Erection of two-storey front, rear and flanking side extensions, with a Juliette balcony to the rear, a garage conversion, external façade alterations and roof lights. Raising of roof height and re-structuring to create a simple four-sided pitched roof with table top (crown roof), in connection with a part loft conversion to create additional storage and study. Demolition of the remaining conservatory components

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 September 2026 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011087 37 Fawkham Avenue, Longfield, Kent DA3 7HS • 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 Gurdeep Shergill against the decision of Dartford Borough Council. • The application Ref is DA/26/00382/FUL. • The development proposed is Erection of two-storey front, rear and flanking side extensions, with a Juliette balcony to the rear, a garage conversion, external façade alterations and roof lights. Raising of roof height and re-structuring to create a simple four-sided pitched roof with table top (crown roof), in connection with a part loft conversion to create additional storage and study. Demolition of the remaining conservatory components. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated on 17 August 2026. Although I have made my determination against the updated national policy context, the relevant changes to the Framework are not fundamental to matters which are determinative to the outcome of this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached bungalow set back from the road behind a front garden and car parking area. The submitted evidence indicates that the surrounding area is identified as an area of special residential character (ASRC) for New Barn, with key characteristics noted as mature planting, and low-density substantial housing. 5. This part of Fawkham Avenue is typified by a wide variety of detached dwellings, generally set within fairly generously sized plots, often lined by large trees and mature vegetation along the front boundaries, which contribute to a pleasant, green character. This side of the road is characterised by a mix of two storey detached houses, some very large and with significant footprints, and bungalows, some with accommodation within the roof space, of varying designs. There is a marked lack of uniformity in the design of dwellings, with significant variation in their height, width, overall bulk, and use of facing materials. This variety is a key feature of the character of the area. Appeal Decision 6011087 2 6. There is significant variety of roof heights along Fawkham Avenue, and consequently, the height of the proposal would not appear at odds within the streetscene. A range of roof forms are also evident, including hipped, pitched and barn-hipped roofs, together with a mixture of gable and dormer features. However, despite the proposal's articulated roof design incorporating a front-facing gable, its substantial width would result in the roof appearing as a large, heavy and somewhat unrelenting mass. 7. My attention has been drawn to another example of a crown roof within the street at 15 Fawkham Avenue. However, from my observations, that roof is less wide and consequently it sits more comfortably within the street scene. I acknowledge that a standard pitched roof design would result in a greater roof height. Nevertheless, owing to its height and depth, and its position rising above the neighbouring bungalow at 35 Fawkham Avenue (No 35), the proposed roof would not be effectively screened by surrounding properties. This would further emphasise its prominence as an uncharacteristic and visually dominant feature within the street scene. 8. Properties on Fawkham Avenue are not constructed along a strong, formal building line with some projecting closer to the public highway than others. For this reason, the proposal’s limited projection forward of the existing building’s front elevation would not be a harmful feature. The prominent use of glazing within the front gable feature would add to the variety within the streetscene. During my site visit, I observed a similar glazed feature at 23 Fawkham Avenue, and as a result I find that this architectural element would integrate satisfactorily within the surrounding street scene. 9. The proposal would introduce taller and bulkier built form adjacent to the shared boundary with 39 Fawkham Avenue. However, the width of the building's footprint along this boundary would remain unchanged. The side elevation of No 39 is set comfortably away from the shared boundary. Whilst there would be some loss of openness, as with all extensions, I conclude that a sufficient visual gap with the neighbouring property would remain. 10. The proposal would retain a generous separation between its left elevation and the shared boundary with No 35, when viewed from the public highway. Whilst the development would have a substantial depth, a sizeable rear garden would remain, and the rearward projection of the footprint would be less extensive than that of nearby properties, such as 33 Fawkham Avenue. Consequently, the proposal would not appear unduly cramped within its plot. 11. However, I have previously found that the scale and bulk of the crown roof design would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal, specifically the design of the roof, would harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies M1 and M10 of the Dartford Local Plan (2024) which require development to be of high quality design based on local character and the context, and that the design of extensions is not visually obtrusive. Other Matters 12. I understand the appellants’ wish for additional space to enable their mother to stay with them regularly for support and assistance. The proposal would also Appeal Decision 6011087 3 provide enlarged and improved living space, including additional home working space whilst enabling the appellants’ children to have suitable bedrooms, study space, as well as space for hobbies and working from home. 13. I sympathise that the appellants have family and a support network and friends locally, and that remaining in the area is important to them. They indicate that the area has excellent schools, a nearby park and good transport links. I also note that the appellant’s consider the existing property to be in poor condition unsuitable for family living, with damp, insulation and gas installation issues, as well as an impractical layout. 14. However, I am mindful of the advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is probable that the proposal would remain long after the appellants’ personal circumstances cease to be material. Future use of the dwelling would also not necessarily entail a similar situation. While I recognise the importance of having sufficient, appropriate living space, it has not been shown that the specific accommodation needs cannot be met in another way. On the basis that an alternative could deliver similar benefits for the appellant, these personal circumstances do not outweigh the harm that I have found to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. 15. I note that the proposal has been re-designed to respond to the Council’s concerns in relation to a previous proposal at the appeal site. The Council has not raised concerns in relation to issues such as car parking, ecology and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Be that as it may, these matters weigh neither in favour nor against the proposal. 16. The concerns expressed regarding the Council’s conduct during the processing of the application fall outside of the remit of this Decision. Conclusion 17. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. B Pattison INSPECTOR