Appeal 6001938

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application was made in outline but with only landscaping as a reserved matter. I have had regard to all the submitted plans and consider that they provide sufficient details in relation to access, appearance, layout and scale, with only landscaping shown indicatively.

The Council adopted the North Norfolk Local Plan (NNLP) on 17 December 2025. The NNLP replaces the entirety of the [name] and Development Management Policies Document cited in the decision notice. The Council’s appeal statement highlights the replacement policies from the NNLP, which I have had regard to in my decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: (a) the character and appearance of the area; (b) the significance of Glaven Valley Conservation Area; (c) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to privacy, outlook and light; (d) the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to private external space and privacy; (e) the provision of open space; (f) protected species; (g) biodiversity net gain; (h) European designated sites; and (i) flood risk and drainage.

The appeal site is the former Holt police station on the east side of [site address] on the town’s southern edge. The site comprises a long two storey building of little architectural merit with a slightly more prominent central section and subservient wings. There are single storey extensions to the side and rear and two small garages to the rear. Hardstanding for car parking is located between the building and the road, while there is a mix of hardstanding and lawn at the rear with some trees and shrubs.

[name] (and the relocated police station) adjoins the site to the south, but otherwise this is a predominantly residential area. Building heights are single or two storeys, with a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings on plots of varying sizes. The existing building follows the same building line as the fire station to the south and the two-storey dwelling known as [address] to the north, ensuring a large degree of setback from the road. Architectural design is varied although red brick is common along with examples of rendered/painted walls and the use of cobbles as facing materials. Roof shapes are typically plain gable ends or hipped. Thus, the existing site is broadly in keeping with its surroundings and has a neutral effect on the area’s character and appearance.

The proposed development would comprise a front wing facing the road with a taller central section and subservient wings to reflect the existing building. There would be two rear wings overlooking an internal courtyard. It would be 2.5 storeys throughout, with a second floor of accommodation contained within the roof and lit by a series of dormers.

The development would step forward of the adjoining building line by over 5m with the front wing noticeably closer to the side boundary with [address]. Private gardens for the 14 dwellings would be limited to space between the two rear wings and the side boundaries, with the remainder of the site hard surfaced for vehicle parking and circulation without much communal space between the two rear wings. Therefore, due to its height, scale, layout and massing, the development would appear overly large and dominant within the street scene, dwarfing [address] and providing limited scope for green space within the site.

Although terraced housing on smaller plots occur nearby, there are few properties locally that are as tall as 2.5 storeys and so the development would look particularly large. While existing density levels are below 40 dwellings per hectare and the development would seek to make a more efficient use of the site, this would not overcome the negative effects arising from a densely packed block of houses. Moreover, the NNLP does not contain policies setting out density levels for specific locations unlike the superseded [name]. The development would broadly follow the market housing mix requirements set out in NNLP Policy HOU2, but densities need to reflect the local context.

The general design and materials would be sympathetic to the surrounding area, but the use of Dutch-style gables on the side elevations of the front wing would accentuate the size of the development. While such gables exist within the historic town centre (such as at [name]), the design would be incongruous within this more modern suburban location and would exacerbate the overall effects described above. The existing site would benefit from some enhancements, but the proposed development would harm rather than improve the area’s character and appearance.

There are examples of courtyard developments in Holt such as [address] and [name], where the latter is perhaps more successful than the former in terms of usable communal space. However, each case should be assessed on its own merits. These examples do not justify the layout proposed here which would be cramped and lacking in communal space.

Concluding on this first main issue, the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would not accord with [name] ENV2 and ENV8 which, among other things, seek to conserve and enhance local character in terms of matters such as layout, density, scale, massing and architectural details. The development would also not accord with Policy HOLT1 of the Holt Neighbourhood Plan (HNP) which requires proposals to have regard to the special interest and character of neighbourhood areas and reflect the scale and grain of development in the vicinity of a site. Finally, it would not achieve a well-designed place, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Glaven Valley Conservation Area (GVCA) covers a large part of the district from Briston in the south to Blakeney and Cley next the Sea in the north, with the [name] running as a spine through the centre. The GVCA wraps around the urban edge of Holt on three sides, with only the town centre designated as a (separate) conservation area. The western side of [site address] opposite the site lies within the GVCA, but the site does not.

The GVCA is characterised by large tracts of attractive rolling countryside either side of the river valley along with historic settlements and buildings. These features contribute greatly to the character and appearance of the GVCA and also inform its significance. The setting of a conservation area can influence its significance as part of the surroundings in which it is experienced.

