Proposed development is a two-storey side extension to provide two ensuite bedrooms to the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2020 by Jonathan Price BA(Hons) DMS DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th September 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/G2625/D/20/3249948 44 Naismith Road, Norwich NR4 7BJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Jean-Francois Weyl against the decision of Norwich City Council. • The application Ref 20/00072/F, dated 14 January 2020, was refused by notice dated 20 March 2020. • The proposed development is a two-storey side extension to provide two ensuite bedrooms to the property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed Main Issue 2. The effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The two-storey side extension would be onto one of a pair of semi-detached houses. The dwelling fronts onto one of two cul-de-sac sections to Naismith Road, which is a link route through part of an estate of uniformly designed, municipally developed housing. This residential estate possesses a coherent architectural character in respect of scale, design, facing materials, layout and density. The dwellings are arranged either as semi-detached pairs or terraces, with the universal dark-tiled hipped roofing above lighter red brick walls adding to an overall homogenous appearance. 4. In common with dwellings opposite and to either side, this semi-detached pair has two-storey elements reduced in both height and forward extent each side of a larger central core. This provides both balance and a moderation of overall bulk. Despite the matching materials, extending at two-storeys to this extent would disrupt this existing balance and create an over dominant mass to one side. This would detract from both the satisfactory appearance of the existing pair, as well as the currently unified street scene pattern. The prominent corner position and elevated site level would accentuate the harmful visual impact in respect of character and appearance. 5. A somewhat similar side extension at 22 Pettus Road is referenced in the appellant’s statement. Here the housing appears to be broadly of the same age and character as that in Naismith Road. However, the end extension to No 22 Appeal Decision APP/G2625/D/20/3249948 2 appears to relate to a larger-sized house, and the same degree of imbalance and over-dominance does not arise. A two-storey end extension to 11 Norvic Drive is also cited by the appellant in support of this proposal. In that case the housing is of a markedly different character, without the equivalent degree of harm I find in this particular context. It is the effect on the architectural character of the immediate surroundings upon which my decision is based. Generally, I perceived the original architectural character of this area to be well-preserved. In any event, this assessment relates primarily to the individual merits of the proposal in question and is not in any way bound by other residential extensions that have occurred nearby. 6. The harm found to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area of housing would be in conflict with Policy DM3 of the Norwich Development Management Policies Local Plan and Policy 2 of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, insofar as these foster a requirement for good design in new developments. Conclusion 7. The proposal is in place of an approved single storey extension and avoids the presence of a main sewer. It meets a need for residential accommodation, in this case that provided for students at the nearby University of East Anglia. The width of the plot would accommodate the extension without there being material harm to the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers, with the proposed rear windows serving bathrooms and not resulting in any over- looking. However, these factors would not compensate for or alter the harm found in respect of character and appearance. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Jonathan Price Inspector