Appeal 6004000

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two self-build dwellings with associated garages, parking and garden / amenity space on [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/0185, and the plan submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule at the end of this decision.

For conciseness, the description of development in my decision above removes superfluous wording.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal with only the means of access to be considered. All other matters are reserved. Whilst a plan is advanced showing a suggested layout and the external appearance of some built form, it is clearly marked as indicative and I have treated it as such.

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence (ZOI) of a number of sites comprising Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA), Breckland Special Area of Conservation (SAC), [name] and Ramsar, the [name], [name], SPA, Ramsar and the Wash and [name], Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, The Wash SPA, Ramsar and The Wash and [name]. These are designated European habitat sites protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations), which I refer to collectively as ‘the habitat sites’ hereafter.

A completed Planning Obligation has been submitted with this appeal. This is a matter I return to later in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the site is a suitable location for housing having regard to the Council’s development plan and its access to services and facilities; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the development on the integrity of the habitat sites.

The appeal site lies outside of any defined settlement boundary, as identified within the development plan. Policy DM1.3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name], October 2015 (the Local Plan) relates to the location of development and seeks to guide it so as to protect the countryside and promote sustainable patterns of development. Outside of settlement boundaries, in the countryside, it is permissive of development only where either another specific development plan policy allows for development, or it demonstrates overriding benefits in terms of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development as addressed in Local Plan Policy DM1.1.

The appeal is advanced as two self-build dwellings. As such, Policy 7.5 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 (GNLP) applies, which relates to self-build and custom build (SBCB) windfall housing development outside of defined settlement boundaries. Amongst other things, this policy makes provision for the development of small-scale residential development of up to 3 dwellings for people who meet the eligibility criteria for Part 1 of the district’s self-build register, on sites within or adjacent to settlements with a defined settlement boundary, and on sites within or adjacent to other settlements without a defined settlement boundary.

The appellant’s position is that the site lies within a settlement. With no defined settlement boundary, it is for me as the decision maker, to make a judgement as to whether the site lies within or adjacent to one. The appeal site lies amongst a cluster of dwellings in an area known as [name]. This is set away from Welbourne to the north-east, which is where its limited community facilities are located. It is intervened by open countryside, such that the two areas are distinct.

No definition of what is meant by ‘other settlement’ in the GNLP has been provided, nor are settlements defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The ordinary dictionary definition suggests a settlement is a place where people establish a community. A settlement devoid of community facilities does not necessarily mean it cannot benefit from that definition, as is the case for many small settlements. In this case, the appeal site is flanked by residential dwellings and is set amongst a wider cluster of development known as [name], which in my judgement is capable of constituting a settlement. Given the appeal site lies within this area and in the absence of anything to point to the contrary, I find that the appeal gains support from Policy 7.5 of the GNLP, insofar as it lies within an ‘other settlement’ without a development boundary.

To help create sustainable communities, GNLP Policy 2 expects safe and convenient access for all, including by non-car modes, to on-site and local services and facilities such as schools, health care, shops, recreation, leisure, community, faith facilities and libraries. This policy seeks to encourage walking, cycling and public transport. This is bolstered by Local Plan Policy DM 3.10 which requires development to support and promote sustainable transport objectives and be designed to reduce the need to travel to maximise the use of sustainable forms of transport. These policies align with the thrust of the Framework, which highlights that priority should be given first to pedestrian and cycle movements, and second to facilitating access to high quality public transport.

The evidence before me suggests that Welbourne to the north, has limited services comprising a village hall and church. A bus stop offering transport to larger settlements, is said to be around a 25-minute walk from the appeal site.

[name] with its bar, restaurant and coffee lounge is said to lie around 300 metres to the north. Its close distance would likely encourage access on foot, albeit this would make a limited contribution to meeting the day-to-day needs of future occupiers.

South Green Park, its café and [name] and [name] are around 1km away, according to the appellant. It is common ground that the Local Service Centre of Mattishall is around 1.2 miles (1.9km) to the north, and that a number of facilities including a convenience store, public house, doctors surgery, pharmacy, primary school, foot and health clinic, hairdressers and places of worship lie between roughly 1.1 miles (1.7km) and 1.6 miles (2.5km) from the appeal site. Whilst some of these services would be able to help meet future occupiers day-to-day needs, travel further afield is likely to be necessary to fully meet all of them.

