Appeal 6002473

The appeal is dismissed.

During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has suggested a willingness to revise the scheme and in doing so has provided a revised plan. The revisions predominantly relate to changes to the internal layout, albeit externally there would be an increase in obscurely glazed windows.

The appeal process is not the correct avenue to advance a scheme. The appeal should be determined based on the plans as originally submitted to the Council and upon which it based its decision. To do otherwise would prejudice the interests of the Council, interested third parties and consultees. This is particularly important in the case of a householder appeal where the Council do not have the opportunity to comment. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal based on the plans as originally submitted.

Whilst the wider appeal site is partially situated within the boundary of the Green Belt, the Council has confirmed that the dwelling, and proposed extensions, are outside of the Green Belt.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and, • whether the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling known as Sandiacres, with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site forms part of a ribbon of residential development to the west of [site address] . In the immediate vicinity of the site, dwellings are predominantly two storey, with a mixture of semi-detached and detached properties. There are varying styles and designs such that there is little consistency between design in the street scene.

The appeal property sits within a substantially sized corner plot at the junction of [site address] and [address]. Having been previously extended, the existing dwelling is already one of the larger properties within the street scene. There is also an existing large outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling. Owing to the prominent location of the plot at the junction, the full scale of the dwelling is experienced from numerous vantage points.

Whilst not increasing the overall height of the dwelling, the proposed side extension, which would hold the most prominence in the street scene, would continue the ridge height of the existing dwelling. In doing so it would add significantly to the overall bulk and form of the dwelling. Coupled with the additional footprint which would span to the rear of the dwelling (at both ground and first floor), the proposal would have a substantial and sprawling mass, which would consume and dominate the existing dwelling.

Given the extent of the appeal site, there would still be a generous proportion of the appeal site undeveloped, which I note is not the case for all dwellings along [site address] . However, this would not mitigate the experience of the dwelling itself which would still hold a prominent position within the street scene. Even in acknowledgement of the variety of dwelling sizes and designs in the surrounding area, the proposal would lead to a visually dominating and incongruous form of development.

Based on the above, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy M1 of the Dartford Plan (2024), which seeks for development to respond to and reinforce positive aspects of the locality, including in respect to its height, mass, form and scale. It would also be contrary to Policy M10 of the Dartford Plan which, amongst other matters, requires the extension of dwellings to have a design which is not visually obtrusive.

There is a general staggered arrangement to the dwellings to the west of [site address] such that the appeal property is further back within its plot than the adjacent neighbour, known as Sandiacres, to the south. The occupiers of Sandiacres, therefore already experience the presence of two storey built form close to the shared boundary, beyond the rear limit of their dwelling.

The proposal would extend built form rearwards at both ground and first floor. The ground floor would be partially screened by the existing boundary fence. However, even noting the hipped roof design and separation from the shared boundary, which would take some of the bulk of the development further away from the boundary, the additional development at first floor would create an extension to the solid wall experienced from the neighbouring occupiers, both within their rear garden and from the rear windows.

Given the otherwise relatively open nature of the outlook for the occupiers of Sandiacres, it is unlikely the neighbouring occupiers would experience a sense of enclosure. However, the development would nevertheless present an overbearing impact which would be materially harmful even taking account of the existing relationship.

Additional windows are proposed at both ground and first floor on the elevation facing towards Sandiacres. The outlook from the ground floor window would be largely screened by the boundary fence. However, the window at first floor, which is proposed to serve a bedroom, would have the opportunity to look into the neighbouring garden, and at oblique lines of sight into the neighbouring rear windows. This would have a detrimental effect on the privacy of the occupiers of Sandiacres.

The appellant has suggested that they would be open to a condition requiring this window to be obscurely glazed and side hung so that it opens away from the neighbouring property. Whilst this may be an acceptable compromise for the appellant, I must also consider potential future occupiers. A habitable room served only by a single obscurely glazed window would not create an acceptable internal living environment and therefore the imposition of such a condition would not mitigate the harm arising from the development.

Based on the above, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling known as Sandiacres, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. In this respect it would be contrary to Policy M1 and M10 of the Dartford Local Plan, both of which require development to not materially harm existing residential amenity, including through loss of privacy and visual impact.

I note the suggestion within the planning statement of an alternative scheme which could be built through permitted development rights. However, I have not been presented with specific details of such a scheme and therefore I cannot be satisfied that further extensions through permitted development would be more harmful to a degree that they would justify the appeal before me.

The proposal would provide benefits to the appellant, in accommodating the growing needs of their family. However, these benefits are primarily private and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified above.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.