Appeal 6002003

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement of timber quay heading with new plastic quay heading with timber capping at [site address] , Norwich, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2025/0158/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have omitted the term ‘deteriorating’ from my decision above, so as to avoid uncertainty as to which existing timber quay-heading may be replaced. The extent of the work is made clear in the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (firstly) the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of non-designated heritage assets; and (secondly) on biodiversity.

The appeal site is on the northwestern edge of [name], accessed from a bend in [site address] . The site entrance comprises a wide hardsurface, flanked on one side by a utilitarian public toilet block. Though greenery forms the backdrop, views inwards are dominated by a car park and gravel access track leading off to the right. These are enclosed by telegraph poles and long, close boarded fencelines. To one side is seen the tiled roofs and rendered gables of [site address] public house. To the other, a cluster of weather-beaten buildings with prefabricated sheet roofs and timber board walls stand out against a treeline.

These elements combine such that the site has, relative to the largely rural wider area, a somewhat developed and busy feel. The Council informs me that the fencelines are recent additions and have increased the sense of urbanisation. I have no reason to doubt their lawfulness and so treat them as a feature of the setting.

Even at first glance, the large number of boats positioned tightly together on and near the site are identifiable as the cause and focus of this development. Indeed, the busy nature of the site and land around reflects the fact that the main point of access to the Broad, particularly for boating, is in its northwestern corner.

As one moves east across the site, wide views of the Broad open up. The vast majority of the water’s edge and the land beyond it is undeveloped. The striking beauty of this landscape is tied directly to its naturalness, a quality which only becomes more prominent as one ventures further from the site.

The effect of this is to underline the distinction in character between, on one hand, the appeal site and land around it and, on the other hand, the wider Broad. Whilst pleasant, and indeed in places scenic, the northwestern corner of the Broad nevertheless has a pronounced manmade and practical feel, reflective of the infrastructure needed to allow leisure use of the water.

This extends to the water’s edge. In contrast to the natural shorelines of the wider Broad, the appeal site is marked by formal dykes, cut into the land along straight lines and made with defined, formal edges. Whilst the use of timber in the existing quay-heading piling lends it something of a traditional feel, that does little to alter its appearance as a significant work of engineering.

The piling, though in disrepair in places, is nevertheless evidently formed using large, heavy sleepers, broadly uniform in dimension, and secured in neat vertical arrangement. This is topped with timber boards, consistent in line and level. The existing quay-heading bears little relationship to the natural shapes and unmade edges of the wider Broad.

Two non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs), The Boathouse (or [name]) and The Moorings, are found immediately north of the site. These are attractive, traditional chalets facing onto the water and the appeal site. Given the proximity and direct intervisibility, I see no reason to question that the site is part of the setting of these NDHAs, as the Council contends.

Policy DM11 of the Local Plan for the Broads (2019) requires that development protect, preserve, or enhance the significance and setting not only of heritage assets, but also of “elements of the wider historic environment that give the Broads its distinctive character”.

The site is not within a conservation area and does not include any designated heritage assets. That said, the appellant does not contest the Council’s assessment that the local area of which the site is a part has “a number of traditional buildings including [site address] , historic boathouses and many thatched buildings” and that the proposal is subject to Policy DM11. Based on what I saw during my visit, I see no reason to question that it is.

[name] have described above, the use of timber lends the existing quay-heading something of a traditional feel, but that does not disguise that it is a work of engineering to modern standards. Indeed, I have little before me to suggest that the existing timber quay-heading is a historical feature of the site, either in terms of its constituent parts or its general design. The submissions detail the need to replace the timbers on an approximate 15-year cycle, and even the more degenerated parts of it appear modern and mass-produced. This, and the precise and consistent placement of the capping boards, give the quay-heading a modern feel, rather than one suggestive of a historic feature.

