Appeal 6002456

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal address on the application form is incomplete. I have therefore adopted the address utilised by the Council and on the appeal form which adequately describe its location.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with all matters reserved for future consideration, other than the means of access. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

A plan has been submitted which indicates how residential development could be accommodated on the site. This is clearly marked as ‘indicative’ and I have taken it into account for those purposes only.

Since the Council issued its decision, the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2038 (2025) (Neighbourhood Plan) has been made. This forms part of the development plan, and accordingly, I have had regard to it.

The appeal is accompanied by a Planning Obligation advanced to secure the dwellings as [name] (SBCB) dwellings. This is a matter I return to later in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the site is a suitable location for housing, having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the scheme is acceptable in respect of flood risk.

Policy LP01 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) (LP) sets out the Council’s spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy for the Borough. It seeks to focus the majority of its housing growth to the [name] (Tier 1) reflecting the availability of infrastructure to support growth, access to the strategic road network and the ability to maximise sustainable travel choices. Tier 1 is the most sustainable area of housing development, and at the bottom of the hierarchy, within Tier 6, are ‘[name] and Hamlets’. It names [site address] as a ‘Rural Village’, falling within Tier 5 of the hierarchy.

It is common ground that the appeal site lies outside of the development boundary for [site address] as defined by the [name].

LP Policy LP02 sets out how residential development on windfall sites should be considered. Part 5 sets out that outside of settlement boundaries including in Tier 5, residential development will not normally be supported unless allocated through the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan. As a matter of fact, the appeal site is not allocated for housing in either Plan.

Policy LP02 (5) goes on to set out an exception; in Tier 5 settlements that have a housing requirement identified in [name] to Policy LP03 for which there are no opportunities within the development boundaries and which the relevant Neighbourhood Plan does not address through allocations, small scale development of up to 5 dwellings will be supported where necessary to meet that housing requirement, and subject to the criteria under its Parts 1 and 2.

The appellant refers to a housing allocation MSJ1 said to be immediately opposite the western aspect of the site. However, no details of this have been provided, such that I cannot have regard to it.

Policy LP03 expects [name] to plan for the minimum housing growth requirements, which, for [site address] , is 3 dwellings. However, I note that there is a housing allocation within the village for at least 10 dwellings, under Policy G57.2 of the LP 1, which evidence suggests, remains only partly developed out with 2 dwellings. My attention is also drawn to approved self-build developments in the village, comprising 4 self-build dwellings on land between 70 and 80 Smeeth Road2 and a further 9 dwellings3 (8 self-build, plus an affordable dwelling) that benefit from a resolution to approve, subject to the execution of a legal agreement.

Given these recent and imminent approvals, even discounting the remaining site allocation, the housing growth requirements for [site address] has already been met and exceeded. There have clearly been opportunities either within or just 1 Land adjacent to [address] 2 Planning References: 25/00412/O and 25/01158/O 3 Planning Reference: 25/00060/O outside of the development boundaries to meet the identified housing need. Therefore, as further residential development is not necessary to meet the housing requirement identified in [name] of Policy LP03 for [site address] , I find that the scheme does not benefit from the support of the exception contained within LP Policy LP02.

It is notable that the proposal seeks to continue a public footpath extension along the entire site frontage. This would allow future occupiers of the site pedestrian access to the village core. The proposal has exploited the opportunity to make the location as sustainable as possible in line with the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Limited evidence is before me on what local services and facilities [site address] contains. However, given that the village is expected to accommodate a limited quantum of housing, and the site is physically close to it, I do not find that the appeal site is inherently unsustainable in terms of its access to local facilities and services.

[site address] is a predominantly linear settlement. The appeal site comprises a modest timber stable and open grassed paddock, partly enclosed by trees and hedgerows, located on the northern side of [site address] and outside the defined village boundary. While not isolated, owing to the presence of a bungalow opposite at No. 36 and nearby agricultural land and modern dwellings to the northwest, the site is otherwise surrounded by open paddocks and farmland.

On this side of [site address] , ribbon development terminates at No. 43, with the land between it and No. 47 at the rural crossroads, forming part of a flat, open landscape. The appeal site, the bungalow opposite and No. 47 represent sporadic development that provide a transition to the more continuous linear form within the village. As such, the site is visually prominent and forms part of the rural approach from the southeast. Despite its proximity to built form, the appeal site more closely relates to the surrounding countryside, contributing to the village’s verdant rural setting.

Whilst noting that the indicative site plan shows a linear form of ribbon development which would align with that adjacent, the introduction of new dwellings into an open field which is largely devoid of development would harmfully affect the character through encroachment and eroding the landscape setting of the village by further extending it into the countryside. The four proposed individual access points, the proposed road widening and the extension to the footpath shown on plan would contribute and compound the harmful urbanisation.

