Proposed rear extension and roof extension to provide habitable accommodation in the attic

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 April 2026 By Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005860 25 Taylor Road, Lydd on Sea TN29 9PA • 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 Mr James Heysham-Leong against the decision of Folkestone and Hythe District Council. • The application Ref is 25/2046/FH. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “Proposed rear extension and roof extension to provide habitable accommodation in the attic”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the streetscene and the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons 3. There is some variation in matters such as the height, scale, bulk and appearance of buildings in Taylor Road. These include chalet style dwellings and a three storey building with dormers in the roof and ground floor commercial premises. However, the appeal concerns a detached bungalow that is one of a number of adjacent properties on the south side of the street that exhibit a significant degree of consistency and are generally single storey below eaves level. There are properties with a virtually pyramidal roof form such as that at the appeal site and others with a front gable. These types of property tend to alternate and give a pleasant rhythm to this part of the built environment. 4. The enlarged dwelling would have two front dormers. Although giving the appearance of a chalet style property, in the context of the row of dwellings within which it is sited these would be fairly unusual and discordant features. While it would not be any taller than the existing dwelling, a significantly greater width of the new roof would rise to this height when seen from the front. Moreover, the profile and expanse of the roof would be significantly larger and fail to reflect the size and proportions of those of neighbouring properties. 5. As a consequence, the bulk and mass of the enlarged dwelling would be excessive with it appearing overly dominant and visually obtrusive. This adverse impact would be readily apparent from the street in the vicinity of the appeal site. It would Appeal Decision 6005860 2 also occur regardless of the size of the rear garden being retained and the eaves level being similar to adjacent dwellings. 6. For the above reasons, it is concluded that the streetscene and the character and appearance of the locality would be harmed. There would be conflict with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan, adopted 2020. Among other things, these seek to ensure that a proposal makes a positive contribution to its surroundings and respects existing buildings with regard to proportions, massing and scale, while not having a detrimental impact on the streetscene. 7. In the National Planning Policy Framework it is indicated that decisions should ensure that developments satisfy a number of considerations. These include that the proposed development should be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, which would not be achieved in this case. 8. The Appellant has identified planning permissions granted by the Council at a number of properties in Taylor Road. However, only one of these, at no 17, is located within the row of dwellings that provide the specific context within which the adverse impact of the proposal would occur. This has been enlarged towards the rear but the front closely reflects that at the appeal site and there are no dormer additions in this part. This single example should not be used as a precedent for development that would significantly diminish the quality of the built environment. 9. The Appellant indicates that there is a fallback position. However, the description of development in this planning permission suggests that this merely concerns development at ground floor level. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that there is a fallback position that would justify allowing the appeal in order to seek to avoid a noticeably more detrimental development from being built. 10. The scheme would be acceptable in relation to a number of matters such as residential amenity, highways and ecology. However, these are neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the development. The Appellant indicates that the scheme is based on pre-application advice. Nevertheless, this would not provide a sound basis for accepting the proposal which must be considered on its own merits. 11. Taking account of all other matters raised, because of the harm that would arise the appeal is dismissed. In reaching this decision I have carefully considered the photographs submitted by the Appellant. M Evans INSPECTOR