Appeal 3336428

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey rear extension and single storey side extension at [site address] , [site address] , Snargate, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/1617/FH, dated 13 October 2023 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out below.

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 document and plans: planning statement, 617-01- [name], 617-08-[name], 617-09-[name] and 617-05-[name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions and alterations to the existing dwelling hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

Since the appeal application was refused the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 has been replaced. Within the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (Framework), paragraphs 126 and 130 of the Framework 2021 have been renumbered 131 and 135, although their content is unchanged. For the avoidance of any doubt, I confirm that in this decision I have referred to the new numbering.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene and the countryside.

The Appeal site is situated within an area of flat open countryside which is characterised by irregular shaped and sized fields enclosed by hedges, trees, lanes and water courses. They are interspersed with occasional farm buildings and dwellings with associated outbuildings. The appeal site is located within a dispersed cluster of dwellings and farm buildings and adjacent to the junction of [site address] and the B2080. On two sides the appeal site adjoins fields.

The appeal dwelling comprises a detached traditionally designed two storey cottage with a single story extension with a steeply pitched roof on one side and a single storey wing with a shallow mono-pitched roof on the other side. The existing dwelling has broken front and rear building lines, varied roof forms and heights and together with the single storey wings has a linear form. All three elements of the building have white painted walls and plan tiled roofs.

The appeal dwelling is sited in the southeastern corner of a generous sized plot which includes a number of outbuildings. This includes a large outbuilding with a part flat and part shallow pitched roof which is located a short distance to the side of the dwelling. Beyond this outbuilding are three other outbuildings, which similarly are located close to the northeastern boundary of the site. This adds to the linear form of development on the site.

Together and amongst other things policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkstone & Hythe District Council Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 (PPLP), require proposals to make a positive contribution to their location and surroundings. Extensions should respect the scale, proportions, materials, roofline and detailing of the original building and should not detract from the street scene. They should not exceed half the width of the original frontage or half the depth of the garden. Extensions to rural dwellings should be proportionate in size and scale to the original building and should not have an adverse impact on the quality and character of the landscape.

Paragraph 131 and 135 of the Framework similarly seek to ensure that new development is of high-quality design, visually attractive and is sympathetic to local character and history.

The roof of the existing side extension is disproportionately deep when compared to that of the original dwelling. This would be addressed by the proposed roof extension to the original part of the dwelling, which would result in the roofs of the appeal dwelling appearing more balanced. The rear extension would project a material distance to the rear of the original dwelling and would cover a significant proportion of the existing catslide roof. However, it would introduce a catslide roof on its southerly elevation and the proposed rear extension’s ridge line would be set in from the prominent gable end of the dwelling. The extension would not be visible from the front of the property, although it would be visible from [site address] and the field to the rear, where it would be seen alongside and against the backcloth of the host dwelling. The use of matching materials would help it blend in with the original dwelling.

For these reasons, whilst this extension would be large in scale and the original roof height would be increased, these elements of the proposal would be appropriately proportioned and would respect the character and appearance of the existing and original dwelling.

The proposed side extension would partially sit on the footprint of the adjacent outbuilding, which would be demolished. The main element of this extension would be joined to the northern end of the dwelling by a narrow link. Both elements would be recessed behind the front wall and would be lower and narrower than the host dwelling. The front and rear fenestration and external materials would respect those of the existing dwelling.

As a result of the above factors the proposed front elevation of the resultant dwelling would appear appropriately proportioned and well balanced, with the proposed extension appearing clearly subordinate to the original and existing dwelling. Whilst this side extension would result in the dwelling sprawling slightly to the north, it would be contained within the row of outbuildings to the side of the dwelling. The removal of the adjacent outbuilding would improve the appearance of the site and reduce clutter.

It is further noted that directly opposite the appeal site fronting the B2080 there is a range of attached barns, which have a strong linear appearance. Similarly, there are several dwellings in the local area with wide frontages and linear groups of outbuildings projecting to the side or rear of them.

Overall, the proposal would not exceed half the depth of the garden; would be proportionate in size and scale to the original building; would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling; and the quality and character of the landscape. These factors clearly outweigh the conflict with PPLP Policy HB8 relating to the width of side extensions.

Finally, the council has suggested the imposition of conditions relating to the use of matching materials and adherence to the plans upon which the council made its decision. These conditions are both necessary to protect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surround8ing countryside and for the avoidance of doubt.

I conclude that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene and the countryside. Accordingly, it would comply with PPLP Policy HB1 and the objectives of PPLP Policy HB8 and paragraphs 131 and 135 of the Framework.