Appeal 6003152

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is accompanied by two legal agreements pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). These seek to secure nutrient neutrality mitigation and contributions towards measures to mitigate any likely significant effect arising from the development on European Sites1 to address the Council’s fourth and fifth reasons for refusal. I shall return to this matter later.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant development plan policies for development in the countryside and the site’s accessibility to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a collection of buildings at [site address] . The Council does not contend that the appeal site is isolated for the purposes of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Nevertheless, there is no dispute between the parties that the site lies outside of a defined development boundary, within the countryside. Policy DM 1.3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name] (2015) (the SNLP) seeks to deliver development in accordance with a sustainable location strategy which restricts development in the countryside outside 1 As defined by regulation 8 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) the defined development boundaries of settlements unless specific development management policies allow, or it can be demonstrated that there are overriding benefits in terms of economic, social and environmental dimensions.

Policy 7.5 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024) (GNLP) allows for small scale residential development of up to 3 dwellings for self-build and custom build homes (SBCB) on sites that are within or adjacent to settlements. However, given the scheme is not advanced as SBCB housing and the site is not adjacent to a settlement, the appeal scheme does not garner support from this policy. I have not been directed to any other relevant development management policies that permit housing in the countryside against which the appeal scheme should be considered either. As such, based on the evidence before me, the proposal fails this limb of Policy DM1.3.

Turning to accessibility, Policy 3.10 of the SNLP states that all development should support sustainable transport and development objectives, utilise all opportunities to integrate with local sustainable transport networks, be designed to reduce the need to travel and to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to the location.

The appeal site is situated down a relatively long access track off [address] which is a rural road subject to a 60mph speed limit, without footpaths or streetlamps. Given the distances involved and the nature of the routes, I find it highly unlikely that walking or cycling to and from the nearest facilities would be a safe and practical option for day-to-day living for all users and in all circumstances. In addition, I have not been presented with details of any public transport facilities which may serve the site. Therefore, in all reasonable likelihood, future occupants of the development would likely be heavily reliant on private vehicles to meet their daily needs.

I acknowledge that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary from urban to rural areas. However, even if car journeys to the closest facilities would be relatively short and the number of vehicle movements associated with two dwellings would be modest, the site’s poor connectivity by sustainable travel modes nonetheless points, generally, to it being in a location where sustainable modes could not be maximised. The fact that the site could operate as a working farm does not alter my conclusion on this matter.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to relevant development plan policies for development in the countryside and the site’s accessibility to services and facilities. This conflicts with Policy DM 3.10 of the SNLP insofar as it supports sustainable transport and development objectives and promotes developments that are designed to reduce the need to travel and maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. Given the sites location outside of any defined settlement boundary there is also a degree of conflict with Policy DM1.3 of the SNLP. However, in accordance with this policy it is necessary to consider whether the benefits of the development would outweigh any identified harm. I will return to this matter later in my decision.

The area surrounding the appeal site is sparsely populated with dispersed development separated by open fields and pockets of landscaping. The appeal site forms part of a small enclave of buildings to the north-east of [site address] , which along with the building further south-east (referred to as Unit 1), lies outside of the appeal site. The appeal buildings are relatively modest in form, mostly constructed from modern materials and have a utilitarian agricultural vernacular deriving from their previous use. Overall, the area has a rural character and appearance typical of a countryside location.

Despite one of the appeal buildings being larger in scale, collectively they have a relatively low visual prominence and a functional design which would be expected of agricultural buildings. They are also clustered together adjacent to the existing access track, with hard surfacing limited to the southern sides of the building and an open boundary with the field beyond. This results in a well contained collection of buildings that are reflective of the rural character of the surroundings and have a clear relationship with and assimilate well into the wider landscape context.

The proposed dwellings would be arranged around a central courtyard which would provide parking spaces for Plot 1 and a private courtyard for Plot 2. Sizable garden areas would be provided to the north of the dwellings. The dwellings would be positioned broadly over the footprint of the existing agricultural buildings, and the layout takes reference from traditional farmstead arrangements. Hard landscaping would be contained to the footprint of the existing buildings and a natural boundary treatment with the field beyond is indicated. However, the introduction of generous garden areas around the buildings would result in the domestication of the land and encroachment into the open field surrounding the site. The formalisation of the land around the dwellings also creates a suburbanised focus to the development which contrasts with the rural nature of the surroundings.

While the design of the dwellings has taken cues from traditional farm buildings, Plot 1 in particular would have a domesticated and suburban appearance with a scale and bulk beyond that which is established by the existing buildings within the site. In footprint terms the appeal scheme seeks to consolidate the development. However, both dwellings would be generous, and the overall massing and prominence of the development would be greater in the landscape. While individually they may take reference from buildings in the wider area, when taken together, the appeal scheme would be interpreted as a formalised sub-urban development which would go beyond the natural and organic evolution of development in a rural setting. The proposal would therefore fail to integrate into the rural surroundings, representing a harmful intrusion into the countryside.

The appellant argues that the appeal scheme would materially enhance the setting of [name]. However, despite their current condition, as farm buildings of utilitarian form and function they are typical to such rural farmsteads and are not inherently harmful to the Farmhouse or wider area.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with Policies DM1.4, DM 3.8 and DM 4.5 of the SNLP and Policies 2 and 3 of the GNLP insofar as they support high-quality developments which integrate with and respect the character and distinctiveness of the local area, including its landscape character, and seek to enhance it through appropriate design. Other considerations

My attention has been drawn to a prior approval application2 granted in April 2024 for the conversion of two buildings within the wider [site address] site to two dwellinghouses under the provisions of Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the PA scheme). The appellant contends that the PA scheme is a fallback position on the appeal site against which the appeal scheme should be assessed.

