Appeal 6004558

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site contains a semi-detached dwelling set within a suburban area with the plot backing onto [address]. Owing to [address] being set parallel to the rear of the plots situated along [address], views of the backs of these properties, including No 83, are readily apparent from public views, although the ground floor level is mostly obscured by the boundary fencing.

The rear of the properties along [address] demonstrates a regular and coherent appearance at first floor level, predominantly comprising two windows and finished with hanging tiles or cladding. Whilst some of these properties along this section of [address] have been subject to rear extensions of varying appearance and forms, they are set to the side of the properties meaning the consistent rear elevations are still positively perceptible from the streetscene of [address].

The appeal proposal would introduce a large two storey rear extension with an off-centre pitch. The first floor element has a set back from the ground floor and side boundary and would be separated from [address] by the existing garden and fencing. However, the proposal would be the entire width of the rear elevation at first floor, resulting in the loss of the existing rear façade that presently visually positively contributes to the consistent character and appearance of the streetscene.

In addition, the extension would be of considerable bulk, scale and massing at first floor compared to the modest rear facades of the appeal sites neighbours making the proposal appear distinctly prominent and intrusive within the streetscene.

The parties disagree about the effect of the off-centre roof pitch. Given the variety in the roof forms of the surrounding area the off-centre pitch would not be harmful as an isolated design element. However, when applied to the form of the appeal proposal, harm would arise owing to the bulk, scale and massing for the reasons already given.

The gables of the properties at 4a and [address] have been brought to my attention. However, these are situated to the front of the property and do not take up the entire width of the elevation. They are therefore not comparable to the appeal proposal. The remaining examples highlighted by the appellant are situated away from the very specific streetscene context along [address] that the appeal proposal would be seen within. Therefore, the existence of these examples would not mitigate or otherwise justify the harm that I have identified.

The proposal would therefore cause considerable harm to the character and appearance of the host building and area. It would conflict with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan (2020). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that proposals respect the character of the host building and make a positive contribution to its location and surroundings.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider as part of the appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The evidence shows that the Council did not find harm with regard to other matters, such as the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, highway safety, parking, flood risk and archaeology. However, the absence of harm in relation to these matters does not diminish the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

I also note that the Town Council did not raise an objection to the proposal. However, the lack of objection does not equate to a lack of harm.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.