1st floor addition to side of house, ground floor addition to rear of house, conversion of attic to bedroom, new front porch and formation of 2 car parking bays within front garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by T Morris BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by A M Nilsson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005603 7 Hornfield Cottages, David Street, Meopham, Gravesend, Kent DA13 0BU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ms Danielle Regan against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council. • The application Ref is 20250952. • The development proposed is 1st floor addition to side of house, ground floor addition to rear of house, conversion of attic to bedroom, new front porch and formation of 2 car parking bays within front garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. 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. Preliminary Matters 3. The application subject of this appeal and considered by the Council sought approval for works which deviated from a previous approval by the Council1. This included changes to the proposed first floor side extension so that it would be built in line with the existing front elevation and the roof ridge of the host dwelling. These changes were implemented without planning permission and at the time of my site visit, they had been mostly completed. Therefore, the proposal is partly retrospective. The Council dealt with the application on that basis and so shall I. 4. On 17 August 2026 the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Having reviewed the changes to the Framework, I am satisfied that they do not affect the substance of the main issues in the appeal. Since they would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation with the main parties. Main Issues 5. The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; 1 Application reference 20240708 Appeal Decision 6005603 2 iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and iv) if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development. Reasons for the Recommendation Whether or not inappropriate development 6. The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located in the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the objective of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Policy GB6 1. of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7. One such category, at policy GB7 1.b., is for any extension of an existing building which will not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building. The Framework defines an original building as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after this date, as it was built originally. 7. The Framework does not define the specific meaning of disproportionate in relation to the category outlined at policy GB7 1.b. In terms of the Council’s development plan, the Council refer to saved policy C13 of the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (2014) (LPFR). Although this relates to extensions to dwellings in the countryside rather than the Green Belt specifically, it places an overall limit on extensions to dwellings in the countryside of one third of the gross floor area of the original dwelling, unless the increased floor space has no overall effect on the existing bulk and appearance of the dwelling. It also requires that the massing, scale and form of an extension are appropriate to the existing dwelling as well as the Green Belt setting. 8. The proposed extensions would increase the floor area of the dwelling by 71.69%. This is significantly more than a third of the gross floor area of the dwelling, contrary to policy C13 of the LPFR. Whilst I accept that policy C13 does not specifically relate to the Green Belt and that the Framework does not define the meaning of disproportionate in this context, I am satisfied that the extensions would significantly increase the bulk of the dwelling, thus increasing its overall size to a considerable extent. Therefore, the extensions would amount to a disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building. Consequently, the proposal does not meet with the exception as set out at policy GB7 1.b. of the Framework. 9. For the above reasons, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be contrary to policy CS02 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) (CS) and policy C13 of the LPFR, which amongst other matters, require that developments maintain the open character of the Green Belt and are compatible with national policies for protecting the Green Belt. Openness 10. The Framework sets out that the essential features of the Green Belt is their openness and permanence. Openness has a spatial and a visual dimension. Appeal Decision 6005603 3 11. Taken together, the proposed extensions would introduce a considerable amount of additional built form and mass to the host dwelling. Therefore, the development would inevitably reduce the openness of the Green Belt from a spatial perspective. From a visual perspective, given that the extensions would increase the bulk and mass of the dwelling at the first floor and the roof level, it would appear visually larger when viewed in the street scene. Consequently, the proposal would also result in a loss of the visual openness of the Green Belt. 12. The proposal would therefore cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The level of harm would be moderate given the overall scale and siting of the proposed extensions to the dwelling. Nevertheless, in accordance with policy GB6 2. of the Framework, substantial weight is given to this harm. This is in addition to the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness. Character and appearance 13. The appeal property is located in an area which features pairs of semi-detached dwellings. Although the pairs are differentiated from one another in terms of their roof form and external materials, the overall scale and width of the dwellings in the group is consistent. Furthermore, extensions and alterations are mostly limited to modest ground floor works. The consistent scale of the dwellings together with the absence of conspicuous extensions contributes positively to a sense of balance and coherence in the street scene. Notwithstanding the works which have already taken place, the existing plans and elevations demonstrate that the host dwelling and the adjoining property also formed a coherent and symmetrical pair and thus also contributed positively to the character and appearance of the area. 14. I have had regard of the Council’s Householder Extensions/Alterations Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD). This advises that extensions should respect the original character of the existing dwelling and complement and correspond with the character of neighbouring properties and the local area. In terms of two-storey side extensions, it advises that these should generally aim to appear subservient to the host building by lying behind the main front building line, and that roofs should be subservient to the main property’s roof. 15. Due to the proposed first floor side extension’s lack of set-back at the first floor and lack of set-down at the roof level, it would appear as a bulky and conspicuous addition to the host dwelling. Therefore, it would not appear subservient to the host building, contrary to the guidance in the SPD. The extended dwelling would also appear excessively wide in comparison to the adjoining property and would erode the symmetry of the pair. Consequently, the proposal would appear as an incongruous addition to the host dwelling and would undermine the sense of coherence and order in the street scene. 