Appeal 6004877

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the Council issued its decision, it adopted in December 2025 the North Norfolk Local Plan (NNLP). It is incumbent upon me to base my decision upon the most up to date planning policy and this is what I have done. The policies in the NNLP supersede some of those referred to in the Council’s evidence. The parties have had an opportunity to address these changes in policy through their appeal submissions.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the site represents an appropriate location for the proposed development with regard to access to services and the spatial strategy; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • the impact of the proposed development on trees and hedgerows; • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing and future occupiers in respect of privacy; and • whether or not the proposed use would adversely affect the integrity of European designated nature conservation sites with regard to nutrient neutrality.

The site is located outside of the defined settlement boundary for Briston, which is classified as a Large Growth Village, within Policy SS1 of the NNLP and is in the countryside policy area where development will be limited to those types allowed for in Policy SS2. The proposal does not fall to be considered under any of the types listed within Policy SS2.

The site comprises the domestic garden of [site address] , a substantial detached dwelling located on the western approach to Briston, along [site address] which contains a number of residential properties along both sides of the road. As such it is not isolated in the context of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The site is outside of any defined settlement boundary and is therefore in the countryside for planning purposes. The village benefits from a primary school, local shop and post office, church, village hall and public house and has a bus service providing access to the larger towns of Holt, Fakenham and the city of Norwich.

The village can be accessed from the site via [site address] which is a road without footpaths or streetlighting. These conditions would make it unattractive for people to walk, especially for small children going to school. Even if the occupants of the proposed development were to walk along the public rights of way, as suggested by the appellant, the village facilities are approximately 1.5-2.5km away and it would be unlikely many would choose to walk this distance to regularly access these facilities. Whilst the appellant’s evidence indicates that these services are closer to the appeal site (less than 1km) this is disputed by the Council and from my own observations the Council’s distances seem more realistic.

Future occupiers would also have to travel onwards to larger services and facilities within the market town of Fakenham which is approximately 15km away or Holt (7.5km away) on rural roads. I have no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the site is well served by public transport. The nearest bus stop is approximately 1.4km from the site and therefore even if there is a regular bus service I consider that occupiers of the proposed development would be likely to be reliant on the private car to access a full range of community facilities such as shopping, healthcare, leisure and entertainment, given the distance to the nearest bus stop.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not represent sustainable development in respect of its location. Consequently, it would not accord with Policies SS1,SS2 and CC9 of NNLP which, in combination, seek to ensure that development is sustainably located; reduces the need to travel and maximises the use of sustainable forms of transport.

The appeal site comprises a truncated triangular area of garden associated with [site address] . Views of the site are restricted to those looking into the site from the access, nevertheless, where views can be afforded, the site appears part of the domestic surroundings of [site address] , and contributes to the rural character of the sporadic linear development which is evident along [site address] .

Due to the shape of the site, the proposed dwelling would be sited forward of the existing dwelling, closer to [site address] and would extend along the widest part of the site, with a limited rear garden, in comparison to [site address] .

The development would result in an increase in the density of development within the locality, which is generally characterised by dwellings in spacious plots. The position of the proposed dwelling, with limited separation to [site address] leads to a cramped appearance and would not respond positively to the character of the area. Whilst the overall garden size may exceed the Council’s minimum standards, which I have not been referred to but are mentioned by the appellant, this does not lead me to consider the overall effect of the layout in this rural location would result in anything other than a cramped form of development.

This increased density would lead to an urbanising effect which would be both out of character and harmful to the overall appearance of the area. For these reasons, therefore, the proposed development would introduce a discordant built form to the locality that would fail to protect or enhance the character of the countryside.

The appellant has considered the proposal against the core principles of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment but has not submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment as part of their evidence. It has been put to me that there would be a low magnitude of change resulting in a negligible overall effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, the proposal would not result in a low magnitude of change as it would permanently erode the spacious setting which is currently enjoyed by [site address] and fail to reflect the general pattern of development of the wider area. Therefore, I disagree with the appellant’s finding in this regard.

The introduction of development in this location would not be compatible with the layout of surrounding development. Therefore, the proposed development would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The development would conflict with policy ENV2 and ENV8 of the NNLP which together require development to respect and reinforce local character avoiding adverse impacts on landscape character.

The site has a mix of oak trees, cypress trees and hedgerows on site, the subdivision of the garden will bring development closer to these trees. A total of four individual trees and three groups of trees have been assessed in the appellants arboricultural impact assessment (AIA).

In terms of how the retained trees would impact on the future amenity of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling, the AIA sets out that the layout has given ample distance for future growth of trees. Some shade is shown; however, both the dwelling and gardens will receive full sun for large parts of the day. Therefore, the level of shade provided to the garden and dwelling is not considered excessive and therefore pressure to remove trees is considered low.

Having regard to the tree layout plan, which provides evidence of the shade pattern it is evident that areas to the front of the proposed dwelling would experience a degree of shading, however the rear garden would remain unaffected.

Looking at the internal layout at ground level the windows facing the front serve a utility, boot room, entrance hall and office and as such those using these rooms are unlikely to be unduly disadvantaged by any shading from the existing trees, indeed offices often need blinds to prevent glare from windows onto computer screens. The main living room is an open plan kitchen, lounge and dining room with large expanses of glazing on two sides. Therefore, whilst the side elevation may experience a degree of shading from T1, this is likely to be offset by the large glazed full height bifold doors which are located on the rear elevation.

