Loft conversion and internal changes
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
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/25/3359030
37 Olive Road, Costessey, Norfolk NR5 0AS
• 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 Martin against the decision of South Norfolk Council.
• The application Ref is 2024/2488.
• The development proposed is loft conversion and internal changes.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue
2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed loft conversion on the character and
appearance of the street scene.
Reasons
3. The appeal property is a semi-detached bungalow located in a residential road of
similar dwellings. The surrounding area is residential in character.
4. Policy DM3.8 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies
Document (2015) and Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024) require
high quality design from development and protection and enhancement of locally
distinctive character.
5. The bungalows along Olive Road are largely laid out on consistent building lines
with a limited number of extensions to the side and front, including a front gable
projection to the appeal property. As such, properties predominantly retain their
original design and layout, providing a uniform character and appearance to the
street scene. This uniformity is particularly apparent with regard to the height of
buildings, which remain consistent and unaltered across the pairs of semi-detached
bungalows.
6. The proposed extension would materially alter the appearance of the host dwelling
by substantively raising the roof height across its full depth and changing the
hipped roof form to gable ends with two dormer windows to the side-facing roof
slope. Due to the extent of uniformity, the heightened and altered roof form would
contrast unfavourably with the consistent height of all the other dwellings along the
same side of the road, particularly due to No 37’s prominent visibility within the
street scene close to the open junction of Olive Road with Margaret Road.
Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/25/3359030
2
7. These uncharacteristic changes would be particularly prominent in the street scene
due to the existing forward projection of part of the front elevation beyond the
consistent building line. The upward extension would also further unbalance the
appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Moreover, the additional bulk
created by the heightened roof would be apparent along its full depth due to the
gap with No 35, which would also enable views of the side-facing dormers, which
would be uncharacteristic features within the street scene.
8. Most properties have brick or render finishes; consequently, the use of grey
cladding for the extended roof and dormers would further add to the
uncharacteristic and incongruous appearance of the extended dwelling. I note,
however, that the appellants would be willing to change the materials and, as such,
a condition requiring matching materials could be imposed.
9. The appellants refer to other properties that are considered comparable to the
appeal proposal. However, these are not specified and based on the inspection
there are no similar forms of development within the street scene. While
neighboring occupiers might not have raised concerns about the proposal, this is a
neutral factor in consideration of the appeal and, therefore, is not sufficient reason
to overcome the harm found above.
10. Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed loft conversion 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 and to Policy 2 of the Greater
Norwich Local Plan, as described.
Conclusion
11. For the reasons given the appeal is dismissed.
J Bell-Williamson
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.