Appeal 6004960

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of accuracy, I have utilised the address adopted by the Council on its decision notice and that on the appeal form.

An additional plan1 showing the proposed street scene has been submitted with this appeal which was not before the Council when it made its decision. This is a supporting document that does not amend the scheme. My acceptance of it would not prejudice any party, as they have had the opportunity of commenting on it as part of the appeal. Therefore, I proceed on that basis.

The evidence indicates that the appeal site lies within the catchment area and zone of influence (ZOI) of a number of designated [name] sites, including The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC), The Broads, [name] and [name] and the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC. These sites are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations), which I refer to collectively as ‘the habitat sites’ hereafter.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the integrity of European habitat sites, with regards to nutrient pollution and recreational pressure; • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of light, and [address] and the proposed dwelling having regard to the provision of outdoor space. 1 Drawing no. 25-361 125

Before granting consent for a plan or project, the Habitats Regulations requires 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.

The evidence before me indicates the appeal site is located within the nutrient neutrality catchment of the [name], a component part of The Broads SAC. The conservation objectives for this site are to ensure that its integrity is maintained or restored as appropriate, and to ensure that it contributes to achieving the favourable conservation status of its qualifying features.

The qualifying features include habitats, such as calcium-rich nutrient-poor lakes, lochs and pools; naturally nutrient-rich lakes or lochs which are often dominated by pondweed; purple moor-grass meadows; very wet mires often identified by an unstable surface; calcium-rich fen dominated by great fen sedge; calcium-rich springwater-fed fens; alder woodland on floodplains; and species such as Desmoulin’s whorl snail, otter, fen orchid, and little whorlpool ram's-horn snail. These 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 European sites in an unfavourable conservation status, including the aforementioned SAC. In order for an Appropriate Assessment to conclude that there are no likely significant effects on the protected site, I must be satisfied that the development could achieve nutrient neutrality.

The proposal results in a net increase in residential accommodation which would generate additional nutrient loads, such as nitrates and phosphates, within the catchment of the SAC. The proposal is supported by a [name]. This sets out that 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 one nutrient mitigation credit from the Norfolk Environmental Credit would provide appropriate off-site mitigation.

Even if Natural England were to confirm that this is appropriate to mitigate the likely significant effects, the appellant makes clear that they intend to purchase this only once consent is forthcoming. However, mitigation must be secured before the granting of planning permission. Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the additional nutrient load imposed on The Broads SAC by the development would be effectively mitigated, or that the development could be made acceptable through the use of a condition and no Planning Obligation is before me. Without that assurance, I find that the proposal would have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SAC. - Recreational pressure

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

The Norfolk Recreational Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Action Plan 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).

It is common ground that mitigation is necessary in the form of a financial tariff, albeit no Planning Obligation has been submitted to secure this. The appellant is clear that they intend to pay the tariff once permission is granted. However, measures to mitigate the likely significant impacts must be secured before the granting of planning permission. In light of this, I cannot conclude that the adverse recreational impacts of the proposal would be addressed.

The Habitats Regulations require that planning permission may only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of the habitat sites. I have found that the proposal does not secure appropriate mitigation in respect of nutrient pollution or recreational pressure.

Consequently, the proposal would have likely significant adverse effects on the integrity of the habitat sites. Conflict therefore arises with the Habitat Regulations and with the provisions of Policy EN1 of the Broadland Local Plan Development Management DPD (2015) (BLP) and Policy 3 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 (GNLP), which together require that development proposals protect and enhance the biodiversity of the district.

Enclosed by fencing on three sides, the appeal site comprises a vacant parcel of former garden land that lies between No. [address] (No. 67) a large one-and-a-half storey dwelling, and [address] (No. 60) a dormer bungalow. It is located in a predominantly residential area where there is a variety of dwelling types and designs. Properties typically enjoy similar set back distances from the roadside. Plots sizes are relatively uniformed in terms of width and tend to have reasonably generous sized rear gardens. These factors combine to exude a suburban character and appearance.

The proposed bungalow would have a similar set back distance from the road as other dwellings fronting [address]. Like the adjacent dwellings, its width would occupy much of the plot but on a more modest footprint. The spacing between it and its neighbours would allow for external rear access and is more generous than the spacing between No’s 58 and 60.

Likewise, there would be sufficient distance between it and the main body of No. 67 to avoid it appearing cramped in the street-scene. Whilst the plot depth differs from its surrounding plots, this would not be obviously appreciated from the public realm. Consequently, I do not find the development would appear unduly incongruous with the surrounding character and appearance of the area. Whilst the dwelling is more modest in height than its neighbours, its hipped roof form is a common feature in the area, and it would not be unduly harmful in this context.

Overall, I find that the dwelling would make efficient use of vacant land and would have an acceptable effect on the prevailing character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it meets the provisions of GNLP Policy 2, BLP Policy GC4 and Policy 2 of Sprowston Neighbourhood Plan (made 2014). Amongst other things, these policies seek to achieve good design with adequate regard paid to the character and appearance of the area, reinforcing local distinctiveness through the careful consideration of the treatment of space throughout the development, the appearance and scale of new development, and making efficient use of land and resources.

