Appeal 6001561

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants have submitted a completed planning obligation, in the form of a [name] (UU). The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the UU, and I have taken their comments, along with the contents of that planning obligation, into account in my decision.

The main issues in this appeal are: - • Whether the proposal is in a suitable location for a dwelling, having regard to local policy for the provision of housing and access to services and facilities; and: - • The effect of the proposal on [name].

The appeal site (the site) sits within a loose group of residential properties fronting onto [address]. A larger cluster of development, known as [name], lies to the west. Within that cluster development is denser, providing it with a more urban character and appearance, clearly distinct from its rural hinterland where development is more sporadic. The site lies some distance from this cluster and is visually separate from it. The site clearly lies within the area of more sporadic development where the vicinity of the proposed dwelling has a distinctly rural appearance and character. The site, therefore, does not form part of that settlement.

By virtue of its position amongst the group the site is not isolated from other dwellings. However, the group rests within open countryside outside of any settlement boundary identified within the development plan. It is therefore in the countryside in planning terms.

The nearby settlements of [name] and Royden offer only very limited services and facilities and would, by no means, provide for all of the day-to-day needs of future occupiers of the proposal. Such facilities and services would, however, be found in Diss, which is a larger settlement, but this lies further afield.

The site would lie between an existing dwelling and a site with planning permission1 for a dwelling. However, development on this stretch of frontage of [address] is sporadic and contains significant gaps. The site is not, therefore an infill plot.

[address] is unlit and lacks footways, it is subject to a 30 MPH speed limit. However, the lack of lighting, together with its width and alignment is likely to deter pedestrians, particularly when accompanied by children, or during the hours of darkness or inclement weather, given the distances that would need to be traversed. Similarly, whilst the distances would be less of a deterrence, and the land is relatively flat, there would remain a degree of deterrence to cycling. The use of public footpaths is not a suitable route as they are unpaved and unlit and could be difficult to use during poor weather.

The appellants have proposed the hardening of the verge on the frontage of the site. This, however, would not provide a complete, off-carriageway route by which pedestrians could reach services and facilities in Diss, nor would it address the distances involved. Given the small scale of the development, opportunities to make more meaningful improvements to access by sustainable modes of transport would be very limited.

The appellants have brought my attention to the provision of a similar limited scheme of work at Bradenham2. This was a decision taken, not by [name], District Council, but by Breckland District Council. I have limited information on the details of the site in question, or its surrounding highway network. The site lies some distance from the appeal site and does not inform its highway context. I therefore place limited weight on the provision of the hardened verge at Bradenham, and, in any case, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

There is a bus stop some 500 metres away from the site, with a service to Diss. However, that stop is reached using those same roads that I have identified above as being unfriendly to pedestrians. There is limited evidence before me to demonstrate that the frequency of the service would provide a practical or attractive alternative to use of the private car for trips into town for future occupiers.

For these reasons it is likely that future occupiers would be almost totally reliant on the private car to meet their daily transport needs and the site and the group of dwellings within which it sits is isolated in regard to access to services and facilities. 1 Council Ref: 2018/2033 2 Breckland Council Ref: 3PL/2024/0722/F

Policy DM 1.3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (2015) (the SNLP) sets out that new development in the countryside outside of the defined development boundaries of settlements will only be granted where specific policies allow for development outside of development boundaries or where overriding economic, social and environmental benefits are demonstrated and in accordance with Policy 1.1 of the SNLP.

In this regard, Policy 7.5 of the GNLP does allow for up-to 3 self-build and custom build dwellings for people who meet the eligibility criteria for Part 1 of the relevant district’s self-build register. Such sites should be within or adjacent to other settlements without a defined settlement boundary.

The planning application describes the proposal as a self-build dwelling, but this, of itself, is insufficient to secure it as such. I have invited comments from the parties as to whether it is appropriate, having regard to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and Planning Practice Guidance to secure the home as a self-build dwelling by means of a planning condition. The appellants have identified a recent planning permission granted by the Council 3 which included a condition intended to secure the development as a self-build dwelling. However, that condition related to an outline planning permission, and required the submission of details to accompany the reserved matters application. That would not be possible for a full application.

