Erection of a front porch and a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011586 44 Howard Road, Dartford, Kent, DA1 1XH • 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 Jeyarajah Jeyanathan (MNJ Property Services Ltd) against the decision of Dartford Borough Council. • The application Ref is DA/26/00413/FUL. • The development proposed is erection of a front porch and a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a front porch and a single storey rear extension at 44 Howard Road, Dartford, Kent, DA1 1XH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DA/26/00413/FUL, and the plans submitted with it. Preliminary Matters 2. The most recent iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework was published in August 2026. With regard to the main issues of the appeal, the relevant policies are not materially different from the previous iteration of the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that I can proceed without further consultation with the main parties since, with the above in mind, their respective cases would not be prejudiced. 3. At my site visit I saw that both parts of the development had been completed and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. I have considered the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 4. The effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 46 Howard Road, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 5. Properties along this part of Howard Road are generally L-shaped, with an outrigger projecting to the rear. No 46 has an infill extension to the side of its rear outrigger. At my site visit, I saw that this extension occupies a narrow space appearing to be a corridor, with a partially glazed side wall and a glazed rear door. There is no substantive evidence before me that it is a habitable space. The outlook from this door is limited by the outriggers of both Nos 44 and 46 and the boundary fence, however it has some outlook toward the garden. At the rear of the Appeal Decision 6011586 2 property is a patio area. The outlook from this area is primarily down the garden, as outlook to the sides is limited by the boundary treatments. 6. The supporting text to Policy M10 of The Dartford Plan (April 2024) indicates that single storey rear extensions should generally not be greater than 3.5m in depth on a common boundary, unless it can be demonstrated that the larger extension will have no adverse impact. The Council applies a ‘1m in, 1m out rule’ in its assessment when considering the effect of the depth of the extension, but I have not been provided with any supplementary guidance or other documentation to support this approach. Nevertheless, the supporting text to Policy M10 is designed to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on residential and visual amenities, and I will consider the development in that context. 7. The rear extension is sited behind the outrigger of No 44. It creates a solid wall extending for several metres beyond the glazed rear door of No 46 but is set in from the shared boundary. Although deeper than recommended in the supporting text, the single storey nature, relatively low height and flat roofed design of the extension mean that only part of it is visible above the boundary fence. The set in from the boundary reduces the visual impact further. 8. As a result, while the extension is visible from the rear door and patio of No 46, it is not so large as to appear unduly overbearing from these areas, particularly as the rear door does not appear to serve habitable space. Nor does it create a significantly greater sense of enclosure than already exists as a result of the boundary treatments and outriggers. The patio and the rear ground floor window of No 46 also retain an open outlook down the garden. 9. Consequently, the rear extension does not harmfully reduce the outlook from these areas and therefore does not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 46 with regard to outlook. Accordingly, the rear extension does not conflict with Policies M2 or M10 of The Dartford Plan insofar as they seek to avoid development which materially harms existing residential amenity. 10. Porches are common along Howard Road, and the appeal porch is consistent with these in scale and appearance. Consequently, the porch results in no harmful impacts and accords with relevant policies of the development plan. Conclusion 11. For the reasons above, the development accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations to justify refusing permission. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No conditions are necessary as the development is complete. L McKay INSPECTOR