Appeal 6001845

The appeal is dismissed.

The North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040 (December 2025) (NNLP) was adopted on 17 December 2025 and replaces the [name] (September 2008). Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal and I have taken the NNLP into account in coming to my

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for the proposed development, having regard to the council’s spatial strategy, access to services and facilities and sustainable transport; and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of [name], with regard to nutrient pollution.

The appeal site comprises a walled piece of land, containing the foundations of a former farmhouse. The land lies within a small cluster of former farm buildings which have now been converted to residential use, surrounded by agricultural fields. The parties agree that the site lies outside of any recognised defined development boundary, as identified within the development plan, and that it is within the countryside.

NNLP Policy SS1 outlines how growth will be managed within the district, focusing development within selected settlement boundaries, having regard to their role as employment, retail and service centres, the identified need for new development and their individual capacity to accommodate sustainable growth. Development within the countryside is carefully controlled to ensure that it remains vibrant and supports the vitality and viability of local communities whilst maintaining the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside area. NNLP Policy SS2 allows for small-scale residential development adjacent to the defined settlement boundaries of [name] in accordance with various criteria set out in Policy SS1.

The proposed dwelling would be located approximately 1.6km from main settlement boundary of Southrepps and as such would not meet the criteria set out in Policies SS1 and SS2. Nevertheless, the proposal would not be isolated as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).

Southrepps is categorised as a Small Growth Village, providing a number of services and facilities, including a convenience store, a village hall, a church, pubs, a primary school and a light industrial unit supplying welding and cutting machines. Further, there are limited bus services from Southrepps to Cromer and [name] and regular train services from the nearby station of Gunton to Sheringham and Norwich.

Due to the lack of separate footways and overhead lighting, the pedestrian and cycle access to the services and facilities listed above would not be ideal and I acknowledge that the future occupiers would likely have a higher-than-average dependency on private motor vehicles for their day-to-day activities.

That said, the Framework accepts that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Given the proximity of Southrepps and the accessibility of other larger towns with ample services and employment opportunities via public transport close to the appeal site, I find that the journeys taken by private motor vehicle would not contribute significantly to an increased reliance within the district and that there would be sufficient viable alternatives considering the sites’ rural location.

Overall, whilst I am satisfied that the proposal would provide adequate access to services and facilities and offer viable alternatives to private motor vehicles, there would be conflict with the overriding spatial strategy for the district, which directs development to within or adjacent to settlement boundaries. As such, I conclude that the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for the proposed development, with regard to the council’s spatial strategy. The proposal would conflict with Policies SS1 and SS2 of the NNLP as set out above. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework, where amongst other things it requires development to accord with an up-to-date plan.

Natural England (NE) has advised the Council that nutrient pollution is having an adverse effect on habitats sites within the district, namely the Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and [name] which are protected European designated sites. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitat Regulations) require the Competent Authority to consider whether or not the proposal could adversely affect the integrity of a protected site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This responsibility falls to me in the context of this appeal. An Appropriate Assessment (AA) must contain complete, precise and definitive findings which are capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of a protected site.

The site lies within the catchment that feeds into the [name] and [name] and the proposal would increase overnight accommodation within the catchment. The Broads SAC and [name] are in unfavourable condition due to excessive nutrients, namely Nitrogen and Phosphorus.

The government’s [name] has also advised that, where habitats sites are in an unfavourable conservation status and additional nutrient loads, such as from development, may have an adverse effect, proposals affecting such sites should be carefully considered and mitigation should be used to ensure that there are no adverse effects.

The parties agree that the proposal would increase the annual volume of Nitrogen by circa 0.71kg/year and Phosphorus by circa 0.09kg/year and that the purchase of a credit is required to mitigate the additional nutrients. Whilst the appellant has expressed the intention to purchase a credit from the Norfolk Environmental Credits, there is no evidence before me that they have done so and thus no mitigation has been provided at this stage to offset the resultant harm from nutrients.

There is no dispute between the parties that the site is located within the zone of influence of one or more of the [name] afforded protection under the Habitat Regulations. The development would increase the number of residents in the district, and so the development would, when considered in combination with other development, result in a likely significant effect on the integrity of the protected sites as a result of recreational pressures.

Jointly the local authorities within Norfolk have, in consultation with, and with the agreement of, NE adopted the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] (GIRAMS) which incorporates strategic mitigation measures to be delivered to avoid adverse impacts where appropriate. This provides a strategic, county wide approach to mitigating recreational pressures on the protected sites through the securing of financial contributions for access management schemes and monitoring proposals. As this is an agreed approach with NE 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 appellant has paid the tariff set out by the GIRAMS. Given the evidence before me I am satisfied that the mitigation measures in relation to recreational pressures have been secured and would be used for their intended purpose. As such, the contributions toward the mitigation schemes would count as mitigation toward maintaining the integrity of the aforementioned sites, and I have taken account of the payment in my considerations.

Whilst the proposal would address any harms from additional recreational pressures on the [name], I have found that I cannot be certain that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the [name] and [name] and, in the event that it would, I am not in a position to ensure that this would be suitably mitigated. Therefore, I must take a precautionary approach and conclude that the proposal would harm the integrity of [name] with regard to nutrient pollution. The proposal would conflict with the Habitats Regulations and policies CC13 and ENV4 of the NNLP which amongst other things require development to conserve biodiversity interests of habitat sites and demonstrate nutrient neutrality.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning determinations must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have found that the proposal would be contrary to [name] SS1, SS2, CC13 and ENV4. The proposal would, therefore, not be in accordance with the plan when read as a whole.

[name] acknowledge the Council’s five-year housing land supply position, the proposal would make an efficient use of land, providing an energy-efficient, low carbon, family dwelling on previously developed land, in line with the provisions of the Framework. As such, I attribute moderate weight to these benefits.

I note that the proposal has been put forward as a self-build scheme. Whilst the proposal would contribute to the supply of housing and in particular the council’s requirement to provide self-build plots, I have no mechanism before me which would secure it as such, and so I give this matter limited weight.

The dwelling would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, reinstating the former farmhouse within the existing cluster of development. Suitable access to the highways network and drainage solutions would be provided. There would be no ecological harm, with opportunities for biodiversity enhancements. Adequate living conditions would be provided for future residents, and the living conditions of neighbouring residents would not be harmed. Nevertheless, this would be expected of any well-designed proposal and are therefore neutral considerations.

As set out above there would be limited conflict with the spatial strategy in so far as its location away from a defined settlement boundary. However, the proposal would not be isolated; it would be reasonably accessible with proportionate access to sustainable transport options, given its rural location. Nevertheless, the proposal would harm the integrity of [name] with regards to nutrient pollution, a matter which carries significant weight. Therefore, I find that the benefits provided by the proposal are outweighed by its adverse impacts.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions in the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.