Appeal Decision 3258195 (Maidstone Borough Council) — 2021-01-13

Appeal Decision 3258195 (Maidstone Borough Council) — 2021-01-13
Outcome: Split decision
Case type: Householder (HAS)
Development: Householder developments
Appeal type: Written Representations
Location: Bridgewater, Tyland Lane, Sandling, KENT, ME14 3BL
Postcode: ME14 3BL
LPA: Maidstone Borough Council
LPA code: E07000110
PINS reference: 3258195

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 11 December 2020
by N Holdsworth MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 13 January 2021

Appeal A Ref: APP/U2235/D/20/3258195
Bridgewater, Tyland Lane, Sandling, ME14 3BL
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Dean Clews against the decision of Maidstone Borough
Council.
The application Ref 20/501170/FULL, dated 9 March 2020, was refused by notice dated
2 June 2020.
The development proposed was originally described as installation of a window in the
front gable and the addition of a dormer to the side elevation.

Appeal B Ref: APP/U2235/D/20/3263417
Bridgewater, Tyland Lane, Sandling, ME14 3BL
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Dean Clews against the decision of Maidstone Borough
Council.
The application Ref 20/504123/FULL, dated 7 September 2020, was refused by notice
dated 4 November 2020.
The development proposed was originally described as Installation of new side dormers
and front gable window.

Decision
1. Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed.
2. Appeal B: The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for
installation of a window to front gable and insertion of 4.no side dormers at
Bridgewater, Tyland Lane, Sandling, ME14 3BL in accordance with application
ref 20/504123/FULL, dated 7 September 2020, but subject to the attached
schedule of conditions.
Main Issue
3. The effect of both proposals on the character and appearance of the host
building and surrounding area.
Preliminary Matter
4. The description of development in Appeal B in the formal decision reflects the
version used on the Council’s decision notice, with the omission of unnecessary
detail. This concisely describes the development.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decisions APP/U2235/D/20/3258195 and APP/U2235/D/20/3263417

Reasons
5. The host property comprises a bungalow with a large pitched roof. It sits on
Tyland Lane which comprises a row of houses of varied design, facing on to a
vista of open countryside. They all rise to a broadly similar height and there are
many examples of existing first floor dormer windows. Most of these are
modest in size, thus preserving the form of the respective roofs.
6. Appeal A: The proposed dormer roof extension would encompass almost the
full width of the side roof slope of the host property, being clearly visible from
the adjacent road. Whilst it is set away from the ridge, eaves and sides of the
roof it would appear unduly large due to its excessive width. It would dominate
the roof of the building to such an extent that the building appears unbalanced,
compromising the original bungalow form. It would also noticeably exceed the
size of most other existing dormer windows visible along this road.
Consequently, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the
host building and surrounding area.
7. Appeal B: The proposal in Appeal B comprises four smaller dormer windows
spread across the same roof slope. The total number, size and design of the
dormers would be similar to the arrangement found on other properties visible
in close proximity to the site, along this road. These dormer windows would be
broadly sympathetic to the fenestration on the remainder of the building.
Because of the gaps between them, the form of the pitched roof would be
preserved. The extended building would therefore blend in with the existing
built development along Tyland Lane. It would also complement the wider rural
surroundings, which fall within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
8. Consequently, in Appeal B there would be no harm to the character and
appearance of the host building or the surrounding area. There is no conflict
with policies SP 17, DM 1, DM 30 or DM 32 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan
2017, nor guidance contained in the Maidstone Residential Extensions
Supplementary Planning Document, nor the National Planning Policy
Framework, all of which seek to achieve a high standard of design that
responds positively to the local character of the area, where residential
extensions are proposed. These policy aims would not be achieved in Appeal A.
Other Matters
9. Other works are shown on the proposed plans, but these are uncontentious and
do not raise planning concerns. The proposed roof extension and associated
windows would be set a sufficient distance away from the boundary of the site
to avoid any significant additional overlooking to nearby residential properties
or their gardens. The proposal is acceptable in terms of its effect on the living
conditions of the occupants of existing residential properties, in all respects.
None of the issues raised by interested parties would justify the dismissal of
Appeal B.
Conclusions
10. It follows from my findings above that the proposal in Appeal A conflicts with
the development plan and there are no other considerations that outweigh this
finding. This appeal should be dismissed.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

Appeal Decisions APP/U2235/D/20/3258195 and APP/U2235/D/20/3263417

11. Appeal B, by contrast complies with the development plan and there are no
other considerations that outweigh this finding. This appeal should be allowed
subject to conditions necessary to comply with statutory periods of
commencement, to provide certainty for all parties and to ensure a satisfactory
standard of development in relation to the character of the surrounding area.

Neil Holdsworth
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions (Appeal B)
1) The development shall be carried out within a period of 3 years from the
date of this decision.
2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: Site Location Plan, drawings numbered 19042
001 and 19042 002.
3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby
permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
End of Schedule

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3