Appeal 3341044

The appeal is dismissed.

[name] 2024 the Dartford Borough Council’s The Dartford Plan - Dartford Borough’s Local Plan to 2037 (LP) was adopted. It states at paragraph 1.5 that the LP replaces all the policies in the [name] 2011 and Development Policies Plan 2017 (DPP) and the Dartford Local Plan Pre-Submission (Publication). The Council has confirmed that in relation to the appeal proposal the relevant policies within the LP include Policies M1 and M10. The appeal has been determined on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal site occupies a prominent position adjacent to the junction of [address] and [address].

The southern side of [address] is characterised by individually designed detached bungalows, chalet and two storey houses that are set back from the street scene behind mature landscaped gardens. The dwellings are partially screened from the lane by the abundance of hedges and trees which flank the lane. On the opposite side of the road are Bexley Park Heath and a football club. These features all contribute to the informal, verdant and semi-rural character and appearance of the street scene.

Conversely the northern part of [address] is characterised by rows of uniformly sited and designed semi-detached and terraced two storey houses, with uncluttered shallow pitched roofs, which hip away from the road. They are set back from the highway behind modest sized front gardens, which typically accommodate on-site parking spaces and low level planting. On the west side of the road is [address] Green which is an open grassed area with occasional trees. This results in a more formal suburban character and appearance.

[address] some of the chalet style dwellings include pitched roof dormers on their front elevations. They are at first floor level and align with the first floor windows of the two storey dwellings. As such they do not have a material impact on the scale and modest roof form of the two storey dwellings along this part of [address] and the roof-scape in general. At the opposite end of [address] are two pairs of semi-detached houses which have large dormer extensions on their front roof slope. Whilst they create a small uniform group, due to their height and bulk they are not reflective of the prevailing roof-scape. There are also a number of large rear dormer extensions, although they are largely screened from and have minimal impact on the street scene.

The appeal dwelling projects forward of the front building lines of the nearby dwellings in [address] and its flank elevation is sited close to the pavement. As a consequence, the rear and side elevations of the appeal dwelling are prominent in views along [address] and [address] Green.

Collectively and amongst other things, [name] M1 and M10 seek to ensure that new development responds to, reinforces and enhances positive aspects of the locality. It should be suitable in terms of height, mass and roof form and should integrate with the public realm. Extensions should follow the historic pattern and form and should not be visually intrusive. These policies are consistent with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, which states that new development should be sympathetic to local character, whilst not preventing appropriate innovation or change.

Due to their combined siting, height, depth and mass the proposed dormers would appear top heavy on the dwelling and would both dominate and materially detract from its appearance. The resultant roof would be prominent in views from [address] and [address] Green, where it would appear bulky and top heavy. It would be out of keeping with the modest roof-scape above first floor level. Also, the dormer cheeks would add to the stark appearance of the right side wall of the host dwelling when viewed from [address] and [address] Green.

Conversely in views from the east along [address], the dwelling would remain largely screened and would have a minimal impact on the roof-scape, character and appearance of this part of the lane.

Notwithstanding this, the harm it would cause to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, [address] and [address] Green would clearly outweigh the benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the additional accommodation. This harm is not a matter that could be adequately dealt with by condition.

For this reason I conclude that the proposed dormer windows would unacceptably detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with [name] M1 and M10.