# 10 Goodminns Estate, Sedgeford - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Dring - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008840 - **Application reference:** 26/00265/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build bungalow on part of the side garden of 10 Goodminns Estate after demolition of a detached garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, national-landscape, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 LP02, LP18, LP21, Sedgeford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 H3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, future occupiers' noise, neighbours' outlook, privacy and noise - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, l2-1-d-curtilage, garden-infill, living-conditions, self-build, self-build-unsecured, national-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build bungalow in the side garden of a corner house in Sedgeford, in the Norfolk Coast National Landscape. The dwelling would sit higher than, and alongside, the neighbour's rear garden, overbearing and overlooking it, and the shared turning area would bring vehicle noise next to bedrooms. The self-build status was unsecured. The inspector ran S4, citing S4(2)(a)(ii) (L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3(3)), and found the limited benefits substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Character: HARM.** "the proposal would be at odds with the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶9). - **Neighbour: significant HARM.** "the effects on outlook, privacy and noise disturbance would result in a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 8" (DL ¶19). - **Triggers named.** "Policy S4:2 criterion a. ii. regarding development within residential curtilages is relevant along with Policy S4:2 c relating to decision-making policies which state that proposals should be refused in certain circumstances" (DL ¶25). - **Self-build: negligible weight.** "it has not been demonstrated that this would meet the tests set out at Framework Policy DM6. I therefore attribute negligible weight to the asserted self-build nature of the development" (DL ¶27). - **DP3(3).** "Policy DP3:3 states that proposals should be refused, if without clear justification, they conflict with DP3:1 ... there would be some harm in this respect which would be contrary to the Framework. I attribute moderate weight to this conflict" (DL ¶30). - **L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** "The proposal would therefore be contrary to this part of the Framework and as a result it would not make effective use of the land. I attribute significant weight to this conflict" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance S4 plus s38(6). Limited benefits of one dwelling against moderate DP3 conflict and significant L2(1)(d)(ii) conflict: "in combination, the adverse effects of the proposal would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference The level difference and the plot shape. A bungalow set higher than No 8 and running along its garden, with windows and a turning area at the boundary, breached L2(1)(d)(ii) on privacy and amenity. That, not the design detail, carried the significant weight. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)(ii) (acceptable living standards for neighbours) is the Framework hook for garden-infill amenity harm, and failing it engages S4(2)(a)(ii) (DL ¶25, ¶31). - A self-build condition that does not meet the DM6 tests gives the self-build claim negligible weight (DL ¶27). - DP3(3) was quoted but the conflict was weighed, not treated as a freestanding refusal; clear justification not expressly found (DL ¶30). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict (moderate weight).** siting close to the southern boundary loses spaciousness; constrained shared turning and tandem parking at odds with character; tempered by corner position (DL 5-9, 30) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) quoted ("should be refused, if without clear justification"); conflict given moderate weight in the S4 balance; clear justification not separately assessed (DL 30) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail (significant weight).** significant harm to No 8 (overbearing, overlooking of garden, vehicle noise along the boundary); letter treats S4(2)(a)(ii) as relevant (DL 13-21, 25, 31) - **P3: fail.** mapped: future occupiers exposed to vehicle noise from the shared turning area next to bedroom windows (DL 10-12) - **DM6: fail.** self-build condition not shown to meet the tests; negligible weight to self-build (DL 27) - **N4: neutral.** Norfolk Coast NL; limited scale within the settlement, sensitively located (DL 28) - **HE6(1): neutral (substantial weight).** adjacent Sedgeford CA preserved; neutral (DL 29) - **S4: fail.** limited benefits of one dwelling substantially outweighed (DL 24-32) ## Key facts - Site slopes down to No 8, so a single-storey dwelling sits higher than No 8 and runs along its garden boundary (DL 13-14) - Appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008840 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3cd3c46b-33b1-4f19-ab38-ab76b9715b42 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008840.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.