To my mind, the apparent age range of buildings and other structures on and around the site indicate that the northwest corner of the Broad has been developed to facilitate boating for some considerable time and has seen alterations over time, up to and including more recently, in support of that activity. This, for the purposes of the appeal, is the contribution of the setting to the significance of the heritage assets. The Proposal; Assessment

The proposal is to replace some 440 metres of existing timber quay-heading. The appeal scheme design relies upon interlocking plastic piling, capped at the top with a timber header and faced at the front with two further layers of timber board.

The plastic piling would be visible during low water levels, and distinguishable from the timber it would replace due to its colour, surface texture, and shape. It would not possess the same broadly traditional connotations as the existing timber piles.

At the same time the use of black colouring in the plastic, and its being set back slightly from the facing timber boards, would reduce its visual prominence. I see little to suggest that the piling, which is expected to provide some 60 years of service, would not age and weather over time or that algae would not grow on its surface, blending the piling in with the setting to some degree. Whereas the existing quay-heading generally involves one horizontal facing timber board, the appeal scheme proposes two; this would conceal the piling to a significant extent.

Moreover, the appeal scheme involves almost no change to the most visible and prominent parts of the quay-heading; the header and facing boards would remain timber, and much the same in terms of dimensions, material, and arrangement.

I have had regard to relevant previous decisions of the Council to allow directly comparable forms of quay-heading on other sites1. I accept the Council's point that the cited schemes differ from that before me in terms of prominence and scale and, in the case of [address], included flood defence considerations. That said, I find little in the officer reports to suggest that plastic piling, when first proposed on either site, was found visually harmful before ultimately being approved as a result of other considerations. It appears, rather, simply to have been found visually acceptable.

Moreover, the presence of a directly comparable form of quay-heading at other sites around the Broad, particularly at the nearby [name], is an element in the character and appearance of the area, and a specific point of visual refence which the appeal scheme would be directly in keeping with.

The plastic piling would be noticeable at times, but far from prominent. Given the additional facing boards proposed, the degree of visual change involved in going from timber piling to plastic would be modest. The proposed development would 1 Application Refs BA/2023/0155/FUL, BA/2015/0039/HOUSEH, BA/2025/0268/FUL, and BA/2025/0308/LBC. not, in any event, be out of keeping with the existing formal, engineered character and appearance of the water’s edge, including comparable approved developments nearby. It would continue the visible pattern of alterations, carried out over time, in support of boating activity on the Broad and, as such, not reduce or harmfully alter the contribution of the setting to the significance of the relevant

Given the above, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of non-designated heritage assets, and I find no conflict in such respects with Policies DM11, DM43, or SSUT of the Local Plan for the Broads (2019).

I have had regard to the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and National Landscapes which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues, and to the duty imposed upon me to seek to further the statutory purposes of [name]. For the reasons set out above, I am content that these requirements have been met.

The application did not contain a Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) or Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to demonstrate how sediment release, nutrient enrichment and habitat disturbance would be avoided or mitigated during implementation of the proposed development. The appellant takes no issue with the requirement to provide such information, and I see no reason to do so. Rather, the matter in dispute is whether it could be secured by way of a planning condition.

The appellant cites a recent instance2 in which a condition, purportedly related to similar issues, was used at a different site. I have so few details of the previous scheme in question that I cannot be certain it is comparable to that before me in the appeal. Moreover, I note the reason for the condition was to ensure biodiversity gain, rather than the avoidance or mitigation of harmful impacts. I therefore attach minimal weight to the cited example.

At the same time, the Council cites the scale of development and its sensitive location as its reasons for requiring “sufficient certainty at application stage that impacts can be adequately controlled” but provides little detail beyond that. [name] appreciate that both factors would underline the importance of agreeing appropriate measures ahead of commencement, it is not evident to me that either should necessarily give rise to doubts that they could be agreed.