The properties on the west side of [site address] contain a mix of historic and more modern buildings of moderate interest to the GVCA. However, the east side of the road, including the site, is predominantly modern, dating from the mid-20th century onwards and has limited architectural or historic interest. While [site address] forms one of the main routes into Holt, the section past the site reveals little of the rich historic town centre that lies further to the north. Therefore, the existing site and the east side of [site address] here make a negligible contribution, either positively or negatively, to the significance of the GVCA (or the town centre conservation area) as part of its setting.

I have already found that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, given the very limited contribution of the site and east side of [site address] to the GVCA, it is hard to find any harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. The scale, massing, density and design of the development would not detract from how the GVCA or the town centre conservation area are experienced or approached.

Neither would the conservation areas be enhanced by the proposed development. Unlike examples such as the garage on [address], the site does not detract from the character and appearance of the area, and so the development would not improve the setting of the GVCA or the town centre conservation area. New development can take place in or next to conservation areas provided they have an acceptable effect overall. The emerging housing scheme off [address] on the north side of Holt was evidently considered to be acceptable, but again each case needs assessing on its own merits.

In conclusion, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the GVCA and not harm its significance. The same would apply to the town centre conservation area. Therefore, it would accord with NNLP Policy ENV7 which seeks to conserve and enhance the district’s historic environment including designated heritage assets and their settings. The development would also accord with HNP Policy HOLT1 which seeks to protect the conservation areas within Holt. It would adhere to NPPF section 16 which aims to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets including from development within their setting.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which seeks to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas only applies to buildings or other land within a conservation area and so is not relevant to this appeal. Unlike listed buildings, the Act does not refer to the setting of conservation areas. Nevertheless, setting is recognised by the NPPF and the NNLP and in this case would not be adversely affected.

[address] has no windows on the side elevation facing the site but contains windows at the front and rear that likely serve habitable rooms. It also has a private garden at the rear. The former police station building has a first floor window on the side elevation facing [address], but this looks directly at the blank elevation and is set back from the boundary by around 10m. In contrast, the proposed development would be sited much nearer to the boundary and would have a long terrace of residential units facing [address].

There would be no direct overlooking of windows at [address] due to the oblique angles, but the tall dining room windows for Unit 6 would look straight into the rear garden while the bedroom window above would also look down to the same space. This would have a direct negative effect on privacy for occupiers of this property and would not be just a perceived or potential loss of privacy. Opaque glazing on these windows would not be suitable as they are principal windows to each property, and such glazing would negatively affect the outlook of future occupiers. Moreover, a 2m fence along the boundary would not adequately screen views from the first and second floor windows towards the garden.

Given the increased proximity and bulk of development, there would also be adverse effects on outlook from [address] at the front and rear from a greater sense of enclosure than existing. The appellant’s evidence indicates that the rear garden would not see any noticeable change in light levels or that any overshadowing of windows would breach a 45 degree line. However, this does not overcome the negative effects that would occur to occupiers of [address] in terms of privacy and outlook.

Green Gables is a single storey dwelling to the rear of [address]. It is positioned very close to the site boundary, and its private garden is on the other side of the property. There are windows serving habitable rooms along the elevation facing the site. The existing hedge or a 2m fence would largely screen these windows from the development due to the angles and the overhanging eaves at Green Gables, so would prevent direct overlooking from Units 7, 8 and 9. Such screening would limit adverse effects on outlook from Green Gables, although any existing views of sky would be blocked by a 2.5 storey building. The screening also restricts the amount of sunlight reaching these windows, and so there would be little change in light levels

To the east of the site is a row of 6 two-storey houses at [address]. Their rear elevations face the site with windows serving habitable rooms like living rooms at ground flood and bedrooms at first floor. Rear gardens are short, with a narrow alleyway running between the site boundary and most of the gardens. The two rear wings of the proposed development would have blank gable ends facing Nos 30-40 so there would be no overlooking of windows or gardens. However, these gable ends would be tall and wide, and located only a few metres away from the site boundary. This would have a negative effect on outlook for occupiers at Nos 30-40, especially those properties facing directly onto the wings. Furthermore, the appellant’s sunlight study reveals how rear gardens and elevations of properties would be overshadowed by the development in the afternoon and evening. The exact extent would depend on the time of year, but nevertheless this shading would have an adverse effect on existing occupiers.

There would be little effect on properties to the south due to existing fire station, while there is sufficient distance across [site address] to the west to avoid any adverse effects on living conditions. Nevertheless, there would be harm to neighbouring occupiers, particularly at [address] in terms of privacy and outlook, and [address] in terms of outlook and light. Although this is an urban area where a degree of overlooking exists or is to be expected, there would be material and significant adverse effects as set out above.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Therefore, it would not accord with NNLP Policy ENV6 which, amongst other things, seeks to avoid unacceptable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, having regard to privacy, outlook and light. The policy also requires proposals to take account of the North Norfolk Design Guidance 2008 (NNDG) or provide justification for any departure from it.

