BROADLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
APPEAL BY: SCC Norwich LLP and the Thorpe and Felthorpe Trust against the refusal of Broadland District Council to grant planning permission for Erection of up to 300 New Homes and the Creation of a New Community Woodland Park (Outline) at Racecourse Plantations, Plumstead Road East, Thorpe St Andrew, Norwich, NR7 9LW
PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: APP/K2610/W/17/3188235
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY REFERENCE: 20161896
Charles Andrew Judson rebuttal of Mr Dominic Lawson’s Proof of Evidence
15th May 2018
1.1. This rebuttal responds to the proofs of evidence of Mr Dominic Lawson submitted on behalf of SCC Norwich LLP and the Thorpe and Felthorpe Trust (“the appellants”).
1.2. It should be read alongside my proof of evidence dated April 2018. I have not sought to rebut every point with which I disagree. The fact that I do not expressly rebut a point made by Mr Dominic Lawson should not be taken as indicating that I accept it.
1.3. The rebuttal deals with the following issues:
o The relevance of policies in the development plan o The delivery of ecological benefits claimed for the CWP
1.4. The focus of the Proof of Evidence of Mr Dominic Lawson is with specific reference to the compliance of the appeal proposal with the development plan, the material considerations that apply to the appeal proposal and the overall planning balance. Where Mr Lawson addresses housing land supply, my colleague Mr Paul Harris provides the Council’s rebuttal on this issue.
The relevance of policies in the development plan
JCS Policy 12
1.5. In paragraphs 117 to 124 of Mr Lawson’s proof of evidence he identifies policy 12 of the Joint Core Strategy as a relevant policy to the appeal proposal, and that the appeal proposal complies with all elements of Policy 12 and that the Council has not alleged that the appeal proposal is contrary to Policy 12. Whilst this policy was referred to in the Council’s delegated report, it is not included in the Council’s statement of case, proof of evidence or included in the list of relevant policies in the statement of common ground. This policy relates to “The remainder of the Norwich urban area, including the fringe parishes” and in my opinion does not apply to proposals in the Growth Triangle (in which the site is located), the more relevant policy being policy 10 of the JCS, the objectives of which are carried forward in the GT AAP. However, if the Inspector were to find JCS policy 12 to be relevant in the determination of this appeal then, contrary to the conclusions of Mr Lawson, I find that the proposals conflict with this policy.
1.6. Policy 12 states that green infrastructure and links between currently fragmented habitats and to the rural fringe will be protected, maintained and enhanced and includes a list of ways in which this could be achieved. This list includes (point 2) the re-establishment of heathland habitat in north and north-east to link through to Mousehold. Whilst the proposal includes the re-creation of heathland habitat within the appeal site and blue land, the evidence presented by Dr David White at paragraphs 8.8-8.14 of his proof of evidence identifies why this is not appropriate in the appeal site and blue land, particularly by reference to the value of the woodland to Barbastelle bats which are of greater ecological value in the context of the north east of Norwich than heathland and the challenges of heathland re-establishment. Mr Lawson at paragraph 123 emphasises that the proposal would include further tree planting to demonstrate compliance with point 6, neglecting to mention that the appeal proposals would also result in the requirement for significant tree removals resulting in a net loss of woodland across the appeal site and blue land.
1.7. The evidence of Dr David White makes clear that the proposal will fragment and adversely impact upon ecology and habitat, and in my opinion this demonstrates that the objectives of policy 12 of the JCS (albeit they apply within the urban area and do not apply to the appeal site) are not met by the proposals.
DM DPD Policy GC2
1.8. At paragraph 133 Mr Lawson states that policy GC2 does not set an absolute prohibition on development outside of the settlement limits. Whilst I agree that this is correct, in my opinion the emphasis in policy GC2 is to focus new development within settlement limits as stated within the policy and highlighted in the supporting text to this policy at paragraph 2.13 of the DM DPD. This emphasis appears not to have been considered by Mr Lawson, and does not support his interpretation of GC2. In my opinion it is clear that the proposals do not accord with GC2 whether or not the general considerations policy, GC1, allows for permission to be given in the same way as paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
1.9. Paragraph 5 of the appeal decision APP/K2610/W/17/3186686, attached to this rebuttal as appendix 2, states that on the basis that the site was outside of the settlement limit the proposal would not accord with policy GC2 and is therefore contrary to the Development Plan. This confirms that Mr Lawson’s interpretation that policy GC1 is a specific policy which provides a mechanism to comply with GC2 despite the location outside of a settlement limit is incorrect.
