Appeal 6002181

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with access to be considered at this stage and all other matters reserved for future consideration. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appellant’s final comments suggest the scheme is for one dwelling. The submissions are clear that the proposal is for up to two dwellings, and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Plans have been submitted as part of the appeal indicating how two dwellings could be accommodated on the site. I have taken these into account for illustrative purposes only.

The [site address] Neighbourhood Plan was adopted in October 2025. The main parties have provided their views on this.

The main issues are; • whether the appeal site (the site) would be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan; and • whether the proposal complies with local and national policy in respect of flooding, having particular regard to the sequential test.

The site comprises largely undeveloped land behind a residential dwelling. It is outside the development boundary for [site address] , which is defined in Policy LP01 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) (the Local Plan) as a rural village in Tier 5 of the [name].

The approach to residential development outside of Tier 5 development boundaries is set out in Section 5 of Policy LP02; It will not normally be supported, unless allocated through the Local Plan or a Neighbourhood Plan. Neither is true of the appeal scheme.

An exception is made, however, where Tier 5 settlements have an identified housing requirement1 “for which there are no opportunities within the development boundaries and which the relevant Neighbourhood Plan does not address through allocations”.

[site address] has an identified need of 3 windfall dwellings. There is a relevant allocation, G57.2, in the Local Plan. The [site address] Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate any additional land. There are extant consents for housing within the boundary.

The appellant contends that as allocation G57.2 is not in a Neighbourhood Plan, the exception described in Policy LP02 is activated. I recognise that the policy uses ‘and’ rather than ‘or’. However, it goes on to say that “In such circumstances, small scale development of up to 5 dwellings will be supported [w]here this is necessary to meet that housing requirement” (my emphasis). As such, the exception is only made active if necessary to meet the identified need.

Allocation G57.2 is said to relate to 4 new dwellings. I have few details of the extant consents within the boundary, save for the reference to residential dwellings in the plural, indicating that at least two homes may result from that source. I have nothing before me to suggest that these are anything other than two separate sources of housing, or to cast doubt on the viability of either. I accept the appellant’s point that whether housing need actually can and will be met within the boundary is the pertinent question, but the limited evidence before me offers very little reason to doubt it.

Two further factors are material in my determination. Firstly, the level of need, even in the context of a rural village, is so modest that just one unremarkable scheme could meet it. Secondly, as set out in the preamble to [name] in the Local Plan, three dwellings is the anticipated need over the plan period rather than a current shortfall, so there is ample time for it to be met even if the current extant schemes do not proceed for some reason. Neither factor suggests, much less demonstrates, that activating the exception in Policy LP02 is necessary to meet the identified housing requirement.

In respect of the second factor, my attention has been directed to a recent appeal2 with which I am particularly familiar, having determined it myself. The implications of the nature of identified housing need may vary depending on circumstances but, in this case, I do not see that the ability of the proposed development to meet a high proportion of the anticipated need weighs in its favour. That reflects the modest level of need which, as I have set out above, does little to suggest that the appeal scheme is necessary. 1 Identified in [name] to Policy LP03. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/W/25/3372750.

Overall, it is not apparent nor seemingly likely that the identified housing need could not be met within the development boundary. As such, the exception set out in Section 5 of Policy LP02 is not activated. Even if I were to accept that the proposed development would meet the requirements of Parts 1 and 2 of that policy, it nevertheless does not have its support overall. The site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan.

The site is in [name] 3a, and neither party disputes that the sequential test must be applied. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that strategic policies should be informed by a strategic flood risk assessment. It also states that a sequential risk-based approach should be taken to individual applications, the aim being to steer new development to areas where the risk of flooding is lowest. To this end, the Framework is explicit that development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding, and that the strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test.

The appellant informs me that there is no land in lower flood risk zones available for sale in [site address] and that, as a result, they cannot buy any for the proposed development. I do not consider this to satisfy the sequential test. Firstly, that there is no land advertised for sale does not mean approaches to local landowners would certainly be rebuffed. I have no evidence the appellant has made such approaches.

