Appeal 3371350

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is a large, detached property which has a farmhouse style design. It is accessed off [site address] , a rural road with a mix of two-storey houses and bungalows overlooking fields. Surrounding dwellings range from traditional rural buildings to modern designs. The property sits within a generous plot, with a garden which wraps around three sides of the dwelling. It features a large driveway, and its frontage is screened by hedges and trees that limit views of the dwelling from the street scene. Although much of the original structure has been altered, the dwelling still integrates well with its surroundings and presents as a rural dwelling.

The proposal would result in a bulky addition due to its boxy form and flat roof, which would contrast with the traditional, and rural character of the host property. Whilst the extension would be single storey, due to its form and scale it would not be subservient, and while matching bricks would be a positive, they do not mitigate the harm caused by its incongruous design. Existing hedging screens the property, but as this could be removed and any condition to retain it would be difficult to enforce, it cannot be relied upon to preserve the area’s appearance. I note that a similar proposal was dismissed at appeal, and whilst this scheme has reduced the proposed roof area, the overall footprint of the extension combined with the flat roof design would fail to assimilate with character of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

I conclude, the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to Policies LP18, LP21 and LP35 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan (2025) which, amongst other matters, require that design is of a high quality which preserves the character of the area.

Whilst the scheme is likely to improve insulation and has the potential to increase energy efficiency due to the addition of the ASHP proposed, in the context of a single dwelling, any personal and environmental benefits would be significantly undermined by the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The appellant contends that the proposed changes make more efficient use of the existing space. Whilst this may be the case, I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that demonstrates that use of the space could not be made more efficient through other means that has a less harmful effect on the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.