City planners have been left red-faced after government officials overturned their order for a man to tear the roof off of his home.
Earlier this year, Norwich City Council told Liu Jianping his Upton Close home, called Conifers, was just over a meter too tall and he would have to rip off the top and put a new one on.
But Mr Jianping took the fight to the government’s Planning Inspectorate, which can overturn decisions where it thinks councils have gone against planning law.
Now inspectors have sided with the homeowner and the roof can stay.
The Conifers has not had a very happy recent history.
Just a few years ago the property was raided by police, who found a large-scale cannabis farm inside.
The building, on Upton Close, between Norwich's Newmarket Road and Unthank Road, has been rebuilt since the drugs raid and the new owners are in no way connected to the cannabis farm.
In an enforcement notice issued to Mr Jianping, council officials said the new building's roof must be removed because it was 1.15m (3ft 9in) taller than allowed for under planning permission.
Mr Liu was given permission in 2019 to replace the previous building on the site, which had housed the cannabis factory.
He was told the new home should not be taller than the property it replaced.
Then, last year, Mr Liu asked for permission to amend the plans, to reflect what had been built, including the higher roof. He later said the taller roof was the result of an "accident" during the construction.
Council officials refused, arguing the 9.05m (29ft 8in) roof was “substantially taller” than the previous one (7.9m, 25ft 11in) and ordered the owner to replace it with one the correct height.
When the appeal was lodged, many of Mr Liu’s neighbours sided with the council, with some saying the home should be torn down entirely and started all over again.
They also voiced frustration at the design and the length of time development has taken. One branded the scheme, which has been four years in the pipeline, as a "monstrosity".
The planning inspector accepted the building was taller than approved but there were “notable gaps” between the property and its closest neighbours, which meant the variation in height was “not easily appreciable”.
They said: “While the dwelling does sit taller than other houses along the road, these factors mean the additional height of the roof is barely perceptible from street level.”
They also argued there was no uniformity in height or style of the buildings along the road and that a reduction in height by one metre would not make a “meaningful difference to the dwelling’s impression of mass or scale”.
The inspector also addressed concerns over the length of time it has taken to complete the renovations of the appeal dwelling.
He argued the impact was temporary and was of “limited relevance to the overall acceptability of the development”.
He added: “While concerns have also been raised with regard to the development’s impact on daylight, the council has indicated that the roof height does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in this regard.
“Based on my observations during a site visit, I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion.”
However, the inspector did put in place a new condition on the property, which would restrict “permitted development rights”, which would limit further alterations or enlargements to the roof.
They said that would ensure the council retains control in any further changes.
A city council spokeswoman said the authority acknowledged the inspector’s decision but did not wish to comment.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here