Appeal 3302298

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of loft into habitable space including a rear dormer to the rear roof slope and two roof windows to the front at [site address] , Darenth [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00077/FUL, dated 7 January 2022, 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: Site Location Plan; Proposed and [name] 018GKP.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate subject to certain exceptions. The parties agree the proposal would fall within one of those exceptions - the extension or alteration of a building that does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. From everything I have seen in submissions and on my site visit, I have no reason to disagree.

The main issue in this appeal is the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and area.

The appeal property is an end of terrace house located within a modern housing estate. The layout of development in the area is generally compact and views of the rear of the appeal property from either side are constrained by existing development. The proposed dormer would be visible at the immediate rear of the appeal site from a cul-de-sac at [address]. However, the appeal property is set back from the street by its rear garden and views of the proposed dormer would be partially screened by boundary treatments and garden trees and shrubs. The proposed dormer would not therefore appear prominent or visually intrusive within the street scene.

The existing roof is of modest size and the proposed dormer would be relatively large, occupying most of the rear roof plane. However, the proposed dormer would be set in from the flank walls and above the eaves and would not therefore appear out of scale with the existing dwelling. The design and proportions of the proposed Juliette balcony would not appear out of keeping with the existing modern windows and patio doors found at the appeal property and neighbouring dwellings. The proposed dormer would appear as living accommodation within the roof space. However, the dormer would be atop two storeys of living accommodation, against which its bulk and massing would not detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling or create a top-heavy effect.

From my site visit I found the rear dormer at [address] is visible through gaps between dwellings at [address] and The Green, and views are not therefore restricted to the communal car park area. [address] I noted there are also glimpsed views of a rear dormer at No 32. Due to the orientation of the buildings, those rear dormers are not visible from the appeal property and there are no rear dormers at adjacent dwellings. However, since there are other examples nearby, I do not consider flat-roofed rear dormers to be an uncommon feature in the area.

For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the appeal property or area. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 which require development proposals to be of suitable design, not visually obtrusive and well-related to neighbouring dwellings and the wider locality. Whilst also relevant to matters of character and appearance, draft Policies M1 and M11 contained within the Pre-Submission (Publication) Dartford Local Plan do not significantly change the approach of Policies DP2 and DP7. Therefore, the emerging Local Plan does not indicate a different conclusion should be reached.

In addition to the standard time limit for the planning permission granted, in the interests of certainty I have attached a condition specifying adherence to the approved plans.

For the reasons given above, having assessed the case against the development plan taken as a whole and having had regard to all other relevant material considerations, I conclude the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted.