Outbuilding front extension at 256 Singlewell Road, Gravesend

What was proposed

The application sought a single-storey, 7.2-metre-deep front extension with roof lights to an existing outbuilding, shown as a garden room.

“This planning application seeks permission for the erection of a single storey front extension to an existing outbuilding with roof lights. The proposed extension will project approx. 7.2m to the front and will be 5.5m wide. It will be 3.08m high with a pitched roof. It is shown to be a garden room, and not to form part of the outbuilding used as a gym.”

“The Planning Statement says the extension will not exceed the existing height of the building and extends 3.87m from the rear wall of the outbuilding. However, the plans show the depth of the extension to be approx. 7.2m. For the avoidance of doubt, the dimensions from the scale plans are used, and not those references in the Planning Statement.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a large detached dwelling with extensive previous extensions, in a mixed street of mainly two-storey detached homes and rear outbuildings.

“The application site is a large, detached dwelling that has been extended extensively in the past. The street scene is mixed in terms of design of property but dwellings are mostly two storey detached with parking to the front. Modest outbuildings to the rear are common.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

The outbuilding has a long planning history, including permissions, refusals and a recent refusal for enclosing an unauthorised canopy.

“Reference Description Decision Date 20250547 Change of use from incidental outbuilding for the dwelling to a Sui Generis building. Permitted 27.08.2025 20250152 Extension of outbuilding to enclose existing Refused 10.04.2025”

“Application for a non-material amendment to planning application reference 20130959 for the erection of detached outbuilding with canopy in rear garden to replace existing to provide gym, play room/games room and shed; to allow roof height and footprint increase, alteration to the pitch of the canopy incorporating installation of roof lights, installation of two roof lights to outbuilding and also to allow deeper windows which will be frosted. Permitted 22.07.2014 20130959”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the extension’s depth would create a dominant, non-domestic building out of scale with nearby properties and outbuildings.

“The proposed increase in depth of the built form along the northern boundary will result in a development out of scale and appearance with the surrounding properties and outbuildings therefore introducing a dominant building with a non-domestic appearance detrimental to the enjoyment of the gardens of neighbouring properties and the character of the surrounding area contrary to Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 and para.”

“The proposed increase in depth of the built form along the northern boundary will result in a development out of scale and appearance with the surrounding properties and outbuildings therefore introducing a dominant building with a non-domestic appearance detrimental to the enjoyment of the gardens of neighbouring properties and the character of the surrounding area contrary to Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 and para.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A registered speaker spoke in favour of the application, followed by the Leader of the Council.

What members discussed

Members considered the site inspection, neighbouring outbuildings, the extent of existing development and whether another extension would overdevelop the garden.

“Members highlighted paragraph 1.10 of the site visit report, which stated that the Team Leader had explained that the proposal would cause no adverse impact on any surrounding properties. The Team Leader explained that in the original report, presented at the previous Committee meeting, paragraph 6.4 noted that a reduction in height had reduced the dominance of the structure, but did not overcome the size and overdevelopment of the site for the plot size.”

“The Chair asked for clarity on the term overdevelopment in a garden. The Team Leader explained that each development required a judgment call on what they deemed as overdeveloped in terms of garden space. It was the Team Leader’s view that the outbuilding in the rear garden was large enough and further development would be detrimental to the character of the dwelling and the wider area.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to refuse the application for the reasons given for the proposal.

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED due to the reasons outlined in the report.”

Minutes