Appeal 3355058

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application form indicates that the development, in part, has already taken place. I was able to see walls that have been constructed at the time of my visit.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene.

There is some variation to the front building line of properties along the southern side of [address], however the dwellings are set back from the public highway behind front gardens/spaces. The proposal would bring built development forward of the host dwelling and in close proximity to the [address] footpath. This forward projection of built development would be out of keeping with the pattern of development along [address] and would, therefore, be a development out of character within this street scene. Furthermore, the extension, having a forward projection from the host dwelling, would be a prominent feature within the [address] street scene. This would have a negative visual impact upon the appearance of the host property, as well as that of the street scene.

I acknowledge that the proposal would be single storey in height representing a subservient addition to the host dwelling and it would be constructed of matching materials to harmonise with the host property. In views along [address] the roof of the proposed development would be visible above the fence that runs along the boundary of the site and the public footpath. However, the side elevation of the development would be clear in views along [address] when viewed from [address].

On the opposite side of [address] to that of the appeal property the dwelling hosts a garden structure that is positioned close to the side boundary adjacent [address]. That structure is visible over the side boundary of that dwelling. Notwithstanding this, the proposed extension to the appeal property would have an eaves height that would match the existing eaves of the host dwelling and have a pitched roof projecting above the eaves. This would be a taller and more visible structure than that of the garden structure opposite. As such, the garden structure opposite offers little weight in favour of the proposed development.

There would be no impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Whilst this is a benefit of the proposed development, this does not overcome the harm that I have identified above or justify the proposed development.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. As such, the proposed development would conflict with Policies CP4, DM14 and DM16 of the Swale Borough Local Plan 2017 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Designing an extension – A guide for householders. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to be of high-quality design, to be in keeping with the character of the area and to reinforce local distinctiveness.

There is some debate as to whether or not the principle elevation should be considered to be that of the elevation fronting onto [address], where the entrance to the property is, or the elevation fronting [address] that reflects the address of the property. Irrespective of this debated matter, I have found that the proposal would not be acceptable given its visual harm to both the host dwelling and the character and appearance of the [address] street scene.

Having regard to the above, the appeal should be dismissed.