Appeal 3315862

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted1 in September 2022 for a similar development to that proposed. In this regard, the appellant states that “the proposal was identical to the current appeal proposal. However, during the assessment process, the case officer requested that the plans be amended to reduce the size of the proposed porch extension. The appellant acceded to this request and permission was granted...the sole issue in this appeal is whether the revisions to the front porch extension are acceptable in planning terms.”

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property comprises a detached brick-built bungalow with a hipped roof. The bungalow has been extended to the side and rear.

The appeal property is located within a residential area. It forms part of a row of detached bungalows along the same side of [site address] . On the other side 1 Reference: PF/22/1116. of [site address] , there is a regular rhythm of similar pairs of semi-detached two storey dwellings separated by pairs of semi-detached bungalows.

Dwellings on both sides of [site address] are set back from the road behind substantial gardens and parking areas and have gardens to the rear. This and the presence of grass verges, hedgerows and trees, provides for a sense of greenery and spaciousness.

The above qualities also contribute to a significant sense of uniformity. Further, the low height and modest appearance of bungalows along one side of the road and the regularity and spacious form of development on the opposite side of the road results in dwellings appearing comfortable in their plots, as well as a pattern of development whereby no individual dwelling draws undue attention to itself.

The recent permission referred to above would, amongst other things, provide for first floor living accommodation. The proposal the subject of this appeal would add a double height porch to the front elevation.

I find that this would introduce a feature that would, due to a combination of its height, width and forward projection, appear incongruous and unlike any other form of development along [site address] . 10.The scale and form of the proposed porch would lead it to appear out of proportion with the significantly smaller approved dormer windows and would, I find, result in the proposed porch appearing to unduly dominate the front elevation to an overbearing degree. 11.Further, a mismatch between eaves height would result in an awkward relationship between the permitted dormers and the proposed porch, adding to the incongruous appearance of the proposal. 12.The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the prominent siting of the proposed porch, whereby its incongruous appearance would draw attention to itself from a wide variety of locations along [site address] , to the detriment of the identified qualities of the area. 13.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would be detrimental to the area’s identified attributes. This would be to the harm of the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the NPPF and to North Norfolk Local Development Framework [name] (2008) Policy EN4, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.