Proposed roof dormer extension to recently constructed double garage & home office with games room / storage to roof space (as approved under planning consent no.22/2106/FH)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 September 2026 by L Gardner MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011908 394 Canterbury Road, Densole, Kent CT18 7BH • 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 Damian Abel against the decision of Folkestone and Hythe District Council. • The application Ref is 26/0421/FH. • The development proposed was described as “proposed roof dormer extension to recently constructed double garage & home office with games room / storage to roof space (as approved under planning consent no.22/2106/FH)”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed roof dormer to double garage & home office with games room / storage to roof space at 394 Canterbury Road, Densole, Kent CT18 7BH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/0421/FH, 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 drawing no 001/26/01. 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) Before the development hereby permitted is first used, the windows within the dormer serving the office space and toilet shall be obscure glazed to not less than the equivalent of Pilkington Glass Privacy Level 3, and these windows shall be incapable of being opened except for a high level fanlight opening of at least 1.7m above inside floor level and shall subsequently be maintained as such. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development in the banner header above is taken from the application form. I have removed reference to the previous planning consent and timing relating to construction in my main decision, as these do not form acts of development. I am satisfied that neither of the main parties have been prejudiced by this approach. 3. The appeal site lies within the Kent Downs National Landscape (KDNL). I am required, under Section 85 of The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as amended, to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes when performing my function in determining this appeal. Appeal Decision 6011908 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape character and scenic beauty of the KDNL. Reasons 5. The appeal site relates to a detached chalet bungalow, to the east of Canterbury Road. The existing dwelling already features dormer windows, including a small, pitched roof dormer window to the front elevation, and a larger flat roof dormer window to the side roof slope. The existing detached garage to which the appeal proposal relates is set back from the principal elevation of the dwelling, its gable end visible in the street scene. 6. The surrounding area is residential in nature, primarily comprised of detached bungalows, chalet bungalows and two storey dwellings. Despite similarities in design, the street scene has little uniformity, demonstrating a variety of design styles. 7. To the east of Canterbury Road in particular, the presence of dormer windows are common. The design of the existing dormer windows in the area varies but includes large box dormer windows which occupy significant proportions of the roof slopes within which they sit. The presence of dormer windows is therefore a prevalent characteristic of the existing street scene. 8. Although the proposed dormer window would occupy a notable proportion of the garage roof slope, it would retain a degree of subservience to the roof slope through a set back from the sides, main ridge and eaves of the roof. The proposed dormer window would therefore not represent a top heavy addition or create an unbalanced roof form. 9. The visual impact of the proposal would be limited due to its orientation, and position relative to the existing dwelling. The side of the roof dormer would still be visible in the street scene in combination with the existing roof dormer on the host dwelling. However, in the context of the established character of the immediately surrounding area, which features similarly scaled roof dormer windows in more prominent locations, the visibility of the proposal would not in itself impose harm to the character and appearance of the area. 10. Policy NE3 of the Folkestone & Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan (2020) (the Local Plan) sets out that the impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on the KDNL, and its setting, will be carefully assessed. It goes on to state that planning permission will be granted subject to several criteria, including that the natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the KDNL, and its setting, are conserved and enhanced. 11. The Council acknowledge that this part of the KDNL is residential in character. Based on my assessment above, that the proposal would assimilate within the existing character of the surrounding area, I have identified no harm to the natural beauty or distinctive character of the KDNL in this location. 12. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape character and scenic beauty of the KDNL. It would therefore comply with Policy NE3 of the Local Plan. It would also accord with the relevant provisions Appeal Decision 6011908 3 of Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Local Plan, particularly as they relate to development making a positive contribution to its location and surroundings and reflecting the scale and proportions of original buildings. Conditions 13. I shall impose a condition specifying the relevant drawings to provide certainty for all parties. A condition requiring materials to match the existing dwelling is necessary in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area. 14. The Council has suggested an additional condition requiring the two smaller windows (proposed to serve the toilet and a secondary window to the home office space) to be obscurely glazed. I have imposed this condition to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling to the north. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. L Gardner INSPECTOR