Conversion and extension to detached outbuilding to form an annexe

1 Appeal Decision Site visit undertaken on 7 August 2026 by J Somers BSocSci (Planning) MA (HEC) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007279 38 Theatre Road, Wells-next-the-sea, Norfolk NR23 1DJ • 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 and Mrs P Baker against the decision of North Norfolk Council. • The application Reference is PF/25/2763. • The development is described on the Application Form as ‘Conversion and extension to detached outbuilding to form an annexe.’ Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the Conversion and extension to detached outbuilding to form an annexe; at 38 Theatre Road, Wells- next-the-sea, Norfolk NR23 1DJ in accordance with application Ref: PF/25/2763 and the following conditions: 1) Notwithstanding the approved plans, and prior to the commencement of the development, details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external materials of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to the local planning authority for their approval. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples and retained in the same materials in perpetuity. 2) The scheme shall be constructed in accordance with the following approved plans: • ‘Plan as Proposed,’ Rev B, Dated 26/01/2026; 3) The detached annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied as living accommodation except by a dependant relative (or other member of the household) of the occupants of the dwelling known as 38 Theatre Road, Wells next the sea, Norfolk, NR23 1DJ. Except insofar as the annexe is so used as living accommodation, the annexe shall not be used other than for purposes incidental to the use of 38 Theatre Road, Wells next the sea, Norfolk, NR23 1DJ Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the description of the development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this more accurately describes the elements that require planning consent. I shall make my determination on this basis. 3. I note that the appeal documents reference the National Planning Policy Framework 2025 (the Framework). Since the submission of the appeal, the 2025 Appeal Decision: 6007279 2 version of the Framework has been superseded by the 2026 version which was published on the 17 August 2026. Whilst the structure and format of the Framework has changed, the wording of the relevant policies of the new Framework in relation to this appeal remain largely unchanged and therefore did not require to be reassessed by either party in relation to this appeal. As such I have considered the appeal on this basis and refer only to the updated 2026 Framework within my decision. Main issues 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the existing building and the surrounding locality, with special attention as to whether the scheme preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Wells-next-the-sea Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 5. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a decision maker to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area in the determination of a planning application. 6. With regards to undertaking development, relevant policies of the North Norfolk Local Plan (LP) includes Policy ENV8 which sets a number of design principles, where applications are expected to achieve integrated design approaches that reflect the characteristics of the site, reflect the local environment and create a sense of place with distinctive character, respond to the local context in terms of scale, finish, massing, materials and architectural details, amongst others. Additionally, LP Policy ENV7 is related to the historic environment, and seeks that development should conserve and where possible, enhance the significance of a heritage asset, and ensuring that proposals conserve elements which contribute to significance, amongst others. LP Policy HOU6 is also relevant as this policy applies principles for replacement dwellings, extensions, outbuildings and annexed accommodation in order to regulate impacts caused by intensified development. 7. The appeal site is also within the Wells-next-the-sea Neighbourhood Plan (NP) area where Policy WNS6 is a design related policy that seeks that developments utilise materials and architectural detailing that contribute positively to the rich heritage and distinctive character of the town, use materials that are high-quality and reinforce local distinctiveness, amongst others. Additionally, NP Policy WNS11 is a heritage-led policy that seeks to ensuring that development complements the shape, form and layout of a Conservation Area and the relationship between the older buildings and the spaces around and between them whilst also promoting the use of high-quality traditional building materials and detailing, amongst others. 8. Whilst no heritage statement has been submitted with the appeal documents, both parties appear to relate the significance of the CA around the dense, historic built- up area of the town. From my own observations, the CA’s significance also comes from its historic position and associated development as a prominent fishing village which was constructed with a harbour and quay along the drained marshes. The settlement consists of a number of periods of development within 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries. Like other fishing villages in Norfolk and beyond, areas towards the centre of the settlement are developed with tightknit streets, yards, alleyways Appeal Decision: 6007279 3 and accessways, many of which were associated with commercial activities linked to the fishing industry. As the town expanded outwards during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, roads and accesses become wider, but alleyways, and authentic building materials and construction techniques still exist. 9. Due to the lack of quality building stone for structural construction, the local vernacular consists of clay-based materials such as brick with red pantile roof tiles, with facades and boundary demarcations containing decorative flint. Whilst it would appear that there are infill developments, the series of relatively authentic passageways and associated boundary demarcations themselves are unique surviving elements which allow the legibility and street pattern of the historic fishing industry. To the rear of dwellings lie subservient outbuildings, with remaining spaces in and around buildings giving breaks within the tight-knit built form and development. Whilst there are some examples of unsympathetic alterations and materials such as uPVC which is detrimental to the character and appearance of the CA; the continued use of traditional and authentic materials, designs and their relationship to the historic form and function of buildings is also a key component of the significance of the CA. These elements, amongst others emphasise the fishing village experience that reinforces some of the positive qualities within the locality that contributes towards local character and distinctiveness. 10. The appeal site is located to the rear garden of No.38 Theatre Road, an end terraced property in a group of 3 dwellings with no setback from the road which is part of the nineteenth century residential expansion of the settlement. Along the side boundary is Dogger Lane, a narrower laneway which runs towards Freeman Street and the older central area of the settlement. The appeal building carries a number of positive elements that contribute to the significance of the CA, such as being constructed of brick with coloured render with ashlar detailing, red pantile roof and large chimney stack with boundary walls of flint. The rear outbuilding is unusual as it also has had care in it’s construction with high quality materials which match the main house, for example brick construction with timber windows, red pantile roof and colours and construction to mimic the main dwelling. 