Therefore, the proposal would not result in future pressure for the retained trees to be removed and sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the trees will be adequately protected as part of the proposed development. The proposal therefore complies with policy CC12 of the NNLP, which sets out that harm or loss to any natural landscape feature will not be permitted unless a landscape strategy which would compensate for the loss or harm is secured or where the overrising benefits arising from the development outweighs the harm.

The proposed dwelling has been designed to minimise opportunities for overlooking of the private amenity space of [site address] , utilising rooflights and by locating first floor habitable rooms with rooflights facing [site address] furthest away from the boundary. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the existing occupiers of [site address] .

However, the existing dwelling has a side window affording views over the appeal site and from the evidence provided by the Council, serves a bedroom. This window would provide views over the proposed garden, which is of limited depth. Whilst views of the proposed patio area would be more limited, due to the design of the proposed dwelling, the lack of privacy to the rear garden area would conflict with policy ENV6 of the NNLP. This requires all new development to provide for a high standard of amenity, including the provision of adequate areas of usable and secluded private amenity space.

The appeal site is located within the catchment area for the [name], where it could have an impact on The Broads Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar Site (SAC), due to the impacts of nutrients arising from the proposed development. However, the consideration of any measures, to avoid or reduce the harmful effects upon the SAC, to achieve nutrient neutrality can only be taken into account at the Appropriate Assessment stage of Habitats Regulation Assessment.

Furthermore, the appeal site falls within an area where recreational impact mitigation measures for the [name], [name], Norfolk Valley Fens Sites and The Wash Sites Zones of Influence as described in the Norfolk wide Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] are required. This is to ensure that significant features of the sites are not degraded or lost and internationally important areas for birds, plants and wildlife are protected. Natural England has provided advice regarding the need to ensure that new residential development and any associated recreational disturbance impacts on designated sites are compliant with the Habitats Regulations.

As the competent decision-making authority, if I had been minded to allow the appeal it would have been necessary for me to complete [name] for this scheme. Therefore, whilst the appellant has submitted further information in relation to both of these matters, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not taken these matters further.

The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 together with the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016 provides that authorities must give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet demand in the authority's area, in each base period. It requires local planning authorities to establish and publicise a register of those who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority's area for their own self-build and custom housebuilding. Authorities must have regard to their register when carrying out their planning functions.

Both parties have referred to the scheme as self-build and custom housing (SBCH), with the council accepting that on that basis the scheme would be exempt from mandatory [name] (BNG).

BNG is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) (inserted by the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met.

There are, however, exceptions to this requirement and this is set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). One exemption is where the proposal is for SBCH and consists of no more than 9 dwellings and is carried out on a site which has an area no larger than 0.5 hectares and consists exclusively of dwellings which are SBCH.

I accept that government policy is supportive of self-build housing, with the PPG highlighting that authorities must give permission to enough suitable serviced plots to meet the demand for self-build and custom built housing in the area. The proposed development would contribute to the Councils requirement to make adequate provision for self-build dwellings, in accordance with the provisions of the [name] and Custom Housing Act 2015, albeit I have not been provided with any detailed evidence setting out the Council’s current position in respect of any deficit.

However, if I were to accept the appellant’s case that there is an under delivery as those permissions that have been given are not secured as self-build by any legal obligation, the proposal would result in the delivery of one self-build and custom build home, which would be secured by the submitted legal obligation. Noting the scale of the development, this is a benefit of the proposal which attracts moderate weight.

The appellant has referenced throughout their submission other appeal decisions to justify their evidence. However, limited information has been provided of the detail of these cases and several are in other planning authorities, where policy considerations will be different. Furthermore, the weight to be applied in reaching a decision is a matter of planning judgement for the decision maker and each case will be considered on its own merits and the circumstances will not always be the same in each case.

The Council have set out concerns regarding the validity of the unilateral undertaking, setting out that the definition of “the land” is insufficient and that the mortgagee has not signed the undertaking.

I note the appellant’s rebuttals to these points, however as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons I have not gone back to the parties for further clarification and for the purposes of attributing weight to the [name] have accepted an obligation, either as submitted or amended if necessary, could be provided to secure this.

The Council has advised that they can demonstrate a 5 year land supply and the appellant has not provided any evidence to dispute this. Therefore, there is no requirement to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development as required by the Framework.

The site is of a scale appropriate to the size of the existing settlement and there is no evidence that local infrastructure would be unable to meet the needs of the development. The development would also give rise to some economic benefits during the construction phase and provide support to local services.

In addition, the delivery of self-build and custom build housing from this development will result in social benefits. Therefore, noting the scale of the development proposed, I have attributed moderate weight to the delivery of SBCB housing in this instance, which would contribute to housing supply in the area and the Framework highlights the contribution small and medium sized sites can make to meeting the housing requirement in the area.

The appellant has also set out a number of environmental enhancements within its evidence, which include, an energy efficient dwelling, retention and protection of trees and strengthening of boundary planting. As a number of these enhancements are not dependent on the scheme before me and could be achieved by other means, I have attributed modest weight to these environmental benefits.

However, the collective harm arising from the identified adverse impacts of the development including the location, impact on the character and appearance of the area and the lack of private amenity space for the proposed dwelling, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits outlined above.

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

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.