Appeal 6003515

The appeal is dismissed.

My attention has been drawn to a previously dismissed appeal at the site1. Whilst there are similarities between the proposal the main issues do differ. I have determined the appeal based on the evidence before me.

The appellant’s appeal submission includes an amended red-line boundary site location plan2 to include the parking for the existing dwelling. The Procedural Guide for Planning Appeals is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered is essentially what was considered by the Council, and on which interested people’s views were sought. The description of development does not include reference to replacement parking and having regard to the principles established by the Courts in [name] Ltd3 to consider such a modification would be a substantive difference and procedurally could prejudice interested parties by depriving those who should have been consulted on the change the opportunity of such consultation. For this reason, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that were before the Council when it made its decision.

The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposed parking provision on highway safety; ii) the effect of the proposed development on the integrity of protected European sites, with particular regard to recreational pressure and nutrient neutrality; and 1 APP/K2610/W/24/3356911 issued 20 May 2025 [site address] [name] 24052/A4/100 3 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWCH 2823 (Admin) iii) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies within a cul-de-sac in an established residential area. The proposal would provide parking for the proposed dwelling; however, it would result in the loss of parking associated with the existing property, No [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ). The submitted plans indicate replacement parking for No [site address] on its frontage, which is currently laid to grass with a pedestrian path. However, this area is not included within the red line application site boundary. Although it is indicated to be within the appellant’s ownership, the required parking cannot be secured by planning condition. Consequently, the proposed development would result in a shortfall of off-street parking spaces.

Although traffic movements associated with a single dwelling would likely be limited [site address] is a narrow road and I am not satisfied that on-street parking would not be prejudicial to highway safety.

For the reasons stated above, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. As such, I find conflict with Policies TS3 and TS4 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024) (LP) and policy HOU5 of the Blofield Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2016) (NP) insofar as they require developments to provide an appropriate access and vehicle parking provision.

Policy 3 of the LP and policy EN1 of the Broadland District Council Development Management DPD (2015) (the DPD) seek to mitigate recreational impacts on Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA). This site falls within the Zones of Influence of such areas. The policy further requires that all residential development addresses the potential visitor pressure generated by future occupants of developments which could detrimentally affect sites protected under the Habitats Regulations. The mitigation is to be secured through a financial contribution towards the cost of mitigation measures at the [name].

Policy EN1 of the DPD also seeks to protect and enhance the district’s biodiversity, while Policy EN4 of the same plan seeks to protect amenity, human health and the natural environment from pollution.

With regard to recreational pressure, there is no dispute between the parties that the proposal lies within the area of influence of one or more [name].

In determining this appeal, the Habitats Regulations require the Competent Authority to consider whether the proposal could adversely affect the integrity of a protected site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects within the context of an Appropriate Assessment (AA). For the purposes of this appeal, that responsibility rests with me.

The Council has adopted the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] (GIRAMS), formulated in consultation with Natural England (NE). The associated [name] tariff requires a contribution for each new dwelling to address recreational harm arising from an increase in the local population.

As part of the appeal submission the appellant has provided a unilateral undertaking (UU) intended to secure a financial contribution towards GIRAMS. The document is not dated, and although it specified that the date is to be inserted by Broadland Council, a UU is, by definition, a one-sided obligation to be completed by the appellant without Council involvement.

In the absence of a fully executed UU, I am unable to conclude that the required mitigation would be secured and therefore cannot be satisfied that no harm would result. As a consequence, I am unable to complete the AA favourably in respect of mitigating recreational pressure.

The appeal site is located within the nutrient neutrality catchment of a river that forms part of the [name]. The conservation objectives for the [name] are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored, as appropriate, and that it continues achieving the favourable conservation status of its qualifying features.

The SAC’s qualifying features include habitats, such as calcium-rich nutrient-poor lakes, naturally nutrient-rich lakes or lochs and pools often dominated by pondweed; purple moor-grass meadows; very wet mires characterised by unstable surface; calcium-rich fens dominated by great fen sedge and alder woodland on floodplains. Qualifying species include Desmoulin’s whorl snail, otter, fen orchid, and little whirlpool ram's-horn snail. These features are vulnerable to the effects of development, particularly through harm to water quality resulting from nutrient pollution.

The proposal would result in a net increase in residential accommodation which would generate additional nutrient loads, such as nitrates and phosphates, within the catchment of the [name]. The proposal is supported by a nutrient budget calculator and as part of the appeal submission the appellant has submitted a signed credit agreement. However, it is undated at the top of the document. Furthermore, the intended nutrient mitigation provider is Greenshank, Park Lane Wood scheme and the Council asserts that this scheme is not yet fully delivered or operational and is therefore not suitable mitigation for nutrient neutrality. Accordingly, given these shortcomings this document does not secure appropriate mitigation.

For the reasons stated, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of [name] sites, namely the [name]. This brings the proposal into conflict with the requirements of Policy 3 of the LP and Policies Policy EN1 and EN4 of the DPD, as well as the nature conservation requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Habitats Regulations. However, even if the UU to secure GIRAMS were amended this would not overcome the other harms I have identified in the main issues.

The appeal site comprises a triangular parcel of land forming part of the side garden to No [site address] , enclosed by a hedge. It also includes a single garage and hardstanding that currently serve the existing property.

[site address] is characterised by single-storey dwellings generally set back from the road. Landscaping to the front of dwellings contributes positively to the verdant character and appearance of the locality. I observed there to be some variation within the streetscene in terms of the positioning of dwellings relative to their neighbouring property and the siting of ancillary buildings, including garages.

The proposal would be broadly reflective of the scale and design of dwellings within the immediate vicinity. It would be positioned within the plot on a similar alignment to No [site address] . Although the dwelling would be located close to the neighbouring garage, this would not result in unacceptable harm to the overall character and appearance of the streetscene, particularly given the corner position of the site.

For the reasons set out above, I do not find the proposal would be materially harmful with respect to character and appearance. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy [site address] of the LP, Policy HOU4 of the NP and Policy GC4 of the DPD, insofar as these policies require development to achieve a high standard of design and respect the character of the local area.

Due to issues associated with achieving nutrient neutrality, the Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, resulting in a shortfall in housing land, contrary to the Government’s expectations.

The provision of a single dwelling would make a small contribution to address this shortfall in an area where there is unmet demand for housing. Furthermore, the proposal has been advanced as a self-build dwelling and this type of development is supported by the Framework.

The proposal would provide modest social and economic benefits from the construction of the development and increase in local population. The Framework supports the development of windfall sites, noting that small and medium sites are often built-out relatively quickly.

These matters weigh in favour of the proposal, but, due to the scale of the development, and notwithstanding the unmet housing need, carry only moderate weight in my deliberations.

[name] have not found harm in respect of character and appearance, I have found that the proposal would harm habitats sites. This would be contrary to the aims of those parts of the Framework that seek to conserve and enhance the natural environment and this harm provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11d) of the Framework does not, in this case, apply.

Pursuant to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and, in this case, the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.