Nonetheless, the appellants have provided information to demonstrate that they are on the Council’s Self-Build Register. Further, they identify that they are the owners of the site and that one of the appellants is a builder. On this basis I have established that there could be a means by which the proposal could be secured as a self-build dwelling.

I have identified, above, that the site is not adjacent to a settlement but rather it lies within a loose group of residential properties set in the open countryside. The group has no services or community facilities. The proposal would, therefore, fail to fulfil either of these initial criteria.

Policy 7.5 also requires consideration to be given to a number of other criteria, including that it would result in no significant adverse impact on the landscape and natural environment, and that it accords with other relevant local plan policies.

It will be seen below that I have found that, by securing appropriate mitigation, the proposal would not, either alone or in combination with other development, result in harm to internationally protected habitat sites.

In considering whether overriding economic, social and environmental benefits are demonstrated, as required by Policy 1.3, the proposal would secure an additional dwelling and there is no dispute between the parties that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land in accordance with the Government’s expectations.

The proposal would be delivered as a self-built home, a type of housing that the Government are keen to promote and the Council identify that it has a shortfall in provision of such homes. The Council are obligated to provide for such housing and so, whilst only a single dwelling is provided, this adds weight to this benefit in 3 Council Ref: 2023/2012 regard to fulfilling the Council’s obligation and the governments aspirations. The government also notes that smaller developments, such as this are often built-out relatively quickly and can make a meaningful contribution to housing supply. Nonetheless, given the scale of the development, this is a benefit which carries moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

The appellants suggest that there would be some environmental benefits associated with the proposed standard of construction and the use of renewable energy. They identify that the measures proposed go above and beyond that required by Building Regulations, but these are now common enhancements to dwellings. However, the proposal would, nonetheless, provide a modern, energy efficient dwelling to augment the existing housing stock, the contribution that this would make, overall, to moving to a low-carbon economy would be small and so carries only limited weight in my deliberations.

The proposal would, by virtue of the increase in population, provide benefits in the form of increased economic activity. The government supports the building of a strong, responsive and competitive economy, including appropriate rural development noting that where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. However, given the lack of services in the closest nearby settlements, in this case any benefit will appear principally in Diss, rather than its outlying settlements. Such benefits would be long-term. There would also be additional, short-term benefits through increased employment and activity on the construction sector. However, given the scale of the development, these benefits would be minor and carry limited weight.

It is the aim of the Government, set out in the Framework, to move to a low-carbon economy and promote transport by more sustainable modes. However, the Government also identifies within the Framework that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and that this should be taken into account in decision-making. This notwithstanding, the proposal would be almost totally reliant on the private car to meet its transport needs. Whilst those needs would only be for a single dwelling, and the distances of most journeys would be likely to be short, that harm would be on-going. I therefore give this ongoing, cumulative harm significant weight against the proposal.

Whilst it has been recognised by both parties that no harm would result from the creation of the access or increased flood risk, these are neutral matters in my considerations.

The appellants have brought to my attention various appeal decisions and Local Planning Authority determinations4. In regard to the Appeal Decisions, each appeal is determined on its own merits. I note that in each, the Inspectors carried out a planning balance based on the individual factors specific to the site that they were considering. The locations of those proposals are some distance from the appeal site and do not inform its local context and I have, in any case, determined this appeal, on balance, on its own individual merits. 4 [name]: APP/L2630/W/24/3356503, APP/L2630/W/24/3346313, APP/T2350/W/23/3335737, APP/J3720/W/23/3336035, APP/Z1510/W/23/3327894 and [name]: 2018/2033, 2018/0804 (South Norfolk District Council) and PL/2025/0628/FMIN (Breckland District Council

I have also had my attention drawn to a previous appeal decision5, on the site. As the geographic context is the same I have had regard to that Inspector’s decision and find that my own conclusions do not differ materially in terms of context.

Having regard to the planning authority decisions, 2018/2033, which is one of the Council’s own decisions, was a decision taken some time ago, and planning policy has been updated, both locally and nationally. Whilst previous permissions do provide context, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, requires that “If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. It is clear that I must have regard, in this appeal, to the current

In regard to the Breckland District Council’s determination of PL/2025/0628/FMIN, the appellants identify that previous decisions can be a material consideration in determining planning matters and appeals. This is not disputed. However, the site lies some distance from the appeal site and does not inform its immediate context. [name] have identified above, I have determined this appeal on its own merits. In doing so I have considered all matters that I find material.

