Appeal 6004067

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 application form states that work began in July 2022 and at the time of my visit I saw that it was complete. It is noted that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis and the plans before me. Additionally, I have removed the term retrospective from the description in the banner heading above as this is not a form of development.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a mixed red brick bungalow and includes a covered canopy in its garden that is the subject of this appeal. The host property is neither listed nor located in a conservation area. There is no established building line along [site address] , but the area is characterised by dwellings set back from the highway to varying degrees, ranging from long to more modest driveways. However, no large structures are built directly against the boundary with the highway, aside from typical fencing and hedging. Due to No [site address] ’s orientation, it benefits from a wraparound garden. The development sits in an area of the garden adjacent to the highway, divided by a boundary fence, and is visible from the footpath in both directions along [site address] , being most prominent from the north-east due to the solid timber-boarded roof gables.

The separation provided by the grassed area between the highway and appeal site does not provide a sufficient degree of setback for the prominence of the structure, given its solid form and the height at which it extends well above the boundary fence. During my site visit, the structure appeared noticeably more intrusive than the nearby garage buildings, which are positioned much further back from the highway. Although the boundary fence screens the base and supporting posts, the main massing is formed by the bulk of the roof. This untypical boxed design lacks cohesion which presents as a substantial and visually dominant feature. Whilst the proposed amendments to some of the external materials may better reflect the historic character of Clenchwarton and its former railway station, they would not sufficiently reduce the structure’s overall incongruous appearance.

Reference has been made to an outbuilding at 105 [site address] . However, this example relates to a more isolated dwelling that does not sit amongst a cluster of properties, and its spatial relationship with the street scene and neighbouring buildings therefore differs significantly from that of the appeal site. In addition, this section of the road is not pedestrianised, meaning the outbuilding’s visibility is largely limited to passing vehicles rather than to pedestrians or nearby residents. In any case, I have assessed the proposal on its merits.

I conclude the development would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to policies LP18 and LP21 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan (2025), which require proposals to respond to the context and character of places in [name] by ensuring that their scale and layout will enhance the quality of the environment. The proposal would also be contrary to the aims set out within paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires that development proposals are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character.

The appellant’s comments regarding the needs of Koi carp are noted. Compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (2006) does not justify development that is visually harmful or out of keeping with the character of the area. Furthermore, no further substantive evidence has been provided to show the chosen position, and structure is the only practical option. Moreover, while the reason for the construction is acknowledged, this has no bearing on the planning merits of the proposal.

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.