Two storey rear extension, first floor extension on top of garage and reduce the garage width to give bigger side access, plus front porch and change the existing sheds to unified garden room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 August 2026 By Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008012 267 Singlewell Road, Gravesend DA11 7RN • 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 Gurdip Clare against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council. • The application Ref is 20260101 • The development proposed is described on the application form as “Two storey rear extension, first floor extension on top of garage and reduce the garage width to give bigger side access, plus front porch and change the existing sheds to unified garden room”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal concerns a two storey detached dwelling with the upper floor being accommodated in the roofspace. The Appellant indicates that the host dwelling is set in the second largest plot in the street and that the floor area would only increase by about 30-32% with increases having occurred at nearby properties of 50-70%. However, this is not, in itself, evidence of an absence of harm and it is necessary to consider the visual impact when assessing the effect on the streetscene. 4. The existing attached double garage is set 0.8m from the side boundary while the extended dwelling with a first floor side extension above the reduced width garage would have a gap of about 1.5m. Nevertheless, the single storey garage with its hipped roof and fairly low eaves significantly alleviates the bulk of the property. The ridge of its roof is also at an appreciably lower level than that of the main roof. 5. However, the development would result in the dwelling having a particularly long main roof. The front of the flat topped part would be in a straight line, with the lack of articulation emphasising the consequent size and bulk. This part would also be significantly longer than the ridge line of the existing property. The dwelling has three front gable features, while the enlarged house would have five, including the central porch. 6. Rather than appearing suitably subordinate, the front gables projecting from the roof would be unduly bulky. They would mostly extend forward beyond the eaves of the main roof or be level. Apart from the porch, they would have at most fairly Appeal Decision 6008012 2 minimal gaps to the flat topped roof with the eaves levels of their own roofs rising significantly above that of the main roof. There would also tend to be fairly limited gaps between the gables with the porch feature having no separation from those to either side. 7. Such a relatively long roofscape and repeating gabled projections would result in a disproportionate cumulative increase in the scale, bulk and mass of the property. Given the generally noticeably more modest width, scale and bulk of other properties in the immediate vicinity to either side, there would be a discordant and jarring contrast with the enlarged dwelling appearing unacceptably dominant. This adverse visual impact would occur despite the fairly large size of the plot. 8. The Appellant identifies other properties in the locality that have been extended. However, these include dwellings in other roads, while those in Singlewell Road are often some distance from the appeal site or on the other side of the street. Consequently, these tend not to be part of the immediate context within which the impact of the proposed development would be most readily appreciated. 9. In any event, such enlarged properties are generally of an appreciably lesser bulk and often have a noticeably shorter roofline than would result in this case. While some of these have front gables the number resulting in this case would be relatively unusual, reflecting an unduly assertive presence in the street. As a result, these other cases lend no significant support to the appeal. 10. The height of the existing main roof would not be increased and there would be no adverse effect on building lines. However, despite matters such as these, it is concluded that the streetscene would be harmed. The failure to be visually attractive and integrate well with the area would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS19. 11. The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that decisions should ensure that developments satisfy a number of considerations. These include adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive, which would not be achieved in this case. 12. There would be no harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent dwellings and no undue overlooking. However, these are neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the proposal. The absence of any objections from neighbours does not confer acceptability and I must consider this appeal on its own merits. It is indicated that the scheme is needed for a large family, including accommodating parents and home working. However, in this case the additional space would be achieved at the unacceptable expense of the quality of the built environment. 13. This is a case where harm would arise and there would be conflict with the development plan. Moreover, there are no other considerations that would justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan and the appeal is dismissed. In reaching this decision I have carefully considered the photographs provided by the Appellant. M Evans INSPECTOR