Rear extension along with the first-floor extension to provide habitable accommodation in the loft

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 June 2026 by J Kirkaldy BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI Decision by M J Francis BA (Hons) MA MSc MCIfA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008796 82 Sandwich Road, Eythorne, Kent CT15 4DQ • 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 Dr Mario Katz against the decision of Dover District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01317. • The development proposed is a rear extension along with the first-floor extension to provide habitable accommodation in the loft. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons for Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling located within a residential area, characterised predominately by single-storey detached dwellings featuring hipped roofs. A number of these properties have been altered and extended through the addition of dormer windows, solar panels, roof lights and rear extensions. The appeal dwelling is set back from the road and occupies a lower ground level, with the road rising gradually towards the village centre. Open countryside lies opposite the site. 5. Although the proposal would retain a hipped roof form on the principal front elevation, the increased ridge depth, together with the modest increase in ridge height, would result in a more substantial and prominent roof structure that would detract from the simple and balanced appearance of the existing dwelling. Despite the dwelling being set down from the road, the enlarged roof would remain readily visible from public vantage points, particularly when approaching from the village centre, where the forward siting of the property and the gap to No. 80 provide clear views of the roof form. 6. The prevailing character of this part of the road is defined by hipped roofs, with existing dormer additions generally modest in scale and predominantly confined to Appeal Decision 6008796 2 front roof slopes. The introduction of both front and side dormers on an enlarged roof would erode the simplicity of the existing roof form and diminish the distinctive hipped roof character. 7. Whilst I note that the Council has raised no concerns regarding the proposed dormer windows, I find that, when considered alongside the proposed increased ridge height and depth, they contribute to a cumulative increase in the overall scale, bulk and massing of the dwelling. The enlarged roof form would result in a more dominant presence within the street scene. Although the appellant contends that weatherboarding is a widely occurring material, I did not observe its use within this part of the road and therefore do not consider it to be a characteristic element of the prevailing palette of external materials. The proposed horizontal timber cladding at first floor level would introduce a contrasting and uncharacteristic material that would further accentuate the visual prominence of the proposal. 8. Overall, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would conflict with Policies SP2, PM1 and H6 of the Dover District Local Plan to 2040 (2024) (LP) which seeks high quality design that responds positively to local character and context and ensures extensions are proportionate in scale, character and appearance to the existing dwelling and surrounding area. It would also conflict with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks good design. Other Matters 9. The appellant has referred to and submitted a photograph of extensions to the rear of No 84 Sandwich Road. However, from the limited evidence before me, the extensions to this property do not appear comparable to that proposed to the appeal site. In any event, each case must be considered on its own merits. 10. The appellant has previously received pre-application advice that the principle of extending the dwelling would be possible and I note that this proposal has been reduced in scale from a previous proposal which was refused. Whilst there was no objection from the Parish Council and harm to the living conditions of neighbouring properties has not been identified, based on the evidence before me, I have found that the proposal would cause harm, as set out above. Balance 11. The appellant has set out that the proposed extension is to enable elderly relatives to come and live with them in the future. Therefore, I have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in s149 of the Equality Act 2010. The development is required to meet the needs of persons who have protected characteristics due to their age. 12. I have also taken into consideration the Human Rights Act (HRA), 1998, and recognise that the dismissal of the appeal would interfere with some of the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the First Protocol. Article 8 (1) states that everyone has a right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. 13. In the context of the HRA and the PSED, the personal circumstances of the owner are an important consideration. The proposal is intended to enlarge and improve the living accommodation for the occupiers, who intend moving their relatives into Appeal Decision 6008796 3 the property. However, there is limited evidence of an agreed timetable and certainty that this will take place. Whilst I am sympathetic to the appellant’s position, I have found that the development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, I consider that it is in the wider public interest to interfere with the qualified rights under Article 8. In making this decision, I consider that any interference with those rights is necessary and proportionate and in accordance with the law. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised and to the approach in the Framework, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. J Kirkaldy APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M J Francis INSPECTOR