Secondly, and in any event, the '[name] and Coastal Change' Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that lower-risk sites do not need to be owned by the applicant to be considered ‘reasonably available’. In this context and given that allocation G57.2 and at least one extant permission are within [name] 1 and 2 respectively, it appears clear that land at lower risk of flooding is reasonably available.

The PPG states that “The absence of a 5-year housing land supply is not a relevant consideration in applying the sequential test for individual applications. However, housing considerations, including housing land supply, may be relevant in the planning balance, alongside the outcome of the sequential test”. Based on this, I shall address the lack of self-build opportunities separately.

Even if I were to accept that self-build housing is a distinct form of development for the purposes of the sequential test, it is not evident that land at lower risk of flooding, including allocation G57.2, is prohibited from being self-build plots. I do not, therefore, find that aspect of the proposal sufficient to satisfy the sequential test.

The appellant has provided a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). I have attributed minimal weight to this insofar as it addresses the sequential test, as it incorrectly states that there are no available sites within [site address] that offer a lower level of flood risk. The appellant has not contested that allocation G57.2 is at lower risk.

The FRA also aims to satisfy the exception test. The PPG is clear that the exception test should only be applied if the sequential test has shown there to be no reasonably available, lower-risk sites suitable for the proposed development. That is not the case in this instance and so, whilst I shall return to the subject later, the extent to which the proposed development may provide sustainability benefits and be safe in flooding terms do not stand to be considered in respect of this main issue.

Given the above, the proposed development does not satisfy the sequential test and, as such, would conflict with Local Plan Policies LP18 and LP25, as well as with Chapter 14 of the Framework and with the PPG.

The Self-Build and [name] (SBCH) Act 2015 requires local authorities to create a register of those seeking serviced plots, and to have regard to it when carrying out planning functions. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 states that local planning authorities must give suitable planning permissions to meet the demand for SBCH. The Planning Practice Guidance states that SBCH registers are likely to be material considerations in decisions involving relevant schemes.

The Council does not dispute that it has a shortfall of 162 SBCH plots. The proposed development would deliver two plots, which could be built out quickly and would contribute towards addressing the identified shortfall, whilst also adding to the housing stock generally. There would be temporary economic benefits associated with the construction phase. Thereafter, there would be ongoing local economic benefits relating to the occupation of the site, and local facilities would benefit from increased demand.

Set against that, I see little reason to accept the appellants assertion that the proximity of the site to the settlement boundary places it in a sustainable location; I have been provided with very little evidence that [site address] contains adequate services and facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of prospective site occupants, or that they could be accessed by walking, cycling, or public transport.

Indeed, the evidence, including my visit to the area, suggests that occupiers of the proposed development would likely depend on the private motor car. That the village has been placed at Tier 5 of the [name] in a relatively recent plan confirms me in this view. The proposal goes directly against both the Council’s spatial strategy and the related requirement of the Framework that reliance on the private motor car be avoided.

The FRA states that the proposed development would be technically safe from flooding without increasing the risk elsewhere. The Council does not contest this, and I see no reason to. [name] have set out above, however, the Framework requires that irrespective of matters of safety, inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development elsewhere. That is a clear directive.

The identified benefits attract significant weight in the balance, particularly given the SBCH shortfall. So too, however, must the conflict between the proposed development and both spatial strategy and flood risk policies, given it is so clear and direct in both cases.

Moreover, the Framework states that sustainable development should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans. An up-to-date spatial strategy is a key element and direct reflection of this approach. The Framework also states that strategic policies should be informed by a strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA) and that all plans should apply a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development. The Council has a SFRA and I have little reason to doubt that the development boundary at [site address] reflects this. To allow the appeal would undermine the plan-led approach.

The proposal would conflict directly with the Council’s spatial strategy and flood risk policies and also undermine the plan-led approach. The benefits of the appeal scheme do not outweigh this.

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.