From the evidence before me, the PA scheme could be implemented without any further consent from the Council, and the appellant has indicated an intention to do so. I have no reason to doubt that there is a greater than theoretical prospect of this scheme being implemented in the event this appeal is dismissed. It therefore represents a genuine fallback position, and I must consider whether this would be equally or more harmful than the appeal scheme before me.

The PA scheme relates to two buildings. Unit 2 which lies to the north-east of [name], within the appeal site, is understood to have a footprint of approximately 72sqm and would be converted to a two-bedroom dwelling. Unit 1 which lies to the south-west of the Farmhouse, outside of the appeal site, has a footprint of approximately 48sqm and would be converted to a one-bedroomed property. The resultant dwellings and their associated curtilages would be relatively modest in scale, the latter of which would be confined to the areas immediately around the buildings. The conversions would also be sympathetic to the agricultural nature of the buildings and the site context.

While annotations on the plans indicate that Unit 1 would be removed, it lies outside of the red line on the Site Location Plan and thus does not form part of the appeal site. There is no mechanism before me to secure its removal as part of this appeal and therefore nothing that would prevent the PA scheme being simultaneously part-implemented and Unit 1 converted to a dwellinghouse in addition to the appeal scheme. This would result in three new dwellings on the site and, thus, a greater number of households living in an unsuitable countryside location which would be heavily reliant on private vehicles to access services and facilities. It would also result in residential use spread across a greater proportion of the [site address] site and an increased level of domestication and encroachment into the countryside. Accordingly, it is not directly comparable to the fallback position, which would have a less harmful effect than what could come forward in the event this appeal was allowed.

Even if there were a mechanism before me to secure the removal of Unit 1 as part of this appeal, the proposed dwellings would be of a substantially greater scale and massing than those approved under the PA scheme. Even though the two plots would be clustered within the site, they would have larger associated curtilages which would erode the surrounding undeveloped countryside and would collectively result in a decidedly more urbanising and prominent development that would fail to integrate into the rural surroundings. As the agricultural buildings within the appeal site are shown as being removed as part of the PA scheme, there would be no greater benefit in this respect either.

The re-use and conversion of the existing buildings in the PA scheme, even with any necessary access track to serve Unit 1, would represent a more sympathetic form of development in the context of the rural character of the appeal site. It would also result in a lesser quantum of residential units and thus a less harmful development than what 2 Council Ref. 2023/1233 could come forward in the event this appeal was allowed. As it would be less harmful, the fallback position presented attracts limited weight in my overall assessment, even in the acknowledgement that the proposal may deliver other environmental benefits and greater controls which the fallback position may not.

In support of the appeal, the appellant has referred to several examples where planning permission has been granted using a Class Q PA fallback position where the approved scheme has differed in quantum, siting, layout and/or scale. However, I have very little information on the site-specific circumstances of these cases and cannot be sure how comparable they are to this appeal, which I have considered on its individual planning merits in any event. Reference is also made to two applications3 currently pending consideration by the council at the [site address] site. However, I have no information before me relating to the status of these two applications or any details of what buildings, land or development they relate to either. I therefore cannot draw any meaningful comparisons with the appeal scheme which would lead me to alter my overall conclusions set out above.

The appellant also criticises the Council’s handling of the planning application, including the advice given by officers, lack of reference to the fallback position on the decision notice and information presented to the planning committee. [name] accept these matters may be a cause of frustration, even if the committee vote could be said to be marginal, this appeal follows the Council’s formal decision, and I am satisfied that the accompanying documents to the decision notice adequately justify the Council’s reasons for refusal. Nevertheless, these matters have no bearing on my consideration of this appeal, which I have determined on its planning merits.

I appreciate that no harm has been identified in relation to other matters including highway safety and living conditions; however, this weighs neither for, nor against the scheme. Any local support for the development is also a neutral factor which does not alter my conclusions on the main issues.

The application was partly refused on the basis that the appellant failed to provide sufficient information to satisfy the Council that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and [name] site through a Green Infrastructure and [name] and by demonstrating nutrient neutrality. The appeal is accompanied by two legal agreements and a [name] which seek to secure the relevant mitigation measures.

[name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in all other regards it would have been necessary for me to consider whether the measures put forward in the accompanying legal agreements would appropriately mitigate any likely significant effects arising from the development on the integrity of the European Site and undertake an Appropriate Assessment in relation to these matters. However, as I have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider this further. 3 Council Refs. 2025/3434 and 2025/3435

I have found that the appeal scheme would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the site’s accessibility to services and facilities and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the abovementioned policies of the SNLP and GNLP. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and therefore paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. Which in this case means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places.

Considering the harms I have identified in respect of the main issues, the development would be contrary to key policies in the Framework which promote the prioritisation of sustainable transport modes, seek to direct development to sustainable locations and encourage developments that are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Consequently, this attracts substantial weight.

Whilst the PA scheme provides a realistic fallback position, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the proposed development would be more harmful than the fallback position and therefore attracts limited weight in favour of the scheme. The scheme would provide two dwellings, or a net addition of one dwelling when considering the extant PA scheme on the wider land. Either way, as a small-site, it could be built-out reasonably quickly and social and economic benefits would arise during construction and after occupation. There would also be environmental benefits, including through additional planting and [name].

The redevelopment of this site for housing would make an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes which attracts substantial weight in accordance with the Framework. However, considering the scale of the development, any social, economic or environmental benefits associated with the delivery of a net addition of one, or even two dwellings, would be relatively limited, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework and the Council’s housing land supply position.

Therefore, in the specific circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework, when taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR