Appeal 6003441

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is accompanied by a revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated December 2025, submitted to address the Council’s second reason for refusal. ‘The Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England’ makes clear that the planning appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. The revisions that stem from the revised FRA, including the raising of levels within the site, are potentially significant, with ramifications that could have wider impacts. Third parties may not fully appreciate these, and thus my acceptance of it could result in procedural unfairness. For these reasons I do not accept the revised FRA. Even if I had, it would not have altered my overall findings.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to trees; • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing, having regard to the existing use and the spatial strategy set out in the development plan; and • the effect of the proposal on flood risk and water quality.

The appeal site comprises the end plot in a line of residential ribbon development fronting the western side of [address], on its corner with the elevated A1122 road just outside of [site address] . Mature trees and vegetation form the roadside boundaries, and the remains of a built structure lie within the site, set well away from [address]. Land levels within the site are considerably lower than both adjacent roads. On the opposite side of [address] is an elevated, tree lined embankment that intervenes the highway and adjacent river.

Dwellings along [address] comprise a mix of single and two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. These all enjoy generous set back distances from the road, behind grass verges with some benefiting from established frontage trees and a strong belt of mature trees at their rears. These features combine to give the area a rural, spacious and verdant character and appearance.

The proposed pair of dwellings would be two storeys in scale, located further forward than remnants of the existing structure but still set back from [address], at a similar distance to the boundary trees as the existing structure.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) indicates the majority of trees to be removed are located alongside the proposed dwellings, on the northern boundary adjacent to the A1122. Eight trees are said to be unsuitable for retention if development occurs due to their poor condition and failure risk, of which the majority sit atop of the roadside embankment or retaining wall. It has not been shown that these would be removed irrespective of the development, thus the impacts would arise as a result of it.

A smaller number of [name] trees would be removed to facilitate the new building itself. These are described as ‘low quality trees with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or trees with a stem diameter below 15cm; unremarkable trees of very limited merit or of such impaired condition that they do not qualify in higher categories.’

None of the trees enjoy protection and it has not been suggested that they would score sufficiently highly to be protected, which the AIA supports. Notwithstanding that individual specimens lack merit, collectively as a group they do contribute positively to the rural and verdant character and appearance of the area.

Trees to the northeast corner of the site would be retained. Consequently, the appeal site would be well screened from the eastern approach. Trees outside of the appeal site to the west would also be retained such that the site would benefit from tree coverage when viewed by receptors travelling from the west along the A1122.

However, the removal of trees directly alongside the dwellings that would stand considerably higher than the existing structure, would open the site up to views at close range from the road. This built form in such proximity to the road would be in stark contrast to its perceived largely undeveloped nature and landscaped surroundings, and would provide striking glimpses into the appeal site, despite its lower land levels. This would appear incongruous for this rural context.

Moreover, no replacement tree planting is proposed to compensate or mitigate for their loss. [name] have considered if a condition could achieve this, given the site constraints which include a steep embankment and retaining wall, I cannot be certain whether it would be possible to achieve a successful replanting scheme to mitigate against the harmful erosion of the verdant and rural character of the area.

Therefore, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the prevailing character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to trees. It follows that in this regard, the proposal conflicts with Policies LP02, LP04, LP18 and LP21 of the [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) (LP) insofar as it does not constitute sustainable development that responds to context, respects or enhances the character of the area or the natural environment. It is also contrary to LP Policy LP19 which requires development to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impacts.

The remains of a brick structure are evident on site. Described as derelict on the application form, it has no roof structure and where there are walls remaining, they are incomplete. Vegetation, including a semi-mature Sycamore tree, is growing through and within the structure. It is common ground that its last use was as a dwelling. However, the Council assert that its records suggest it has not been occupied for a period of at least 32 years, a matter the appellant has not disputed.

There is no evidence of any intervening uses, or any planning permissions having been sought or granted for any other use or planning unit. The intensions of the owners have not been clearly set out, but there is no evidence to suggest the use was only temporarily paused. Rather, the poor physical condition of the structure, the presence of the tree and the very considerable passage of time since its last use, leads me to find that the residential use has indeed been abandoned. Therefore, whilst the appellant invites me to consider the scheme, in part, as a replacement residential use, given my findings, there is no dwelling to replace, and I must consider the proposal as if it has a nil use.

The Council’s spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy are set out in LP Policy LP01. This identifies 6 tiers for sustainable growth, with the sub-regional centre of [name] at the top in Tier 1, descending down to Tier 6 which comprises smaller villages and hamlets. [site address] is identified as being within Tier 2 of Policy LP01, where as a ‘main town’, together with two other settlements, they are expected to accommodate 14% of housing growth over the plan period.

Lying south of the A1122 road and west of the river, the appeal site is located outside of the defined settlement boundary of [site address] . The Council assert the distance is around 125m to the settlement edge, which is not disputed by the appellant.

