Erection of a part two storey/part single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2026 by P H Wallace BSc (Hons) DipMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:11 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010381 123 Main Road, Sutton At Hone, Kent DA4 9HQ • 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 Murphy against the decision of the Dartford Borough Council. • The application Ref is DA/26/00071/FUL • The development proposed is erection of a part two storey/part single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A daylight and sunlight assessment was submitted with the appeal. Although this was not before the Council when it made its decision, it has since had the opportunity to comment on it. I am satisfied that taking the assessment into account would not cause procedural unfairness or prejudice to any party, and I have therefore had regard to it in determining the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 121 and 125 Main Road, with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure and the availability of daylight and sunlight. Reasons 4. The appeal property (No. 123) is a detached two-storey dwelling lying between No. 121 Main Road (No. 121), a modest single-storey dwelling to the north set well back from the road frontage and on broadly the same level as No. 123, and No. 125 Main Road (No. 125), an adjoining semi-detached dwelling to the south occupying slightly higher ground but with a similar relationship to the road. Levels across the three properties fall gently from front to rear. 5. No. 123 has a two-storey rear projection with an attached single-storey lean-to, both positioned along its southern flank, slightly inset from the boundary with No. 125 and well set in from the opposite flank. A short distance beyond the lean-to is a detached single-storey outbuilding of moderate depth with a steeply pitched roof, positioned on the boundary with No. 125. 6. Along the boundary with No. 125, fencing extends from the front of the site to the detached outbuilding. Beyond this, the boundary is formed by a high lattice fence Appeal Decision 6010381 2 with informal planting immediately behind it within No. 123. By contrast, the boundary with No. 121 is largely open, save for a short section of low fencing at the front of the site, with a driveway serving No. 123 providing the principal means of separation between the two properties. 7. The proposal would comprise a two-storey rear projection with two gabled elements of differing depths and heights, both stepping down to a common flat-roofed single- storey extension. Together, the additions would span almost the full width of the property, with a modest setback from the northern flank wall. The southern gabled element, adjacent to No. 125, would broadly correspond in width and height with the existing two-storey projection but would be deeper, extending beyond the rear of the attached lean-to whilst terminating short of the outbuilding. The northern gable, although moderately lower, would project considerably further to the rear. Beyond both gables, the single-storey extension would continue for a notable depth, extending beyond the outbuilding, which would be demolished. 8. No. 125 is separated from the common boundary by a side passage. Rear-facing ground and first-floor windows, inset from the flank wall broadly in line with the rear of the two-storey projection at No. 123, serve the dining room and a bedroom respectively. The dining room has no other window. Its outlook is relatively open across a rear yard which, at the time of my site visit, contained movable outdoor seating and appeared to be used for incidental domestic purposes. The yard is enclosed by the boundary fencing and outbuilding at No. 123 and by an inset two- storey rear projection at No. 125 with an attached single-storey lean-to extending to a point just short of halfway along the depth of the outbuilding at No. 123. The first- floor bedroom window has an unobstructed rearward outlook. 9. The northern flank wall of the projection at No. 125 contains a large window, which is the only window serving a modest kitchen that functions primarily as a food preparation space and links through to the adjoining dining room. Its outlook is largely towards the rearmost part of the two-storey rear projection and attached lean-to at No. 123, the boundary fence and a substantial part of the detached single-storey outbuilding. Areas of sky and more distant built form remain visible above some of these features, leaving the outlook limited but not wholly enclosed. 10. From the dining room window, the adjoining two-storey gabled element would become more prominent within its predominantly rearward outlook, introducing additional built form and some increased enclosure. The single-storey extension would also extend considerably further to the rear than the existing outbuilding. However, its lower, flat-roofed profile and setback from the boundary, when viewed from the higher level of No. 125, would moderate its effect, although those benefits would diminish somewhat towards the rear of the extension as the land levels fall. Overall, whilst the outlook would become more constrained, I do not find that the resulting sense of enclosure from the dining room would be unacceptable. The first- floor bedroom window would also retain a predominantly rearward outlook without an undue sense of enclosure. 11. The effect on the kitchen and rear yard would be more pronounced. The flank wall of the adjoining gabled element would occupy a substantial part of the outlook from the kitchen, whilst the greater depth of the second gable would extend the two- storey built form considerably further into that outlook. Cumulatively, the two gables would create a markedly more constrained outlook from the kitchen and a strong sense of enclosure within the relatively confined rear yard. Although the lower, flat- Appeal Decision 6010381 3 roofed profile and setback of the single-storey extension, together with the higher position of No. 125, would provide some mitigation, this would be less evident towards the rear of the yard, where the ground falls away, such that the depth of the single-storey extension would also add to the enclosing effect. Taken together, I find that the proposal would result in an unduly constrained outlook from the kitchen and an undue sense of enclosure within the rear yard, materially harming the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 125. 12. I acknowledge the appellant's point that the guidance in Policy M10 of the Dartford Local Plan concerning the depth of extensions on a common boundary relates to semi-detached and terraced properties. However, my findings arise from the particular scale and configuration of the proposal and its relationship with No. 125, rather than the direct application of that guideline. 13. Turning to No. 121, its recessed siting means the front elevation broadly aligns with the rear elevation of No. 123. Its flank wall adjoining the driveway serving No. 123 contains the main entrance door, an obscure-glazed bathroom window and a high- level window serving the kitchen/living room. The principal outlook from that room is provided by its well-glazed rear elevation, which also gives direct access to an unenclosed rear garden. The front elevation contains a large window, the side nearest No. 123 being obscure glazed and serving a laundry area, with the remainder serving the bedroom, the principal outlook from which is towards the street. The front garden appeared to be used mainly for access and incidental domestic purposes, including bin storage. 14. The proposed two-storey additions would extend closer to the outlook from the bedroom. However, as its outlook is principally directed towards the street, views of the appeal property are peripheral, and the additions would be seen at an oblique angle. Consequently, the outlook from this room would not be materially harmed. The two-storey and single-storey additions would also extend alongside the driveway for much of the depth of No. 121. However, the limited outlook available from the openings in its flank elevation, together with the single-storey extension terminating slightly short of the rear elevation, means that the outlook from the kitchen/living room would remain largely unaffected and the rear garden would not experience an unacceptable sense of enclosure. 15. Although the proposal would introduce considerable additional built form alongside this modest dwelling, having regard to the particular relationship between the properties, I do not find that it would cause unacceptable harm to outlook or an undue sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No. 121. 16. In respect of daylight and sunlight, the appellant's assessment concludes that the relevant windows at Nos. 121 and 125 would retain daylight within the BRE guidelines and that their gardens would continue to receive acceptable levels of sunlight. The proposed extension would also remain outside a 45-degree line taken from the midpoint of the first-floor bedroom window at No. 125, providing further support for the conclusion that daylight to this window would not be materially affected. Although the Council maintains its concerns regarding loss of light and overshadowing, it has not identified any substantive shortcomings in the assessment or provided technical evidence to the contrary. I therefore find that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable reduction in the availability of daylight or sunlight to either property. Appeal Decision 6010381 4 17. Whilst I have found that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 121 Main Road, it would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook and undue sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No. 125 Main Road. Although I have found no unacceptable harm in terms of daylight or sunlight, these findings do not outweigh the harm identified. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies M1, M2 and M10 of the Dartford Local Plan to 2037 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development safeguards the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Conclusion 18. As it would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No. 125 Main Road, I conclude the proposal would not comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. P H Wallace INSPECTOR