Appeal 3365262

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted for the proposed development described as “raising the existing sloping roof to the existing single storey rear extension to create first floor rear extension to the property incorporating bedroom and bathroom. The new extension will have a pitched roof to reflect the current pitched roof” at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2025/0276 and subject to the following conditions:

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

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.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] 2024-12-LOC1 Rev P1 – [name]; [name] 2024-12-P02 Rev P3 – [name] and Elevations.

The description of the proposed development in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form and differs slightly from that on the Council’s decision notice. However, it is accurate, and I see no reason to deviate from it.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of Verocain, [site address] (Verocain), with regards to daylight.

The appeal property is known as Bettina and is located on the end of a line of terraced cottages on [site address] in the village of [site address] . Bettina is two-storey in height and benefits from a rear lean-to single storey extension, which includes a partial black weather boarded elevation, and attached conservatory. The gap in the built form between Bettina and the adjacent semi-detached properties exposes Bettina’s brick gable end, making it a visible feature within [site address] scene. This is emphasised by the position of the property forward of the adjacent semi-detached properties.

To the rear of the attached property, known as Verocain, are two rear ground floor windows and a large glazed rooflight to the kitchen. The ground floor windows are located further away from the shared boundary with Bettina and separated from it by a tall trellis and shrub planting. Two smaller roof lights sit higher on the rear roof slope of the property.

The proposal seeks an upward extension to the existing single storey lean-to.

Despite being a substantial addition, the proposed extension would be subservient to its host, with significantly lower eave and ridge heights and being stepped in from the side elevation of the property, ensuring the existing form of the brick gable end is maintained, which is an important feature in [site address] scene. It would therefore not create a prominent discordant feature within its context.

Although the proposed hipped roof is not a design feature that is prevalent in the surrounding area, the proposed roof form enables the massing of the extension to be kept to a minimum. In any case, the extension would be positioned to the rear of the property and stepped in from the gable end. The majority of the extension would therefore be discretely positioned and only visible for a short period of time when travelling along [site address] in a single direction.

Furthermore, the use of black lap cladding on the rear and side elevations of the proposed extension would contrast with, and set it apart from, the main property, which is predominantly constructed of brick, thereby emphasising it as an addition and maintaining focus on the original gable.

Thus, I conclude that the proposal would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposed development would comply with Policies DM3.4 and DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] document (2015) (SNLPDM) and Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan. These policies seek to ensure that, amongst other things, development proposals, such as residential extensions, incorporate good quality design, which maintains or enhances the character and appearance of the surroundings.

The kitchen space to Verocain benefits from a large amount of glazing in the form of windows and a large roof light. Although the proposed extension would sit on the shared boundary between the two properties, the roof has been carefully designed, and indeed altered from a previous iteration of the scheme, to include lower ridge and eave heights, and a hipped arrangement to ensure that any effect on the daylight enjoyed by the occupants of Verocain is kept to a minimum.

Furthermore, existing features within the garden of Verocain, such as the trellis and shrubs, already effect the amount of daylight that would emanate through to the ground floor windows. The proposed extension, due to its orientation, is unlikely to worsen the level of overshadowing that currently exists.

In addition, the existing smaller roof lights at Verocain sit at a higher position than the proposed extension, and it therefore follows that the extension would not result in overshadowing in this regard.

Thus, I conclude that the proposal would not be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of Verocain with regards to daylight. Consequently, the proposed development would comply with Policies DM3.4 and DM3.13 of the SNLPDM, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development proposals, such as residential extensions, do not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers having regard to loss of daylight and overshadowing.

I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council and have considered them against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition relating to materials to safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area and a condition specifying the approved plans for certainty.

Based on the above considerations, I conclude that the proposal accords with the development plan and the appeal should be allowed.