Appeal 6001957

The appeal is dismissed.

Whilst the application form confirms that the development has started, I have amended the description of development to omit reference to the proposal being retrospective as that is not an act of development.

Drawing 1002C has been provided with the appeal. Though it was not before the Council when it made its decision, the plan contains only minor clarifications. I have therefore considered it in determining the appeal.

The North Norfolk Local Plan was adopted by the Council on 17 December 2025. It has superseded the [name] referred to in the decision notice. Both main parties have addressed this in their submissions.

The Council has no objection to the proposed upgrading of an existing access surface or the installation of a tennis court. With reference to the assessment contained in the Council’s submissions I see no reason to view matters differently.

As such, the main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal site includes a detached property on an estate of some 20 acres. It is one of a small number of properties in an otherwise largely undeveloped rural location.

The appeal is supported by a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA)1 which anticipates the sources and types of noise associated with the proposed use, and the impacts upon the nearest residential dwelling. That dwelling is owned by the appellant and is currently vacant. I see no reason, however, to presume that either will remain the case indefinitely, and so apply policies protecting residential amenity to that dwelling in the same way as I would to any other.

Notwithstanding its contention that a more general approach may be taken to assessing the effects of noise, the Council has provided me with little reason to feel that the methodology deployed in the NIA is unreliable or that its subsequent noise level predictions are inaccurate. I see none for myself. The NIA finds that noise levels, attributable to identified and distinct activities and locations, would not exceed those set out in World Health Organisation guidance. Indeed, it finds that the impacts would be ‘minor’ or ‘negligible’ in that context.

The Council cites the likelihood of guests conducting multiple activities at the same time, but the NIA directly addresses cumulative noise from simultaneous activities and sets out why the potential for noise impact is not considered to be any higher in such circumstances. I have been provided with little reason to doubt the veracity of the approach set out at paragraph 6.3.3 of the NIA and see none for myself. Overall, I see no reason to find that the level of noise predicted in the NIA would be harmful to neighbouring residential amenity.

That said, the NIA is predicated on compliance with a Noise Management Plan (NMP)2 which would restrict, amongst other things, the times and volume of activity in the walled garden area of the site, the volume of amplified music, and the opening of windows and doors when music is played. Whilst the appellant’s submissions inform me that ‘negligible’ impacts between 07:00 and 23:00 are predicted even without the mitigation measures set out in the NMP, I have little reason to believe that adherence to the NMP is anything other than essential to ensure the protection of residential amenity overall, particularly in respect of late-night activity and amplified music.

The terms of hire would include compliance with the NMP, and reminders of its requirements would be positioned around the site. Furthermore, the NMP states that a responsible person (RP) for the site would be contactable. There is, however, little suggestion that they would visit during bookings, much less that they would remain present on site. As such, compliance with the NMP would appear to rely largely on cooperative behaviour from guests, albeit contractually obliged.

The appellant intends to market the site as a retreat rather than a party venue. I accept that the setting suggests a certain degree of exclusivity, and that it may not always be the case that drink is taken, that spirits become high, or that enjoyment of the site continues late into the evening. Such things are, however, an inherent prospect where transient parties pay to use a novel property for social and leisure purposes. As such, and notwithstanding the target demographic, I find that the proposed use does not naturally lend itself to confident reliance upon unsupervised adherence to an NMP. 1 Prepared by [name], [name], November 2024. 2 Also prepared by [name], November 2025.

Turning to the specifics of the NMP; The walled garden is attractive, characteristic of a period property, and more sheltered from wind than the southern patio and grounds. As such it would naturally entice guests, sometimes ahead of other outdoor spaces. Music is a common accompaniment to even the most modest of gatherings and, though I do not doubt the appellant would provide a tamper-proof sound system configured to restrict audio volume, or liaise with the Council’s Environmental Health team on such matters, small but powerful portable speakers are so commonplace that many guests may own them. If the weather is warm, then windows and doors are usually left open. Group social interactions often continue past 21.00.

Considering all of the above, the specific behaviours required by the NMP are not ones which would obviously be natural to guests. Rather, it appears at least as likely that their instincts would lead them into conflict with the NMP. This weighs further against relying on unsupervised adherence and places the emphasis on the appellant’s ability to ensure compliance.

The NMP states that complaints resulting from non-compliance would be rectified immediately by the RP. I have little indication, however, as to how. Guests may, for instance, not answer phone calls from the RP, or do so but deny, or neglect to address, reported breaches. I recognise that guests may see their deposits withheld or even be asked to leave the site should the NMP be breached but, even if this deters to a degree, it is a reactive measure taken only after a breach has occurred. It does not suggest, much less ensure, a means of immediate rectification.

Furthermore, it is not evident the deposit would be so great a sum that the risk of its loss would ensure compliance. Even if it was, it is not clear how the RP would establish the veracity of reported breaches in order to enact the penalty, or that they would be certain to enact it in any event. Overall, I am not satisfied that the prospect of negative consequences after the event would be sufficient to prevent guests breaching the NMP.

I note the proviso within the NMP that in the event of multiple justified complaints, practices and controls would be reviewed to see if adjustments could result in improvement. I have little to indicate what those adjustments might be, or why they are not already a part of the NMP. As a result, I attach little weight to the benefits that may accrue from such a review.

I am informed that the measures set out in the NMP are relatively common for holiday group lets. I have not, however, been provided with any examples of the successful use of such an approach, much less in circumstances comparable to those at the appeal site. I therefore attach minimal weight to this contention.

Given all of the above, I find myself unable to rely on the NMP being complied with if I were to allow the appeal. I cannot be certain that noise levels would not, in fact, be greater than those anticipated in the NIA.

The NIA does not indicate that even one from, let alone a combination of, playing amplified music outdoors, leaving the windows and doors open when music is playing indoors, or holding loud conversations in the walled garden, particularly late at night, would cause anything other than harmful levels of noise. I see no reason to feel such activities would be anything other than harmful, given the site is in an inherently quiet location. This weighs against the appeal proposal significantly.

What is more, the NIA and NMP are based on specific, identified causes of noise, with little suggestion that others may exist or arise. It is not clear that, for example, the movement of cars into and out of the site as guests return from local pubs or restaurants of an evening has been considered, or the potential for guests to bring dogs who may bark, or children who may play outdoors in summer evenings with less appreciation of the NMP, or that the orchard, which is to the west of the site, may entice guests to it at sunset. It is not clear, therefore, that the approach taken in the NIA and NMP to possible noise sources is not overly narrow.

I recognise that the site could be occupied year-round by a large family whose activities would not be subject to the same intended restrictions as the appeal proposal. I attach only modest weight to this, however. [name] have set out above, the proposed use would lend itself to noisier activity in a way that is distinct to and greater than normal residential use.

The proposal would provide economic benefits, including to local shops, restaurants, pubs, and tourist facilities. Given the small number of guests the site could accommodate, however, these benefits would likely be modest, and I see little to suggest they would outweigh the harm to residential amenity.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to noise and disturbance. It would conflict in that respect with Policy ENV6 of the North Norfolk Local Plan (2025).

I have not had regard to somewhat conflicting accounts of the recent impacts of noise from the site, as these accounts do not necessarily reflect the same arrangements proposed in the appeal.

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.

The appeal is dismissed.