Appeal 6001198

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the determination of the application, the Council, on 17 December 2025, adopted the North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040 (2025) (the Local Plan). The Council has advised that the Local Plan supersedes the references to policies in the North Norfolk Local Development Framework [name] (2008). It has also confirmed that the most relevant policies in the Local Plan are Policies CC9, C10, CC12, CC13, SS1, SS2, HC7, HC8, ENV2, ENV3, ENV4, ENV 5, ENV6 and ENV8. I have advised the appellants of the adoption of the Local Plan and the policies which the Council regards as relevant, and they have had the opportunity to make comment on the new policies.

The site lies within the Norfolk Coast National Landscape (the NL). I have, therefore, had special regard to section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) (the CRWA) and the duty imposed upon me by the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (the LURA) to seek to further the purposes of [name].

The main issues in this appeal are: - • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours, with particular reference to noise disturbance; and: - • Whether the proposal would provide safe access to the site for all users.

The appeal site (the site) is an open, rectangular parcel of land currently used as amenity land and for grazing and storage of agricultural equipment. It is bounded on three sides by tall conifer hedges. The fourth side, facing west, is separated from its neighbour by a post and wire fence. The site fronts onto [site address] , a narrow single lane road, predominantly bounded by hedges.

The application seeks a change of use of the land from amenity/storage land to a dog exercise area with associated car parking, including the erection of a modest storage shed & shelter structure.

To the west of the site, close to the boundary lies a residential property, known as “[address]” and also known as “[name]”. This is the closest dwelling to the site. Other dwellings lie to the east.

[address] is a two-storey dwellinghouse, lying approximately 14 metres from the boundary with the site. It has windows on both floors facing the site. It is likely that these windows give onto habitable rooms.

The area is predominantly rural with low-density development. Notwithstanding the presence of some business uses it exhibits a high degree of rural peace and tranquillity. Although no formal noise assessment has been provided, the proposed use would be likely to generate additional noise disturbance through the activities of the dogs and owners, including repetitive barking.

No information has been provided on likely staffing numbers and no substantive evidence of visitor numbers. However, given the existing, undeveloped nature of the site, the proposal would be likely to increase disturbance from noise and the comings and goings within the site and, given the close proximity of the dwelling, this would be likely to be noticeable within the garden of [address] and, should the windows of the property be open, in rooms within the dwelling.

Whilst there are other residential properties in the vicinity, these lie further away and there is intervening planting. Because of this it is likely that noise disturbance from dogs exercising in [site address] would be somewhat mitigated. It is nonetheless likely that some disturbance would, nonetheless, be experienced in outdoor amenity areas.

No mitigation for such disturbance has been proposed. Whilst mitigating measures could be required through the imposition of a planning condition, in the absence of detailed information or proposals, I cannot be certain that such mitigation would be effective.

The application documents do not restrict the numbers of dogs or visitors attending the site at any given time. However, the appellants assert that they would control the numbers of visitors to the site, thus limiting the potential disturbance. Even with a limit on the number of dogs present on the site it is has not been demonstrated that this would control the barking of the dogs to such a degree as to make the proposal acceptable.

The appellants identify that the facility would be operated only during the hours of daylight. However, that would, in the summer months, include the early mornings and evenings. Whilst the hours of operation could be controlled through a planning condition, it is reasonable to assume that evenings are popular for exercising dogs and for residents to enjoy their gardens. I do not, therefore consider that a condition restricting the use of the facility during the evening would be reasonable or effective.

The appellants identify that they are on good terms with the occupiers of [address] and that the neighbours have not objected to the proposal. However, the lack of objection does not mean that the proposal is not harmful to living conditions.

The appellants have brought to my attention a development at [address], Wiverton1 (the [address] development), which they consider comparable to their proposal. However, the nearest dwelling to that proposal is stated to be 200 metres away. [address] is considerably closer and so I do not consider that the two cases are so comparable as to justify the proposal before me.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of neighbours, with particular reference to noise disturbance. It would, therefore, be contrary to the aims of Policy ENV6 of the Local Plan, in as much as, amongst other things, this seeks to ensure that new development does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupants, including disturbance from noise.

The proposal would form a new vehicular access directly onto [site address] , which is a single carriageway lane of limited width. This width provides for only a single lane of traffic and requires vehicles to use passing places to allow two-way flow. The lane is unlit and lacks footways but is subject to a 30MPH speed restriction. Access to the wider road network from the site is gained through the junction of [site address] with Lower and [name].

For much of its length [site address] is bounded by narrow verges backed by mature boundary hedging and the frontage of the site is of this form. Forward visibility on the lane for drivers is restricted by the horizontal and vertical alignment of the road.