The appeal site is not isolated. The distances from the appeal site to the services most important to fulfilling the daily needs of future occupiers are not substantial. However, they are far enough away that it is unlikely future occupiers would regularly choose to walk or cycle to access them. The absence of footpaths and streetlighting would be a deterrent for pedestrians, and the lack of public transport connections within a reasonable walking distance also counts against the scheme. Cycling may be more attractive, as the roads are relatively straight with generally good forward visibility, but this would be less appealing in bad weather, in the dark, and for families with children, given that most of the route is subject to the national speed limit.

Overall, there would be limited opportunities to reach services and facilities by sustainable modes, so the site is not well related to them and travel would be mainly by private car.

Bringing the above together, I have found that the appeal site lies within an ‘other settlement’ drawing support from GNLP Policy 7.5, which is permissive of small-scale SBCB dwellings in such circumstances. This policy aligns with the Framework insofar as it also supports opportunities for small scale SBCB housing and I give it substantial weight.

As Policy DM1.1 relies on defined settlement boundaries as a means of controlling development in the countryside, there is tension between it and the more up to date GNLP Policy 7.5 which is less restrictive. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme broadly complies with Policy DM1.1 given that I have found that the development complies with another specific development plan policy; namely GNLP Policy 7.5. Consequently, having regard to the development plan, I find the site is located in a suitable location.

However, there would be limited opportunities for sustainably accessing the services and facilities necessary for occupiers’ day-to-day needs. Therefore, in respect of its access to services and facilities the site would not be a suitable location. In this regard, I identify conflict with GNLP Policy 2 and Local Plan Policy DM 3.10. The conflict between these two strands of the site’s location is a matter I return to later in my decision.

The area of [name] has not been clearly defined on plan. However, on the western side of the road, in the vicinity of the appeal site, there is a cluster of development, both commercial and residential in use, that stretches from [address] to the north, projecting south to where the road bends westwards after [address]. The appeal site comprises a parcel of land within this cluster. It is flanked by [name], one half of a pair of two-storey semi-detached cottages fronting the road, and [address], a low-lying single storey dwelling set further back from the roadside. Wide grass verges, a typically loose knit development pattern, surrounding rural fields and its country lane setting give it a distinctly rural character.

Although most development in the vicinity fronts the roadside, this is not exclusively so, such that I do not find the street scene to be particularly consistent or strong. There are sizeable buildings set back from the road to varying degrees, including some larger scale commercial buildings behind frontage development, and [name], a two-and-a-half storey dwelling whose sweeping gravelled access would be shared by the proposed dwellings.

Given the surrounding context, the introduction of two new dwellings on the appeal site, whether that be a pair of dwellings fronting the roadside or detached dwellings in tandem, would not go against the prevailing grain or character of the area. This is particularly the case when considering the grain of [address] to the south, which accommodates multiple buildings on a similar plot size to the appeal site.

Whilst a layout is advanced, this is purely indicative, since layout, character, appearance and landscaping are all matters reserved for subsequent consideration. These are best considered at reserved matters stage given that I am satisfied that the site is capable of accommodating two dwellings in principle, without causing harm.

Therefore, I find the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area to be acceptable. It follows that I find no conflict with [name] 2(5), 7.5 or Policy DM3.8 of the Local Plan. In this regard, amongst other things, these policies expect good design as a key to sustainable development and place making, that respect and enhance local character.

Before granting consent for a plan or project, the Habitats Regulations require me, as competent authority, to carry out an Appropriate Assessment where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European habitat site, alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. - Nutrient pollution

Based on the evidence before me, the appeal site is located within the nutrient neutrality catchments of the [name], the [name] and [name], which include Sites of Special Scientific Interest component parts.

The conservation objectives for these are to ensure that the integrity of the sites are maintained or restored as appropriate, and to ensure that the sites contribute to achieving the favourable conservation status of their qualifying features.

All three sites comprise water bodies, including low gradient groundwater dominated by river flowing over chalk, calcium-rich nutrient-poor lakes, lochs and pools, calcium-rich springwater-fed fens, alder woodland on floodplains and low-lying wetland. These accommodate rare habitats and species. Their qualifying features are vulnerable to the effects of development, including through harm to water quality through nutrient pollution.

Natural England advises that all types of overnight accommodation within the area can cause excessive levels of nutrients resulting in eutrophication at these sites leading to sites in an unfavourable conservation condition. In order for an Appropriate Assessment to conclude that there are no likely significant effects on the protected habitat sites, I must be satisfied that the development could achieve nutrient neutrality.

The proposal would result in a net increase in residential accommodation. This would generate additional nutrient loads, such as nitrates and phosphates, within the catchment of the habitat sites. The proposal is supported by a Shadow Habitat Assessment, information on nutrient loads generated by the development, along with mitigation proposals.

