Appeal 3312611

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [site address] is a detached chalet bungalow. It is part of a group of detached and semi-detached bungalows and chalet bungalows.

No 55 to the north-east is a narrow fronted detached chalet bungalow with projecting dormers and no 59 to the south-west is a chalet bungalow. No 57 sits at a slightly lower level than the neighbouring dwellings on either side and the ground level at the rear of the bungalow is at a lower level to the road.

While the dwellings on the opposite side of the road are large detached two-storey houses set well back from the road those on this side are primarily bungalows and chalet bungalows. Accordingly, the properties on either side of the road are not directly comparable in design, scale, form or siting.

The appellant proposes raising the roof of the existing property to make, what would be a two-storey dwelling along with the construction of a basement to the rear. Little of the original chalet would be retained.

Due to the proposed design, and as No 57 is set at a slightly lower level to the neighbouring properties, the roof hight of the dwelling as altered would only be slightly higher than its immediate neighbours. However, the introduction of two dominant gables to the street façade would give the dwelling as extended the appearance of a two-storey house and not a chalet bungalow.

Further, due to the plan shape of the house as extended the main roof would be flat with sloping slate covered sides. This would, in my judgement, result in the dwelling when, viewed from the sides and rear, appearing somewhat squat, bulky, utilitarian and of an unappealing appearance. This would be at odds to the vernacular form and appearance of the host property and neighbouring dwellings in the street.

For all these reasons I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposal would cause significant harm to architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area.

To allow the development would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Local Plan Document-Dartford Development Policies Plan ([name] 2017) and Polices M1 and M11 of Dartford’s emerging Pre-ubmission Local Plan-Dartford Local Plan to 2037 ([name] 2021) as they relate to, amongst other things, a requirement for development to be of a good design that responds to and retains local character.

In reaching my decision I have had regard to the fact that the Council found that the development would meet the necessary provision for off-street parking, and it would not impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, the absence of harm in relation to other considerations are neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.