Appeal 3306120

The appeal is dismissed.

The application for the proposed development follows a similar development approved by the Council (ref: 2021/2421). The principal difference is that the development before me proposes a two-storey element across the full width of the extension, rather than set in from the side.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the proximity of the first-floor element to the neighbouring dwelling.

The western side of [address] is characterised by detached houses in spacious grounds. Most retain an element of space between neighbouring buildings at first floor level, and some are set back behind trees.

The appeal building is a two-storey dwelling of traditional design, with a hipped roof and front and rear gables. Coniferous hedgerows above brick and stone walls along the street frontage of the appeal building and [address] (No 22) reduce the visibility of ground floor elements. At the same time they frame, and increase the prominence of, the upper parts of the dwellings in the street scene.

The existing gap between the properties at first floor level provides space which respects the distinctly different designs of the appeal dwelling and No 22, which stands on the boundary between the properties.

The proposed and approved schemes are similar in many respects, but the proposed additional width at first floor level would result in a very close association between the appeal building and No 22. I note that the two-storey element of the proposal would be set back, but would nevertheless be a visible feature from the street. Given the prominence of the upper floors in the street scene, and the distinctly different designs and materials, the proposed development would unduly reduce the space between the dwellings, and would harm the character and appearance of the area.

In conclusion, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the proximity of the first-floor element to the neighbouring dwelling. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies DM3.4 and DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (2015) and Policy 2 of the [name] for Broadland, Norwich and [name] (2014). Together these policies require high quality design which maintains or enhances the character and appearance of the building, street scene and surroundings. It would also conflict with Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to achieve well-designed places.

No 22 is built along the boundary between the properties, but I must consider the development in relation to existing development. Although the appellant advises that the occupants of No 22 are known to the Council’s planning officer, I have made my decision as an independent party. The absence of harm in relation to other aspects of the design is a neutral

I therefore conclude the development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the approach in the Framework. There are no other material considerations that require a decision to be made other than in accordance with the development plan, and the appeal should therefore be dismissed.