Rear extension and entrance porch at 71 Silver Street, Norwich

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing the rear extension and front porch with a larger rear extension and a new entrance porch.

“Silver Street already has a flat-roofed single-storey rear extension, measuring approximately 2.8m in height, 5.6m in length from the original rear wall, and 2.4m in width. This is all in line with the rear extension of no. 73. 5. Silver Street already has a back-to-front porch, measuring approximately 2.8m in height to ridge, 2.4m in height to eaves, 1.4m in length, and 1.3m in width. 6.”

“The second element of the proposal is for the demolition of the existing front porch, and the construction of a front porch, measuring approximately 3m in height to ridge, 2.6m in height to eaves, 1.8m in length, and 1m in width. The original proposal was identical, except with the height to ridge being 3.5m.The proposed front porch will be constructed from brick, and have a dual pitch with tiles to match existing. Consultation responses 15.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The property is a two-storey terraced home with rear access from Nightingale Lane, and there is no recorded planning history.

“The site and surroundings 1. Silver Street is a two-storey terraced residential dwelling, located within Sewell ward. The property fronts Silver Street; and, to the rear, backs on to Nightingale Lane, which separates Silver Street from Wodehouse Street. The area is largely residential. The subject property, 71 Silver Street, has an existing front porch and single- storey rear extension, attached to the two-storey rear outcrop. 3.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was acceptable in design and amenity terms and accorded with local policy.

“With this considered, it is our assessment that this extension will largely not be visible within the public realm and will not therefore have any significant impact upon the wider street scene and an insignificant impact upon character of the general area. New doors and a window are proposed on the rear (north) elevation. Although these will vary somewhat from the prevailing design of this row of houses, their impact in terms of design is acceptable. 30.”

“It is not deemed likely that there will be any ill health effects arising from any loss of light and/or warmth. The current form of this proposal will not significantly restrict light to the rear of no. 69, and the overshadowing posed will not be significant. The revised proposal aims to minimise overshadowing to no. 69, while allowing for sufficient headroom and insulation for no. 71.”

Officer report

Objections and responses

Neighbours objected to scale, dominance, light, outlook, privacy and residential amenity; revisions reduced the eaves height and moved the extension from the boundary.

“The revised and current application proposed to reduce the eaves height from 2.8m to 2.3m, removed from the boundary by 0.1m. The ridge height of the proposed porch was reduced from 3.5m to 3m. Neighbours were reconsulted, and this attracted 4 letters of objection, citing the issues listed below.”

“Issues raised Response Loss of light See Main Issue 3: Amenity. Out-of-scale development See Main Issue 2: Design. Over-dominant building See Main Issue 2: Design. Loss of privacy See Main Issue 3: Amenity. Residential amenity See Main Issue 3: Amenity.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The planner presented the application, an objector raised concerns, a statement was read for the applicant, and a councillor addressed the committee.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed overlooking and overshadowing, the tunnelling effect, boundary height and the variety of extension styles in the area.

“Planning Applications Committee: October 2025 between the two sites. In terms of the tunnelling effect this was considered to be the effect of being enclosed by two tall walls either side. There was some existing tunnelling as a result of the narrow gap between two tall walls. There would be a loss of outlook which was a different matter for the side windows. This had been addressed in the report.”

“Some members considered that the application would have an impact on neighbouring property however they felt that there were no grounds to vote against the application. Some members considered that there was a mixture of differing styles of extensions within the area and was typical of the type of terraced housing where properties were in close proximity to one another.”

Minutes