New front extension, additional windows to the side elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 February 2025 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 March 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/L2630/D/24/3356456 2 Willow Close, Wymondham, Norfolk NR18 0TL • 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 Mr & Mrs Lowen against the decision of South Norfolk Council. • The application Ref is 2024/1623. • The development proposed is new front extension, additional windows to the side elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 1. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published on 12 December 2024. The content of the revised Framework has been considered but in light of the facts in this case it does not alter my conclusion. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling in a residential cul-de-sac of similar dwelling types and bungalows. The surrounding area is residential in character. 4. Policy DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document (2015), Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024) and Policy 4 of the Wymondham Neighbourhood Plan (2023) all require high quality design from development and protection and enhancement of locally distinctive character. 2. The two-storey dwellings in Willow Close are largely of uniform character and appearance, with predominantly unaltered front elevations. The bungalows within the close are also similarly unaltered. As such, there is a strong degree of uniformity of character and appearance within Willow Close, with similar built forms reflecting the original planned design and layout of properties. The only exception is No 4 next to the appeal property, which retains the same two-storey building line as No 2 but has a single-storey projection to the front. Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/24/3356456 2 3. The proposed front extension would be of subordinate height to the host dwelling and of similar depth as the projection to the rear of the property. While it would be a proportionate addition to the host dwelling seen in isolation, within the established street scene it would result in a substantive and bulky projection that would extend well beyond the characteristic two-storey front building line of properties. Consequently, it would harmfully undermine the uniformity that is a positive feature of the character and appearance of properties within the close. 4. The front extension would also reduce the openness within the street scene close to the junction with Lime Tree Avenue, resulting in a greater sense of enclosure at the entrance to Willow Close seen from the adjoining road. While No 2 has a relatively large hedge to its front boundary, this would not fully obscure the extension and in any case, it is not a permanent feature that should be relied upon to mitigate the harmful effects. 5. I acknowledge that the extension to No 4 is forward of the established building line, but this is single-storey and therefore does not have the same effects described above in terms of the proposed two-storey extension. 6. The appellants draw attention to a number of other examples of developments that are considered comparable to the appeal proposal. However, these are not part of the same street scene as the appeal property and, therefore, these other developments do not overcome the harmful effects that would result from the proposed extension. 5. Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. It is, therefore, contrary to Policy DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document, Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan and Policy 4 of the Wymondham Neighbourhood Plan, as described. Conclusion 6. For the reasons given the appeal is dismissed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR