Appeal 3341522

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: i) the effect on the character and appearance of the existing property and the surrounding area, particularly when viewed from the river; ii) the effect on the amenity of the neighbouring [address].

The site comprises a riverside chalet known as [address], which lies on [site address] on the eastern bank of the [name], in the village of Horning. [address] is a single storey timber clad bungalow, part rendered with black beams and a pantiled roof. The western elevation facing the river has a small gable extending out over a raised deck area. The whole property is raised on decking making it higher than [site address] . [address] is the final residential chalet along [site address] before reaching the [address].

The Broads Authority has the same status as a National Park. One of its duties relevant to this appeal is “To protect and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads”. I also note that the site is within the vicinity of Horning Conservation Area and a [address], but there is sufficient distance between them that the proposals would not negatively impact these assets.

Policy SP5 – ‘[name] of the Broads Local Plan 2019 states that “The historic environment of the Broads will be protected and enhanced. Key buildings, structures and features which contribute to the Broads’ character and distinctiveness will be protected from inappropriate development or change.” The effect on the character and appearance of the existing property and the surrounding area

[address] is within a row of 4 buildings of similar materials and character. Immediately next door to the north is [address], followed by [address]. The final building, ‘[address]’, is in the form of a terrace of 3 dwellings. All these buildings have relatively shallow pitched roofs, and while there is some variety in the way the external materials are used, the dark coloured boarding, light render and dark roof coverings gives them a group character. Ferryman’s cottage has a pantiled roof, whereas the others have ‘slate’ covering, but this does not detract from the overall appearance of the group.

The appeal proposal is to raise the roof, which would give it a noticeably steeper pitch. On the elevation facing the river, the gabled extension would have the same width as now, but its ridge would be higher and its pitch would be steeper that the existing. In other respects, the river elevation would remain the same, except the expanse of roof would be greater.

On the elevation facing [site address] , the new roof would have a dormer and a rooflight. The Authority criticises the dormer as not being a traditional feature of the group, in response to which the appellant states that it could be replaced with another rooflight. That could be dealt with be a condition. However, the additional height of the roof as proposed would be made visually more significant by the fact that [address], next door, is smaller in every dimension, including the height of the roof.

My conclusion is that the impact on the scene from the proposed loft conversion, both from [site address] and from the [name], would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing property and the surrounding area. This would be especially important in terms of the view from the river, because the close proximity would focus attention, while the nature of the more steeply roofed development to the east of [site address] would not be prominent behind [address] and it neighbours. Thus the impact on river users would be that much greater, bearing in mind that many of the public experience the character and appearance of the Broads by boat. The effect on the amenity of the neighbouring [address].

[address] is almost directly to the south of [address]. Since there is quite some space between the two, and the proposed roof pitch would be relatively steep and therefore narrowing as it increases in height, I conclude that there would be no harmful overbearing impact on the amenity of the users of [address] that would warrant refusal of permission.

I have taken account of all matters raised, including the benefit of the extra accommodation that the proposal would bring to the occupiers of the appeal cottage, especially in terms of the provision of a second bathroom. But the reasoning that that I have set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 above is overriding. Therefore the appeal will be dismissed.