Appeal 6001891

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the area. • The living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is situated within a residential area, occupying a prominent position at the junction of [address] and [address], opposite the Bat and [name]. The street scene is predominantly characterised by two-storey terraced dwellings which have pitched roofs and relatively small rear gardens. A small area of public green space lies adjacent to the site on the other side of [address].

The appeal building is a large two-storey semi-detached property, with a mansard roof, and small enclosed yard to the rear. The building was previously in use as a public house, with residential accommodation at first floor level. That use ceased in 2021, and my site visit confirmed that the building is currently not in use and in need of refurbishment. The development proposed would comprise an upward extension that would provide a third storey, with the public house retained at ground floor and a house in multiple occupation (HMO) occupying the upper two floors.

The proposed upward extension draws on some of the architectural characteristics of the existing building and reflects its form. However, although the proposal would partly utilise the existing roof space, the building is already taller than neighbouring two-storey properties. The addition of a further floor would therefore accentuate the height difference, resulting in a building that appears disproportionately tall and visually dominant within its immediate surroundings.

The introduction of an additional storey would require another row of windows, which would materially change the proportions and appearance of the building within its setting of modest two-storey dwellings. This effect would be particularly noticeable given the site’s prominence at a road junction, which is further accentuated by the open green space beside it, and the cricket ground opposite. The increased height would also be readily apparent from adjacent neighbouring properties and their relatively small gardens, reinforcing the perception of an overly dominant and intrusive form.

In conclusion, the proposal would harm to the character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) (Local Plan), which aims to achieve high quality development that conserves and enhances the character of the local built and natural environment.

The development would increase the height and massing of the building. This would affect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring Nos. 19 and [address] in terms of outlook and light, as they have windows and private gardens facing the development up to the boundary.

The back-to-back distance between the development and Nos. 19 and [address] would remain at approximately 11 metres. While the [name]/ [name] (2021) does not specify minimum separation distances, it requires careful consideration of how extensions affect neighbouring outlook. Although the distance between the buildings would not change, the increased height and massing, together with the additional row of windows, would change the outlook from Nos. 19 and [address]. This would result in an overbearing and visually intrusive form of development, harming the amenity of neighbouring occupiers of Nos. 19 and [address].

With regard to daylight and sunlight, the [name]/ [name] (2021) states that extensions should not create an unreasonable amount of overshadowing of neighbouring properties. An assessment of the proposal against the “25 degree rule” guideline, set out in the SPD, indicates a potential adverse impact on light levels to Nos. 19 and [address]. However, a submitted daylight and sunlight assessment concludes that the development would have a very low impact on the light receivable by its neighbouring properties. On this basis, the development would not result in an unreasonable amount of overshadowing, and the effect on neighbouring living conditions in terms of light would be limited.

Taking all matters into account, the development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties at Nos. 19 and [address] in terms of outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy CS19 of the Local Plan, Council’s Design for [name] (2024) and [name]/ [name] (2021), which seek to ensure that extensions are in keeping with the design of the host building and its surroundings in terms of scale, height and massing, and avoid harm to outlook.

The site lies within 6 kilometres of the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA), which is designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in accordance with the requirements of the [name]. The SPA is classified for its importance for bird species listed on Annex 1 of the Directive, as well as for the internationally important assemblages of migratory birds it supports. The site is also designated as a Wetland of [name] under the [name].

No mitigation measures have been secured in respect of potential impacts on the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area, including through a [name] and [name] (SAMMS) contribution. However, the appeal is being dismissed for other substantive reasons, I have not therefore considered this matter any further.

I recognise that the development would deliver some economic, environmental and social benefits, including the provision of additional HMO accommodation, redeveloping a vacant building, and reopening a public house. However, similar benefits could be achieved through a smaller scale development that would not involve an upward extension, albeit with fewer HMO units.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.