The development would not adhere to amenity considerations in the NNDG which seek to avoid significant overlooking of other dwelling windows or private garden areas or any overbearing impacts upon existing dwellings. There would also be conflict with NPPF paragraph 135(f) which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing users of places.

The NNDG states at paragraph 3.3.10 that private garden areas should be of an adequate size and shape to serve their intended purpose. They should reflect the likely number of occupants within each dwelling and have an aspect which is substantially free from shading from trees and buildings during the year. The recommendation is that the area of private amenity space should normally be no less than the footprint of the dwelling on that site.

The proposed development would be a mix of two and three bed dwellings split across three floors. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that they would be occupied by families or groups of three or four people or more who would benefit from a decent size of private garden. However, apart from possibly Unit 14, most dwellings would have gardens smaller than the footprint of the building while Units 2 and 3 (which are both three-bed properties) appear to have no private garden space at all. The gardens would be lacking in depth and those on the north side of the development (Units 1 and 5-9) would be in shade for much of the day depending on the time of year. Although this is an urban area and gardens sometimes face north, the arrangement proposed here would be substandard.

The NNDG at paragraph 3.3.10 also sets out recommended distances between primary, secondary and tertiary windows to avoid significant overlooking effects. None of the windows on the front wing would breach these distances. However, due to the courtyard arrangement of the rear wings, distances between primary (living room) windows would be significantly less than the recommended 21m for every unit. Distances between secondary (bedroom) windows would be close to the recommended 15m but still under. On both floors, this would be mitigated somewhat by the staggered position of windows, but there would remain clear overlooking across less than satisfactory distances, particularly at first floor.

Concluding on the main issue, the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to private external space and privacy. Therefore, it would not accord with NNLP Policy ENV6 which seeks to avoid development that does not provide adequate levels of amenity for future occupants taking into account the NNDG and matters such as privacy and the provision of adequate areas of usable and secluded private amenity space. There would also be conflict with NPPF paragraph 135(f) which seeks a high standard of amenity for future users of places.

NNLP Policy HC2 states that all new major residential development of 10 or more dwellings should provide on-site open space or contribute towards off-site open space in accordance with the standards set out in Table 4 and Appendix 2. For this size of development, most of the open space provision is expected off-site, but amenity green space and play space for children are expected on-site (the latter could be part of the former in smaller schemes like this one). NNLP Policy HC4 states that the Council will secure infrastructure through developer obligations and contributions to properly service, manage and mitigate the impact of development.

While landscaping is a reserved matter, the layout of the proposed development provides little scope for anything other than vehicular access and parking. The area between the front wing and the road, and the space within the courtyard would be hard surfaced given the location of multiple garages. Only a few trees are shown outside the private gardens. Therefore, the development does not make any meaningful on-site provision for amenity green space or play space.

Off-site provision is typically secured via planning obligations in the form of a financial contribution, but no Section 106 (S106) agreement has been provided by the appellant. The recreation park at [name] to the north is within an easy walk from the site, but Policy HC2 does not allow for existing open space to compensate for the lack of on-site or off-site provision. Holt Country Park is located further away to the south and it is not easily accessible other than by car as there is no continuous pavement along the B1149 to the park entrance. Thus, neither existing facility justifies the development’s lack of provision.

In conclusion, the proposed development would fail to make adequate provision towards open space. Therefore, it would not accord with [name] HC2 or HC4 as set out above, or NPPF section 8 which promotes healthy and safe communities and the provision of open space.

Bat survey work has been carried out on the site in 2018, 2020 and 2025. On each occasion, although potential roost features were identified, no evidence of bat roosting was found. The preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) dated February 2025 concluded the bat roost suitability is low for the main building, negligible for the detached garages, and nil for the trees, such that the site is unlikely to support roosting bats.

Paragraph 4.8 of the PEA notes the time lapse since the last bat activity survey in 2020 and recommends either a precautionary approach to building demolition or a repeat bat roost emergence survey in May to August to verify continued roosting absence. The Council’s ecological adviser’s response at the application stage recommends that two emergence surveys should be undertaken during this period. Given that bats are mostly active at night, it makes sense that emergence surveys would be nocturnal.

Given that the 2025 survey was conducted in the less active winter months, the last appropriate survey appears to date back to the summer of 2020. This is over five years ago and so cannot reasonably be described as up to date. It would not be appropriate to simply request a further survey by condition given this time lapse and the potential roost features that exist. It would also not be appropriate to follow a precautionary approach to demolition before updating survey information on roosting bats.

