Appeal 3355317

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement garden room with roof terrace over at [site address] , Brancaster [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01215/F, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. (2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Following the Council’s decision on the application that led to this appeal, an updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2024 and is a material consideration in decision-taking from the date of its issue. The provisions of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not materially changed and consequently I consider that no prejudice would occur to any parties as a result of me taking the Framework into account in my assessment of the appeal’s merits.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, and the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Branodunum with particular reference to privacy.

[site address] (No 16) is a two storey dwellinghouse set amidst other dwellings of one and two stories which show a consistent design approach in features and materials. The proposal would replace an existing rear extension of similar scale but would also provide a roof terrace on top of it with an associated glazed screen.

The replacement rear extension would, although slightly higher than the existing extension, retain the general massing and form of the host dwelling and thus would maintain its character, albeit that the proposed fenestration and materials will give the property a more contemporary appearance. I note that this view accords with that of the Council. However, there is disagreement regarding the effect of the proposed screen that would surround the roof terrace on the appearance of the host property.

Whilst the screen would introduce additional areas of glass, this would not disproportionately affect the balance of composition of construction of the host property, nor would its overtly modern appearance be so incongruous an addition as to undermine its appearance.

Further, whilst on site I noted the presence of a similar balcony to that proposed on the rear of [address], a dwelling, although differing in layout, of similar design, scale and materials to the appeal property. This balcony is more prominent in views from the street than that proposed for the appeal property would be, yet does not appear incongruous on its host. Given the presence of such a similar feature, in a more prominent position, I do not regard the proposed balcony to be an incongruous addition to the area.

The proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. It would thus accord with policy DM15 of the [name] and West Norfolk Borough Council Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) (the SADMP) and policy CS08 of the [name] and West Norfolk Borough Council Core Strategy (2011) (the CS) in as much as they together, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new development responds sensitively and sympathetically to the local setting through high quality design and use of materials.

For similar reasons I have found that the proposal accords with the expectations of Policy 5 of the Brancaster Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2015), in as much as this requires that an increase in height of the replacement building will only be acceptable where this is compatible with the appearance of adjacent buildings.

Similarly, I have found that the proposal would accord with those parts of the Framework that seek to achieve well-designed places.

The proposed roof terrace would look south-west towards the private rear garden of 2 Branodunum (No 2). There would be views towards No 2 over a lower, clear glazed section.

Whilst the boundary of No [address], the boundary between the host property and No 2 is formed of mature, dense evergreen planting of substantial height. This would prevent direct views into the garden of No [address].

Thus, there would be no increase in surveillance of the private amenity space of No [address], nor would neighbouring occupiers spending time within their garden experience a harmful increased feeling of overlooking and loss of privacy. I note that the neighbours occupying No 2 have not raised any objection to the proposal.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Branodunum with particular reference to privacy. It would thus accord with the expectations of policy DM15 of the SADMP and policy CS08 of the CS which together seek, amongst other things, to ensure that new development enhances community wellbeing and protects the amenity of neighbouring occupiers from harmful overlooking.

For similar reasons I have found that the proposal would accord with those parts of the Framework that seek to achieve well-designed places.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council, having regard to the Planning Policy Guidance.

The permission requires that the proposed development be built in accordance with the terms of the application and the plans submitted with it. To further control the appearance of the development I have added a condition requiring the materials used in the construction of external surfaces to match those of the existing building. The permission is also governed by the standard time limitation clause to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented permissions.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.