16. The SPD is a material consideration rather than being part of the Council’s development plan. The wording in relation to two-storey side extensions also indicates that a flexible approach might be possible. However, I see no good reasons why the proposal should not, in this instance, follow the SPD advice in terms of achieving subservience. This is especially the case given the positive contribution that the well-balanced pairs and the absence of conspicuous extensions make to the locality. 17. The use of white render on the external surfaces of the dwelling would not be sufficient to ensure that the proposal would respect the original character of the Appeal Decision 6005603 4 building. Nor would the lower position of the first-floor window on the front elevation or the position of the dormer window on the original roof result in the extension achieving a visual subservience. 18. The appellant believes that there are limited views of the dwelling from David Street and in the surrounding streets. However, this contrasts with my observations from my site visit, where the property was in clear view from David Street due to the open driveway. In any case, a lack of visibility does not obviate the requirement for good design. Indeed, the objectives of the policies in chapter 14 of the Framework are partly to promote high-quality places and to that extent, policy DP3 1. of the Framework states that developments should integrate with and enhance their surroundings. 19. I have also considered the other developments referred to by the appellant and I viewed the variety of development in the area on my site visit. However, I have not been provided with the full planning background of the examples in order to give them significant weight in the appeal. From the evidence before me, there is little detail of the extensions at 4 and 6 David Street in order to make a direct comparison with the appeal scheme. Furthermore, the photographs of the former Amazon and Tiger Free House indicate that this was a more comprehensive development which unlike the appeal proposal, does not result in an unbalanced pair of dwellings. Overall, the variety of houses and extensions in the area does not justify the harm to the host dwelling and its locality. Accordingly, none of the examples referred to lead me to a different conclusion on this main issue. 20. Consequently, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to policy CS19 of the CS, which amongst other matters, requires that developments are visually attractive and contribute positively to the street scene and the character of the area. For the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with the SPD, which advises that extensions should respect the original character of the existing dwelling and complement and correspond with the character of neighbouring properties. Other Considerations 21. Policy GB6 2. of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 22. The development in this case amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the Framework requires that substantial weight is attached to the harm in that regard. It would also cause moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 23. However, I am conscious of the extensions to the dwelling which the Council have already granted planning permission for. This constitutes a fallback position to which the appeal scheme can be compared against. From the evidence before me, there is little difference between the overall scale of the previous approval and the development subject of this appeal. They would not result in a materially different increase to the size of the original building or effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Accordingly, I find that the fallback position provided by the existing planning permission addresses the harm of the proposal by reason of its inappropriateness, as well as the harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Appeal Decision 6005603 5 24. Nevertheless, the difference between the fallback scheme and the appeal scheme in terms of character and appearance is substantial. This is because the fallback scheme included a dropped ridge and a setback, in accordance with the guidance in the SPD. The current development does not incorporate these design features, contrary to the SPD, and resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, the fallback position does not justify the harm of the appeal scheme in terms of the character and appearance main issue. 25. With regards to further considerations, although the proposal presents an opportunity to modernise the property, the same benefits in terms of modernising the property could be achieved through a proposal which is not harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling and locality. Furthermore, the innovation and change encouraged by the Framework does not overcome the visual harm of the proposal. Accordingly, such matters do not alter my findings overall and I give them limited weight. Conclusion and Recommendation 26. Due to the fallback the appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would however cause harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Using the terms of policy GB6 2. of the Framework, this would be an ‘other harm’. For the reasons given above, the fallback would not outweigh the harm to character and appearance and therefore the other considerations in this case would not clearly outweigh the harm I have found. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the appeal scheme do not exist. 27. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan overall and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. T Morris APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 28. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A M Nilsson INSPECTOR