Appeal 6002109

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement 2 storey dwelling at [site address] , Blakeney, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/0522, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. PL01 [name] - [address] Plans & Elevations, received 09 September 2025, and air conditioning product data sheet A0EG18KBCA2, received 09 September 2025.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement, improvement or other alterations of the dwelling; no additions or alterations to the roofs; no provision of porches; nor the provision within the curtilage of the dwellings of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool; or chimneys, flues or soil and vent pipes or any other works as defined by [name], [name], D, E and G of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

Within three months of the date of this decision the proposed on-site car parking area shall be laid out, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with the approved plan and retained thereafter available for that specific use.

I have amended the description of development from the appeal form to omit reference to the proposal being retrospective, as that wording does not describe an act of development. That said, the application form states that the development has started.

The decision notice cites harm to the amenity of occupiers of the neighbouring property to the north without identifying it any further. The Council’s statement of case confirms the property in question to be [address] (No 6).

The North Norfolk Local Plan was adopted by the Council on 17 December 2025. It has superseded the [name] referred to in the decision notice. Both main parties have addressed this in their submissions.

I have made my determination based on the plans before me. Any discrepancy between those plans and development at the appeal site is a matter to be resolved by the main parties independently of the appeal.

The planning history of the site includes permission for alterations to a dwelling1, followed by two subsequent revisions, both also permitted2. The appeal scheme proposes a replacement dwelling, albeit comparable in design to the most recent permission.

I note the appellants contention that the original house was not demolished, and that an application for a further revision to the earliest permission may have been appropriate. That is not a matter before me. The appeal proposal is for a replacement dwelling and I proceed on that basis. In that context, it is not evident that the earlier permissions provide a fallback position for the appellant that I should consider. I have determined the appeal on the merits of the proposal before me in isolation.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (firstly) the character and appearance of the area, and (secondly) living conditions for occupiers of No 6 with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight, and noise.

The appeal site is in a largely residential setting. The proposed dwelling would be sufficiently taller and wider than many of its immediate neighbours, which include bungalows and other buildings of modest size and height, as to have little visual relationship to them. That said, the original house also bore little relation to those same neighbours in terms of height, size, and shape, and the appeal scheme would not interrupt or erode any beneficial uniformity in that respect.

Moreover, houses in the local area range in size and include a number that are comparable to the proposed dwelling; A nearby cluster of larger homes at the corner of [address] and [address] are particularly prominent and, marking as they do the entrance to the latter, play a significant role in the visual setting for the appeal site. In that context, the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the characteristics of the local area.

The proposed dwelling would incorporate differing roof pitches culminating in a staggered gable end facing the street. Whilst this is not evidently a common approach locally, the area displays very little consistency regarding design features such as these; Indeed, immediate neighbouring buildings have, in one case, a somewhat utilitarian feel with a mixed mono and dual pitched roof and, in 1 Application Ref PF/23/1577. 2 Application Refs RV/23/2332; RV/24/1921. the other, a traditional chalet style. The design of the proposed dwelling is no less in keeping with its surroundings than the original house.

Integration of the proposed dwelling would be assisted by its adherence to an existing front building line and by the use of a brick and flint finish, a distinctive local feature, across much of its exterior. Whilst the northern elevation would be in brick, that is not an unusual arrangement locally; Beaconfield lodge, directly opposite the site, displays much the same combination of finishes to pleasing effect. In any event, the original dwelling is finished in brickwork and so it is an established feature of the northern aspect of the site.

The proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, and I find no conflict in that respect with Policies HOU6 or ENV8 of the North Norfolk Local Plan (2025) or Policies 7 or 9 of the Blakeney Neighbourhood Plan (2023). Living Conditions at No 6

In addition to a larger rear garden, No 6 has a small internal courtyard formed by the staggered rear elevation of the main dwelling, a detached outbuilding, and an enclosure alongside the appeal site boundary. Ground floor windows for No 6 face out onto the courtyard but they are on an east-west axis, rather than oriented directly towards the appeal site. The southern gable end of No 6 includes windows at both ground and first floor levels. Based on the submissions, the former relate to bedrooms that are also served by front and rear windows, whilst the latter serves a bathroom and is obscure glazed.

