Appeal 3335974

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for hip to gable roof extension with additional front dormer at Sunnycroft, [site address] , Longfield, Kent [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/23/00980/FUL, dated 18 August 2023, subject to the following conditions: - a) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. b) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 200, 201 and 202. c) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevant implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.

Sunnycroft is a detached property like the majority of dwellings in the area. There is variety to the design and appearance of the properties in the locality, many of which have been extended and altered over time. Many also host roof dormers.

Sunnycroft has been extended to one side and the proposal seeks to change the hip of the extension to a gable roof and to insert an additional front dormer within the extended part of the dwelling. Whilst the Council contend that this would introduce a different roof form to that of the original dwelling, the northern end of the dwelling hosts a barn hip to the side. As such, the proposed roof form would not be at odds with the roof form of the original dwelling.

The additional dormer would add a fourth dormer within the front roof slope. The front dormer would match the current dormer within the extension. Two roof dormers within the extended roof would balance with the two larger roof dormers within the original roof slope. Whilst the proposal would add to the number of dormers within the front roof slopes this would not result in a cluttered appearance to the property, taking into consideration that roof dormers are a common feature within the wider area.

There is no one distinct character to the properties in this residential area. The appeal property is not a prominent feature within this estate. Even if enlarged as proposed, the side extension would retain its subservient appearance to the original dwelling. Consequently, I find that the proposal would not be visually harmful to the appearance of the host property or the character of the area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such, the proposed development would comply with Policies DP2 and DP7 of the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 and Policies M1 and M11 of the Pre-Submission (Publication) Dartford Local Plan. These policies seek, amongst other matters, new development, including residential extensions, to be of a high quality design that responds to, reinforces and enhances the positive aspects of a locality.

I have considered the planning conditions put forward by the Council in light of paragraph 56 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition and in the interests of certainty it is appropriate that there is a condition requiring the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In the visual interests of the locality a matching materials condition is necessary.

For the reasons set out above, and subject to the conditions listed, this appeal should be allowed.