Ground floor Infill extension to the back of garage and then first floor extension to convert the loft and provide 5 bedrooms upstairs, losing the bedrooms downstairs to create a family lounge and small study. To also change the garage into a games room and rear of garage to utility and build a large porch 1.5 storey high and raising the ridge height slightly with hip gables

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 July 2026 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010964 30 Windsor Road, Gravesend, Kent DA12 5BN • 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 Jatinder Johal against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council. • The application Ref is 20260221. • The development proposed is a ground floor Infill extension to the back of garage and then first floor extension to convert the loft and provide 5 bedrooms upstairs, losing the bedrooms downstairs to create a family lounge and small study. To also change the garage into a games room and rear of garage to utility and build a large porch 1.5 storey high and raising the ridge height slightly with hip gables. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ground floor Infill extension to the back of garage and then first floor extension to convert the loft and provide 5 bedrooms upstairs, losing the bedrooms downstairs to create a family lounge and small study. To also change the garage into a games room and rear of garage to utility and build a large porch 1.5 storey high and raising the ridge height slightly with hip gables at 30 Windsor Road, Gravesend, Kent DA12 5BN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20260221, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: DKM/7991/01 Rev 01, DKM/8199/09 Rev 01 and DKM/8199/05 Rev 06. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on: • The character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. Appeal Decision 6010964 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal dwelling is a detached single storey bungalow with attached side garage. It is located on street made up of detached and semi-detached bungalows and houses. Along with its immediate neighbours the appeal dwelling has a relatively generous plot size. Many of the dwellings in the local area have undergone significant alteration and extension, including the conversion of bungalows to two storey houses or chalet bungalows, many with dormer windows in extended roof forms, this includes immediately neighbouring properties. Consequently, the street scene has properties with a variety of design and scale, resulting in limited cohesion within the street frontages and local streetscene. 4. At ground level the proposal would infill the space behind the existing garage and would extend rearward to the same extent as the existing rear extension, with the garage being converted to living space. The proposal would also result in an additional first floor above the whole of the extended ground floor of the appeal dwelling. This would involve an increase in the height of the roof ridge, so that it would appear to be the same height as that of the neighbouring dwelling at 28 Windsor Road (No.28), which has itself been the subject of a substantial first floor extension. 5. To the front of the appeal dwelling the front roof slope would be extended from the existing eaves above the ground floor and would follow the existing angle of roof pitch. At first floor level, 4 gable fronted dormer windows would be hipped into the extended front roof slope, which would itself be partially side hipped above the existing gable level. This would replicate the street facing design of other recent first floor extensions in the street, including that at No.28. 6. The majority of the proposed additional bulk of the extension would be positioned behind the extended front roof starting above ground floor level with integrated dormers, which would reflect a now common design approach seen in the local streetscene. To the rear the eaves of the proposed roof would be above the proposed first floor level, with the roof primarily taking the form of three large conjoined hipped roof elements, which would start at eaves level with ridges that would reach to just below the new terminal ridge of the main roof. 7. This would not replicate the design approach taken for the rear of the first floor extension at No.28, with its rear slope with eaves above ground level and dormer windows at first floor level. However, the design and massing of the proposal would mirror the eaves above first floor level design approach evident on roofs of existing original houses and for other large first floor extensions evident in the street and local area. 8. Whilst the first floor element of the proposal would sit further rearward than that of the first floor of the neighbouring semidetached house at 32 Windsor Road and its semi-detached pair, the first floor level element of No.28 extends substantially further rearward. As such the proposal would appear as a visually moderating element between the two, lessening the visual disparity between the rearward extent of these neighbouring dwellings. 9. The design advice set out in the Gravesham - Householder Extensions and Alterations Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (the SPD), Appeal Decision 6010964 3 does appear to predominantly use examples of smaller types of extension proposals, however its advice should be applied within with context of a extensions and alterations proposals that demonstrate a variety of design and scale. Whilst the proposal is for a substantial extension, I find that the use of hipped roof forms and the use of dormer windows into the front roof slope of the proposed extension would accord with this design guidance and would meet the objectives of the SPD of reflecting local character, window alignment and would not appear as overwhelming. 10. Along with other alterations to the front of the appeal dwelling, including the enlarged front entrance porch and integration of the garage into the dwelling, the proposed ground, first floor and roof extension would result in the appeal dwelling being and appearing as a significantly larger dwelling than existing. However, this increase in scale would mirror that of other existing houses and substantially extended dwellings in the local area. Whilst the appeal dwelling would no longer appear as a bungalow, particularly from the rear, this is not a critical feature of the mixed nature of the local streetscape with its existing visual variety and limited design cohesion. As such, the proposal would not appear incongruous within this local context. Living Conditions 11. To the rear of the appeal dwelling, the proposal would result in a full first floor level above the proposed and ground floor extensions, with a hipped roof form above. Given the distance to the boundary with No.32 and the distance to its main house, which is set away from the boundary beyond its attached garage, the proposal would not appear prominently in outlook from the rear room of this neighbouring house but would only tangentially appear in very limited angles of view. 12. Whilst the proposal would appear more prominently in views from the rear garden of No.32, given the distance to the boundary, this would not result in the proposed first floor with hipped roof above, appearing as overbearing. Rather, given this distance and hipped roof form, the proposal would appear as a moderate addition to the side elevation of the appeal dwelling and not as a dominating or oppressive presence from within the garden of No.32. As such, the proposal would not result in any substantial change in outlook to the extent that it would result in any significant detriment to the living conditions of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. 13. For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling or that of the local area, or in any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. As such, the proposal would accord with Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014), which seeks development that, amongst other matters, integrate well with the local area and safeguards the amenity of neighbouring properties. Conditions 14. I have had regard to the Council’s suggested condition from the council, should I be minded to allow the appeal, however, I find that there are no exceptional reasons to attach the suggested condition limiting permitted development rights. Appeal Decision 6010964 4 15. Along with the standard condition relating to the timing of implementation, I have attached conditions to ensure design quality that require compliance with the approved drawings and materials that match existing. Conclusion 16. The appeal is allowed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR