Appeal 3347911

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the impact of the development on: ⚫ the character and appearance of the house and local area; and ⚫ the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to privacy.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling at the northern end of [address], in a street scene of other domestic properties of broadly similar scale and design.

A two-storey extension has been constructed to the side of the adjoining semi at [address]; whilst this might pre-date the [name]/Alterations Design Guidance SPD 2021 (SPD), it is nevertheless an established part of the locality and there is no indication before me that its presence is harmful to the neighbourhood.

With this in mind, I am satisfied that a scheme of broadly similar nature could be formed to the side of the appeal property. However, although the front elevation of the proposal before me would be set back from the principal elevation of the host dwelling, the ridge height would be flush with the original ridge line. Consequently, the development would lack subservience at roof level, which would detract from the visual amenity of this prominent building at the end of the cul-de-sac. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

Moreover, the raising of the eaves to accommodate the set back results in a jarring appearance that disrupts the uniformity and horizontal emphasis of the property. Finally, the front elevation is poorly fenestrated, with windows that do not reflect the proportions of others on the existing house, together with a large area of blank wall at first floor level, which causes an harmful imbalance between the new and existing built form. Overall, such design elements lack architectural subtlety, to the detriment of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.

Consequently, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the house and local area, in contravention of Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 (CS), which seeks to secure proposals of acceptable scale and appearance. The scheme would also be inconsistent with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

The window serving bedroom 1 on the proposed floor plan would be afforded a view towards the first floor openings of 30 and [address], which also appear to serve habitable accommodation.

The flank wall of the scheme tapers such that the aspect towards no. 30 would be oblique due to the angle and separation involved. However, I am more concerned with the proximal window in the front elevation of no.32, where the relationship is more direct and the distance much closer. To my mind, the new bedroom window would increase the potential for privacy issues between the dwellings, where presently none exists, which would be deleterious to the living conditions of the occupants of [address].

On this basis, the scheme would contravene Policy CS19 of the CS in relation to the protection of amenity. It would also be inconsistent with the Framework, which advocates safe and healthy living conditions.

Having regard to the above and all other issues advanced, I dismiss the appeal.