Appeal 6003618

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the site address from the appeal form as it more accurately describes the location. The appellant has indicated they have no objection to the description of development used by the Council so I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Updated information regarding [name] (BNG) was submitted to the appeal. I have considered whether it would be appropriate to accept this new information, having regard to the guidance in the ‘Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England’, and the tests given in the [name] judgment. The Procedural Guide makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve the scheme and that in most cases the appeal should be determined on the basis of the plans upon which the Council made its decision.

The updated information does not change the proposed development. Final details of BNG are a post-permission matter and so the steps to be taken to secure BNG would not be confirmed until a later stage. Consequently, I consider there would be no prejudice to interested parties were I to take this additional information into account.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the significance of the Conservation Area; and • whether the proposal would achieve biodiversity net gain.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear at paragraphs 207 and 208 that both the applicant and local planning authority, when considering the effect of a proposal on a heritage asset, should consider the effect of development within its setting. The glossary to the Framework confirms that the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.

The character and appearance of the Northwold Conservation Area (CA) is that of a rural, linear village, which the Northwold Conservation Area Draft Character Statement (1992) (CADCS) notes as having a strong sense of unity of architectural character through repeated use of local vernacular materials which has an important setting in its landscape. More specifically, the node at [address], [address], Riverside and [site address] is noted as being very attractive, and that the mature ‘treed’ landscape to the north east provides a definite visual stop to the CA. It also notes the attractive views both in and out of the CA along [address], and that the association of buildings and landscape from both within and outside gives the CA its essential quality. Consequently, the setting of the CA adds to its significance by providing the rural landscape in which the settlement is nestled.

The access to the appeal site is immediately adjacent to the CA, and its northern boundary runs along [site address] . While there is an area of the adjacent sites not within the CA, the site nonetheless forms part of the open rural setting of the CA in views along [site address] . Pertinent to this appeal, its undeveloped appearance and hedgerow lined northern boundary contributes to the rural setting. The appeal site adds to the ability to appreciate the CA and so makes a positive contribution to its significance.

The proposed equestrian use would not be fundamentally in conflict with the rural character of the setting of the CA. In reaching that conclusion I am mindful of the appellant’s evidence that historically there is likely to have been informal use of the land immediately adjacent to the settlement. While equestrian use is likely to lead to related paraphernalia being located within the site, this would be viewed as typical of such use. The proposed stable building would introduce permanent built form where none exists at present. However, due to its limited dimensions, proposed materials and obvious use as a stable, it also would not appear as a form of development that would be inherently harmful to the rural setting of Northwold.

However, the proposal would also result in the installation of a large area of hardstanding. This would be located in close proximity to the northern boundary of the site immediately adjacent to [site address] . It would also be necessary to carry out works to the site access for it to achieve an appropriate standard of access and visibility. This would necessitate the installation of hard standing to the access. Both of these features together would have an urbanising effect on the site. This would be particularly prominent in the views both into and out of the CA which are highlighted in the CADCS as being important in appreciating the significance of the CA, and its relationship to the surrounding rural environment.

I also note that the local highway authority has indicated that a 90m visibility splay would be required, and that nothing should be above 0.6m within this area. The red line plan for the proposal does not precisely indicate the location of the access, nor does the information before me clearly indicate the extent of land which would be included within this splay. However, it is likely that this could result in a substantial reduction in the height of the hedgerow and this may be for a considerable distance. This would further exacerbate the urbanising effects of the hardstanding and vehicle access by increasing their prominence.

The appellant’s heritage statement does refer to the realignment of this hedge, but there is no substantive evidence before me as to how this would take place. Screening is proposed, but to only one side of the proposed stable and hardstanding. No screening is proposed to the northern and eastern sides. I could not be certain that appropriate screening could be provided given the limited distance between the stable and the boundary of the appeal site. Nor am I certain that this would be effective, given the potential for the reduction in the height of the hedge. Consequently, this is not a matter that could be addressed by condition.

I therefore find that the proposed development within the setting of the CA would harm the ability to appreciate the significance of the CA. Paragraph 212 of the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether this would amount to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to significance. Paragraph 213 further advises that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

The harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial and at the lowest end of that range. Nevertheless, this would carry considerable importance and weight. In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework confirms that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There would be economic benefits during the construction and occupation stages of the proposal. There would be an improvement to highway safety from the addition of visibility splays. There would also be the public benefits that would arise from the delivery of biodiversity net gain. However, these benefits would be very limited given the small scale of the development proposed.

As the proposal is for a private use, there would be no public benefits arising from that use or any associated health and wellbeing benefits. There is no evidence before me to indicate it is likely that the field would be ploughed, or to show how the surviving earthworks would be stabilised. Furthermore, I cannot be certain that grazing and tramping of the field by horses would be less harmful than ploughing.

Overall, in giving considerable importance and weight to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the limited public benefits arising from the proposal.

The proposal would therefore harm the significance of the CA. It would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the Framework, and [name] and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (March 2025) Policies LP18, LP20 and LP21 which taken together require development to conserve and enhance the historic environment, including the setting of heritage assets and not harm important views into or out of conservation area.

The decision notice referred to LP Policy LP19 which concerns environmental assets, green infrastructure, landscape character, biodiversity and geodiversity. These considerations did not form part of the first reason for refusal.

The objective of biodiversity net gain (BNG) is for relevant development to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value, relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat. Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Paragraph 13 of the Environment Act 2021) effectively imposes a pre-commencement condition on all relevant grants of permission to secure BNG. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirms that BNG is not just a post-permission matter. There are minimum national information requirements to allow consideration of existing habitat baselines so there is common understanding about the pre-development biodiversity value of the habitat. Notwithstanding, Schedule 7A confirms that the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat is a matter that must be included within the biodiversity gain plan.

At my site visit, it was clear that there was a ditch running along the western boundary of the site, and this is referred to in the heritage statement. I also note the submitted metric shows a failure to meet trading rules and a loss of habitat units. It may also be that assumptions about the loss of hedging may have to be reconsidered to accommodate the necessary visibility splay.

However, the proposal is for a relatively small development within a much larger site. Given the proposal would see the majority of the site remain open, there would be ample opportunity for biodiversity net gain to be achieved on-site. As such, I am satisfied that these are matters that are capable of resolution through the discharge of the standard condition and that the proposal could achieve biodiversity net gain as required by Schedule 7.

As the proposal is for equestrian use, the fact there are agricultural permitted development rights which could involve grazing horses would not represent a realistic fallback to the proposed development. Furthermore, the permitted development rights referred to do not address the areas of concern I have identified related to the hardstanding, access and visibility splay.

Other heritage assets, including the listed building at [address], were referred to by the parties in their evidence. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider any effect of the proposal on its special interest and significance.

The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate the decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.