Appeal 3349935

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published between the determination of the planning application and this appeal. The substantive parts of the new 2024 version do not however differ from the previous insofar as they relate to the main issue. The case of the main parties will not therefore be prejudiced by my reference to the new version. I have proceeded on this basis.

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

The appeal building is a large detached two storey dwelling which has been extensively altered. The main section is on a roughly rectangular footprint with some single storey, patently subservient and recessive additions. It has a conservatory central to the rear, a single span hipped roof over the main section and a pair of forward projecting two storey elements flanking a centralised and covered front door. These factors, along with the placement and size of the windows and external treatment, create a pleasant symmetry, particularly as the building faces the road. The dwelling is part of a small enclave of other buildings in an otherwise open, undeveloped and distinctly rural location. The quality of the building’s exterior and balanced detailing contributes positively to the street scene and thus the character and appearance of the area.

The first-floor side extension, whilst set back from the front, would add detail which would compete for visual dominance with the existing dwelling. It would detrimentally affect the balance, symmetry and thus quality of the front elevation particularly through the use of a dormer style window, smaller window openings and an additional sideways projection. The further width created by the single storey extension to the side again, whilst being subservient, would exacerbate the visual incongruence of the unbalanced elevation by stretching it further sideways. The street frontage location of the building and its open countryside location would make the visual effect of the scheme very obvious.

Having been extended significantly in the past, the building has lost much of its original identity, albeit this is now something of a ship having sailed situation. It is now a large building, and the proposed works would not, in and of themselves, be so substantial as to be unacceptable in that context. The existing building, and those around it, present as large and detached and that situation would not materially change. The plot itself is sizeable and can comfortably accommodate a large detached building. The size of extensions are limited by the Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) but this is a guide and beyond the design harm I have found, the size of the works alone would not be harmful in the existing context.

The rear section, whilst similar height to the eaves of the property, would be read as subservient on the whole and being centralised it would reflect the balance of the building. It would also be to the rear and thus less obvious. It would accordingly be read as a logical progression of built form. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area in the above terms. It would therefore conflict with Policies LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4 and LPRHOU11 of the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan 2024 and the Framework which together seeks to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan, and I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.