BLP Policy GC4 expects development to achieve a high standard of design and avoid any significant detrimental impact including upon the amenity of existing occupiers. It also expects proposals to meet the reasonable amenity needs of all potential future occupiers. - Light to [address]

The neighbouring dwelling at No. 60 comprises a dormer bungalow fronting the roadside, located north-west of the appeal site. The plans show the proposed dwelling would be sited to broadly align with the frontage of its neighbour and the Council assert the distance between their respective side elevations would be around 2.5 metres(m), with the dwelling around 1.7m from the shared boundary fence.

The side elevation of No. 60 facing the appeal site includes 3 ground floor windows. According to the evidence, the two high level windows serve a lounge and the other serves a bedroom.

On site, I observed a modest land level difference between the two sites. I also noted the windows sit below the height of the current boundary fence. This already diminishes the level of daylight that penetrates these windows.

My attention has been drawn to the 2011 BRE guidelines2, and in particular, to the 25-degree rule of thumb test. The drawing3 labelled ‘[name] to Light’ depicts the front elevation of the proposed bungalow in context with No. 60. This purports to show that, taken from the centre of the bedroom window, the 25-degree angle does not breach the development, namely the hipped roofline.

However, my observations on site suggest that the plan may not accurately reflect the neighbours window position and it does not take account of the slight land level difference. Therefore, this diminishes my reliance on it.

Notwithstanding this, even taking account of these potential minor discrepancies, had the bedroom window been shown lower in the elevation, it would still be unlikely to cause a significant breach of the 25-degree angle, and thus is suggestive of an acceptable impact. [name] note the BRE guidelines have 2 Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to [name] (2011) 3 Ref: no. 25-361 141 subsequently been updated, I have nothing before me to suggest that the methodology has been significantly amended.

Furthermore, noting that they are not the only sources of light to a habitable room, I do not find demonstrable harm through either a loss of light or an oppressive impact from the positioning of the dwelling on the two lounge windows. [name] been minded to allow this appeal, a planning condition requiring agreed finished floor levels, could have helped to safeguard the living conditions of No. 60.

Owing to the proposed orientation and siting of the dwelling, as the sun moves around during the course of the day, there could be a marginal loss of light to the side windows in the mornings. However, this is unlikely to be significant. The hipped roof of the dwelling would slope away from the boundary and its massing would be far enough away to avoid any significant harm in this regard. This is particularly the case, given the fence height, which already blocks out light.

Consequently, I find that the proposed dwelling would be unlikely to substantially diffuse daylight enjoyed by the existing building. Without substantive evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause a significant loss of light or an unduly oppressive or overshadowing effect to this neighbour. - Outdoor space to [address] and the proposed dwelling

No. [address] fronts its south-east roadside with its rear garden sharing a boundary with the appeal site. The size of this neighbouring dwelling is not known as it is within separate ownership to the appeal site. However, it expands almost the full width of its plot and its rooflights point to accommodation within the roof. As such, I have no reason to dispute the Councils understanding that this is a four-bedroom dwelling.

The rear garden of No. 67 is contained by privacy fencing and already reflects the size shown on the proposed drawings, with evidence indicating the appeal site was severed from No. 67 over 10 years ago. Whilst modest in size, there is nothing before me to suggest that this is not fit for purpose. Indeed, from the roadside I was able to observe that it contains an area for children to play as well as other functional space, for example, to allow occupants to sit outside. Moreover, I have not been shown that the Council has adopted any external space standards upon which their concerns are based, and no design code has been advanced.

The proposed bungalow would benefit from a contained private garden. The plans show a patio for occupiers to enjoy and a grassed area at its rear and side. Whilst modest in size, this would be commensurate for the two-bedroom dwelling that would ensue. In the absence of adopted space standards or substantive evidence to demonstrate its specific deficiencies, I do not find the level of outdoor space to be unacceptable.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the outdoor space provision for both No. 67 and the proposed dwelling is satisfactory. - Conclusions on living conditions

Drawing the above together, I have identified no significant harm in respect of overshadowing or a loss of light to No. 60, and I have also found that the outdoor amenity space for both No. 67 and the proposed dwelling to be satisfactory. It follows that I find no conflict with BLP Policy GC4 in this regard.

[name] been minded to allow this appeal, it would have been necessary for me to explore how the dwelling would be secured as a self-build custom build unit in the absence of either a Planning Obligation or the minimum required biodiversity net gain information. However, as I am dismissing it for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to do so, as it would not alter the outcome.

The scheme would deliver a small but important boost to housing supply in a district where housing need is pressing. It would make efficient use of land, would employ sustainable design specifications and offer an inclusive design suitable for those less mobile in an area where residents could easily access local facilities and services. It would also have some associated economic and social benefits which weigh heavily in favour of the appeal, such that these attract considerable positive weight.

The Council is unable to demonstrate the necessary five-year housing land supply against the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The level of shortfall is not known. Nevertheless, in such circumstances, Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless (i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

Footnote 7 of the Framework identifies that habitat sites are areas of particular importance in this context, and I have found the lack of mitigation would indeed provide a strong reason for refusal. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not therefore apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.