Appeal 6005211

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.

[address] is a residential cul-de-sac containing detached bungalows. Some have been extended but largely appear to be single storey houses with modest accommodation in the roof. The dwellings are moderately spaced and set back from the road with open frontages such that the street has a pleasant and spacious feel. No [site address] is single storey with modest accommodation within a pitched roof space, although the roof accommodation is not apparent from the front. The dwelling contributes to the sense of spaciousness in the area, particularly at roof level.

The appeal proposal would significantly increase the width of the dwelling, with the front elevation extending across most of the width of the plot. It would be much wider than adjacent properties such that the difference in scale would appear incongruous. At the front of the proposal, the small gaps between the dwelling and the boundaries either side are less than that available on at least one side of other plots on [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site. The spacing does not reflect the form in the area and would result in a dwelling that looks cramped in the plot, adversely affecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and unacceptably reducing the spacious quality of the area.

The proposal would appear as a ground floor and a floor in the roof, when viewed from the front. However, the two dormers and three other windows on the proposed front elevation would indicate substantial accommodation in the roof that would extend beyond the accommodation on the ground floor. This is out of scale with the area and would result in a top-heavy appearance adversely affecting the character and appearance of the dwelling. While views to the rear elevation are more limited, they are available on [address] between Nos 35 and 37 and between Nos 37 and 39. From the rear, the proposal would appear as a two-storey dwelling, out of character with the area, where first floor rooms predominantly appear as accommodation in the roof in both the front and rear elevations. The rear views would appear incongruous in the area and would diminish the spacious quality of the surroundings.

The proposed rear extensions at roof level would have a significant width, such that in views to the rear, they would dominate the appearance of the existing dwelling, again resulting in a top-heavy appearance. Accordingly, the proposal would adversely affect the pleasant character of the existing dwelling. It would therefore be contrary to the supporting guidance of Policy M10 of The Dartford Plan, Dartford Borough’s Local Plan to 2037 (the Dartford Plan).

As noted by the appellant, No [address] (No 17) has a detached double garage to the side, close to the house, but set back from the front elevation. The roof height of the garage is not significantly lower than the house roof and there is a side dormer in the roof of the garage. While the house and the garage may be viewed as a single mass from some locations, towards the end of the cul-de-sac, where the appeal site is located, the two buildings appear separate and not as a single mass. Accordingly, No 17 does not look cramped in the plot or detract from the prevailing spacious character of the street and does not justify the harm to the spaciousness that would result from the appeal scheme.

In broad terms, the style of the frontage at No [address] (No 9) is similar to the appeal proposal, both contain two front dormers and an integral garage. However, the scale is different, with the appeal proposal much wider with an appearance indicating substantial accommodation in the roof space. The examples of rear roof dormers provided by the appellant include a full width dormer at No 21 Brackendene and a rear dormer at No [address]. These are visible from [address] where there are two-storey houses, which is not directly comparable to locations where the rear of the appeal site is visible. The width of the rear dormer on the proposal would also far exceed either of the two examples which do not justify the top-heavy appearance of the appeal proposal.

In summary the appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. Therefore, it would conflict with Policies M1 and M10 of The Dartford Plan, which require that development must be shown to be suitable in terms of scale and roof form relative to neighbouring buildings, not result in erosion of local character and not be visually obtrusive.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.