On-site mitigation is not possible given its limited scale. Instead, it utilises the phosphate and nitrogen budget calculator which identifies that the purchase of nutrient mitigation credits from the Norfolk Environmental Credit scheme would provide appropriate off-site mitigation. A certificate to show these have been purchased is provided with the appeal. Therefore, I am satisfied that the additional nutrient load imposed on the habitat sites by the development would be effectively mitigated. - Recreational pressure

Given the site falls within the ZOI of multiple habitat sites, proposals relating to a net gain of residential dwellings also have the potential to give rise to likely significant effects on the integrity of these, as a result of increased recreational usage.

The Norfolk Green Infrastructure Recreational [name] sets out that for any development where additional recreational impact is likely to be generated, applicants are required to fund tariff style payments per dwelling towards mitigation measures at designated wildlife sites as part of the Council’s Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] (GIRAMS).

A signed and executed Planning Obligation has been provided to secure the mitigation. This requires a ‘recreational impact avoidance and mitigation contribution’ and a separate ‘green infrastructure contribution’ of a different amount, dependent upon the number of bedrooms that the eventual dwellings would have. Both tariffs would be required to be paid before development can commence which the Obligation secures. The Council has not raised any concerns with the Obligation, and I see no reason to disagree. - Integrity of habitat sites - conclusion

The Habitats Regulations require that permission may only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of European sites. I have found that the proposal secures appropriate mitigation in respect of nutrient pollution and recreational pressure. Natural England have been given the opportunity to make representations on this appeal but have not done so.

Nevertheless, I am satisfied that with mitigation secured, the development would not be likely to have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the habitat sites. No conflict arises with the Habitat Regulations or with the provisions of Local Plan Policy DM4.4 and GNLP Policy 3, which together require that development proposals protect and enhance the biodiversity of the district.

The Council is only able to demonstrate 4.85 years supply of housing land, a shortfall on the necessary five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) required by the Framework. An inability to demonstrate a 5YHLS warrants the application of Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. This relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, mirroring the requirement set out in Local Plan Policy DM1.1.

I have already established that there is no strong reason for refusal with regards to an area or asset of particular importance. Therefore, in this case it 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The scheme would boost housing supply in the district. Further, whilst the level of shortfall has neither been agreed or clearly articulated, the Council accept that it has not been able to demonstrate that it has sufficient SBCB permissions to meet the identified demand as required by the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). I note the Council’s acknowledgement that relatively few permissions of this type have been granted. As two self-build dwellings, it would have a modest but important benefit given the undisputed shortfall of SBCB in [name]. I attach considerable weight to this, as even small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing needs of an area.

Given the site’s position between built form on either side, developing the site for two dwellings would not harmfully encroach into the open countryside and would read visually as an infill development. Furthermore, it would make efficient use of land with an appropriate density to which I attach moderate positive weight.

Subject to securing reserved matters approval, the small-scale development means that it could potentially be built out quickly. It would bring about economic benefits during the construction phase and would help support and enhance the vitality of the rural community, in line with Paragraph 83 of the Framework. I attach modest weight to these factors.

In my judgement, the appeal site is within an ‘other settlement’ and thus accords with GNLP Policy 7.5, the objectives of which is to boost the supply of SBCB homes in areas not supported by other development plan policies. This creates some tension with policies that aim to reduce car travel which has to be balanced. However, in accepting that the site is part of a small settlement, some car travel to reach services and facilities is unavoidable, as in many small settlements.

Furthermore, the preamble to GNLP Policy 7.5 explains that the policy relates to all parishes and that its purpose is to allow for a limited number of additional dwellings in each parish beyond those allocated or allowed for as larger scale windfall sites through other policies in the plan. The evidence indicates that the appeal site forms part of the [name], Coston, Runhall and Welborne parish. This suggests the policy is intended to capture wide geographical areas, and that there is a level of expectation that some of those parishes would be rural as the policy operates as an exception to other more general housing policies. For this reason, I give less weight to the conflict identified with GNLP Policy 2 and Local Plan Policy DM 3.10.

I do not find the site’s position away from services and facilities to be decisive to the outcome of this appeal, particularly in circumstances where the Council’s housing delivery policies have acted to restrict the supply of homes. When considered in the round, the site has some limited options for more sustainable travel, and I recognise that these vary between urban and rural areas in any event.

Drawing the above together, I do not find that the limited harm identified from its location away from services and facilities to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The Council have suggested a number of conditions. I have considered these in relation to the necessary tests, made changes to some and not imposed all those suggested for the reasons set out below.