The site is an open area used as an amenity area and for storage of agricultural equipment. As such it is unlikely to generate significant numbers of vehicle movements. No information has been provided with the application to quantify future traffic movements. However, the proposal includes a number of new parking spaces. It is likely that the operation of a dog walking facility from the site would generate additional vehicular traffic movements when compared to its existing use.

Over the majority of its length there is insufficient carriageway width on [site address] for two cars to pass each other, and drivers therefore rely on existing private accesses or overrunning the verge to pass. This is evidenced by damage caused by overrunning of verges. Even so, the opportunity for vehicles to pass each other is limited, particularly if one of the vehicles is larger than a car.

Such overrunning damages the verge and the edge of the carriageway and can lead to the spread of mud and debris on the carriageway, with associated risk of skidding. Vehicle speeds on the Lane are likely to be low, restricted by its nature. The surface of the lane is already spread with debris and so it is unlikely that the 1 Council Ref: PF/21/2977 damage to the verges would significantly increase risk of loss of vehicular control by drivers.

However, there is limited opportunity for vehicles to pass each other and forward visibility is restricted. This is likely to lead to drivers to pass a passing place without realising that there is an oncoming vehicle, and lead to difficulties in passing safely, or without the need to reverse over significant lengths.

Thus, by increasing the traffic access the site, the proposal would increase such conflict, to the detriment of highway safety and this would be exacerbated by the absence of facilities for non-motorised users and opportunities to get clear of the carriageway, if the pedestrian or cyclist is able to.

Whilst, as identified by the appellants, such conflict already occurs on the lane, the increase in movements attributed directly to the proposal has potential to increase accidents, including personal injury accidents involving vulnerable road users.

The appellants identify that, historically, traffic on the lane has been higher, but has reduced due to business closures. There is nothing before me to demonstrate that these sites could not return to those uses and so there is no certainty that the reduced levels of usage of the lane by others would continue.

The appellants have asserted that the Local Highway Authority (LHA) has done nothing to address the shortcomings of the local highway network and that it is unfair that they are unable to proceed as a result. However, it is accepted practise that any additional detriment resulting from a development must be addressed by the developer.

The appellants have suggested that conflict on the lane could be managed through the introduction of a fifteen-minute dwell period between bookings. Whilst this would manage potential conflict between vehicles accessing the proposal site, conflict would remain with general traffic using the lane.

At its western end, the lane forms a simple T-junction with [name] and [name]. This junction lies within a local 30MPH speed limit. It is not disputed that appropriate intervisibility is available between drivers on the lane and drivers approaching the junction from the north along [name]. However, visibility to the south from [site address] is severely restricted by the pier of a railway bridge. Thus, an approaching driver on [name] would not have sufficient awareness of an emerging vehicle to stop safely, whilst the driver of the emerging vehicle would have insufficient warning of the north-bound vehicles approach. This situation has potential for collisions between vehicles at speeds that could result in personal injuries, some of which could be life-changing, or worse, to the detriment of public safety.

The lack of intervisibility between emerging vehicles and those approaching from the left results in the need for drivers to edge out into the carriageway, exposing the front of the car before the driver of the emerging vehicle can see an approaching vehicle.

There is nothing to prevent vehicles approaching the junction from the south crossing the middle of the carriageway, say to overtake a slower vehicle. Whilst the emerging driver has sufficient visibility to ensure that they would not be hit by a vehicle approaching from their right, they would be exposed to risk of collision, and potential injury, from vehicles approaching from the left, particularly if those vehicles have crossed the middle of the carriageway, as this would further reduce the intervisibility between drivers.

Having regard to the site access, the appellants have not provided a scaled drawing to demonstrate that adequate visibility could be provided. However, the LHA have opined that it is likely that, by removing parts of the hedge fronting the site, it is likely that satisfactory visibility at the access could be achieved. From my observations on site, and given that speeds on the lane are likely to be restricted by its nature, I have no reason to dispute this.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not provide safe access to the site for all users, and would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policy CC9 of the Local Plan in as much as this requires that new development must provide for safe and convenient access on foot and by cycle, addressing the needs of all, including those with a disability and that it is served by safe and suitable access to the highway network.

Section 85(A1) of the CRWA places a statutory duty upon me to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL. However, the site is well enclosed in wider views from the countryside and the minor alterations to its appearance would be neither strident nor out-of-keeping in the NL. Its visual impact would be limited mainly to the immediate vicinity. It would thus not be intrusive within the wider landscape and would, therefore, not harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL. In so doing it would conserve its scenic beauty.

The appellants have expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the Council dealt with their application. However, this is a matter between them and the Council.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.