Appeal 6005697

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage, single storey rear extension and internal alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01327/FUL, 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 drawing nos [site address] -01 [name]. (Existing Site Location Plan), [site address] -03 [name] (Proposed Floor Plan, Block Plan and Roof Plan) and [site address] -04 [name] ([name]).

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 30), in terms of outlook.

The appeal site comprises a detached single storey dwelling located in a residential area. It is set in from the side boundary to No 30 by a sizeable gap. The site also features a detached garage situated adjacent to the side boundary with No 30, at a height which is also taller than the boundary. The garage would be demolished as part of the proposed development.

No 30 adjacent is a detached two-storey dwelling. It is set slightly in from the side boundary to the appeal property. It features a single-storey rear extension with a window and a patio door on its rear elevation. It also has a rear patio area. The boundary treatment between the appeal property and No 30 is mostly formed of a brick wall and a timber fence which is of a moderate height.

The Council is concerned that the depth of the proposed single storey rear extension would be greater than 3.5m on the common boundary, contrary to the supporting text of Policy M10 of the Dartford Borough’s Local Plan to 2037 (2024) (LP). However, the supporting text specifically refers to extensions to semi-detached and terraced dwellings, not detached dwellings. Therefore, it is not directly relevant to the proposal. Even if the supporting text was of greater relevance, it also states that this is unless it can be demonstrated that a larger extension will have no adverse impact.

In that regard, despite the depth of the extension, it would be set in from the side boundary to No 30 by a sizeable gap. Although it would be visible above the boundary, its height would be limited by the flat roof design. Furthermore, the nearest ground floor window on the rear of No 30 is set in from the side boundary to the appeal property. The window is also set in from the edge of the single storey rear extension at No 30, placing it further away from the extension. The removal of the garage would also reduce the built form on the boundary. For these reasons, the extension would not have a significantly overbearing effect on outlook for occupiers of habitable windows and the garden of No 30.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 30, in terms of outlook. It would comply with Policies M2 and M10 of the LP, which amongst other matters, require that developments do not result in unacceptable material impacts on neighbouring uses and should not harm existing residential amenity.

The standard time limit and approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty and clarity. A matching materials condition is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no other identified considerations which would alter this finding. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.