Appeal 6002820

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s submission includes a revised set of existing drawings which clarify the relationship between the appeal site and the building at [address]. A set of revised proposed drawings have also been provided which seek to amend the proposal. Whilst remaining a first-floor side extension, the proposal would be different in size and shape, and a metal gate would be introduced at the front elevation.

The Procedural Guide1 is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. It is important that what I consider is essentially what was before the Council when it determined the application. Interested parties were informed that there was no opportunity for them to comment upon any part of the appeal submission. The Council has also had no opportunity to comment on the amendments. Accepting these plans would result in procedural unfairness to those parties. Consequently, I have assessed the appeal based on the plans considered by the Council. The appellant has the option of making a new planning application.

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

The appeal building is one of a broadly symmetrical pair of 2-storey dwellings with a half barn-hipped roof and flat-roofed front dormers. The property is the last on [address] and its front elevation is roughly at a right-angle to that of the neighbouring buildings on [address]. A moderate gap separates its side wall from the rear wall of [address] (No 40); the prominence of this gap is emphasised in the streetscene due to its corner location. The common boundary 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. with No 40 splays, so that the frontage of the appeal site is wider at the road than at the rear.

Surrounding pairs of dwellings on [address] are likewise moderately spaced apart and consistent in scale. Although these properties have a mixture of roof forms, they generally incorporate hipped side roof slopes. Together with the siting pattern, these shapes contribute to a spacious suburban quality to this established residential area. Along this road, I observed single-storey side, rear and porch additions. However, extensions at first floor level were not a prominent feature.

The Council’s 2009 Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document states that the siting of new extensions should normally respect the pattern of buildings and spaces between them in order to assist with their integration. Regarding the roofs of extensions, where visible from public view the roof shape is critical to creating a successful built form and the pitch should normally be similar to the main house’s roof pitch.

The proposal would result in a first-floor addition set on top of a pair of unobtrusive supporting pillars, with its side wall extending up to the splayed boundary. Its size and siting would emphasise its width and result in a dominant effect on the existing building’s modest proportions. The siting would also erode much of the prominent, spacious gap between the site and the rear of No 40.

The proposed pitched roof which would meet the existing dwelling’s side hip roughly towards its centre, emphasising the proposal’s height. The roof form would be alien to the dwelling, and surrounding properties on [address]. It would complicate the simple form of the existing building in a prominent location. This would result in a bulky addition that fails to integrate with the existing pattern of buildings, spaces and roof forms. This would cause harm to the character and appearance of the building and streetscene, for which the use of either painted render or cladding finishes would provide little mitigation.

My attention has been drawn to examples of first floor side extensions to properties on Everest Place2. Although these examples are in the near vicinity, they are not visible from [address] and are experienced in their own distinct streetscene context. As such, they would not justify the harm I have identified.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Council Allocations and Development Management Plan (2015). This policy seeks to ensure that developments create high quality design, including through responding to the scale and layout of the surrounding area.

The Council’s notice of decision refers to the Swanley Neighbourhood Plan. Although this contains policies relating to design, those are primarily concerned with tall buildings, development affecting heritage assets and Swanley Village. None of those matters are directly engaged by the proposal. Accordingly, I have not identified any conflict with the specific policies of the Neighbourhood Plan. 2 Council ref 04/00514/FUL ([address]) and 13/03199/HOUSE ([address]).

The Council has not identified any harm to neighbouring residential properties including by way of overshadowing, loss of daylight or loss of privacy. Nor has it raised concern regarding the effect on parking. Having considered the representations made at application stage and the reasoning set out in the Council’s Officer Report, I see no reason to conclude otherwise. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not amount to a benefit of the proposal. As such these matters weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.