Appeal 6005865

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for Permission in Principle (PiP). Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The PiP consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (PiP) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (technical details consent) (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. It is the granting of TDC that has the effect of granting planning permission for the development. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of considerations for a PIP is limited to location, land use and amount of development. However, the PPG states a PIP may not be granted for development likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European site, unless the competent authority has carried out an Appropriate Assessment (AA).

An applicant can apply for PiP for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, PiP has been sought for min 2 - max 3 dwellings on the appeal site.

My attention has been drawn to a previous appeal decision at the site 1. While there are similarities between the proposals, the material circumstances differ, including the application type, 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. 1 APP/F2605/W/20/3249468 issued 13 August 2020

The main issues are whether the location, the land use and the amount of development is suitable with particular regard to: i) policies for the location of new housing; ii) the character and appearance of the area; and iii) the integrity of Habitats sites, with particular regard to nutrient neutrality and recreational pressure.

The Council’s development strategy, as set out in Policy GEN 03 of the Breckland Local Plan 2023 (LP), sets out a sustainable settlement hierarchy where new development will be directed towards towns and villages in the upper tiers of the hierarchy which is based upon the utilisation of existing infrastructure and resources. Wendling is not defined as a village with a defined settlement boundary. Policy GEN 05 of the LP restricts development outside defined settlement boundaries in order to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and will only be acceptable where it is compliant with all relevant policies set out in the development plan. This approach to the distribution of development accords with relevant aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the section on rural housing, which advocates locating housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

Policy HOU 05 of the LP allows limited development outside settlement boundaries in certain circumstances where all the criteria are met. Among these, criterion 1 requires development to comprise sensitive infilling and rounding off of a cluster of dwellings with access to an existing highway and criterion 4 requires that proposals do not harm or undermine a visually important gap that contributes to the character and distinctiveness of the rural scene. 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 appeal site is a narrow parcel of land that lies between a linear development of residential properties and open fields. Although there are dwellings further east, along [site address] , they are separated by a field that has a wide road frontage. Consequently, the proposal would not constitute ‘infilling’, nor ‘rounding off’ as the proposal would not represent the completion of an incomplete group of buildings on land which is already partially developed.

The appellant submits that a small nursery business operated at the site and that signs of garden/amenity land are still clearly visible. However, I have no substantive evidence in this regard. Nevertheless, along with the adjacent open field, the undeveloped nature of the appeal site contributes positively to the verdant character and appearance of the area. Although a large gap would remain the proposal would reduce the visual gap in the streetscene where the notable absence of development along this part of the road reinforces the strong sense of rurality.

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.

The appeal site is clearly not isolated as it is proximate to existing dwellings. [name] offers some facilities such as church, pub, primary school, village hall and hotel it is remote from shops, services, employment and facilities required for day-to-day living.

The nearest settlements providing a wider array of services and facilities are Derehem and Necton, located some 4-6 miles away and Swaffham is approximately 8 miles away. Roads linking the appeal site to the nearby settlements are predominantly unlit, lack footway provision and are subject to the national speed limit. Consequently, the distances involved and the local road conditions would discourage pedestrians and cyclists from using them to access the nearby settlements, particularly in the hours of darkness and in periods of inclement weather. This would be especially so for those with reduced mobility or with young children. [name] understand there is a bus stop within walking distance of the site access to it is via an unlit road and this may limit its attractiveness to users. For these reasons, it is highly likely that the majority of journeys to and from the site would be made by private motor vehicle.

The appellant indicates that two of the properties would be occupied by their children and be self-build. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) (the SBCH Act) places a duty on authorities to have regard to each self-build register that relates to their area when carrying out their planning, housing, land disposal and regeneration functions and must give development permission to enough suitable serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in their area. A shortfall in provision of self-build plots is not disputed by the Council. However, while proposals for such housing needs are supported under Policy HOU5 of the LP this is conditional upon the proposal otherwise satisfying all of the criteria of the Policy. Even in the context of a shortfall for meeting such housing needs the proposal would fail to meet the supporting policy criteria.

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, HOU 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 introduction of built form into an area of open countryside would urbanise and harmfully undermine the rural character and appearance of the site. [name] observed some vegetation along [site address] the proposal would be highly visible, to the detriment of the rural landscape of the locality. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the landscaping lies outside of the control of the appellant, and its retention therefore cannot be guaranteed.

