Appeal 3285371

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed two-storey side extension at [site address] , [site address] , Selsted [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref: 21/1622/FH, dated 29 July 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: MANSE-21-046-01 [name], MANSE-21-046-03 [name], MANSE-21-046-04 [name], MANSE-21-046-05 [name] 3)The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material and colour those of the existing building.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] , [site address] , Selsted [postcode] .

The main issue is the effect of the development having regard to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a detached, two-storey house with detached single storey annex building set to one side. [site address] lies just to the south of the hamlet of Selsted on [site address] ; the wider area is predominantly open countryside and woodland with sporadic residential properties and farm buildings. The site is within the designated Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Special Landscape Area (SLA). _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________

The plans clearly demonstrate that the ridgeline of the proposal would be at least one metre lower than the main house; moreover, the width and depth of the element would also be noticeably smaller. Although the front elevation would be level with that of the principal dwelling, this arrangement would mirror the annex to the other flank, and to my mind would represent a balanced and appropriate solution. As such, I am satisfied that the scheme would be subservient to the host property, and of proportions that would complement the other buildings within the site.

I note the Council's concerns that the proposal would represent an over-development of the land, and that the extension could potentially be used as a self-contained unit that has no functional connection to the main dwelling, which would constitute an over-intensive use of the site.

The substantial size of the plot and the space separation to the side boundaries and neighbouring dwellings, together with my findings above on subservience, lead me to reason that the development would not be dominant or imposing. It would integrate satisfactorily within its setting and there would be no adverse effects on the AONB or the SLA.

Notwithstanding that the addition would be physically connected to the host property by a glass corridor, I am of the view that matter of functional use can be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of a condition to ensure that the accommodation is used only as ancillary to [site address] .

Consequently, the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. It would accord with Policies HB1, HB8, HB9 and NE3 of the Folkestone & [name] and Policies Local Plan (September 2020), which seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance and to protect landscapes and countryside.

I have considered the imposition of conditions in light of advice in Planning Policy Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans are listed for certainty. Additionally materials are required to match the existing building in order to ensure that the external appearance of the proposal is satisfactory. A further condition would ensure that the accommodation is used only as ancillary to [site address] .

Accounting for all matters raised, the appeal is allowed.