Appeal 6001919

The appeal is dismissed.

The North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040 (December 2025) (NNLP) was adopted on 17 December 2025 and replaces the [name] (September 2008). Despite this update the provisions in respect of the main issues of this case are largely unchanged. The Council referred to the relevant policies within its delegated report, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on the implications for this appeal. Therefore, I have taken the NNLP into account in coming to my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, having particular regard to whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mundesley Conservation Area.

The appeal site lies within the Mundesley Conservation Area (CA) which is characterised by its small, coastal resort atmosphere, comprising a wide variety of building styles and scales. In so far as is relevant to this appeal, the CA derives significance from its architectural detailing and use of traditional materials.

The appeal property is a two-storey brick dwelling fronting the [address]. The property has been previously extended into the south-facing garden with a two-storey, rendered addition and UPVC conservatory which extends above the traditional flint and timber boundary wall. The existing conservatory appears incongruous set amongst the more traditional surrounding buildings and does not positively contribute to the CA.

The proposal would replace the conservatory and infill the side passage currently leading to the main entrance door. The proposal would be a single storey brick extension with setback elevations. Nevertheless, the extension would awkwardly intersect with the first floor and the existing bay window. The architectural detailing surrounding the flat roof would be dominant. Overall, the proposal would be a discordant addition, detracting from the appearance of the host property.

There are other existing and recently approved flat roofs within the area. However, I note that their locations within the CA and their architectural detailing are different. Due to the proposal’s proximity to the high street and its height above the boundary wall, the extension would appear as a prominent and incompatible addition, that would detract from the street scene and the significance of the CA.

Consequently, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, resulting in a lower level of less than substantial harm as referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would make efficient use of land, replacing the existing incongruous conservatory with a more energy efficient habitable space. Nevertheless, I find that the great weight I attach to the identified harm with respect to the designated heritage asset would not be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and the development would conflict with the Framework.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area and would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would conflict with Policies ENV7 and ENV8 of the NNLP, where amongst other things they require development to be of a high-quality design while conserving and where possible enhancing the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

Similarly, there would be conflict with the Framework, where it requires development to be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and sympathetic to local character and history.

I note the design advice provided by the Conservation and [name], however this design does not form part of the scheme before me. Historically there was a flat roofed extension on site. Based on the images submitted this did not positively contribute to the CA nor does it form part of the existing context of the site. As such, these matters have not altered my findings in relation to the main issue above.

The proposal would respect the density of development within the area. It would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy and light nor would it harm biodiversity. However, this would be expected of any well-designed scheme and therefore form neutral matters.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions in the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.