It has been suggested that the proposal amounts to infill development. Although no definition has been provided, infill development is generally understood to involve the development of modest gaps between existing buildings. While the indicative plan shows development immediately adjoining No. 43, the appeal site nonetheless forms a substantial gap between that property and No. 47 at the crossroads, which is physically separated from the village. A section of road frontage between the site and No. 47 would also remain undeveloped. Accordingly, I do not consider the proposal to constitute infill development. Moreover, it would leave the remaining land susceptible to comparable future development.

The effect of the proposal would be to significantly and unacceptably alter the character and appearance of the area, by consolidating the sporadic development and to visually intrude into the open countryside, reducing the importance sense of openness which could not be mitigated by condition.

Drawing the above together, I find that the site is not a suitable location for housing having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan, conflicting with its strategic and rural housing aims. Furthermore, it would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. This brings the scheme into conflict with [name] LP02 and LP03, which amongst other things expects development to respect and enhance local character.

[name] am cognisant that the Neighbourhood Plan has now been made, no conflict with it has been drawn to my attention. From everything I have read and seen, given the appeal is made in outline form and the policies I have been referred to relate to the details and design, I see no reason to disagree.

The 2018 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identified the appeal site as being within [name] 1 and on a ‘dry island’. The more up to date site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA) identifies the site as falling within [name] 3, an area with a high probability of flooding.

It is common ground that in accordance with LP Policy LP25 and the Framework, the sequential test is passed. There is also no dispute that part (b) of the exception test outlined in Paragraph 178 of the Framework is passed, as the development could be made safe for its lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of its users and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

However, to pass the exception test, part (a) must also be met. This requires that the development provide sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk.

The Planning Practice Guide4 identifies examples of such benefits. These could include the re-use of suitable brownfield land as part of a local regeneration scheme, an overall reduction in flood risk to the wider community through flood risk management infrastructure, or the provision of multifunctional sustainable drainage systems. The aim is to offer a positive benefit to a wider audience or indeed to the environment.

The appellant refers to the site as being brownfield, thus constituting previously developed land (PDL). Having regard to the definition set out in the Framework, whilst grazing paddocks can be considered PDL, in this case given the limited extent of existing stable development, that does not extend across the entirety of the appeal site, I do not find the whole site benefits from constituting PDL. Given the majority of the site is greenfield, the site cannot enjoy the benefit of reusing suitable brownfield land as a means of offering sustainability benefits to the community. None of the other examples apply to the appeal proposal. 4 Paragraph: 036 [name]: 7-[phone]

Whilst the benefit of rural housing is advanced as a sustainability benefit, given my findings above, I am not persuaded that the local community need for housing is so strong as to outweigh the flood risk. This includes the provision of SBCB dwellings, a matter I shall return to.

Taking account of the conflict with the spatial strategy and the significant harm to the rural landscape, I do not find the proposal would provide sustainability benefits which would outweigh the flood risk. Therefore, the scheme fails part (a) of the exception test. Accordingly, the scheme is not acceptable in respect of flood risk, bringing the proposal into conflict with LP Policy LP25 and the Framework, insofar as they seek to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding.

[name] have set out above, part of the site could be considered PDL. However noting the limited extent of existing development, it attracts only limited weight in favour of the appeal and does not alter my findings on the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The Council accept that it has not been able to demonstrate that it has sufficient self-build permissions to meet the identified demand as required by the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). It is common ground that as of May 2025, the shortfall of SBCB dwellings stood at 162. The Council assert that 13 no. SBCB dwellings have, or will have been approved in this settlement alone by the time this appeal is determined. In the context of 100 parishes within the Borough, the Council expect that the shortfall will be met swiftly. Limited evidence is available to demonstrate this, albeit the numbers suggest that the shortfall is unlikely to be a long-standing issue.

Nevertheless, Paragraph 73(b) of the Framework supports small sites to come forward for SBCB housing. The scheme could, in principle, help to meet the demand for such housing to which considerable weight could be afforded given there is a shortfall. However, whilst an executed Planning Obligation is advanced, without proof of title, I cannot be certain that it would bind in all parties with an interest in the land as expected by the relevant guidance5. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the appeal scheme would secure the dwellings as SBCB, thus greatly reducing the weight I can afford it.

I am cognisant that the scheme would bring about other economic and social benefits such as the temporary construction jobs they would create. However, these would attract only limited weight.

The evidence indicates that the development would be likely to effect one or more European designated habitat sites. However, given my overall conclusions, it is not necessary for me to consider these effects, as to do so would not alter my

Together, the collective benefits attract moderate positive weight, tempered by the relatively modest quantum of housing proposed and the lack of certainty that these would secure the dwellings as SBCB.

On the other hand, the proposal runs counter to the spatial strategy of a recently adopted and up-to-date development plan, would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside character and has insufficient community benefits to outweigh the flood risk. I attach significant weight to the totality of these harms.

In my judgement the harms clearly outweigh the benefits, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.