1.10. While referring to GC2 I would like to deal with a separate point arising from an incorrect reference to it within my proof of evidence. I have stated at paragraph 9.5 that “On this basis the tilted balance of paragraph 14 of the NPPF and DM DPD policy GC1 is triggered in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF and policy GC2 of the DM DPD” (emphasis added). GC2 is not a policy for the supply of housing (confirmed in my proof of evidence at paragraph 8.10) and has no role in triggering the tilted balance. Reference to GC2 in the sentence quoted above is incorrect: the phrase “and policy GC2 of the DM DPD” should be removed.
GT AAP Policy GT2
1.11. Mr Lawson states at paragraph 166, under the heading of Policy GT2 of the GT AAP, that the Council agrees that the appeal proposals would enable the delivery of a functional Green Infrastructure network and refers to the Council’s delegated report as evidence of this. However, as established in my rebuttal to Mr Williams’ proof or evidence, the correct interpretation of GI in relation to policy GT2 relates to a much more narrow definition (relating to habitat and biodiversity connectivity) than the multifunctional definition used in the delegated report where reference is made to the development providing improvements to connectivity (in terms of public access) through the site. Consequently, notwithstanding the reference in the delegated report to the delivery of a functional Green Infrastructure network, I do not agree that the proposal provides the delivery of a functional GI network in the context of policy GT2 and this is evident in the reasons for refusal, statement of case and my proof of evidence.
DM DPD Policy EN3
1.12. Mr Lawson states at paragraph 146 that the appeal proposal would comply with policy EN3 of the DM DPD and that the Council does not allege otherwise. Policy EN3 has 3 requirements:
o To maximise opportunities for the creation of a well-managed network of wildlife habitats. o To provide at least 4ha of informal open space and 0.16ha of allotments per 1000 population. o To make adequate arrangements for the management and maintenance of green infrastructure.
1.13. Notwithstanding the fundamental concerns of the Council regarding the impact of the development on the ecological value of the site and the delivery of GI corridors as a result of the residential development, should the appeal proposals be found to be acceptable I am of the opinion that the proposal would comply with the EN3 requirements within the area of residential development given the areas of open space and allotments in the Open Space and Recreation Strategy Dwg 16836-TLP-01 (amended by Revision A dated 20/03/2017). The delivery and maintenance of this open space within the residential development would be secured through a section 106 agreement.
1.14. The proposal does however propose to provide a Community Woodland Park, outside of these EN3 policy requirements, which I do have concerns regarding the delivery and management of. As the CWP is provided outside of the EN3 requirements these concerns do not amount to a conflict with EN3 but a more general concern regarding the ability to deliver the ecological mitigation or even the landscape works that are proposed within the CWP in the medium to long term.
The delivery of ecological benefits claimed for the CWP
1.15. The Council state at paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of the Statement of Case that it does not agree with the appellants’ claims for the Community Woodland Park in terms of the lack of certainty over the delivery and claimed management regime but that the proposals lacked sufficient detail to make a meaningful appraisal. Notwithstanding these concerns the appellants’ proof of evidence provides no further certainty on the delivery and management of the CWP other than to confirm that it would be secured by section 106 agreement and with reference to CD 1.14, CD 1.42, CD 1.43, CD1.44 and CD 1.47 which were documents submitted with the application.
1.16. At the time of writing the Council’s lawyers are continuing to liaise with DLA Piper, the appellants’ lawyers in the spirit of co-operation and in order to assist in drawing up as robust a mechanism for delivery of the CWP as possible. This rebuttal assumes that these discussions are fruitful.
