Appeal 3282291

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [site address] , is a detached two-storey dwelling. [address] comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached houses and bungalows. Number 72 is one of a small cul-de-sac of dwellings. It is sited so that it sits side on to [address], at the end of the estate road where it adjoins a private farm road. [name] observed many of the original dwellings have been altered and or extended over time, resulting in a of varying design styles.

The appellant proposes a first floor side extension with a Juliet balcony to the rear. Due to the orientation of the property the proposed first floor side addition would face [address].

The original house, and what I take to be later additions, have gable ended pitched roofs. In contrast the proposed first floor addition would have a flat roof edged with an unusually deep facias in comparison to the existing facias and gable boards.

A flat roof does have the benefit of reducing the three-dimensional mass of the proposed extension. However, in my judgement, in the context of the design of the host dwelling it would appear as an incongruous and harmful addition that would seriously harm the architectural integrity of number 72. Thereby, although located on the edge of the estate it would, nevertheless due to its prominent location facing [address], cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development by reason of its design and prominent location would fail to reinforce, respect or enhance the character of the area contrary to the objectives of Policy QD02 of the Thanet District Council Local Plan ([name] 2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the location of the appeal property adjacent to the farm road on the edge of the estate. Notwithstanding its location and the limited number of people that may use the farm road from what I saw on site the proposed extension would still be open to public view and would therefore be prominent.

The appellant has referred me to other properties with flat roofed first floor additions nearby as well as the numerous alterations undertaken to neighbouring dwellings that has resulted in significant departures from their original design. Whatever the background to those cases, they are not an appropriate justification for permitting the extension here, which I have considered on its individual design merits and its impact on the host property and the character and appearance of the area.

I appreciate that the proposed extension would not only provide additional space for the appellant’s growing family but, going forward, support for the appellant’s disabled aunt. [name] am sympathetic to these matters, on balance, they do not outweigh the harm the extension as designed would cause in the long term.

The appellant has drawn to my attention concerns relating to the level of service provided by the Council when processing the original application for planning permission. These however not relevant to my consideration of the planning merits of this appeal.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the lack of any objection to the proposal, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.