Render of external wall to gable end and side wall of extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2026 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:05 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005054 3 Tyrell Oak, Gipping, Suffolk IP14 4PR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ian Patterson against the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/04835. • The development proposed is render of external wall to gable end and side wall of extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, located within a hamlet in a rural setting surrounded by open countryside. 4. Policy LP03 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan, Part 1 (2023) (JLP) requires changes to dwellings to incorporate a high standard of design which maintains or enhances the character and appearance of the buildings, street scene and surroundings. Policy LP24 of the JLP requires all development to be of high quality design, including responding to and safeguarding the existing character/context. 5. The focal point of the small group of dwellings in the open rural setting is three pairs of semi-detached dwellings laid out in a crescent form. No 3 is at one end of this group, with its two storey end gable and single storey rear projection prominent in views from the grassed area in front of the properties and from the road. 6. These six properties are largely unaltered and are uniform in design and appearance, with brick as the predominant external material. This provides a strong degree of visual coherence across the dwellings, such that they form a distinct group, reflecting their original layout, design and appearance. Appeal Decision 6005054 2 7. The proposal involves applying render to the whole of the south elevation of the property, across the two and single storey elements. The effect of this would be to obscure the characteristic facing bricks to one of the most visually prominent parts of the group, thereby undermining the existing uniformity. As such, the large area of prominent rendered wall would appear as an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature in the otherwise visually coherent group of dwellings. 8. No 2 next to the appeal property has cladding to part of the building, but this appears to be an extension rather than part of the original building. More significantly, however, this does not form part of the same group that includes the appeal property. The same applies to No 2 Park Cottages, which has a rendered wall, but which is located to the south of the group of uniform dwellings. Therefore, the effect of the appeal proposal in this setting is not directly comparable to the treatment to these other two properties. 9. I acknowledge that there were no objections to the proposal and that the addition of render might provide some benefits in terms of thermal insulation. However, these are not sufficient reasons to outweigh the harm that has been found. I note the suggestion that the appellant would be willing to consider an alternative form of external treatment, such as cladding, but I am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the submitted proposal. 10. Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to Policies LP03 and LP24 of the JLP, as described. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR