Appeal 6003774

The appeal is dismissed.

The North Norfolk Local Plan (December 2025) (the LP) was adopted by the Council after determination of the planning application. However, it was adopted prior to the submission of the appeal, and the appellant has therefore had the opportunity to comment on the change to the development plan. The LP replaces the [name] (2008).

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposed development regarding the spatial strategy and accessibility; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

LP Policy SS1 sets out the overarching spatial strategy for the district and confirms that most new development will be directed towards the larger towns and villages. The nearest settlement to the appeal site is Aldborough, which is identified as a Small Growth Village (SGV) where a small amount of development will be focused in and adjacent to it. The policy provides flexibility by confirming that residential development will be permitted outside of the SGV boundaries that also satisfies criteria a. to f. of point 3, which includes the requirement at point a. that sites are immediately adjacent to the defined settlement boundary.

LP Policy SS2 sets out the types of development that could be acceptable in the Countryside Policy Area and is like Policy SS1 in that point j. considers small-scale residential development to be acceptable where it would be adjacent to the settlement boundaries of SGVs.

Regarding accessibility, LP Policy CC9 requires development to be well located and designed to minimise the need to travel and maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its location.

The appeal site is located within a small cluster of dwellings, collectively known as [site address] , that is physically separated from Aldborough by, amongst other things, agricultural fields. Thus, it is not adjacent to the settlement boundary. The scheme is therefore contrary to criteria a. of LP Policy SS1 and given that it fails against the first criteria, it is not necessary to consider the other five. For the same reason, it also conflicts with LP Policy SS2.

It is acknowledged that the appeal site is not in an isolated position being adjacent to existing built development and that rural locations do not necessarily have the same level of accessibility as urban environments. However, the proposal would be a substantial distance (approximately 1,280m) from Aldborough and the services, facilities and public transport network that the settlement provides. Furthermore, should future residents wish to walk to the village, they would have to negotiate [address], [address] and [address]. All are narrow and winding country lanes that in the most part can only accommodate the width of a single vehicle, do not have dedicated footpaths adjacent to them and are unlit. The route, due to its distance and conditions, is unlikely to be attractive, safe or convenient for pedestrians to use, either by foot or bicycle, which would result in residents relying heavily on use of their private cars. The appellant has identified [name] shop as an additional nearby location to access regular bus services to Aylsham and Norwich via other large settlements. However, the shop’s specific location has not been identified.

Notwithstanding, the local primary school is located outside of Aldborough and only a relatively short walk from [site address] along [address] and [address]. However, this is an isolated service and its proximity to the appeal site does not override the concerns raised regarding access to Aldborough, where most of the local services and facilities are concentrated that could meet the day-to-day needs of residents, such as the local shop, doctor’s surgery and post office.

For the above reasons, the appeal site does not provide a suitable location for the proposed development regarding the spatial strategy and accessibility. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with [name] SS1, SS2 and CC9.

The appeal site has been separated from [address] and is largely undeveloped, except for an area of hardstanding and several small outbuildings and structures, which are largely set against the backdrop of the adjacent dwelling at Woolstoncroft. A large portion of the site is grassed with some ornamental planting and mature hedge and tree boundaries that collectively provide a soft landscaped intermediary between the dwellings within [site address] and the more open countryside beyond. Thus, it contributes positively to its largely rural surroundings.

A public footpath (PF3) runs from the entrance lane and along two of the site’s boundaries before crossing open agricultural land. Users of the part of the footpath adjacent to the appeal site currently experience tranquil and verdant surroundings. Due to being set back, only glimpses of the dwellings within [site address] can be observed from the footpath at a distance in both directions between elements of mature vegetation.

Although the site is relatively contained by mature vegetative boundaries and is therefore distinguishable from the open countryside beyond, it contributes positively to its verdant and rural surroundings. Despite the proposed dwelling being single storey and the scheme including enhanced landscaping and the use of predominantly natural building materials, it would introduce a significant amount of built form to a plot of land that is largely devoid of substantial structures. In addition, its proximity to the appeal site’s boundary would render it highly conspicuous when viewed from PF3 through the bordering vegetation, to the detriment of what is currently a quiet and undeveloped route for walkers. Furthermore, the proposal would introduce an alien feature, diminishing the site’s overall contribution as a buffer between existing built development and the more open countryside beyond.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, contrary to LP Policy ENV8. This policy, amongst other things, requires all development proposals to achieve an integrated design approach that reflects the characteristics of the site and respects distinctive local character.

The appellant has presented a fallback position that relates to the retention of Building A referred to in the planning enforcement appeal decisions1. Whilst it is a realistic prospect that the building would be retained, it is much smaller than the proposed dwelling, is located closer to the built form of Woolstoncroft and is therefore largely set within its immediate context, and the enforcement appeal decisions confirm that its use for residential purposes is required to cease. For these reasons, the proposed dwelling would be significantly more harmful than the retention of Building A and therefore no weight is attributed to the fallback position.

A recent appeal decision2 concluded that the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS). However, I am not convinced that the Inspector in that case had sight of the Council’s latest [name] of [name] assessment (September 2025) (the 5YHLS assessment) prior to issuing their

The 5YHLS assessment concludes that the Council can demonstrate a healthy 7.3- year supply of deliverable housing sites. It is acknowledged that nutrient neutrality (NN) is a constraint to development in parts of the authority area, which the 5YHLS assessment recognises and confirms that around 1,400 dwellings within impacted catchments remain on hold until NN mitigation is made available to them. It also confirms that various measures are being put in place to increase the pace of housing delivery in this respect, and that the housing trajectory underpinning the 5YHLS takes account of NN as a delivery constraint. Whilst the 5YHLS assessment does not provide NN mitigation detail for specific sites, there is no substantive evidence before me to verify that sites have been included within the assessment that would not be deliverable within the required timescales. The Council’s position on this matter is therefore more favourable. In addition, the recent adoption of the 1 [name]/Y2620/C/23/3323756 and APP/Y2620/C/23/3323757, dated 10 July 2025. 2 [name]/Y2620/W/25/3358956, dated 3 October 2025. Council’s LP, which has been through examination, provides a degree of certainty that the Council can demonstrate a 5YHLS.

The appellant has also directed me to the Edgefield appeal decision3. Whilst the Inspector in that case does refer to the Council’s 5YHLS position, they do not make a definitive conclusion on the matter, do not engage Paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and there is no mention of an associated NN 5YHLS delivery issue. Its findings do not therefore show that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS.

Nevertheless, whilst Paragraph 11 d) is not engaged in this instance, it is accepted that the proposal would contribute to housing supply and would likely be delivered quickly. However, this benefit is afforded limited weight given that the proposal would only bring forward a single dwelling.

The scheme is for self-build and/or custom-build (SBCB) housing, which the submitted [name] (UU), dated 16 September 2025, seeks to secure. The Council has provided very little detail to substantiate claim that the UU does not include an appropriate mechanism for monitoring and enforcement, and I am therefore content that it is fit for purpose.

The Inspector in the Edgefield appeal case concluded that there was a significant shortfall in SBCB housing, which is of serious concern given the Council’s statutory duty. The Council claims that it has undertaken a review of associated monitoring processes since and asserts that 93 ineligible historic registrations have been removed that relate to base periods prior to the Council’s eligibility test being brought into practice in 2017. If this was the case, it would have the potential to reduce the number of register entries to below the number of plots granted approval. However, there is no substantive evidence, such as a report or schedule, to support the Council’s claim in this regard. In the absence of firm evidence, the findings of the Inspector in the Edgefield appeal case are more compelling.

That said, the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate that they are listed on the Council’s SBCB housing plot register. Therefore, the provision of a SBCB house in this instance would not result in a reduction in the deficit that the Council finds themselves in. In this regard, only moderate weight is attributed to the provision of a single SBCB house as a benefit.

The Framework encourages the use of previously developed land where suitable opportunities exist. However, harm has been identified regarding the location of the appeal site and the effect on character and appearance, which significantly outweigh the use of PDL in this instance, particularly given that only a small area contains built development. Furthermore, demolition of the existing garage is required by the enforcement appeal decisions and should therefore take place regardless of the outcome of this appeal. Its removal is not therefore a benefit of this scheme.

The appellant asserts that the proposal would include the use of renewable energy technologies and low carbon methods of construction, provide biodiversity improvements, be founded on whole life carbon principles, and contribute towards the Council’s Net Zero 2045 objectives, which are supported by the Council. However, there is no specific detail or assessment to provide an indication of the 3 [name]/Y2620/W/25/3368039 dated 16 December 2025. magnitude of these benefits and given that the proposal is only for a single dwelling, limited weight is attributed accordingly.

Whilst there would be an absence of harm to existing trees, ecology, highway safety and residential amenity, these are neutral matters in the planning balance.

There are some similarities between this appeal and the [name] appeal4. However, in that case, South Norfolk District Council took a precautionary approach based on NN constraints and accepted that it could not demonstrate a 5YHLS. Unlike this appeal, it was determined against the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the planning balance at 11 d) ii) of the Framework. The policy considerations were therefore fundamentally different to this one and consequently the outcome of that case does not alter the planning balance and conclusion in this appeal.

The appeal site is within the zones of influence of several habitats sites. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed, there is no need to undertake an appropriate assessment or to have regard to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. Similarly, it is noted that there is dispute between the main parties regarding NN mitigation. Nevertheless, there is no need to consider this matter further given that the appeal cannot succeed.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.