1.17. Much of the CWP is located outside of the appeal site - which is a residential development, and application for a material change of use of Belmore Plantation, with the CWP proposed as mitigation. It is proposed by Mr Lawson at paragraphs 43, 115,149 301 and 217 that the CWP would be secured by section 106 agreement, the consequence being that it must pass the CIL Regulation 122 tests in order to be taken in to consideration in the determination of the appeal.
1.18. Without prejudice to the Council’s case that the harm caused by the development is not capable of being mitigated in the way proposed, I am clear that the ecological impact of the development itself is sufficient to require genuine and meaningful ecological mitigation, and this includes the need to accommodate recreational pressure on the CWS resulting from the residential development. In short, the Council does not dispute that ecological mitigation is necessary to make the development acceptable and would comply with the CIL Regulation 122 tests.
1.19. Mr Lawson refers to the CWP as a benefit of the appeal proposal [paragraphs 94, 290(2)], but in my opinion it must first and foremost be regarded purely as mitigation to make the residential development acceptable. As mitigation for the residential development it cannot be regarded as delivering significant net benefit.
1.20. Given the importance of the CWP in making the residential development acceptable, the detail of the delivery and maintenance of the CWP is of utmost importance. CD1.42 Table 1 provides an indicative cost of implementing the CWP and based on these estimates Mr Lawson states at paragraph 312 of his proof that the CWP would be provided as part of the construction of the development and that its creation is viable (my emphasis).
1.21. Mr Lawson however makes no reference to the ongoing management and maintenance of the CWP being viable. He confirms at paragraphs 300 and 317 that the proposed ongoing costs would be funded by an annual service charge on the housing and refers to table 2 of CD1.42, suggesting that he assumes this would require an annual budget of £50,000.
1.22. In the absence of any other information from the appellants I have asked the Council’s Woodlands and Green Infrastructure Officer, Annie Sommazzi, for assistance. She is responsible for managing the 31 Council owned woodlands. A summary of her response is contained within the attached letter (Appendix 1). Based on her knowledge and experience it can be seen that the Council, and Norwich City Council who manage Mousehold Heath, have significantly higher management costs than what is estimated in CD 1.42 and adopted by Mr Lawson at paragraph 317. Moreover, the Councils budget does not generally allow for ecological enhancement through habitat creation which the appeal proposals seek to deliver. The costs in CD1.42 exclude any ecological monitoring costs and there is no certainty given to how the management of the ecological ‘enhancements’ proposed by the appellant would be funded nor any contingency provided should the ‘enhancements’ fail to deliver the currently undefined objectives.
1.23. It is also necessary to recognise that we remain unclear whether the annual service charge would be shared amongst all 300 dwellings, or only the market housing (201).
1.24. The service charge on households which would be necessary to deliver the CWP in the form proposed could therefore be far higher than the appellants anticipate and there is no detail provided on what the contingency would be should this management cost become unsustainable for householders. This could have significant impacts upon the ecological value and accessibility of the CWP and ultimately fail to deliver the mitigation that the residential development relies on. I suggest that the Inspector would need more information about the deliverability of the long term claimed benefits of the CWP to give it substantial weight in the planning balance. I understand that these are being discussed by the legal team and may be referred to within the s106 session.
1.25. Furthermore, given that it is proposed that the CWP would be open to the wider public but paid for by occupants of the development there is potential for conflict to arise between those who pay for the management of the CWP and its use by the wider public, a matter not addressed in the evidence of Mr Lawson.
1.26. The appellants’ CD 1.17 provides details on the management of the CWP and identifies at paragraphs 8 and 10 that the land will need to be in the ownership of an “appropriate entity” to be determined once planning permission has been granted. Paragraph 20 of CD1.17 states that “it is important that relevant local organisations are involved in the management of the Woodland Park. Such organisations include Thorpe St Andrew Town Council, Friends of Thorpe St Andrew Parks, the local Scouts, the local schools, the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust, the Norwich Fringe Project and Norfolk CPRE”. Paragraph 300 of Mr Lawson’s proof of evidence identifies that the CWP will be managed by a suitable nominated body but provides no detail on how the governance arrangements of CD1.17 would be achieved and I am not aware that there have been any ongoing discussions with the organisations identified by Mr Lawson, since the submission of the application.