[name] 1 to 4 settlements, which includes [site address] in Tier 2, LP Policy LP02 is permissive of new residential development outside of, but adjoining development boundaries, as defined on the [name]. This is subject to being in accordance with other policies of the LP and meeting the criteria listed under Part 1 of the policy as well as five defined criteria set out in its Part 2. However, as the nearest part of the settlement boundary is across the river and over [name], it does not adjoin it, bringing the scheme into conflict with Policy LP02. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider the scheme against the aforementioned criteria, as to do so would not alter the outcome of my decision.

The appellant infers that the proposal gains support from LP Policy LP03. I have not been provided with a copy of this, albeit the evidence before me suggests it relates to housing growth in respect of [name]. Given there is no made Neighbourhood Plan for this area, I find that this policy has no bearing on this appeal.

To conclude on this matter, I find that the appeal site now has a nil use and it is not a suitable location for housing having regard to the development plan, contrary to the spatial strategy of LP Policy LP01, and Policy LP02, which sets out how the Council will deal with residential development on windfall sites.

The appeal site lies within [name] 3a, which is at high risk of flooding. However, it is common ground there are no reasonably available sites for housing at lower flood risk within the Council’s administrative boundary. As such, the sequential test is deemed as passed.

In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Table 2 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), as the site constitutes a ‘more vulnerable’ flood risk use, the exception test should be applied. In this context, the application of the exception test, as set out at Paragraph 178 of the Framework, should be informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment, and to pass it should be demonstrated that (a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and (b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall. - Exception test part (a) sustainability benefits

The PPG sets out that local authorities need to set their own criteria for this assessment, having regard to the objectives of their Plan’s Sustainability Appraisal framework and provide advice which will enable applicants to provide relevant and proportionate evidence. No criteria has been provided, although it is stated that the Council can demonstrate more than the necessary 5 years supply of housing land. However, other wider sustainability benefits to the community are cited as examples in the PPG, including the reuse of suitable brownfield land. The appellant advances that the development would return a disused site into a habitable one, significantly improving the site and local character by removing an eyesore and an unsafe building.

[name] agree that the removal of the building remnants could improve the site’s appearance, owing to existing screening it is not particularly prominent and for the reasons I have already set out, the removal of trees along the site boundary would cause visual and character harm that weigh against these benefits. Overall, I am not satisfied that when taken as a whole, the proposal would provide wider sustainability benefits that outweigh flood risk, particularly as Paragraph 136 of the Framework is clear that trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments and can also help mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Given that part (a) of the exception test is not passed, it is not necessary for me to consider part (b) as the Framework is clear that both parts should be satisfied for development to be permitted. - Water quality

The River Great Ouse lies to the south, an environmentally sensitive receptor. The inappropriate use of non mains foul drainage can pose serious risk to the environment and public health.

Accordingly, sufficient information is necessary to enable decision makers to understand the potential implications for the water environment. The means of foul drainage disposal was not specified at application stage though is now indicated to be via a domestic sewage treatment plant.

Paragraph 187 of the Framework expects proposals to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution.

Based on the limited evidence before me and taking a precautionary approach, I am not satisfied that the proposal demonstrates compliance with the foul drainage hierarchy, nor show that there is a reasonable likelihood that any necessary environmental permit can be successfully obtained and, moreover, that it would not have an adverse effect on the water environment. Any such harm would need to be adequately mitigated, and therefore it would not be appropriate to deal with this matter by planning condition. - Conclusions on flood risk and water quality

Bringing the above together, I am not satisfied that the effect of the proposal on flood risk and water quality is acceptable. This brings the scheme into conflict with [name] LP06, LP18, and LP25. Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that risks from flooding and pollution are minimised and mitigated including from foul water treatment. It also runs counter to the Framework, for the reasons I have already outlined.

The evidence before me indicates the appeal site is within the zone of influence of one or more European designated habitat site(s). [name] been minded to allow the appeal, it would have been necessary for me to further consider this in more detail. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, there is no need for me to consider the matter further, as to do so would not alter the overall outcome.

Despite the abandoned use, I am satisfied that the site can still be considered as previously developed land having regard to the definition set out in the Framework. It has also been put to me that the appeal would boost housing supply, offer a high standard of sustainable design and make efficient use of land. These are all matters that attract considerable positive weight in favour of the appeal.

However, the loss of trees would cause harm to the character and appearance of the rural area with no guarantee that this harm could be adequately mitigated. Furthermore, despite the site not being isolated or being far in distance from a sustainable settlement, there remains tension with the spatial strategy given the site is located outside of the development boundary. Furthermore, the site lies in a high risk flood zone, and to introduce a more vulnerable flood use into the area without wider sustainability benefits, renders the Framework’s exception test failed. The lack of information on foul drainage also fails to demonstrate water quality would be preserved. Collectively, I attribute the totality of these harms significant weight.

In my judgement the harms clearly outweigh the benefits and the proposal would be in conflict with the development plan as a whole. 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 I have set out the appeal should be dismissed.