11. The proposal intends to extend the existing outbuilding with a single storey side extension in order to utilise the building as a residential annexe. I note LP Policy HOU6 seeks that proposals be compliant with design-led policies and the prevailing character of the area; as well as needing to be a sympathetic conversion and restoration of an existing building and a scale of accommodation that is subordinate and clearly designed for the intended purpose. 12. In terms of LP Policy HOU6, the principle of the extension is appropriate in terms of it being a bedroom and bathroom which is utilised in association with the main dwelling, and cannot operate independently of the main dwelling and would need to utilise the same access point as the main dwelling, with communal yard, in which the demolition of an internal modern brick wall will strengthen the relationship between the dwelling and the proposed annexe. 13. Turning to the design itself, the proposed extension is quite large in that it extends almost from one side boundary to the other. The extension is quite oversized when appreciating the existing outbuilding, and whilst still relatively subservient from the dwelling and plot overall itself, LP Policy HOU6 also seeks an assessment of subservience of the subject building which is being extended. The extension would appear as the dominant component, changing the hierarchy of the structure where Appeal Decision: 6007279 4 the existing outbuilding would appear subservient to the extension. In terms of the design itself, this would consist of a flat roof where the eaves of the roof would be taller than the eaves of the outbuilding and would intersect towards the apex of the outbuilding which does give an awkward appearance. Whilst the building would be constructed of brick, there is no detail of the material of the flat roof which is labelled on the plans as a ‘single ply finish.’ The proposed use of uPVC windows and doors would not be an appropriate installation within the CA due to their inauthenticity and would cause detriment to the significance of the CA. 14. Taking the above into account, the proposed extension would not be an appropriate architectural approach and would cause harm to the significance of the CA and be contrary to LP Policies HOU6, ENV7 and ENV8, as well as NP Plan Policies WNS6 and WNS11. 15. Although serious, harm would be caused to the CA within the meaning of the term in Policy HE6 of the Framework. Policy HE4 Paragraph 2 of the Framework states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Policy HE6, Paragraph 4 of the Framework requires that, where a proposal would harm a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I note discussion in the statements of both parties where there has been a ‘lower end’ level applied to the assessment of Paragraph 215 (which is replaced by Policy HE6, Paragraph 4). It is noted that this spectrum classification of harm is unnecessary and goes beyond the remit of the Framework which is also addressed through caselaw1, hence these spectrum levels are not appropriate to give weight to in my decision. 16. The Appellant has suggested that public benefits consist of the reuse of existing built form, and provision of ancillary accommodation without building a separate dwelling. Whilst these benefits are predominantly private, there are some social benefits and historic environment benefits in terms of retention and reuse of the outbuilding, particularly its retention of high quality materials. Additionally, there would also be short term economic benefits from the employment of local labour to construct the extension. However, these benefits carry limited weight as they are not unique to this particular scheme and there may be other, more acceptable ways in which these same public and private benefits could be achieved which are more appropriate to the policies of the development plan. 17. In addition to the above, I am also aware of Policy DM3, Paragraph (e) of the Framework which states that Local planning authorities should ‘consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions.’ Given that part of the inappropriateness of the scheme lies with the use of poor quality materials, some mitigation of the harm may be possible with the use of high quality and authentic materials such as lead for the roof, and timberwork to windows, doors etc to reflect the existing outbuilding and the significance of the CA. These would provide positive public benefits to the historic environment which may be able to mitigate the elements of the design which could be conditioned as part of the decision. 18. In it’s current form I therefore find that the public benefits arising from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm I have identified. The scheme therefore conflicts with the Framework, which directs, at Policy HE6 paragraph 1, ‘that 1 Shimbles, R (on the application of) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council EWHC 195 (Admin) Appeal Decision: 6007279 5 substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation … irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance.’ 19. My attention is also drawn to the Appellant’s Statement which shows that through amendments made to the scheme through the application process, that the proposed scheme would now appear to meet the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order which allows specific types of development without the need for planning permission. 20. With that said, and whilst I agree with the Council in the way they determined the application in line with the policies of the development plan; I have also taken into account the fallback position that if the Appellant were to have constructed the current scheme under the provisions of the GPDO, then the same visual result in terms of the size of the extension could be achieved. In this particular instance the GPDO and the resultant fallback scheme achievable under this Order carries substantial weight as a material consideration to the determination of this scheme. This decision has been taken in light of these specific factors and should not be taken as a commentary on the future application of this policy and its association with the provisions of the GPDO. Therefore, and in conclusion of this matter; whilst the proposed development would conflict with the development plan, this is outweighed by other material considerations and proposed conditions as explained above. Conclusion and conditions 21. For these reasons, and having considered all matters raised in evidence and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted. 22. The Council in their Appeal Form response detailed that should the appeal be allowed, that conditions regarding time limit and approved plans be placed on any decision notice as well as a condition limiting the use of the annexe as ancillary to the main dwelling. I have considered the conditions as specified in the beginning of this letter in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Condition 1 is a pre-commencement condition2 which is necessary in order for appropriate materials that are compatible with the significance of the CA are utilised and would be seen as part of the benefits of the scheme and necessary in order to be compliant with development plan policies. Condition 2 which specifies a time limit and Condition 3 specifies the approved plans are both standard conditions which notes the approved plans which are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Condition 4 seeks that the annexe is only utilised in association with the dwelling which meets the tests for conditions and regulates the use of this building. J Somers INSPECTOR 2 The Appellant was written to in accordance with Section 100ZA(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and given 10 working days to respond. As no response was received, in accordance with Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 the Appellant is deemed to have given consent and the Inspector will be able to impose the proposed pre-commencement conditions without the Appellant’s express approval.