Appeal 6002939

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for “alterations and extensions to include the demolition of the existing detached garage and rear single-storey bathroom extension and the construction of single and two storey extensions at the side and rear to provide additional habitable accommodation. The construction of a detached garage. Associated external works including an access driveway and garden paths; construction of 3 outbuildings” at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Rochester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/2045, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 558/01 (location plan); 558/PL07; 558/PL08; 558/PL09; 558/PL10; 558/PL11; 558/PL12.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The front parking area shall not be brought into use until the area labelled ‘permeable block driveway’ on drawing number 558/PL07 has been finished in permeable surfacing materials, which shall be maintained and retained for the life of the development.

I have modified the description of development contained in the planning application form to refer to 3 outbuildings, as this more concisely describes the proposal without reference to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

With the appeal, the Council provided copies of policies from the Regulation 19 draft of the Medway Local Plan 2041. No draft polices were referred to in the reason for refusal. As the plan has not yet been adopted and there is nothing before me to indicate the adoption process to be in its concluding stages, its emerging policies carry limited weight. I shall consider the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area; and, • the need for the proposal, having regard to the personal circumstances of an occupant of the dwelling.

[site address] comprises a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling, located on the edge of a small group of dwellings and farm buildings set within an open, rural landscape. The other half of the semi-detached pair (No. 1 [address] Cottages) has been significantly extended at ground floor. The houses adjacent ([name] and [address]) are much larger in scale and footprint than the semi-detached pair. As an end property, the appeal site is highly visible from the access track serving the group of dwellings, from [site address] , and from the nearby Public Right of Way (PRoW).

A proposal to extend the appeal property was dismissed at appeal in 2025 (reference APP/A2280/D/25/3365954). The proposed extension was of a greater scale and bulk than the scheme before me. The width of the 2-storey side extension has been reduced compared to the dismissed appeal scheme. The design of the rear first floor roof has been amended from a single hipped roof, to a dual-hipped roof, reflecting the roof form of the proposed ground floor extension.

The proposed side extension would be set slightly below the original building’s ridge height and would be set back from the original front elevation. Nevertheless, due to its width, it would appear as a dominant feature as it would be slightly wider than the host dwelling. I have been referred to an unimplemented permission for a 2-storey side extension to No. 1. (ref MC/16/1023). However, I note that the appeal scheme would be wider than the previously approved 2 storey extension at No. 1.

Policy BNE25 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 (Local Plan) supports modest extensions to dwellings within the countryside. The supporting text to the policy refers to a nominal figure of a 25% increase over the original dwelling’s floorspace, as well as consideration of the scale, character and location of the dwelling. The appeal scheme would exceed this percentage increase by some margin, and the footprint and scale of the extension could not reasonably be considered ‘modest’ relative to the host property.

The extension would be highly visible in local views from [site address] and the PRoW between the appeal site and [name] due to the elevated and exposed nature of the appeal site in these views. In views from the PRoW to the NW of the appeal site, the bulk and scale of the rear additions and hipped roofs would be apparent, but they would also be viewed in the context of the larger dwellings adjacent. In longer views from [name], I consider the distance and the context provided by the surrounding group of buildings and trees would assist in mitigating the impact of the scheme.

I conclude on this main issue therefore that whilst I consider there would be a more neutral effect upon longer views of the appeal site, there would be a small amount of harm to both the host property and localised views due to the scale and bulk of the proposed extension. This would run contrary to Local Plan Policies BNE1 and BNE25 insofar as they require extensions to be satisfactory in scale, mass, proportion and details, and require development to respect the scale, appearance and location of buildings, spaces and the visual amenity of the area.

I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s disability.

The appellants set out various shortcomings of the existing building relative to the needs of an occupier of the dwelling. These include the steep, winding staircase, lack of circulation space arising from the current layout, lack of upstairs bathroom and independent access to each bedroom. The extension would allow greater circulation space, the replacement of the existing staircase with a shallower dog-leg staircase, step-free access where possible and independent access to all bedrooms. It would address the needs of one of the occupiers within a more proportionate envelope than proposed in the 2025 dismissed appeal.

An interested party has raised concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on daylight and sunlight received to windows in the rear elevation of the adjoining house. Although the extension would be substantial, it would not project any further than the extension at the adjoining dwelling and it would be set back from the shared boundary. I am satisfied that the orientation of the extension relative to the path of the sun would not result in an unacceptable loss of sunlight to windows in the adjacent dwelling. I have no substantive evidence which would lead me to disagree with the Council’s assessment with regard to the effect upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The Council are satisfied that the scheme would be acceptable in relation to parking provision; I see no reason to disagree.

There is little substantive evidence before me that would lead me to conclude that the proposal would not be capable of being accommodated into the existing drainage network. I note that [name] have made no objection to the proposal.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the potential for the extension to be used as a separate dwelling. The proposal is for an extension, and I have assessed it on that basis; there is no substantive evidence before me that it would be used as a separate dwelling.

I have identified a conflict with the development plan in that the extension would not be a modest addition to the host property, and there would be a modest degree of harm to the host property and localised views of the appeal site from public vantage points. In the balance, I consider that the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the countryside would be outweighed by the need for the extension given the personal circumstances of an occupier of the dwelling.

The Council has provided some suggested conditions which I have considered against advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance; as a consequence I have amended or omitted some of the suggested wording. I have attached the standard time limit condition (1) and a plans condition (2) as this provides certainty. Condition 3 regarding materials is necessary in the interests of ensuring an appropriate appearance. The Council suggest an additional condition to ensure that the hardstanding for the parking area is permeable, or has been provided with drainage arrangements within the site. Given that the parking area is specifically labelled on the site plan as comprising permeable blocks, for clarity I have amended the condition to require the provision and retention of a permeable surface. This is necessary in the interests of surface water management.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons give above, the appeal should be allowed.