Two storey rear and single storey extensions to side and rear of existing dwelling, following removal of existing extensions & alterations to existing vehicular access
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Heritage & Conservation
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 8 April 2025
by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 28 April 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/D/24/3353716
Bernina, 22 Church Road, Wimbotsham, Norfolk, PE34 3QG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by R & J Hurst against the decision of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough
Council.
• The application Ref is 24/01380/F.
• The development proposed is two storey rear and single storey extensions to side and rear of
existing dwelling, following removal of existing extensions & alterations to existing vehicular access.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey rear and
single storey extensions to side and rear of existing dwelling, following removal of
existing extensions & alterations to existing vehicular access at Bernina, 22 Church
Road, Wimbotsham, Norfolk, PE34 3QG in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 24/01380/F, subject to the following conditions:-
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 14774A; 14778A; 14779A; 14780A.
3) No above ground works shall commence on site until samples of all external
materials to be used on the roof and walls have first been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall
thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved materials and
details.
4) Notwithstanding condition no 2, no above ground works shall commence on site
until details of the brick piers on either side of the access have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr and Mrs R Hurst against King’s Lynn and
West Norfolk Borough Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision.
Appeal Decision APP/V2635/D/24/3353716
2
Preliminary Matters
3. It is clear to me from the description of the proposal and the submitted plans that
the proposed development does not include a detached garage building which I
noted at my site visit has been constructed and the appellant has said is permitted
development and not included within this proposal. Whilst I have had regard to the
presence of that garage as a material consideration, I have considered the appeal
on the basis that the garage is not included in the proposal.
4. Since the Council’s decision, the King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-
2040 has been adopted which replaces the policies in the Core Strategy and the
Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan referred to in the
decision notice. The parties have been given the opportunity to comment. The
appellant considers that the new local plan reflects current government planning
policy and guidance.
Main Issue
5. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the dwelling and the area and whether it would
preserve or enhance the Wimbotsham Conservation Area (CA).
Reasons
6. The appeal dwelling lies within the centre of the CA and occupies a prominent
position set above the road behind a lawned front garden. It lies within a row of
four dwellings built in the C20th and opposite a cul-de-sac of C20th bungalows.
From what I have seen at my visit and in the Wimbotsham Conservation Area
Character Statement, the significance of the CA derives mainly from the early
settlement area of the village to the west of Lynn Road and the areas around the
village green and Tinkers Lane/Millers Lane to the north although views along
Church Road in both directions contribute to its character and appearance.
7. Bernina is a detached two storey house built in the mid C20th of a hipped roof
design and an L-shaped form. It has been previously extended to the rear with a
single storey lean-to extension, a conservatory and twin flat roofed garages. The
recently constructed garage building is detached, set back from the dwelling and
has a hipped roof over the double width element to the front with a pitched roof
over a wider single storey element to the rear that contains doors and windows.
Whilst the spacious garden and particularly the gaps to either side between the
dwelling and its neighbours contribute positively to the character and appearance of
the CA, the dwelling itself has an unassuming and modest appearance and does
not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the CA.
8. The proposed development incudes a single storey extension across the rear
elevation that would project beyond the side walls with a centrally positioned first
floor element and a further single storey element projecting to the rear. The
existing rear extensions and twin garages would be removed.
9. The resulting two storey element at the rear would have a half hipped roof which
would be set below the height of the ridge of the main hipped roof with the same
degree of pitch. It would be set in from the side elevations and would be similar in
depth to the existing two storey projection to the front. As the appellants’ artist’s
impression indicates, it would only be seen clearly from a short section of Church
Appeal Decision APP/V2635/D/24/3353716
3
Road immediately to the east. As such, it would not be unduly disproportionate to
the scale of the existing dwelling and would not be perceived as overly dominant in
the street scene.
10. Whilst the single storey side elements would be seen from the street, those would
be set back significantly from the main front elevation and would be less than half
of the width of the original dwelling with lean-to roofs. As such, they would be
proportionate to the original dwelling and would not be unduly prominent when
seen from Church Road.
11. Although the single storey rear projection would be similar in depth to that of the
original dwelling, by removing the unsightly flat roofed garage block that detracts
from the character of the dwelling and as it would not be seen from the street, it
would be acceptable.
12. I find then that the proposed extensions would respect the form, scale and
character of the existing dwelling when seen from the street and would appear as
subordinate elements. Although the scale of the rear extensions would be more
apparent when seen from the rear garden or from neighbouring rear gardens and
would be seen in the same context as the new garage, given the large size of the
rear garden and the removal of the garage block, they too would be acceptable.
13. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed development not cause significant harm to
the character and appearance of the dwelling or the area and would preserve and
enhance the Wimbotsham CA. It would accord with development plan policies
LP18 and LP21 in the LP which together seek to ensure that new development is of
a high quality design that conserves and enhances the historic environment and
responds to the context and character of places in terms of scale and massing. It
would also accord with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to
ensure that great weight is given to the conservation of heritage assets and that
new development makes a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness.
Conditions
14. In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary
requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved
plans, to provide certainty. A condition requiring further details of external materials
is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the CA
because insufficient details were provided in the application. The proposal also
includes the removal of the existing concrete wall splays at the access entrance
and new brick piers either side of the access. No details have been provided of
those and I have therefore included a condition for further details which is
necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the CA.
Conclusion
15. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the
development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh
that. The appeal should be allowed.
Sarah Colebourne
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 8 April 2025
by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 28 April 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/D/24/3353716
Bernina, 22 Church Road, Wimbotsham, Norfolk, PE34 3QG
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr and Mrs R Hurst for a full award of costs against King’s Lynn and
West Norfolk Borough Council..
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for two storey rear and single storey
extensions to side and rear of existing dwelling, following removal of existing extensions & alterations
to existing vehicular access.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. I have noted that the applicants maintain that there was no record of updated
Conservation advice for a previous application at the site but an award of costs can
only be made in regard to the appeal proposal and not to previous applications.
4. The applicants have said that as the Council’s decision refers to a ‘large detached
garage’ that did not form part of the proposal, it was incorrect, flawed and
unreasonable. However, it is clear from the Assistant Conservation Officer’s (ACO)
comments in the Planning Officer’s report ‘This application is similar to the previous
application but reduces the extension by 60cm and removes the detached garage
from the application’ that the Council understood that was the case. The Council’s
decision refers to the ‘cumulative impact’ and as the garage has already been
constructed, it was correct in doing so. My appeal decision shows that I also
understood this to be the case and determined the appeal on that basis whilst also
taking into consideration the presence of the garage.
5. The applicants also argue that the ACO’s objection comprised incorrect assertions,
included varying opinions regarding the value of the appeal dwelling in the
Conservation Area during consideration of the various planning applications at the
site, was overly vague in regard to the visibility of the proposal and exaggerated the
resulting harm. I made my own observations at my site visit which I had regard to
in addition to the ACO’s comments during my consideration of the appeal. Even if
there was some inconsistency in those comments, the ACO remained of the
Costs Decision APP/V2635/D/24/3353716
2
opinion that the proposal should be refused and the need for the appeal could not
have been avoided. I also made my own observations regarding the visibility of the
proposal in the street scene and whilst I disagreed with the ACO regarding that, I
had the benefit of the appellant’s artist’s impression in the appeal documents that
the ACO did not during the application process. The level of resulting harm in
matters of character and appearance is always subjective and although I disagreed
with the ACO, she was entitled to reach a different view. The Council’s decision
was clear in referring to the impact of the proportions, mass and design of the
scheme.
6. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been
demonstrated and an award of costs is not justified.
Sarah Colebourne
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.