Appeal 6004653

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has sought to amend the proposal during the appeal process to reduce the size of the first floor extension. The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England Updated 9 December 2025 states that ‘The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and there are no provisions within the Rules for amendments to be submitted’.

The Council in its appeal statement requests that the amended plan should not be accepted, as it has not been formally consulted on or considered. Accepting this amendment would prevent people having the ability to make representations. Therefore, on a procedural basis I will not be accepting the amendment and determining the appeal on the original plans.

I have also noted that the proposal is defined as a first floor side extension. However, the submitted plans also show the removal of the rear lobby and a two storey extension to the rear of the garage and I have determined the application on this basis.

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

The proposal is seeking to place an extension over the garage, as well as a two storey extension at the rear, that would be viewable from the public realms of both [address] and Lulworth Park.

The local area is defined by a mix of single storey, one and a half storey and two storey dwellings. The host dwelling is one of the two storey detached properties, which includes a single storey garage to the side. It is of similar appearance to several dwellings to its immediate northeast. It is noted that 2 and 4 [site address] that are of a very similar architectural appearance have had extensions to the front of the dwellings, with [address] having a two storey extension. I also noted similar architectural style dwellings on Lulworth Park. There was no evidence in the local area of this style of dwelling having two storey side extensions or a first floor side extension over the garage. The visual separation between the two storey dwellings is a key element that helps form the character and appearance of this local area.

I have noted the evidence provided of two storey side extensions on similar architectural style dwellings on [address]. However, from the evidence presented and my site visit this street scene does not appear to be within proximity to the site. Therefore, only limited positive weight is given to these examples of two storey side extensions.

The proposed extension by virtue of its scale and location would infill a visual gap between two dwellings, which is not in keeping with either [address] or Lulworth Park. The loss of this gap would also harm the architectural appearance of these dwellings, as well as the wider character and appearance of the local area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Policy WLP8.29 of the Waveney Local Plan 2019 that seeks to ensure development is of high quality that reflects local distinctiveness, including responding to the scale, character and the relationship between buildings in the local context. Given the harm to the street scene, the proposal is not considered to comply with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant states that the Council did not act proactively with them during the application. However, the behaviour of the Council is not a matter for me to consider in an appeal under section 78, which I have determined on its planning merits

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.