Appeal 3356714

The appeal is dismissed.

The Borough Council adopted the [site address] and West Norfolk Local Plan (LP) on 27 March 2025. [name] must have regard to the development plan in force at the time of determining the appeal, comments were invited from the parties on this.

The Council supplied relevant policies and stated that they did not significantly impact the appeal but noted that LP Policy LP17 prohibits extensions within 16m of flood defences, unlike Policy DM18 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016. The appellant had no further comments.

I noted on site that the raised terrace part of the proposed development at first floor level had been implemented as shown and described in the application.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on the: • number of people at risk from flooding • character and appearance of the area and • living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy and outlook

The proposal would add a T-shaped dual pitched roof with a gable facing the sea, in which there would be an internal ‘viewing area’ and an external terrace at second floor level. Development also includes a raised terrace at first floor level.

The site is located within the [name], to which LP Policy LP17 applies. This policy would not permit significant extensions, those that increase the number of habitable rooms or those encroaching within 16m of the toe of the flood defences, as these could lead to an increase in the number of people at risk from flooding. These are separate and alternative criteria, so that a judgement as to whether an extension is significant need not invoke enquiry as to whether further habitable rooms would be created.

Environment Agency guidance on scoping flood risk assessments does not define acceptability in policy terms and deals with a much wider range of development. I am not persuaded that its categorisation of extensions of no more than 250sqm as ‘minor’ implies that the proposal is not significant for the purposes of the section of LP Policy LP17 on extensions. The extension increases the floor area (excluding garage and stores) by about 60% and adds a storey. In my view, this represents a significant extension, contrary to LP Policy LP17.

A condition requiring the bathroom to be retained may prevent a net increase in the number of habitable rooms in future, however, at about 3.5sqm, the bathroom shown on the plan is far smaller than the proposed viewing area, the substitution of which would be likely to place more people at risk from flooding. In any event, it has already been converted and so represents the baseline. A viewing area is a type of lounge or living area, which is a habitable room. The proposal would create this room contrary to LP Policy LP17.

[name] have no plan of flood defences in the area, the introduction to LP Policy LP17 refers to a front line “shingle ridge” defence. I saw that the site was adjacent to a ridge feature and note that the Environment Agency took enforcement action in respect of the raised terrace. On balance, I consider that the extension is within 16m of the toe of a flood defence. However, because it is a roof extension and so no closer than the existing house, it does not encroach. Consequently, it does not conflict with this part of LP Policy LP17.

The site is within the [name], where Policy 17 of the Heacham Neighbourhood Plan requires flood risk assessments. Whilst the scale, nature and location of the development indicate only limited assessment, total omission is contrary to this policy. Similarly, with no flood risk assessment or details of climate change and flood risk resilience, I cannot be sure the proposal complies with LP Policy LP06, which requires these, based on the latest guidance on climate change allowances in flood risk assessments.

Whilst the proposed accommodation would be in an upper storey and therefore provide an area of relatively safe refuge, without a flood evacuation plan this could increase the risk of emergency responders putting themselves at risk by carrying out hazardous rescues for trapped occupants.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal could increase the number of people at risk from flooding. As such, the proposal is contrary to LP policies LP06 and LP15, and Policy 17 of the Heacham Neighbourhood Plan, the overall aims of which I have outlined above.

The site is located within an area of chalets between the [name] and the beach, accessed along a sand and gravel track. Many appear to be or have been static caravans and so are typically single storey and relatively narrow with flat or shallow dual pitched roofs. Some near the beach are raised on supports. Roughly a quarter have upper storeys, often in roofs spanning shallow widths, resulting in relatively modest ridge heights. The long beach, dunes and wide landscape and sea views emphasise the horizontal.

The site contains a single storey flat roofed beach chalet on a relatively deep plan, so that the proposed roof spanning it would appear quite tall. From the beach, this would be seen in combination with the additional gable, which together would add harmful significant massing and verticality, at odds with surrounding built and landscape character.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with [name] LP18 and LP21, and with Policies 3 and 5 of the Heacham Neighbourhood Plan, which require development to recognise and reinforce local context, setting and character.

The site is to the south of a neighbouring chalet, the side of which, containing a window and the side of a conservatory, is close to the boundary with a small area of garden between. The ridge of the proposed roof would be noticeably higher than the existing roof and would significantly reduce the outlook from and sunlight to the window, garden and, to a lesser extent, the conservatory.

The terrace abuts the boundary with the same neighbour; its deck is at about head height in the neighbour’s garden with the balustrade around a metre higher. Whilst it mainly overlooks the neighbouring roof, it would be possible for people standing or sitting close to the balustrade to look down into the garden or window. Whilst walkers on the beach ridge can see into these gardens, these occurrences are transient, unlike the extended periods during which the terrace might be used.

To conclude, due to its size, proximity and height, the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy and outlook. The proposal is therefore contrary to LP Policy LP21 and Policy 5 of the Heacham Neighbourhood Plan, which, amongst other things, requires development to minimise adverse impacts on neighbouring occupiers.

The site lies adjacent to the Wash & North Norfolk Coast Special Areas of Conservation, the Wash Special Protection Area and the Wash Site of Special Scientific Interest (protected sites), which it could impact through lighting, noise and increased recreational use.

Even if a Construction and Ecology Management Plan could mitigate the first two impacts, and the proposal would not result in increased levels of recreational activity, Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal.

Given my conclusions on the main issues above, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter any further as the proposal would not take place and would not affect the protected sites. Moreover, even if I were to find suitable mitigation had been appropriately secured, a lack of harm would only be a neutral factor.

[name] attach moderate weight to the provision of upper storey floor space that might act as a refuge, this does not outweigh the conflict with the development plan as a whole and the appeal is therefore dismissed.