Roof alterations, enlarging dormer to the front, new first floor rear extension and dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by J Kirkaldy BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI Decision by Paul Thompson DipTRP MAUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009698 Briar Cottage, 10 North Road West, Hythe, Kent CT21 4BD • 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 C Norfield against the decision of Folkestone and Hythe District Council. • The application Ref is 26/0175/FH. • The development proposed is roof alterations, enlarging dormer to the front, new first floor rear extension and dormer. 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 Matter 3. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. As this could affect the issues and matters in this case, the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow occupying a discreet position set back behind other homes in North Road West and accessed from it via a single- track driveway. The surrounding area is predominately residential in character. 6. The existing dwelling has a modest and coherent form and appearance, characterised by a simple pitched hipped roof profile that has been altered over time through the addition of small-scale flat-roofed dormers. Whilst the proposal would not increase the overall height of the dwelling, it would substantially alter the existing roof form through the introduction of a half-hipped design and extended roof planes, resulting in a bulkier and more dominant roofscape. Appeal Decision 6009698 2 7. The proposed enlarged front dormer would comprise a partly pitched and flat roof addition set below the main ridge and in from the side elevations and eaves. Despite this, it would nevertheless occupy a significant proportion of the principal roof slope. This would result in a pronounced, and overly prominent feature on its roof. Furthermore, the substantial flat-roofed element would fail to assimilate with the pitched roof form of the dwelling and would appear visually discordant within the context of the host property. 8. The proposed first-floor rear extension would incorporate a hipped-roof gable projection and extend to the full ridge height of the dwelling. This would result in visually dominant roof form. The scale and prominence of which would be amplified by the changing topography within the site. As such, the extension would not appear as a subordinate or subservient addition to the original bungalow. Instead, it would appear as an incongruous enlargement that would harmfully alter the proportions and character of the host dwelling to a significant extent. 9. The existing pattern of fenestration with limited variations in window pane sizes contributes to the modest character and appearance of the dwelling. The proposed use of windows of varied form and sizes would contrast with this resulting in a less harmonious composition. Although the proposal would use a similar palette of materials to that of the host dwelling, it would nevertheless fail to assimilate well with the character and appearance of the dwelling. 10. The cumulative effect of the alterations and additions would fail to respect the simplicity and architectural integrity of the original dwelling and would introduce an overall roof form that appears overly complex and discordant in appearance. Consequently, the proposal would appear incongruous and unduly dominant when viewed as part of the overall composition of the host dwelling. As such, it would conflict with Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Places and Policies Local Plan (2020) which requires amongst other things that proposals respect the layout, scale, proportions, massing, roof line and detailing of the original building. 11. It would also conflict with policy DP3 of the Framework, which seeks to create well designed places, and specifically Policy DP3.1, which requires proposals to respond positively to the site’s context, character and features so they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. While Policy DP3.1 does not preclude innovation or change where appropriate, it makes clear that this is particularly relevant where an increased scale or density of development is justified in accordance with policies L2 and L3. In this case, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that Policies L2 and L3 are applicable or that they justify the proposal. Other Matters 12. The property is discreetly positioned and benefits from well-established vegetation that would serve to partially screen views of much of the proposal from the public realm and neighbouring dwellings. However, such boundary treatments are not permanent features and may change over time. In any event, limited visibility of a proposal does not negate the need to achieve a high standard of design. Consequently, the screening afforded by existing vegetation does not outweigh the harm I have identified. Appeal Decision 6009698 3 13. The appellant has stated that the proposal would create additional habitable accommodation and also refers to the existing dormers as being in a poor state of repair and susceptible to water ingress. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposal would optimise use of the roof space and improve internal accommodation, these benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the appeal property, and I therefore give it only limited weight in my decision. 14. The appellant has indicated that elements of the proposal could be undertaken under permitted development (PD), referring to alterations to roof form and the provision of dormers. The appellant therefore contends that a fallback position exists that would make the appeal proposal acceptable. In assessing the weight that can be given to the fallback position, I have to determine if there is a realistic possibility of the PD scheme coming forward. I note that there is no certificate of lawfulness, and no detailed plans/elevations of the alternatives before me relating to a PD proposal. Therefore, I cannot be certain whether the alternatives would have a lesser, equal or greater impact on the character and appearance of the original dwelling. The fallback position therefore has a limited bearing on the determination of this appeal. 15. The appellant refers to planning permission (reference: Y17/1613/SH) which granted permission for an increase in ridge height and the creation of additional first-floor accommodation. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the permission remains extant, to enable it to constitute a fallback position. I therefore afford this limited weight as a notion. 16. The appellant has drawn comparisons between the appeal proposal and the alterations and extensions undertaken at the neighbouring dwelling, 1 St Johns Road (reference: Y07/0330/SH). Whilst there are some similarities between the schemes, I note that the neighbouring property had a different original roof form to that of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, although the approved development resulted in an increase in height, it largely reflected the established roof profile. Furthermore, the dormers at No 1 are notably smaller in scale than those proposed in this case. As such, I do not consider that scheme to represent a directly comparable example. 17. I have not been provided with copies of the appeal decisions cited by the appellant (references 3275894; 3257947; 3233119 and 3206120). Furthermore, I have been unable to verify the references, as they do not appear to correspond with the local planning authorities or the form of development identified by the appellant. In the absence of the decisions themselves, I am unable to determine the extent to which the circumstances are comparable to those of the appeal before me. In any event, I have assessed the proposal on its own planning merits and having regard to its particular own context. 18. The proposal was not refused on grounds relating to residential amenity, highway safety or parking provision and no objections were received by consultees including the Town Council. Nevertheless, these matters do not outweigh the harm I have Appeal Decision 6009698 4 identified to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Accordingly, they do not alter my overall conclusion. 19. Policy S4 of the Framework states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects when assessed against the Framework's decision-making policies. In undertaking that assessment, I have had regard to Policy DM3(1), which requires planning matters to be considered proportionately to the scale, complexity and potential impacts of a proposal. 20. Whilst the appeal scheme is modest in scale, I have identified harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, resulting in conflict with the development plan. Although the proposed extension would provide additional accommodation and therefore some benefit to the occupiers of the dwelling, those benefits would be private in nature and attract only limited weight. By contrast, the harm identified above would be significant and result in conflict with Framework Policy DP3.1 and conflict with the locally specific design policies of the development plan. The Framework is therefore clear that development proposals should be refused on this basis. Consequently, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects and the proposal would therefore conflict with Policy S4 of the Framework. Conclusion and Recommendation 21. For the reasons given, my above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations, including the Framework to indicate a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. J Kirkaldy APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 22. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Paul Thompson INSPECTOR