Appeal 3341369

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the determination of the planning application the Council have adopted The Dartford Plan April 2024 (DP), whose policies supersede the [name] 2011 and the Dartford Development Policies Plan 2017 referenced within the Decision Notice. I have therefore determined the appeal with the newly adopted policies in mind.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring houses in respect of light, outlook and overbearing impact.

The appeal site consists of a two-storey house with off-street parking on the driveway to the front. It forms part of a group of semi-detached properties on [address] with prominent projecting gable features and bay windows. At my site visit I observed that the adjoining semi at [address] has a two-storey side extension that extends to the flank boundary at ground and first floor level. Its appearance and detailing assimilates with the host dwelling and the street scene.

Conversely, the appeal scheme before me incorporates a jettying first floor element over an open ground floor passageway running along the side border, supported by posts. This would result in an awkward and incongruous design solution, the posts would appear flimsy in the general context of the setting. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Furthermore, the fenestration within the front elevation would be poorly aligned, with the ground floor openings offset from the first floor window above, thus causing a harmful imbalance in the appearance of the scheme. Overall, to my mind the development would lack architectural subtlety, and this would be detrimental to the visual quality of the streetscene on this side of [address].

Elsewhere, I consider that the height, mass, scale and orientation of the proposals would be broadly consistent with the host residence and neighbourhood. Whilst the roof would not be subservient to the main property, this would replicate the design of no.101 and would not therefore appear discordant. However, such matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

I am mindful that the house, neighbouring built forms and surrounding area are not designated heritage assets. In relation to landscape features, the appeal proposal would not result in a loss of such features. Additionally, the use of external materials and joinery details to match the existing building would reflect the urban grain of the locality. Nonetheless, the scheme remains unacceptable for the reasons outlined previously.

I therefore conclude that the scheme would be injurious to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area. It would contravene Policies M1 and M10 of the DP, which expect new development to be of a high-quality design that reflects and respects the existing character, setting and local context.

The first floor bedroom window in the flank elevation of no.97 currently benefits from views in a broadly southerly direction towards the rear garden scene of nearby residences. The window is a source of light and outlook from the bedroom, which is deemed to be a habitable area.

Due to the height and close proximity of the appeal proposal relative to the window, the views would be impeded by a blank side wall approximately 3 metres away. I also have no robust evidence, for example in the form of BRE compliant report, to ratify that light levels would not be materially reduced. As such, the development would result in an constrained environment for the occupants of the room, materially worse that the existing situation, and would have a harmful impact upon their living conditions.

At the back, the proposed single-storey element would projecting outwards by approximately 4.7 metres from the rear wall of the main house, and with its flank elevation lying on the boundary with [address].

The development would be substantially higher than the existing boundary fence. Taken together with the significant rearward projection and close proximity relative to the adjoining property, I consider that it would result in harm to the living conditions of the residents of no.101. It would appear oppressive and overbearing when viewed from the facing openings in the ground floor and the patio area.

Given the relationship between built form there is also the potential for loss of light to the patio area and internal accommodation within the same ground floor rooms of no.101, particularly in the morning. In the absence of any _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ convincing verification, it is not possible to confirm whether the neighbouring property would suffer a loss of light, and as such I cannot be certain that the living conditions of occupiers therein would be materially affected.

I find that the development would be deleterious to the the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring houses in respect of light, outlook and overbearing impact. It would run contrary to Policies M1, M2 and M10 of the DP, which aim to ensure that schemes do not materially harm existing residential amenity.

Given the above and all other factors raised, I dismiss the appeal.