The proposed dwelling would involve a significantly higher northern eaves line than the original dwelling. Whereas the original dwelling incorporated a ‘cat-slide’ roof and an inset section, the proposed one would present a noticeably taller, more continuous, and somewhat featureless flank to No 6. This would generate a greater sense of enclosure, experienced from the courtyard and south facing openings at No 6. It may also reduce the benefits of south-facing solar panels.

At the same time, the original dwelling occupied much the same footprint and was at least very similar in overall height to the proposed one. As such, southerly outlook from No 6 was already dominated by neighbouring built form a short distance away. South-facing ground floor windows at No 6 face directly onto tall boundary enclosures over a very short distance. Southerly outlook from windows facing into the courtyard at No 6 is already significantly hampered by the roof of the enclosure within that area. The obscured bathroom window will have little outlook to speak of. Given all of this I find little to suggest that, overall, the proposed dwelling would alter southerly outlook from No [address] or to such an extent as to have an unacceptable impact.

Regarding daylight and sunlight, I do not doubt that given its location near to No 6 and all but due south of it, the proposed dwelling would have a significant effect on levels of daylight and sunlight. Much the same, however, could be said of the original dwelling, and of standard boundary enclosures as would likely have been required to protect privacy at No 6.

I recognise that the higher eaves line and continuous northern elevation of the proposed dwelling would likely restrict direct sunlight and possibly daylight to a greater degree, but it is not evident that it would do so to a harmfully greater degree given the close proximity of the original house, boundary enclosures, and No 6.

I appreciate that the [name] advises a distance of 8.5m between a blank wall and a neighbouring bedroom window, and that the appeal scheme only provides some 2.3m. However, guidance must be applied appropriately in the context of any given proposal. In this instance, the original dwelling and the site boundary are already far closer to No 6 than the guidance evidently anticipates.

The appeal scheme includes two air conditioning units mounted on the northern flank wall of the proposed dwelling. The units would be close to the courtyard and ground floor windows at No 6, and surrounded by hard surfaces that may reflect noise rather than deaden it. I see little to suggest that the units could not be located elsewhere on the appeal site.

Even so, the only technical assessment I have is from the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer (EPO). That assessment, which took into account the technical specification for the units, maximum noise levels of 47 (dB(A)) for cooling, and 50 (dB (A)) for heating, and the position of the units lower than the boundary wall they would face out onto, was that a significant ongoing noise/amenity issue is unlikely. Moreover, the EPO expressed confidence that, should an issue arise, they could request the units be relocated.

I appreciate that the EPO did not offer a categoric assurance regarding noise levels, but the fact is that the only evidence before me from a suitably qualified person does not indicate that the units are likely to give rise to an unacceptable noise impact when operational, as stated in the decision notice. Indeed, it indicates the opposite. It also offers an assurance of recourse in the event of noise issues which the Council’s appeal submission have given me no reason to doubt. Taking all of this into account I see no reason to believe the appeal scheme would result in harm through unacceptable noise levels.

I see no reason to find that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on living conditions for occupiers of No 6 with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight, and noise. As such, I find no conflict in that respect with Policies ENV6 or ENV8 of the North Norfolk Local Plan (2025).

I note concerns from third parties regarding security cameras at the appeal site. That is not a matter before me as it is not part of the proposal.

I have essentially imposed the conditions suggested by the Council, having noted that the appellant raised no objection to them. The second restricts permitted development rights for reasons. I am content that the justification for this as provided by the Council is adequate given the close-knit arrangement of the appeal site and neighbouring properties, and the issues arising from that considered in the appeal.

I have amended the trigger-point for the third condition from that suggested by the Council as the application was presented as retrospective. As such, compliance with a prior-to-first-use condition would not evidently be achievable.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.