Appeal 6005064

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, having regard to its location within the North Coast National Landscape (the NCNL) and the setting of Thornham Conservation Area (TCA) as a heritage asset.

The NCNL is a large expanse of unique coastline covering rolling chalkland and glacial moraine. The coastal stretch of the NCNL is backed by farmland, wetlands and woodlands, interspersed with historic buildings and settlements that have characteristic brick and flint construction. A special quality of the NCNL is its diversity and integrity of landscape, seascape and settlement character.

[site address] is an attractive detached residential property that utilises materials distinctive of buildings within the NCNL. It sits on the edge of Thornham and overlooks a large open expanse of wetland. Public footpaths run across the wetland and open onto [site address] in the vicinity of the appeal site. It is therefore highly visible and plays an important role in the intersect between the NCNL’s natural and built environments. Properties along this stretch of [address] benefit from more expansive plot sizes and have noticeable gaps between them, reflecting their edge of settlement location.

Although the proposal would maintain a gap, the proposed extension would significantly reduce the space afforded between [site address] and the adjacent semi-detached properties of Wigeon and [name]. Furthermore, regardless of whether the plot was previously wider, the proposal would extend two-storey built development almost to the extremity of the plot’s current side boundary, unbalancing the appearance of [site address] from the front, a property that currently sits relatively centrally within its plot. The overall result would be an increase in the density of built form, creating a cramped appearance when viewed from the open wetland environment beyond, which would diminish the property’s contribution as a more spacious plot in a prominent edge of settlement location.

It is acknowledged that the proposed ridge height has been reduced and the first-floor element set back from the main front elevation of the property from earlier iterations. However, the eaves would sit considerably higher than those of the main part of the dwelling. Furthermore, the front elevation of the boat store at ground floor level would also be in-line with that of the existing property and therefore collectively the extension would not appear as a subservient addition to the existing building. In addition, the full height glazed doors and balustrade, despite there being similar examples in the wider area, would appear out-of-keeping with the more traditional and distinctive elevational details of [site address] .

Thus, the proposed extension would appear as a jarring and incongruous addition to a property that contributes positively to the scenic beauty of, and is prominent within, the NCNL, which is a designation afforded the highest status of protection and the conservation and enhancement of which attracts great weight.

The materials would be largely consistent with those of the existing dwelling and the properties adjacent to it, and architectural details such as the brick plinth and decorative brick work to the gable end would be replicated. However, these considerations do not override the harm found regarding the positioning and form of the proposal. Furthermore, there are examples of balconies of varying designs in the wider area, both within and outside of TCA. However, this does not weigh in favour of the scheme that has been found to be harmful on other matters.

The appeal site is located outside of the TCA, the closest boundary of which encompasses the property named Bunkles, which is approximately 30m further along the same side of [site address] . The proposed extension would be sited between existing built form and together with the intervening distance, would not be particularly visible within the context of the TCA from either direction. When observed from [address] where it meets the grassed area on the corner of [site address] , the proposal would be visible within the context of the TCA but at a much greater distance of approximately 150m. Due to the substantial intervening distance and the acute angle of view, the existing built form along this part of [site address] already reads as predominantly continuous built development, which would not materially change with the introduction of the proposed extension.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area having regard to its location within the NCNL. Thus, it would be contrary to Policy LP18 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan (2021-2040) (the LP) and Policies D1 and H5 of the Thornham Neighbourhood Plan (2021) (the NP). These policies, amongst other things, require development to be of high-quality design that responds to the context and character of places by ensuring that it will enhance the quality of the environment.

The proposal would not harm the setting of TCA and would therefore comply with [name] LP20 and LP21, and NP Policy HA1 which, amongst other things, require the historic environment to be conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to its significance.

Whilst the Parish Council did not originally object, their lack of objection at the start of the planning process does not amount to an absence of harm and the proposal has been assessed on its own planning merits. Likewise, the absence of harm found to the living conditions of neighbouring residents does not weigh in favour of the proposal but is a neutral matter in the planning balance.

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