Whilst the Council’s ecology consultee set out the requirement for micro-plastics contamination prevention measures, a defined approach to pollution prevention, and compliance with an established biosecurity protocol, they did not object to the proposed development, did not indicate any doubt that these requirements could be met, nor suggest any reason why they could not be agreed through the discharge of a planning condition.

Taking all of this into account, I find very little reason to support the Council’s approach or to find that its concerns in respect of biodiversity could not be 2 Application Ref BA/2024/0146/HOUSEH adequately addressed though the imposition of a suitable planning condition. I therefore find no conflict between the appeal scheme and Policy DM13 of the Local Plan for the Broads (2019).

My attention has been drawn to the emerging Local Plan which is at Regulation 19 stage. It includes Policy PUBDM42, which addresses in detail the materials used for quay-heading and piling. I see little reason to doubt the quality of the interlocking plastic piles proposed in the appeal scheme, or that the material would be appropriate for its intended use. I have set out above that it would be suitable for its location. As such I see no conflict with the general principles of the policy.

A preference is stated within the policy for the use of timber in quay-headings. The same preference is expressed in the appeal submissions, including in respect of previous nearby applications and, as such, is not evidently a new approach in practice. As such, I have considered it in my determination. In any event, the policy does not prohibit other, more resilient materials where needed, including for piling, subject to justification.

The appeal submissions detail the issues associated with timber, the superior durability and lifespan of plastic piling, and the associated reasoning behind the proposal. As such, the scheme includes a justification for the use of an alternative material, and so would not fall short of policy requirements in that respect.

The policy does not prohibit the use of plastic, subject to the design of the material, its appearance, and impact on the sensitivity and character of the area. I have addressed these matters in my determination. Whether the plastic used in the proposed development would be recycled is not clear, nor do I have sufficient details regarding its appearance to assess whether it would look similar to timber. I note that the Council has suggested a condition requiring details of the proposed plastic piling to be agreed prior to installation, and see no reason why these matters could not be addressed as part of that requirement. I have addressed the issue of a CEMP.

Whatever weight I were to attach to Policy PUBDM42 of the emerging Local Plan, it would not alter my determination as set out above.

The site is in the Broadland Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, and in The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

In the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) Stage 1 screening undertaken by the Council it is considered that no significant effect is likely on any of the [name] qualifying species or on any of the [name] habitats or species. Natural England has confirmed the same. Based on the submitted evidence, I have no reason to disagree and therefore find that an Appropriate Assessment in relation to the [name] and Ramsar site is not necessary.

However, the available evidence is not conclusive that the proposed development would not, either alone and/or in combination with other plans or projects, have a likely significant effect on The Broads SAC. The qualifying features of the site include hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp, and Calcium-rich nutrient-poor lakes, lochs and pools. The conservation objectives for the SAC seek to ensure that its integrity is maintained or restored and that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its [name] by maintaining or restoring: The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats; The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species; The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely; The populations of qualifying species, and; The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Taking a precautionary approach, without mitigation it would not be possible to ascertain that the development would not adversely affect the SAC’s integrity through direct or indirect factors such as increased turbidity or nutrient release. This may increase planktonic algae populations. High algal densities might also supress water plant beyond any initial disturbance and persist thereafter.

However, in the Council’s HRA control of turbidity and changes to water chemistry is identified as the most effective form of control, and monitoring of Prymnesium parvum levels is recommended.

Based on the submitted evidence, the imposition of an appropriate condition as set out in the attached schedule would be sufficient to mitigate the effects of the development on the SAC. Natural England has confirmed that such an approach would ensure the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC and its relevant features.

On this basis I am able to ascertain, as the competent authority undertaking Appropriate Assessment, that the integrity of The Broads SAC would not be adversely affected by the development proposed.

I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council, and considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. Conditions 1 and 2 are required to satisfy the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and for clarity. Conditions 3 and 5 are necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the development and the surrounding area, and condition 4 to protect the natural environment and minimise the risk of pollution during construction.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.