in addition, at the end of the cul-de-sac, a wider-fronted, more modern house (No 12) with a complex façade comprising a mix of brick, stone and pebbledash.

I acknowledge that there is some uniformity in the facades of the houses along the western side of [address]. However, there is significant variation across a range of details, especially when looking at the road as a whole. This is characteristic of the wider estate, where variations may be found along rows of houses which otherwise have many similarities. In this case, therefore, I do not consider that the proposed alterations at the No 3 would be significantly harmful to the character or appearance of [address] or of the wider locality. On this basis, it would not conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the PfE, or with general guidance in the SPD which requires respect for proportions and specific features of the existing house. Accordingly, I allow this appeal.

I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have adapted a standard condition to reflect the current situation, which includes partial construction of the proposed side extension with an acceptable mono-pitch roof.