Single-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 May 2018 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K2230/D/18/3196438 Hillside Farm, Butchers Hill, Shorne, Gravesend DA12 3EB  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr David Pullen against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council.  The application Ref 20170785 was refused by notice dated 4 December 2017.  The development proposed is a single-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. I consider the main issues to be: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Shorne Village Conservation Area; and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Reasons 3. The appeal property lies within the Shorne Village Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset characterised by traditional properties in a village setting. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes duties requiring special regard to be had to the desirability: at Section 72(1), of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. 4. The National Planning Policy Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 5. The appeal property is a detached dwelling of traditional design with a first floor glazed room. The proposal is for a side extension with a flat roof concealed behind a shallow eaves pitch. Although there is a rear projection with a similar roof design, the proposed roof, due to its design and mass, would appear incongruous against the predominately traditional design of the Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3196438 2 dwelling. From my observations, due to its scale, position and design, I consider it would be out of proportion with the original dwelling. This would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. 6. In the elevated position behind a high wall, there would be limited public view of the proposed extension, but it would be visible to some extend through side railings. For the same reasons as stated above, the proposal would not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, but this would be less than substantial harm as set out in the Framework. 7. Saved Policy TC3 in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994) requires applications to contain sufficient details to enable the impact of the proposal on the conservation area to be assessed. 8. There are a number of trees on the appeal site and there is no information regarding their protection, particularly their root protection. I am not convinced that the future health of the trees would be ensured by the proposal. I consider the existing trees make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In the absence of information protecting the existing trees, I consider that the loss or threat to their future health and viability as a result of the proposal would be unacceptable. This adds to my conclusion that the proposal would not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, but this would be less than substantial harm as set out in the Framework. 9. The proposed extension would provide additional living accommodation. This would have only limited wider public benefit. I have attributed considerable importance and weight to the duty and the presumptive desirability of preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, which I do not consider, for the reasons stated above, are outweighed by any benefits of the proposal. In particular, having regard to the Framework, I find that the harm is not outweighed by any public benefit. 10. In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. I have found that the proposal would not preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to saved Local Plan Policy TC3 and Policies CS19 and CS20 in the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), where they seek to ensure that new development is visually attractive; conserves and enhances local built and historic character; and preserves and where appropriate enhances the significance of heritage assets. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR