Appeal 6005864

The appeal is dismissed.

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 character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a detached chalet style bungalow situated in a partly residential area. It is setback from the highway in a group of dwellings which vary in their scale and appearance. However, there are similarities between the host dwelling and the neighbouring bungalow at [address]. They both feature a single-storey front projection with a bay window and a taller setback sloped roof. Therefore, despite the lack of visual uniformity in the area, the appeal property together with the adjacent bungalow form a balanced pair which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the street scene.

Due to the considerable bulk and mass of the proposed front extension, it would appear as a dominant and obtrusive addition to the front of the host dwelling. The extended dwelling would be bulky and prominent in comparison to the adjacent bungalow and would appear highly conspicuous in the street scene. In design terms, the crown roof, wide first floor windows, additional ground floor bay window and porch would wholly change the appearance of the host dwelling and would differentiate it from the neighbouring bungalow. Consequently, the extension would appear as an incongruous addition to the host dwelling and would harmfully erode the visual balance of the pair, to the detriment of the appearance of the street scene.

The appellant has referred to various other developments along [address] and in the surrounding area, with photographs of such examples provided. However, I do not have the full details of these or the full planning background in order to give them significant weight in the appeal. Even if these examples serve to confirm the variety of the built form in the area, they do not justify the proposed extension which would harm the appearance of the property and the locality. In any case, my recommendation is based on the individual planning merits of the scheme.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policies M1 and M10 of Dartford Borough’s Local Plan to 2037 (2024), which amongst other matters, require that developments respond to, reinforce and enhance the positive aspects of the locality and must be suitable relative to neighbouring buildings and the wider locality.

The proposed development would also conflict with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework, which advises that all developments should be visually attractive, be sympathetic to local character and should add to the overall quality of the area.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other identified considerations which would outweigh this conflict. Consequently, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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