Appeal 6005341

The appeal is dismissed.

Outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved except for access. Whilst a layout plan has been submitted suggesting how three dwellings could be accommodated on the site, these have been provided for indicative purposes only.

The description of development was amended during the course of the application, reducing the proposal from 6no dwellings to 3no. This revised description was agreed with the Council.

A legal agreement in the form of a [name] (UU) has been submitted in respect of Habitats sites. I shall return to this later in my decision.

I have had regard to a previous appeal decision relating to the site1. While there are similarities between the proposals, the material circumstances differ, including the applicable development plan and the Council’s housing land supply position. Although the earlier decision is a material consideration, I have reached my own conclusions based on the merits of the current proposal.

The main issues are: i) whether the appeal site represents an appropriate location for the proposed development, having regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan; ii) the effect on character and appearance; and iii) the effect of the proposed development on the integrity of protected European sites, with particular regard to recreational pressure and nutrient neutrality. 1 APP/F2605/W/20/3254609 issued 7 October 2020

The appeal site forms part of an open field on the south side of [address]. It lies outside the defined settlement boundary and is therefore within the countryside for planning purposes.

The development strategy in Policy GEN 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2023 (LP) directs growth in a sustainable settlement hierarchy, that, amongst other things, has regard to the level of services and facilities available. Amongst other things, [name] 05 and HOU 05 seek to minimise the impact of development on the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policy HOU 05 allows limited development outside settlement boundaries in certain circumstances where all the criteria are met.

Amongst other matters, LP Policy HOU 05 requires that development represents sensitive infilling or rounding off (criterion 1) and does not harm a visually important gap contributing to the rural character (criterion 4).The supporting text defines ‘infill’ as development within a built-up frontage, and ‘rounding off’ as completing a partially developed group of buildings in a manner that reinforces the existing pattern.

The site forms part of a wide, open gap between dwellings. The proposal would not constitute infilling, as it would not sit within a continuous built frontage nor consolidate development along the road.

The appellant submits that the proposal would be a natural extension to the built form on the southern side of [address] and would end on its eastern end symmetrically with development on the northern side of the road. [name] observed dwellings opposite the appeal site the proposal would not represent rounding off. The site is part of a larger undeveloped parcel, and the pattern of development in the area often occurs on one side of the road only. Replicating development opposite would not reflect this pattern and would erode the rural character, conflicting with criterion 4. As all 4 criteria have to be met, the proposal fails to accord with Policy HOU 05 of the LP.

While Policy HOU 05 is not predicated on accessibility to services and facilities, Policy TR01 of the LP seeks to locate development so as to ensure wherever possible, new development is accessible to sustainable modes of transport and makes provision for improved public transport. The Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and this should be taken into account in decision-making.

Whilst the site is not isolated, Garveston offers very limited services comprising a primary school, play ground and a village hall. Whilst proximate to bus stops the evidence indicates that services are limited. Consequently, future occupiers would be reliant on travel to other settlements, located some distance away, and it is likely that a significant proportion of journeys would be made by private car due to local road conditions.

Reference is made to a development2 to the western boundary of the site. I do not have full details of the circumstances which led to this permission. In any event, I 2 4 bungalows at The Meadows am not bound by previous decisions of the Council, and I have made my assessment of this appeal on the merits of the case.

For these reasons I conclude that the appeal site would not provide a suitable location for housing. Consequently, the proposal fails to accord with [name] 01, GEN 03, GEN 05 and TR01 of the LP, the aims of which seek to distribute new development sustainably across the plan area. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework insofar as it seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The appeal site is currently undeveloped, and its open, verdant character makes a positive contribution to the setting of the village. Although matters of layout, scale and appearance are reserved, the indicative plan demonstrates how the site could be developed. [name] accept that any dwellings could be designed to reflect nearby single-storey properties, the introduction of built form within this open site would result in an appreciable degree of domestication and urbanisation.

Notwithstanding that detailed design matters are reserved, the erection of up to three dwellings would inevitably introduce associated features such as hardstanding, parking, and domestic paraphernalia. Together, these would further erode its rural qualities. Landscaping may afford some screening of the proposal.

Whilst the proposed biodiversity net gain area at the eastern end of the site may provide ecological benefits, I am not persuaded that it would offset the identified harm to character and appearance.

For these reasons, the proposal would accord with [name] 05, COM 01 and GEN 02 of the LP where, taken together, they seek to protect character and appearance.

Natural England (NE) has issued updated advice on nutrient pollution affecting several river catchments3. The appeal site lies within the catchment of the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and/or the [name] sites, both of which are in an unfavourable condition due to elevated nutrient levels. It also falls within the Zones of Influences (ZoIs) of habitats sites4 adversely affected by recreational pressure.

These sites support qualifying features including white-clawed crayfish and otter, reflecting a diverse ecological resource of national and international importance. Their conservation objectives seek to maintain or restore site integrity and favourable conservation status.

Policy ENV 02 of the LP requires the highest level of protection for European sites, with development only permitted where they accord with the Habitat Regulations. 3 Natural England - Advice for development proposals with the potential to affect water quality resulting in adverse nutrient impacts on habitats sites – March 2022. 4 The relevant Habitat sites (European sites) in Norfolk comprise: [name] & [name]; The Broads SAC & [name]; [name]; [name]; The Wash and [name]; Norfolk Valley Fens SAC; The Wash SPA; The Wash Ramsar.

The proposal would increase recreational pressure on nearby SACs and result in additional nutrient inputs within the river catchments. Whilst limited in isolation, these effects could be significant in combination with other development.

The Council has adopted mitigation measures, including developer contributions secured through the [name] and Mitigation Strategy Action Plan 2024. The appellant has submitted a UU to address recreational impacts. However, notwithstanding the appellant’s position that nutrient neutrality could be achieved through the purchase of credits, no such mitigation has been secured. As a result, I cannot conclude that the proposal would avoid adverse effects on site integrity, nor complete an appropriate assessment favourably. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy ENV 02 of the LP and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which weighs heavily against it.

The proposal would provide some social and economic benefits, including a small contribution to housing supply, short-term construction employment and some on-going support for local services. However, given the scale of the proposal these benefits attract limited weight.

Whilst it is suggested that future occupiers may use electric vehicles, it cannot be assumed that all trips, particularly by visitors, would be undertaken in this way. A proportion of journeys would likely still rely on conventional vehicles, and the identified harm would therefore remain.

Although the proposal would deliver biodiversity net gain, this is a mandatory requirement and therefore attracts no additional weight in favour of the scheme.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework.

It is common ground that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. However, in the absence of nutrient neutrality credits, the proposal conflicts with policies protecting habitats sites, providing a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i).

The benefits predominantly lie in the delivery of up to three dwellings in the context of housing undersupply. Even if nutrient neutrality were achieved and paragraph 11(d)(ii) applied, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh those benefits.

I have had regard to the judgment in Corbett v Cornwall Council [2020] [name] 508, which confirms that notwithstanding conflict with individual policies a proposal may still accord with the development plan when read as a whole. However, in this circumstance the conflict with the locational policies is not outweighed by other supportive policies. Taking all other matters into account, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR