Appeal 3277769

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

During the course of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. There are no substantive changes relevant to the appeal before me and therefore no interested parties would be prejudiced by my consideration of the 2021 version of the Framework.

The area is characterised by residential development of a mix of property types and designs, but with generally consistent building lines and regular gaps between the groups of properties. The eastern side of [site address] includes a small number of footpaths between the properties which provide pedestrian links and visibility through to [address].

The open areas around the entrances to these footpaths on [site address] and [address] contribute to the legibility of the streetscape and the gaps created by these pathways contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site adjoins the path of [address] to the north. The properties on [address] are set back from the edge of the footpath and have low level boundary treatments around their front gardens, creating an open character. Despite the fencing around the northern side of the appeal site, an open vista remains from [site address] to the houses beyond.

The proposed two storey side extension, by reason of its scale, proximity to the edge of the footpath and its projection forward of the building line on [address], would cause a significant reduction in the gap which exists. Despite the use of sympathetic design including a set back and lowered ridgeline, the bulk of the proposal would obstruct the open views along the pathway and appear as a visually intrusive form of development which is at odds with the character and appearance of the area. The harm arising to the character and appearance of the area would be significant.

I have considered the examples of other development put forward by the appellant, of which the most relevant is opposite the appeal site. However, this has a materially different relationship to the properties and streetscape behind in [address]. I am not aware of the particular circumstances of the other examples put forward and I understand them to be some distance away from the appeal site. Therefore, given the site specific characteristics of the proposal before me, I do not consider them to be direct comparators and I afford them little weight.

I have also noted the appellant’s comments that the proposals would provide good use of the land and garden area. This is noted, however this benefit would not outweigh the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons described above I find the development to be contrary to policy QD02 of the Thanet District Local Plan 2020, which in summary aims for all new development to promote or reinforce the local character of the area and provide high quality and inclusive design. For these reasons the development would also be contrary to the Framework.

The development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole. This conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations in this instance.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.