It is not disputed that the dwellings could be arranged in a linear manner similar to the dwellings that lie immediately to the west of the site. However, the details of the design, size and position of the dwellings would be matters for the TDC stage if the appeal were to be allowed. Nevertheless, the erection of dwellings would inevitably introduce associated features such as hardstanding, parking, and domestic paraphernalia, which may not require the benefit of planning permission. Together, these would further erode its rural qualities.

On this matter, I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area which draws the proposal into conflict with [name] 05, HOU 05, GEN 02, COM 01, ENV 05 and ENV 07 of the LP. Collectively, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and respects and is sensitive to the character of the surrounding area.

Natural England (NE) updated its advice in relation to nutrient pollution in a number of river basin catchments2. The appeal site lies within the catchment of the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and/or the [name] sites which are in an unfavourable condition due to excessive nutrients. It also falls within the Zones of Influences (ZoIs) of one or more of a number of habitats sites3 adversely affected by recreational disturbance.

European and Ramsar sites across Breckland, the Broads, the [name] and the Wash form a highly diverse network of national and internationally important habitats and species. [name] supports ground‐nesting birds, while [name] comprises rare inland dunes, dry heaths and meres. The Broads SAC and SPA are important for extensive wetland habitats and associated bird assemblages. The North Norfolk Coast SAC includes coastal habitats such as dunes, lagoons and saltmarsh, with its SPA supporting breeding and wintering birds including terns and geese. The Wash and [name] cover extensive intertidal and marine habitats, while Norfolk Valley Fens SAC is designated for rare alkaline fens and associated species. The Wash SPA and Ramsar site further recognise the estuary’s importance for large populations of wintering waterbirds and breeding terns.

The Conservation of Species and Habitat Regulations 2017 require the Competent Authority to consider whether or not the proposal could adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites, either alone, or in combination with other plans and projects.

The conservation objectives for the area can be summarised as ensuring that the integrity of the sites is maintained or restored as appropriate, so that it continues to support the population and distribution of its qualifying features. Natural England has identified that a principal threat to the habitats is recreational disturbance. Increased recreation can result in damage to the habitats through trampling and erosion, but also by causing disturbance during bird breeding season and by walking of dogs, especially if off the lead. 2 Natural England - Advice for development proposals with the potential to affect water quality resulting in adverse nutrient impacts on habitats sites – March 2022. 3 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

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.

The proposal would increase recreational pressure and nutrient inputs . Whilst limited in isolation, these impacts 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. Although the appellant has submitted a [name] (UU) to secure payment, it is undated. Without secured mitigation, the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on a European site and therefore constitutes ‘habitats development’ under Article 5B1(5) of the PiP Order. Article 5B1(1) of the same Order confirms that PiP cannot be granted in such circumstances.

The appellant’s position that nutrient neutrality is a technical matter that can be left to the TDC stage is flawed, as whether the development is habitats development, or not, is fundamentally linked to whether PiP can be given.

For these reasons, I cannot conclude an appropriate assessment favourably. The proposal therefore conflicts with [name] 02 and ENV 03 of the LP and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which weighs heavily against it.

It is advanced that the appellant and family members are key workers and have long-standing ties to the village. I have no reason to doubt this. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that the personal circumstances of the appellant would be enough to outweigh the harm associated with the location of the development or character and appearance. My attention has been drawn to a number of residential properties4 that have been permitted in the locality. However, the limited information before me indicates that some of these properties were constructed in the 1960’s and 1990’s and therefore the material considerations, including the policy context, are likely to differ. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

[name] not disputed that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. However, in the absence of a fully executed UU, the proposal conflicts with policies protecting habitats sites, providing a clear reason for refusal under paragraph 11(d)(i).

Even if this were to be otherwise, and notwithstanding the Framework’s objective to increase the supply of housing, there would be limited benefits associated with the construction of 2-3no dwellings. The scale of the Council’s self-build and custom 4 [address], Ashness, [address], [name], [address] housebuilding shortfall is not disputed. I therefore afford the contribution of the proposal to meeting identified housing needs moderate weight in the planning balance.

I have carefully considered the benefits advanced by the appellant, including the enhancement or maintenance of the vitality of the local rural community through the support from future occupiers for local services and facilities. During construction economic and social benefits would be short term and the benefits arising from the future spend of occupants giving support to the local services and facilities in other villages would be limited given the quantum of development proposed.

I acknowledge that small sites, such as this, can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built out relatively quickly. However, due to the quantum of development proposed these would form relatively minor benefits, which would not outweigh the harm identified above.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal 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.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and other material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons set out, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.