Appeal 3367945

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to Wroxham Conservation Area (WCA) as a designated heritage asset and the setting of the Broads; and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No 25), with regards to daylight.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of WCA.

I am also mindful of my statutory duty to seek to further the statutory purposes of the Broads in respect of the setting of the Broads as a landscape designation of national importance. Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires me to give great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in such areas.

The special interest and significance of WCA derives from its relationship with the river; as a site of a medieval settlement; as a site of commerce; and as a centre of a river-based leisure industry in the 20th century. [address], which forms the historic core of the village, and [address] located on the outskirts, are rural in scale and character. They run along the crest of the valley edge, affording views over picturesque pastureland and the [name], which form the start of the Broads. They therefore make a positive contribution to the relationship of WCA with the river and to the significant features of WCA.

The Broads, which includes the [name] and the pastureland adjacent to the appeal site, is an expansive area of waterway navigations that is notable for its scenic landscape beauty. It is enjoyed by many as a tourist destination, which was evident from my site visit. The built form along [address] is set above the Broads landscape and the buildings along it therefore forms part of the backdrop and setting of the Broads’ scenic beauty.

The subject property, [site address] (No 27), is a bungalow located within a row of dwellings developed in the late 20th century that sit at an elevated and relatively open position above the [name] and the Broads. Dwellings closer to [address] are predominantly 2-storey in height, reducing to bungalows with shallow roofs towards the football ground, including [address]. This reduction in massing is reflective of the transition away from the more central aspects of the settlement and towards the rural areas surrounding Wroxham and forms an important part of the street scene. The neighbouring property at No 25 has been converted into a chalet bungalow, facilitated by the provision of a front dormer with balcony.

The proposed development includes an increase in ridge height to create a roof space large enough to provide additional internal living accommodation with two front facing dormers. A balcony would be created in the larger of the front dormers.

Whilst the proposed ridgeline would maintain the general pattern of decreasing height along [address], the proposed roof alteration would add considerable bulk to what is currently a modest property with shallow roof design. [name] 27 is slightly set back from No 25, the increased massing would be especially noticeable in the street scene and within views of WCA from the Broads.

The proposed front dormers would be bulkier in design than those at No 25, by virtue of their overall height, width, the size of the balcony, windows and door, and the depth of fascia. The fenestration would be more prominent than that of the neighbouring property, thereby diminishing No 27’s contribution to the gradual reduction in scale and massing of properties along [address].

Although views across the Broads from Wroxham would be unaffected, the massing and prominence of the proposed development and the disparity it would create within the characteristic reduction in massing along [address], would be harmful to the appearance of this group of buildings and their contribution to the setting of the scenic beauty of the Broads as a protected landscape.

For the reasons given above and within the terms of the Framework, the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of WCA as a heritage asset. The level of harm would be within the lower part of this category.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (in this case WCA), this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed development would provide some public benefit from employment during the construction phase, although this would be temporary, would make efficient use of an existing property and would contribute to the existing housing stock in providing a more versatile property that could also support modern family living. However, the proposal is for alterations to an existing dwelling, and these public benefits would therefore be limited.

These limited benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm the proposal would have on the significance of WCA as a designated heritage asset to which I am required to give great weight. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Framework.

The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of WCA and the setting of The Broads in conflict with Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan, Policy GC4 of the Broadland Development Management document (the BDM), and Policies HBE3, HBE4 and ENV3 of the Wroxham Neighbourhood Plan. These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure development creates beautiful and well-designed buildings that respect the character and local distinctiveness of the area, and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of WCA.

The rear garden and windows of No 25 are already subject to some degree of overshadowing due to the presence of the existing garage located on the shared boundary. In addition, No 27 is set at a lower level than neighbouring properties due to the topography of the land. Whilst some additional overshadowing of the neighbouring property would occur due to the proposed extensions, these existing features would reduce any potential overshadowing effects to a minimal level, which would not be harmful.

For the above reasons, I do not consider that the amount of daylight to the rear garden and internal living spaces of No 25 would be reduced to a level that would cause harm to the living conditions of the property’s occupants. The proposal therefore complies with Policy GC4 of the BDM, which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development proposals pay adequate regard to considering impact on the amenity of existing properties. The lack of harm in this regard is a neutral matter that does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

No objections have been raised by the Broads Authority, the Parish Council or local councillors. However, this lack of objection does not equate to a lack of harm, and I have determined the appeal on its planning merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.