In conclusion, the lack of suitable and up to date survey details means that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on protected species. Therefore, the development would be contrary to NNLP Policy ENV4, paragraph 99 of [name] 06/2005, and NPPF paragraph 187(d) which seek to safeguard protected species and require appropriate surveys.

[name] ENV4 and CC10 seek the delivery of a measurable biodiversity net gain with qualifying development achieving a minimum of 10% net gain over the pre-development biodiversity value as measured by the statutory biodiversity metric or similar.

The appellant’s biodiversity net gain assessment identifies five trees but excludes four for being too small according to the statutory metric. However, the assessment provides no information on qualifying tree sizes and relevant spreadsheets appear to be missing. Based on the appellant’s arboricultural assessment, all five trees are identified as mature with three of moderate quality. Thus, excluding four trees from the assessment does not appear to be justified and so the baseline has been undervalued.

The assessment describes the modified grassland as poor which is based on passing five criteria in [name] but failing essential criterion A. The Council’s ecological adviser has queried this finding and without the relevant spreadsheets, it is difficult to verify this score. This casts more doubt on the value of the baseline.

In the absence of an accurate baseline, it is not possible to conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect in terms of biodiversity net gain. Therefore, it would not accord with [name] ENV4 or CC10.

The site is within the zone of influence for European designated habitat sites, namely the [name], the Norfolk Valley Fens, and The Wash. These sites are designed to safeguard species such as breeding birds and seals and non-breeding birds as well as coastal and river valley habitats. Potential adverse effects on these sites can be caused by recreational disturbance arising from visitors. The additional housing proposed here could result in likely significant effects on the integrity of these sites in combination with other plans and projects.

NNLP Policy ENV5 states that planning permission should be granted subject to demonstrating no adverse effects on the integrity of European sites from recreational disturbance when considered alone or in combination. It requires contributions towards a scheme of avoidance and mitigation measures in accordance with the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] 2021.

For the proposed development, a financial contribution of £4,258.38 is required in line with the strategy, secured via a S106 agreement or direct payment. While the appellant is willing to make such a contribution, no agreement or payment has been provided. In the absence of the required contribution, it is not possible to conclude that the proposed development would not have a likely significant effect on the European designated sites alone or in combination. Therefore, it would not accord with NNLP Policy ENV5.

NPPF paragraph 181 and NNLP Policy CC7 state that site-specific flood risk assessments (FRA) should be provided for all development in [name] 2 and 3, and for development in [name] 1 on sites of 1 hectare or more, or on land with critical drainage problems, land identified at increased flood risk in the future, or land that may be subject to other sources of flooding where development would introduce a more vulnerable use. NPPF paragraph 182 and NNLP Policy CC7 require the provision of sustainable drainage systems for proposals which could affect drainage on or around the site.

[name] has been submitted for the proposed development. The site is less than one hectare and is located within [name] 1. However, it falls within an area at risk of surface water flooding and dwellinghouses are considered by the NPPF to be more vulnerable than a police station unless that police station is required to be operational during flooding. No information on the former police station’s role has been provided, so taking a precautionary approach, an FRA should have been produced to include a proposed drainage strategy.

While drainage details can be secured by condition, as indicated by [name], drainage is not a reserved matter. Furthermore, drainage conditions are normally only appropriate to finalise details set out in an FRA and drainage strategy that has already been submitted with the original application, even if that application is entirely in outline. Thus, the Lead Local Flood Authority’s request for further information was necessary and reasonable.

In the absence of sufficient information, it is not possible to conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on flood risk and drainage. Therefore, it would not accord with NNLP Policy CC7 or NPPF paragraphs 181 and 182 which seek to minimise the risk of flooding elsewhere.

The proposed development would boost local housing supply and the local economy in a sustainable location, but given the relatively modest number of dwellings, and the Council’s ability to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, I afford such benefits no more than moderate weight. For the reasons given above, the development would not provide a significant enhancement to the area and would have a neutral effect on local conservation areas.

Weighing against the proposal are harms to character and appearance and the living conditions of existing and future occupiers. It also would fail to make adequate provision for open space, or demonstrate that the effects on protected species, biodiversity net gain, European designated sites, flood risk and drainage would be acceptable. All these factors greatly outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the proposal would not represent sustainable development and would be contrary to several development plan policies as well as the NPPF. There are no material considerations that indicate the development should be granted permission.

The appellant was seemingly unaware of various issues relating to bat surveys, biodiversity net gain, financial contributions, and drainage matters, and has expressed concerns about the level of engagement with the Council. However, these are matters of communication for the two parties to address. They do not affect my findings which are based on the planning merits of the case.

The conclusions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Screening process are separate to my consideration of this case. Interested parties have raised concerns about other matters such as highway safety but given my findings it has not been necessary to address them in any detail.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.