Appeal 6001715

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the Council made its decision the Government has, on 16 December 2025, published a consultation document regarding proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the draft Framework), together with proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system. This document was accompanied by a [name].

The consultation and draft Framework do not constitute Government policy or guidance, although they may be treated as material considerations in appeals. The proposed reforms are in draft form and therefore may be subject to change before the final document is published and so the draft Framework carries limited weight in my deliberations.

There is, within the draft proposals, little change to the thrust and direction of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and remain substantially unaltered in regard to the matters in dispute in this appeal It has, therefore, not been necessary to consult the parties concerning the documents.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

Redacres is a modest two-storey building of linear form lying adjacent to the carriageway of [site address] . In the vicinity of the site, and fronting onto [site address] , lie other buildings, predominantly in residential use. These, like the appeal building, are of traditional appearance, largely constructed of brick and flint with clay tiled roofs.

Redacres, and many of the nearby buildings have, by virtue of their construction using materials and methods locally accessible, some heritage value as examples of modest rural buildings typical of the area and its history. As a result, whilst not within a designated Conservation Area, Redacres and several nearby buildings are identified within the Buxton with Lamas Neighbourhood Plan 2024 – 2038 (2018) (the NP) as a cluster of undesignated heritage assets.

The buildings are well spaced along [site address] and set within landscaped plots that, together with the hedges alongside the carriageway, provide a high degree of verdancy.

Given the above, the overall character of the area is that of a traditional, rural settlement lying within its rural hinterland. These are positive characteristics of the area and the traditional construction, scale and appearance of Redacres makes a positive contribution to them.

The proposal would add a two-storey extension, connected to the host dwelling by a flat-roofed corridor. The ground floor of the extension would be set down below existing ground level so that the ridge of the pitched roof to the main body of the extension would remain lower than the ridge of the host dwelling.

Whilst the host dwelling is long, narrow and rectangular in form, with a traditional pitched roof, the proposed extension would be of a squat, bulky, irregular shape with a complex roof form.

The form and positioning of the extension, set apart from the host, but linked by a corridor, would appear as an incongruous addition to the obviously traditional built form and layout of the host dwelling.

Whilst corresponding roof features can be found in the local area, the proposal’s combination of several of these together on the extension results in a complex roof form. This complicated roof form would appear discordant when compared with the simple, traditional roof form of the host dwelling. Notwithstanding the lower ridge height of the extension, compared to that of the host dwelling, the bulk and form of the extension, lying at the distant end of a glazed link would overwhelm the simplicity of the existing dwelling to dominate it.

The proposal would be an overtly modern addition to the host property. Whilst this can, in some circumstances, be a successful when used to create an element of visual separation between old and new elements, in this case it would emphasise the incongruity of design.

Whilst screened by the host dwelling, gaps exist in the hedging fronting [site address] which would provide views of the rear extension. From the west, where the hedging is lower, there would be clear views of the proposed extension, and its incongruous nature would attract notice.

The incompatibility of the proposed extension with the host building would result in a significant level of harm to the host building and its historic appearance, undermining the contribution that it makes to the positive characteristics of the locality that I have identified above.

The site lies within the D3 [name] Area as identified within the Broadland Landscape Character Assessment (2013) (the BLCA). This landscape area is dominated by its rural, agrarian nature, with a sparse development pattern. Identified sensitivities include undermining the development pattern and natural features of the historic landscape, such as hedgerows and tracks, or the landscape setting of churches, halls, hamlets and villages.

The proposal lies within the extended settlement of Lamas and is closely associated with existing built form. It would not extend built form into the hinterland or significantly extend the envelope of the settlement. Its visual impact would be limited to its immediate locality by existing screening by built form, landscaping and the lie of the land. I therefore find that the proposal would not adversely affect the wider landscape.

The appellant has brought to my attention two examples of extensions granted planning permission recently, at Meadway1 and The Limes2, which he considers relevant to the proposal before me. However, I do not have any details to provide the planning background against which these proposals were determined. The effect of the proposal is very much dependent on its built form and relationship to the particular host dwelling and so I have determined this appeal on its own, particular, merits.

I therefore find that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, contrary to the aims of Policies 2 and 3 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024), Policy GC4 of the Broadland District Council Development Management Development Plan Document (2015) (the DMPD) and Policies BUX4, BUX6 and BUX 11 of the NP. This is because these, jointly, seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development proposals create well-designed places and buildings which respect and respond positively to the character of the settlement and identified non-designated heritage assets.

However, it will be seen, above, that I have found the proposal to have no significant adverse effect on the wider Landscape Character Area and so have found no conflict with Policy EN2 of the DMPD or Policy BUX6 of the NP in as much as these seek to ensure that development proposals recognise, maintain and where possible enhance landscape character, taking into account landscape sensitivities, as described in the BLCA.

I have found no conflict with the aims of Policy BUX7 of the NP, which relates to development within gardens as this policy is principally concerned with the effects of subdivision of planning units.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.