1.27. Furthermore, whilst Mr Lawson states at paragraph 300 that initial costs of the CWP will be provided by the developer and at 312 that the CWP would be provided as part of the construction of the development, paragraph 28 of CD1.17 states that the new owner of the CWP will develop a business plan to ensure that the initial capital works and the on-going operational costs can be funded. It is therefore unclear in the evidence whether the new owner of the CWP would be responsible for these initial capital costs given the conflict with what is stated in CD1.17.
1.28. I would like to emphasise that the Council’s primary case is that the adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the CWP both in the short and long term. However, it is also the case that the appellants’ have failed to provide sufficient certainty over the delivery and management of the CWP in the long term, such that the ecological benefits relied upon should be given minimal weight.
Appendix 1 – Letter from Woodlands and Green Infrastructure Officer at Broadland District Council
Appendix 2 – Appeal decision APP/K2610/W/17/3186686 - Blofield Lodge, Bullacebush Lane, Blofield, Norwich NR13 4SG
Dear Mr Judson,
Annie Sommazzi - Woodlands and Green Infrastructure Officer at Broadland District Council
1. As Woodlands and Green Infrastructure Officer for the Council I have a responsibility to manage 31 woodlands, a 4.5 miles stretch of the Marriott’s Way and the 9 mile total length of the Bure Valley Railway.
2. Of these sites, 29 are managed from the Council’s woodland budget (other woodlands have commuted sums or are managed from the public rights of way budget). The woodlands are managed for a range of priorities the first being health and safety (tree inspections, safety works, inspections of paths and boundaries). Maintenance of access is a key priority, though many of the woodlands have self-made paths which are not dressed or regularly maintained. Ecological enhancement through habitat creation, coppicing and tree planting is a principal factor for consideration when managing the Council’s woodland sites, but is often not possible due to budgetary constraints.
3. Of the woodland sites that Broadland Council manage approximately 6 are not publicly accessible, 3 are destinations that people drive to, and the remaining 23 are used locally by dog walkers.
4. Broadland Council’s woodlands amass an area of 439,629 metres squared (please see spreadsheet below) which is the equivalent of roughly 44 hectares. The budget for managing these sites, including the costs of employing a full time member of staff, totals £68,526 per annum. This equates to a £1,557 spend per hectare per annum.
5. Having reviewed the document, ‘Community Woodland Park: approximate estimate of implementation and maintenance costs of landscape works’ (CD1.42) I have various concerns over the sustainability of the proposed future management of the community woodland park. The approximate estimate of maintenance costs of landscape works (per year) show a £50,000 annual spend on managing the woodland park area. The proposals involve the ongoing management of a site that has a significant level of infrastructure (4.5 kilometres path network, 4.7 kilometres of fencing, 5 information panels, 16 benches), far greater than that on any of the Broadland Council managed woodland sites. In addition to this, the proposals involve managing the woodland park in a way that prioritises ecological enhancement. Areas such as the heathlands and grass-lands require a much more intensive form of management than woodland areas such as those currently managed by Broadland Council.
6. The total spend that the document, ‘Community Woodland Park: approximate estimate of implementation and maintenance costs of landscape works’ (CD1.42) offers would equate to a spend of £833 per hectare per annum assuming a 60 hectare park is created. This spend is £718 less per hectare per annum than that spent on Broadland Council’s Woodlands. In light of the disparities in management objectives between the Council’s woodlands and those proposed in the aforementioned document, coupled with the disproportions in budget, I am concerned that once the scheme is delivered it will not be sustainable.
Broadland District Council Thorpe Lodge, 1 Yarmouth Road, Norwich, NR7 0DU
Tel: (01603) 431133
Drawing comparison to a site that is equivalent in usage (visitor numbers, attractiveness of site, location etc…), level of infrastructure, ecological sensitivity and habitat composition (mixed woodland, heathland areas) Mousehold Heath, managed by Norwich City Council has an annual budget of £214,000. This equates to an annual spend of £2,431 per hectare. If the proposals were to offer a similar spend per hectare this would equate to an annual maintenance budget of £145,860 per year.
