Appeal 3318756

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of a section of the south boundary wall at [name], [site address] , [site address] , Norfolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/01472/F, dated 11 August 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] EX01; Planning Drawings BW01.

The appeal is accompanied by an application for a full award of costs made by [name] against [name] and West Norfolk District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (SCCA); and • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal property is on [address], a quiet, minor road characterised by traditional cobble and red brick-built cottages opening directly onto the street with short rows of buildings at right angles linked by flint and brick garden walls. Modern infill properties generally follow the traditional building line and boundary treatments found within the street.

The [site address] Conservation Draft Character Statement (1992) notes the use of local materials in the construction of historic buildings as being a defining characteristic of the SCCA and the street is characterised by narrow gaps between properties which provide glimpses through to the rears of properties on [address].

The removal of a short section of more recent brick boundary wall facing [address] at right angles to [address], is proposed which would provide a new vehicular access to the appeal property. A sliding timber five-bar gate would be installed.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and [name]) Act 1990 places a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In considering the effect of the proposal on the SCCA the impact must be weighed against the harm it would have on the heritage asset.

The limited scale of the proposed development, the retention of the flint and brick boundary wall along the [address] frontage and the proposed timber five-bar gate would be in keeping with other similar vehicular accesses along the street and appropriate to the rural village nature of appeal property’s location. As such, the proposal would not result in harm to its surroundings or to the special interest of the SCCA as identified above. Rather, it results in a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the SCCA as a whole, which would be preserved.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site or its surrounding, with particular regard to the character of the SCCA. As a result, it does not conflict with Policies CS08 and CS12 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Development Framework [name] 2011 ([name]) along with Policy DM15 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 (SADMPP) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is of a high quality which protect and enhance the historic environment. Nor would it conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to protect the historic environment.

[address] is narrow and provides pedestrian access between [address] and [address] and vehicular access to two properties. In turn, [address] is also narrow. The proposed access would be onto [address] and would utilise the existing junction from the lane onto [address].

The Council has referred to the Manual for Streets (MfS) which recommends appropriate visibility splays for highways where speeds are likely to be in the region of 20-25 miles per hour (mph). However, given the short length, restricted width and limited accesses, together with the pedestrian bridge and ford through the river, it seems to me that traffic on [address] would be neither prolific nor swift moving. Moreover, it is likely that the absence of visibility splays would encourage drivers to emerge cautiously into the lane.

The Council has not provided any evidence of any accidents occurring as a result of vehicles emerging onto either [address] or [address]. [name] also noted such assess arrangements are typical of the village’s tight grain. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the creation of the proposed access would have a significant effect on the safe use of the highway.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not unduly compromise the safe use of the highway by pedestrians and vehicles. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS11 or SADMPP Policy DM15 which seek to ensure that development provides safe access. I also find no conflict with the Framework in respect of highway safety.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in the light of the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in Planning Policy Guidance. I have attached a condition which requires the development to comply with the submitted plans, in the interests of certainty.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan when read as a whole and all other issues raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out above.