Appeal 6004964

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on tree T1, the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

No [site address] (No 1) is a detached residential property of simple design that sits at an elevated position on a corner plot between [address] and [address]. Thus, most aspects of the property are visible from the street scene. It is constructed of a combination of red brick and painted blocks. There is vast individuality in the design, form and materials of properties on [address] and [address]. However, pitched roofs, largely contained built form and limited material palettes used on each property are generally consistent characteristics of the area, creating some coherence.

The scheme proposes several structural additions to No 1 that would significantly expand built form in most directions from the existing footprint. It would also include the introduction of a two-storey extension, linked to the main part of the dwelling by a single storey element.

The proposal would introduce sprawling additions of varying designs that would not be coherent with one another and would not respect the simple form and design of the existing dwelling. They would fail to be subservient to their host, and as a result, the form of the existing property would be largely illegible. Furthermore, the use of multiple roof designs: shallow and steeper pitched; flat; and curved, and an extensive material palette, would create a confused and busy scheme that would fail to be sympathetic to either the host property or the prevailing simple design of properties in the surrounding area that contribute to its character.

Whilst there is potential for the material palette to be controlled by condition, and the use of contemporary materials as accents would not necessarily be detrimental in this context, this would not alleviate the harm found in relation to other aspects of the scheme.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, contrary to Policies LP18 and LP21 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan (2021-2040) (LP), and Policy 7 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2024) (NP). These policies, amongst other things, require development of high-quality design that responds to the context and character of places, and is sensitive and sympathetic to its local setting.

Tree T1 is a particularly large [name] that sits within the back corner of the site, and which the Preliminary Tree Survey1 (PTS) assesses as being a [name] tree in fair condition, with an anticipated remaining lifespan of 10 years or more. The appellant’s claim that T1 may fall within [name] (trees requiring removal due to poor condition) is unsupported by evidence. In addition, the appellant states that a separate appeal has been submitted against the refusal of the Council to grant permission for the removal of T1 and the planting of a replacement tree. However, there is no evidence to suggest that such an appeal has been successful. The PTS accepts the tree is exposed to winds and that some small stems have failed or are failing due to the large tree’s sail effect, but this level of damage would not necessarily justify its loss.

Whilst located to the rear of the site, T1 is a striking and attractive feature within the street scene of both [address] and [address]. Due to its height and mass of foliage, it contributes positively to its verdant surroundings. Thus, its loss would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

The proposal does not involve the removal of T1, and it is noted that some minor development already exists close to the tree in the form of a dwarf wall and fence. However, more substantial ground works would likely be required extremely close to the trunk of T1 (within approximately 1.2m in two directions) to accommodate the proposed extension. Thus, there is potential for the root structure to be seriously damaged, which could be significantly detrimental to its structural stability and/or health. Whilst some encroachment into the tree’s root protection area (RPA) could be acceptable, as demonstrated by the Inspector in the Hinckley appeal decision2, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate how much of the RPA would be affected in this case or what methods of construction would be used. Thus, it is far from certain that the proposed extension would not harm T1 and its root system. 1 Prepared by Tree Work and Surveys Limited, dated May 2025. 2 [name]/K2420/A/14/2220379.

Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to impose a condition requiring the submission of more detailed tree assessment work as it would not provide sufficient guarantee that the proposed development would be acceptable prior to determination of this appeal.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be contrary to [name] LP18, LP19 and LP21, and [name] 7 and 14, which, amongst other things, require new development to, where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area, and to conserve trees as natural landscape features.

The appellant’s evidence suggests that the Council did not actively seek amendments to the scheme to alleviate their tree concerns. However, their conduct is not a matter for deliberation in the context of this planning appeal.

The appeal site is located on the opposite side of [address] to the boundary of the Norfolk Coast National Landscape (NCNL), a large expanse of unique coastline covering rolling chalkland and glacial moraine that is notable for its scenic beauty. Whilst the properties on the opposite side of [address] have a relationship with the open countryside beyond and are included within the NCNL boundary, the appeal site is contained on all sides by built development, and the proposal would therefore not be harmful to the setting of the NCNL. Nevertheless, this is not a matter that weighs in favour of the proposal but neutral in the planning balance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Thus, the appeal should be dismissed.