Single storey rear extension with 1No.rooflight, alongside roof conversion/extension with front and rear dormers to connect and align with the existing neighbouring dormers

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 July 2026 by J Kirkaldy BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008943 7 The Ridgeway, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 2HB • 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 and Mrs Sharp against the decision of Thanet District Council. • The application Ref is FH/TH/26/0143. • The development proposed is described as a single storey rear extension with 1No.rooflight, alongside roof conversion/extension with front and rear dormers to connect and align with the existing neighbouring dormers. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension with 1No.rooflight, installation of raised decking and roof conversion/extension with front and rear dormers to connect and align with the existing neighbouring dormers at 7 The Ridgeway, Broadstairs, Kent CT10 2HB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FH/TH/26/0143, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan number: P01 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 and Main Issues 3. Notwithstanding the original description of development as set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development also comprises a raised decked area in the rear garden. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I. 4. Having reviewed the most recent changes to the National Planning Policy 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. 5. The main issues are; Appeal Decision 6008943 2 • the effect of the proposed front and rear dormers on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed raised decking on the living conditions for the occupiers at 5 and 9 The Ridgeway (Nos 5 & 9), with particular regard to privacy. Reasons for the Recommendation Character and appearance 6. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached bungalow that is set back from the road and occupies a lower ground level than the highway. The dwelling is characterised by a front projecting gable with a hipped roof. Mature planting along the front boundary provides a degree of enclosure and softens views of the property from the street. 7. The surrounding area is residential in character, comprising a mixture of detached and semi-detached bungalows. Properties on the opposite side of the road occupy a more elevated position due to the sloping topography of the area. Whilst there is some variation in detailing, the street exhibits a broadly consistent appearance, with many dwellings featuring hipped roofs, bay windows and external finishes of red brick and render. 8. The Council have not objected on the grounds of character and appearance to the proposed hip to gable enlargement, citing the differing spacing between neighbouring properties and the presence of existing roof alterations and additions within the street scene. They also raise no objection to the proposed single storey rear extension, which would replace the existing conservatory, having regard to its modest projection, flat roofed design and use of matching materials. Similarly, no concerns regarding character and appearance are raised in respect of the proposed raised decking, as it would be of a scale and height not appreciable from within the street scene. I find no reason to disagree with these conclusions. 9. The attached property at No 5, has been altered through the addition of front and rear dormer extensions and a hip-to-gable roof enlargement. The generous spacing between this pair of semi-detached dwellings and the neighbouring properties at Nos 3 and 9 contributes to a sense of spaciousness within this part of the street scene. 10. The proposed dormers would have a flat roof, adjoining and aligning with the existing dormers at No 5, resulting in a degree of symmetry across the pair of semi- detached dwellings. Although I accept that the proposal would increase the scale and massing of the host dwelling, the dormers would not span the full width of the property or exceed the ridge height. As such, I am satisfied that they would not appear as dominant features within the roof slope and would preserve the character and appearance of the dwelling, particularly when viewed in the context of the adjoining property. Furthermore, the appeal property occupies a position below the level of the road, which would further limit the visual prominence of the proposed dormers within the street scene. Consequently, and having regard to the similar alterations at No 5, the proposal would not appear incongruous or unduly prominent within the street scene. Appeal Decision 6008943 3 11. Although the proposed roof alterations may exceed the limits of permitted development, I am mindful that this does not in itself indicate that they are unacceptable in planning terms. It is necessary for me to consider this appeal on its own merits. For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan. 12. Overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. It would accord with Policy QD02 of the Thanet Local Plan (2020) (LP) which seeks amongst other things to promote high quality design that respects and enhances the character of the area and BSP9 of the Broadstairs and St Peter’s Neighbourhood Development Plan (2021) (NP) which encourages proposals to conserve and enhance the local character and sense of identity of the area. Furthermore, it would also accord with Policy DP3 of the Framework and the key principles for achieving well-designed places. Living Conditions 13. The Council has raised concerns regarding the proposed decking, which would replace existing steps providing access to the rear garden. Whilst the decking would extend beyond the rear elevations of neighbouring properties, the rear garden benefits from a gentle downward gradient away from the dwelling and is of a sufficient depth to maintain a degree of separation from adjoining properties. Furthermore, the proposed decking is offset from the shared boundaries, reducing its visual presence and minimising the potential for impacts on neighbouring residential amenity. 14. I noted during my site visit that a short section of timber screening is present along the shared boundaries, allowing some limited views towards neighbouring properties and into the rear gardens. However, much of this interrelationship would be screened by the proposed rear extension. In addition, established planting and vegetation along the neighbouring boundaries, beyond the timber fencing, provide an effective degree of screening between the appeal site and adjoining properties. Consequently, any remaining views, particularly from the proposed decking would be largely oblique in nature and, when taken together with the separation distances involved, would not result in unacceptable overlooking or a harmful loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. 15. For the reasons given, the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No’s 5 and 9, with particular regard to privacy. Consequently, the proposal complies with policies QD02 and QD03 of the LP which seeks amongst other things that development be compatible with neighbouring buildings and not lead to unacceptable living conditions. It also accords with the Framework which requires proposals to maintain acceptable living standards for residents and neighbours, including in terms of privacy. Conditions 16. Standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary as this provides clarity. 17. A condition requiring the provision of a privacy screen to the raised decking is not necessary, as I have found that this element of the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision 6008943 4 Conclusion and Recommendation 18. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed. The proposal would accord with the development plan. Material considerations, including the Framework do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. J Kirkaldy APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Martin Seaton INSPECTOR