7. In addition to the above, Mousehold Heath also has two full time members of staff based at the site who carry out management, maintenance and volunteer work. Volunteer groups are relied upon extensively at Mousehold for the work that they provide. In 2017, for example, there was a recorded 4,367 hours of volunteer time carried out at Mousehold Heath (Mousehold Heath Conservators annual report 2017). This equates to £34,198 of staff time (when charging an hourly rate at national minim wage) per annum, or the equivalent of two additional full time members of staff (charged at national minimum wage). The costings provided within the document, ‘Community Woodland Park: approximate estimate of implementation and maintenance costs of landscape works’ (CD1.42) do not take into consideration any staffing costs, which demonstrates a significant oversite into the overall understanding of how the site will need to be managed, not just to maintain the onsite infrastructure but also to sustain the claimed ecological enhancements that the scheme will provide.
8. I have given these views in good faith and in the light of my knowledge and experience. I am prepared to discuss the figures I have referred to with the appellants’ representatives or to provide relevant documentary support for the references I have given.
Yours Sincerely, Annie Sommazzi
Annie Sommazzi
Woodlands and Green infrastructure Officer
15th May 2018
Broadland District Council Thorpe Lodge, 1 Yarmouth Road, Norwich, NR7 0DU
Tel: (01603) 431133
Broadland Council Woodland Sites
Broadland District Council Thorpe Lodge, 1 Yarmouth Road, Norwich, NR7 0DU
Tel: (01603) 431133
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 January 2018 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 February 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/K2610/W/17/3186686 Blofield Lodge, Bullacebush Lane, Blofield, Norwich NR13 4SG The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Dr A Dhesi against the decision of Broadland District Council. The application Ref 20171195, dated 13 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 September 2017. The development proposed is up to five dwellings including associated access road and infrastructure improvements within the site and provision of a new footway link to Blofield village.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. The application is for outline permission with details of access submitted for approval and all other matters reserved. A site layout plan has been submitted which is intended to be indicative of a possible scheme and I shall consider that plan on this basis.
Main Issue
3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
4. Blofield Lodge is an early 19th century house which occupies grounds of about 6.5 acres. This is within open countryside to the north of Blofield. The grounds were laid out as a park in the 19th century, the extent of the original park having subsequently been reduced. The appeal site occupies the southern part of the grounds. A new vehicular access would be formed to Plantation Road and an existing drive to that road would be used as a footpath which would link to a new footpath to be provided within the highway verge to enable the occupants of the development to walk to Blofield.
5. Policy GC2 of the Development Plan Document1 (DPD) requires that new development is accommodated within the settlement limits as defined in the development plan, with exceptions being made for development that accords
1 Broadland Development Management Development Plan Document (2015) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/K2610/W/17/3186686
with a specific allocation or policy of the plan and that does not result in any significant adverse impact. The site is outside the settlement limit for Blofield and the proposal would not accord with that policy.
6. The site falls within the defined Norwich Policy Area and in this area the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. On this basis its policies for the supply of housing are not up-to-date by virtue of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The fourth bullet of paragraph 14 of the Framework therefore applies. This states that permission should be granted 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. The weight that I can give to the identified conflict with policy GC2 of the DPD is limited in the absence of the required housing land supply.
7. Although the original grounds have been reduced in size they retain a rectangular shape with the house and its outbuildings in the central northern part. The area to the south remains largely open and provides a setting to the house. There are some mature trees close to the house but the house is still clearly visible from the remainder of the grounds. While the grounds have been used in part as paddocks and are fenced with post and rail fencing the general open parkland setting remains. The grounds are distinct from the surrounding agricultural landscape in this respect and are enclosed by trees and hedging. The appeal site forms a significant part of those grounds which are of value to the landscape including in terms of their historical significance.