The appellants consider that the proposal would be beneficial in completing a built frontage onto [address]. However, the site, in its current form, contributes to the openness of the countryside. The Government, within the Framework, recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and this, too, has value. I therefore consider that this matter carries neutral weight in my determination of this appeal.

I therefore find that no overriding economic, social or environmental benefits in support of the proposal have been demonstrated and conclude that the proposal is not a suitable location for a dwelling, having regard to local policy for the provision of housing and access to services and facilities. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policies DM3.10 of the DMPD and Policy 2 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024) (the GNLP), in as much as this, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that all development supports sustainable transport and development objectives. It would also be contrary to Policies 7.5 of the GNLP and DM1.3 of the DMPD for the reasons set out above.

Policy 3 of the GNLP confirms that all new developments should avoid harm to designated assets of the natural environment, having regard to their level of significance (local, national, and international) in accordance with the requirements of the Framework and relevant policies in other Development Plan Documents and [name].

The policy further requires all residential development that results in an increase in the level of overnight stays to address the potential visitor pressure caused by residents of the development that would detrimentally impact on sites protected under the Habitats Regulations through the payment of a contribution towards the cost of mitigation measures at the [name]. 5 [name]: APP/L2630/W/24/3345926

Policy DM4.4 of the SNLP seeks to ensure that the highest status natural environmental assets are protected from any significant harmful impact arising from new development.

There is no dispute between the parties that the site is located within the zone of influence (ZoI) of one or more [name] afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (The Habitat Regulations).

[address] of Justice of the [name] has ruled that the decision maker, when considering the effect that a proposal may have on the Protected European Site, must consider mitigation within the framework of an Appropriate Assessment (AA) rather than at the screening stage. This responsibility now falls to me within this appeal.

Within the development plan, the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] (GIRAMS) incorporates strategic mitigation measures to be delivered to avoid adverse impacts.

There is a potential impact pathway whereby development within the ZoI is likely to result in significant effects on the European Protected Site in regard to the effects of urbanisation, with a particular focus on the effects of disturbance from recreational activities arising from new residents.

The development would increase the number of residents within the district who would be likely to participate in recreational activities in the locality. Thus, the development would, alone or in combination with other development, result in a likely significant effect on the integrity of the Protected European Site, as a result of recreational pressures.

Through the development of the GIRAMS the Council has, with the agreement of Natural England, provided a strategic district-wide approach to mitigating recreational pressures on the European Protected Site through the securing of financial contributions for mitigating measures. As this is an agreed approach with Natural England, the proposed development can be assessed within the context of the GIRAMS. On this basis I consider that this is an appropriate approach to mitigating identified harms.

The UU makes provision for the payment of the appropriate financial contributions, and I therefore conclude that following mitigation secured through the UU there would be no adverse residual effect on the European Protected Site and, as a consequence, the proposal is in accordance with the requirement of Policies 3 of the GNLP and DM4.4 of the SNLP.

The proposal would undermine the Council’s spatial strategy which seeks to locate development in locations that have access to services and facilities. There would be conflict with Policies DM1.3 and DM3.10 of the DMPD and Policies 2 and 7.5 of the GNLP. It would not, therefore, accord with the development plan as a whole and this is a matter that counts significantly against allowing the appeal.

The council has confirmed that it is not able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing but has not quantified the extent of this shortfall. This notwithstanding such a shortfall engages the presumption set out in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. I have identified the benefits that would accrue from the proposal above and allocated them appropriate weight in my considerations.

The policies in the Framework seek to both deliver a sufficient supply of homes and move towards a lower carbon economy. The move to a low-carbon economy, reducing the need to travel by less sustainable modes of transport is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. The Government places particular stress upon policies that seek to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside and manage patterns of growth that support walking, cycling and public transport use, ensuring that such sustainable transport modes are prioritised and that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

Although there is considerable support for new housing, including self-build housing, in this location the benefits in terms of the overall position in the District would be limited. This is a case where the importance of sustainable access to services and facilities outweighs the provision of an extra windfall self-build unit.

Therefore, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and, in this case, the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.