Erection of part first floor and part single storey side/rear extensions, single storey front extension to the garage, infill of existing porch, and alterations and extension to the roof including a rear dormer to facilitate a loft conversion

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:10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010760 57 Knole Road, Dartford, Kent DA1 3JN • 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 Lee Hockins against the decision of the Dartford Borough Council. • The application Ref is DA/26/00119/FUL • The development proposed is erection of part first floor and part single storey side/rear extensions, single storey front extension to the garage, infill of existing porch, and alterations and extension to the roof including a rear dormer to facilitate a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the Council’s decision notice. It differs from that originally submitted but was agreed by the appellant. I have determined the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal property (No. 57) comprises a detached two-storey dwelling with a hipped roof and an attached side garage which extends to the side boundary. The surrounding street is characterised predominantly by detached and semi-detached dwellings of a broadly similar scale and suburban form. Hipped roofs are the prevailing roof type, although other roof forms are also evident. Most dwellings remain separated by modest gaps, although a number of later extensions have reduced those gaps and, in places, created a degree of terracing. 5. Whilst the street displays some varied character, the appeal property forms part of a readily identifiable group of similarly designed detached dwellings comprising Nos. 47 to 57 Knole Road. This group is characterised by hipped roofs, projecting two-storey front bay windows and modest gaps between the dwellings which vary in width. 6. Despite one dwelling incorporating first floor accommodation above a side garage, the group retains a coherent architectural character that is more consistently expressed than elsewhere along Knole Road. This group positively contributes to Appeal Decision 6010760 2 the local character of the street scene. Whilst the appellant has referred to a number of extensions and roof alterations elsewhere in Knole Road, those examples lie outside this particular group. Although they have informed my understanding of the wider street scene, I consider the immediate context of the appeal property to be the most relevant reference for assessing the proposal's effect on character and appearance. 7. Adjoining the appeal property, number 59 Knole Road (No. 59) originally formed part of the same run of similarly designed dwellings but has since been more substantially altered through the addition of a first floor side extension and associated roof alterations, including a crown roof. Despite those alterations, No. 59 retains sufficient elements of the neighbouring group's architectural composition to maintain a clear visual relationship with it, including the retention of a hipped roof on the flank facing the appeal property together with a half-hip to its opposite flank. It is also set away from the common boundary with the appeal property by a side access running alongside its side elevation. 8. The appeal proposal would comprise a first floor side extension above the existing garage together with extensive roof alterations, including the replacement of the existing hipped roof with gable ends to both side elevations, the introduction of a crown roof of comparable depth to that at No. 59, and further alterations to the rear roof slope to facilitate a loft conversion. 9. The addition of first floor accommodation above the existing garage would not be uncharacteristic of this part of the street. Although the development would reduce the existing first floor gap between the dwellings, the gap between No. 59 and the common boundary would ensure a clear visual separation between the properties. Given the pattern of spacing within this group, and the continued perception of the dwellings as separate buildings, the resulting reduction in openness would not be harmful to the character of this part of the street scene. 10. The replacement of the existing hipped roof with gable ends would not appear incongruous when viewed in relation to the host dwelling, because the proportions of the roof extension would broadly respect those of the existing dwelling. Nevertheless, it would result in a roof form that would sit noticeably at odds with the prevailing architectural composition of the group. The gable ends would also expose and emphasise the crown roof, giving it a more pronounced presence than is evident at No. 59 and causing the overall roof design to read as a marked departure from that established character. 11. Taken together, these changes would result in a roof form that would appear insufficiently sympathetic to the adjoining group of dwellings. In doing so, the development would erode the coherent roofscape that contributes to the group’s distinctiveness, detracting from the character and appearance of this part of the street. 12. For the reasons given, whilst the development would not to be harmful to the host dwelling, it would harm the character and appearance of the street scene and would conflict with Policies M1 and M10 of the Dartford Local Plan, adopted April 2024, which, amongst other things, seek development that respects local character and avoids visually obtrusive additions which undermine that character. Appeal Decision 6010760 3 Conclusion 13. As it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the street scene, 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