8. Neither Blofield Lodge nor its grounds are formally recorded as a non- designated heritage asset. Previous applications for an extension to the house and conversion of its coach house have been approved without any mention of this. A study of cultural heritage along the A47 corridor in 2007 did not identify Blofield Lodge as being of interest despite it being within the area studied. The lack of previous references to the site being of heritage significance and the absence of any formal record of this does not mean however that the site is not of interest in this respect. The Historic Environment Officers of Broadland District Council and Norfolk County Council both consider the site to form part of a non-designated heritage asset and I find no reason to disagree with them on this matter.
9. The proposed development would be screened from view across the wider landscape to some extent by the existing boundary planting. Nonetheless it would still be clearly visible through the trees and the access points. There are small groups of dwellings in the rural area but the proposal would introduce a suburban form of development which would be intrusive and out of character. As well as this general effect the proposal would result in harm to the significance of the grounds of Blofield Lodge by developing a significant part of those grounds and intruding into the open parkland setting.
10. The appellant has referred to other developments in the rural area that have been allowed and has provided details of a proposed development of 7 dwellings at Little Plumstead within the setting of listed buildings. Proposals are considered on their individual merits and because the circumstances of individual proposals vary those other approvals do not establish a precedent. The details of the proposed scheme at Little Plumstead differ from the appeal
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/W/17/3186686
proposal in a number of respects and for this reason that case is not directly comparable with the proposal.
11. The Framework contains a number of policies that are relevant to the proposal in terms of the historic and landscape value of the site. Paragraph 61 requires development to integrate with the natural, built and historic environment. Paragraph 109 requires the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes. Paragraph 135 requires the effect on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset to be taken into account. The DPD requires protection of landscape character and regard to be given to the character and appearance of the area in policies EN2 and GC4. The Joint Core Strategy (JCS)2 in Policy 1 requires protection of heritage assets and their settings. For the reasons given the proposal would not accord with those national and local policies. I conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area and I give significant weight to that harm.
Other Considerations
12. The Council states that the housing supply in the Norwich Policy Area stands at 4.7 years and the appellant does not dispute this figure. There has been a record of persistent under-delivery and I understand that a 20% buffer has been added to the housing requirement to reflect this but full details of the housing requirement and supply are not before me. The limited number of proposed dwellings would indicate that their benefit in helping to address the shortfall would be limited. As an increased buffer has been incorporated into the housing requirement and the deficit is not large I see no reason to give any extra weight to the proposal in this respect. I recognise the importance of providing sites of the size proposed in order to benefit smaller developers but this would not significantly increase the weight that I can give to this benefit.
13. Blofield has a range of services and facilities including a primary school, a medical centre, a library and shops. The development would be about 400m to 750m away from those facilities and the new footpath would enable pedestrian accessibility. In this respect the proposal would accord with the Framework and with the development plan, in particular Policy 1 of the JCS which requires minimisation of the need to travel. The proposal would support the economy both through the provision of construction jobs and support for local businesses. These matters weigh in favour of the proposal but nonetheless the proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole.
14. The removal of the conifer hedge from the southern boundary of the site and its replacement with a native species hedge may be of benefit to wildlife and to the landscape but any benefit in the latter respect would have to be considered in conjunction with the visual impact of the development. The new footpath would be of benefit to the general public as well as to the residents of the development and I take this into account.
Other Matter
15. The Council’s decision states that the development would be contrary to policy EN3 of the DPD. That policy requires development of five dwellings or more to make provision for informal open space, allotments and green infrastructure. The reasons for refusal do not however refer to these matters and no evidence
2 Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (2011 with amendments adopted 2014) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/K2610/W/17/3186686
has been provided to me in this respect. Consequently I have not considered this further.
Overall
16. I have given significant weight to the harms that I have identified in respect of the character and appearance of the area. I give modest weight overall to the identified benefits. The weight that I have given to the identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. On this basis the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the fourth bullet of paragraph 14 of the Framework does not apply.
17. I have found that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that my decision should be otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.
Conclusion
18. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Nick Palmer
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4