In addition to the standard time condition (No.1), I have imposed the model condition (No. 2) confirming which matters are reserved, deleting reference to access, as that is approved by this outline permission, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

I am cognisant that the scheme before me does not secure the SBCB dwellings through the submitted Planning Obligation, which I would ordinarily expect to see. However, this Council and a neighbouring authority have published a ‘Custom and Self Build Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD) (August 2025) which sets out1 that if the application is initially submitted in outline, and the end occupier is not known then conditions will be applied to the grant of outline permission and detailed information about the end occupier will need to be presented at the reserved matters stage so that eligibility for Part 1 of the register can be checked.

The appeal before me reflects this scenario, and the Council have a clear published means of securing SBCB, with evidence indicating that the Council’s suggested condition is routinely used on similar outline applications where the SPD applies. This requires details to be submitted alongside a reserved matters application. Such details include information on how the eligibility criteria as required by GNLP Policy 7.5 will be met, how person(s) commissioning the builds have imputed into the primary design, who would construct the builds, and measures to be submitted following completion to evidence they were constructed and first occupied as SBCB dwellings.

Each element of requested detail within the condition is objectively assessable, providing effective control, including the ability for the Council to refuse Reserved Matters approval should insufficient information be forthcoming. This would ensure the condition is enforceable in practice rather than through intent.

For these reasons, in this particular instance, I am satisfied that a condition, (No. 3), is appropriate and meets the tests of the Framework. It negates the need for the minimum biodiversity net gain information and is capable of securing the dwellings as genuine SBCB dwellings as permitted under GNLP Policy 7.5.

To protect the environment from potential adverse effects from surface water run-off, a condition (No. 4) is necessary to require a suitable scheme for surface water disposal to be agreed and then implemented on site. For the same reason, and that of human health, a condition (No. 5) is necessary to appropriately deal with potential for land contamination. I have imposed the model condition given the small scale of the site.

Tree protection measures need to be in place prior to commencement, such that I have amended the Council’s suggested condition (No. 6) to require this in order to afford trees adequate protection during the construction period.

To protect the rural character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbours and nocturnal wildlife, a condition (No. 7) to require the design of external lighting to have regard to lighting impacts, is necessary.

In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that the access and associated parking and turning areas are provided in a timely manner, a condition (No. 8) is necessary.

For the avoidance of doubt, a condition (No. 9) clarifies the approved plan, removing reference to indicative plans that do not form part of this permission. 1 At paragraph 5.9

To ensure the development is constructed to an appropriate standard and to ensure that the nutrient mitigation is adequate for the lifetime of the development to protect the habitat sites, a condition (No. 10) is imposed.

Whilst the Council suggests a condition relating to external facing materials is included, as this is related to appearance, it should reasonably be left to reserved matters stage, such that I have not imposed it.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be allowed.

Application for approval of all "reserved matters" must be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiry of three years from the date of this decision. The development hereby permitted must be begun in accordance with the "reserved matters" as approved not later than the expiration of two years from either, the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such reserved matter to be approved.

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale "the reserved matters", shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Applications for the approval of "reserved matters" shall include the following and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: - Full details of the person commissioning/constructing the self-build/custom build dwellings and how they each meet the eligibility for Part 1 of the self build/custom build register; - Full details of how they have had a primary input into the final design and layout of each self build/custom build dwelling; - Details of who will construct the dwellings and how this meets the requirements to qualify as self-build/custom build dwellings; and - The measures that will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority following completion of the dwellings to evidence that they were constructed and first occupied as self build/custom build dwellings. Thereafter, the dwellings shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No development other than the works required for the laying of foundations shall begin until full details of the means of surface water drainage, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The details should include the results from percolation tests if appropriate and incorporate installation of water efficiency and water saving devices such as rain saver systems. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details prior to the first occupation and shall be retained as such thereafter.

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and ii) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until the tree protection measures outlined in the [name] by [name] and Woodlands Consultancy Limited, dated 4 December 2024, have been installed on site. Thereafter the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the [name].

Prior to the installation of external lighting, full details including height, design, location, intensity, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the proposed accesses and on-site parking and turning areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved plan and thereafter retained for that specific use.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing number 074-24-01 (Site & Location Plan).

The development hereby approved shall be designed and built to achieve a water consumption rate of no more than 110 litres per person per day. All required water conservation measures installed to achieve this rate shall be retained to ensure the required water consumption rate is not exceeded for the lifetime of the development. End of condition schedule