Appeal 3356716

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a for a facade alteration, zinc cladding, new window and door and raising of lean-to roof at [site address] , Kent [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. DA/24/00969/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, B-150546/3000A, B150546-3100A.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with those stated on the application form.

The main issue is the the effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounds.

The appeal site is a semi-detached, two-storey property on [address] with a small front garden, opposite a leisure centre. The remainder of the surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with no prevailing architectural style; the neighbourhood is characterised by dwellings of differing size, design, detailing and external materials. Indeed, I observed at my visit that ground floor rear elements to local houses vary in scale and appearance. In general, the rear elevations have very limited views from the public domain, being visible only at a distance from surrounding roads across intervening gardens.

The proposed extension would introduce a distinctly modern addition to the dwelling, with zinc cladding to the elevations and roof. I note the Council's comments concerning in particular the traditional design and appearance of the appeal dwelling and its pair, and the absence of such cladding elsewhere in the neighbourhood, however I am aware that the site is not located in a conservation area and there is no indication that there are any listed _________________________________________________________________________________ buildings nearby. Overall, I have no compelling evidence to suggest that there is a particular local distinctiveness that warrants protection. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Bearing this in mind, whilst the contemporary approach would appear different to the adjacent semi and other houses in the area, to my mind this is not in itself a reason to resist the proposal. Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that decisions should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change. The single storey nature of the scheme would prevent it from dominating the rear elevation, and in the absence of any particular heritage or design constraints, due to the multifaceted context of surrounding development and in particular the considerable variation in external materials, I consider that the scheme would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Given the variety of window and door openings within the rear garden scene, I am of the view that the elongated openings and glazing, whilst perhaps not ideal aesthetically, would not be so critical as to cause harm sufficient to withhold permission, and would integrate with the eclectic nature of the setting.

Taken in the round, to my mind the addition would assimilate with the host dwelling and surrounds. Consequently, I find that the proposal would not be detrimental to character and appearance, in compliance with meet Policies M1 and M10 Dartford Local Plan April 2024, which seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and design.

I have considered the imposition of conditions in light of advice in Planning Policy Guidance and the Framework. In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans are listed for certainty. A condition requiring external materials in accordance with those listed on the application form would provide for a satisfactory appearance and accord with the appellant's intentions.

Having regard to the above and all other matters, I allow the appeal.