Appeal Decision Hearing held on 16 October 2012 Site visit made on 16 October 2012 by C A Newmarch BA(Hons) MRICS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 12 November 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/A/12/2175128 Fosters Sports Ground, Main Road, Clenchwarton, King’s Lynn, Norfolk • 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 Elm Park Holdings against the decision of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. • The application Ref 11/01877/OM, dated 2 November 2011, was refused by notice dated 10 February 2012. • The development proposed is ‘residential development of up to 75 dwellings of which 15 will be affordable. This is an outline application with all matters reserved other than access.’

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural matters

2. The appellant has completed a unilateral undertaking which is discussed further below.

3. Since the application was refused by the Council, the appellant has carried out an archaeological field evaluation. It did not reveal any evidence of significant heritage assets with archaeological interest on the site. The Council confirms that this satisfies its refusal reason No 3. I have no reason to disagree and, accordingly, it has not formed part of my consideration of the appeal.

4. The appellant signed Certificate A at both the application and appeal stages, in good faith. When preparing the unilateral undertaking it was discovered that the red line shown on the submitted plans includes land beyond the appellant’s control. The appellant submitted an amended site location plan, dated 19 September 2012, in the belief that the omitted land forms part of the adopted highway. Subsequent examination of the Highway Authority’s more recent ownership records, dated 25 September 2012 (Plan B), demonstrates that there is a narrow wedge of land between the appellant’s site and the highway. The title to this strip of land is unregistered, and it is in unknown ownership.

5. The appellant has not, therefore, signed the correct Certificates. The parties disagree as to whether the appeal is valid, or whether a Grampian condition could be used to preclude development taking place until the ownership matter is resolved. Even though the Highway Authority does not object to the proposed junction between the site and Main Road, the appellant has not

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128

demonstrated that it could be implemented. I have, however, decided to dismiss the appeal for other reasons which are explained below. The appellant’s failure to serve the correct notices is not, therefore, a determinative matter, and does not harm the interests of any party.

Main Issues

6. The main issues are:

• Whether there is a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites in the Borough;

• The effect on the character and appearance of the countryside; and

• Whether the proposal would be in sequentially preferable location with regard to flooding and the Hazard Area.

Reasons

Housing land supply

7. The CS provides for a minimum of 16,500 new dwellings within the Borough from 2001-2026. This figure, which equates to an annual requirement of 660 dwellings, accords with the East of England Plan (EEP), 2008, and was found to be sound at the CS examination in 2011.

8. Taking account of the housing completions between 2001 and 2011, there is a total 5 year housing requirement for 3275 dwellings. Adding an additional 5% buffer, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), the 5 year requirement rises to 3,439 dwellings, which is equivalent to 688 dwellings per annum.

9. The Council’s Annual Monitoring Report, December 2011, published in April 2012, identifies a supply of sites for 3276, which equates to some 4.76 years’ supply. However, paragraph 48 of the Framework permits making an allowance for windfall sites within the 5 year supply where Councils have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. Given the Council’s experience of the contribution of windfall sites to the housing supply over an 11 year period, together with the unusually large geographical area of the Borough, and the high number of settlements within the Borough, I accept that the Council’s suggested allowances for windfall sites, based on 70% of past rates, is realistic in this instance. On this basis, there is a deliverable housing land supply of around 6.03 years.

10. There remain some differences in approach between the parties with regard to the calculation of the 5 year deliverable supply sites. The appellant submits that the figures for planning permissions and allocations should be discounted by 10%, as in the appeal at Honeybourne (Ref APP/H1840/A/12/2171339). However, as the Council’s annual requirement incorporates an additional 10% for flexibility and non-completion of commitments, this is not necessary.

11. The appellant also challenges the housing provision in the CS on the basis that, in conforming to the EEP, the figures are based on outdated 2004 household projections, and submits a range of scenarios, using the Chelmer model, as well as more recent household projections, which point towards an under- supply of housing land. While some of my colleagues have taken interim

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128

household figures into account in other appeals, it is significant that there was no Core Strategy in place at Bude (Ref APP/D0840/A/09/2115945), and at Wootton Bassett (Ref APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906) the local plan was adopted in 2006. Neither case is, therefore, comparable to the appeal at Clenchwarton, where the CS is a recently examined and adopted development plan document. The evidence base which underpins the CS is not, therefore, a matter for me in this appeal.

12. The Council will need to re-visit its housing provision in the light of more recent household projections, and to keep its housing supply in line with the evidence base in the future, but it has demonstrated that there is currently in excess of a deliverable 5 year housing land supply, and so the CS policies are not out of date. Furthermore, the degree of conflict between the CS and the requirements in paragraph 47 of the Framework is limited, and having regard to paragraph 214 of the Framework, I give full weight to the CS.

13. I have also taken account of the appeal decisions referred to by the appellant in support of the appeal. At Andover (Ref APP/X3025/A/10/2140962) the Inspector identified only 3.3 years supply of housing sites. At Keresley (Ref APP/W3710/A/11/2153247) although the Inspector recognised the importance of household projections, there is no indication of whether the local plan was up to date. At Evesham (Ref APP/H1840/A/10/2124085) the Council was unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply immediately following the (initial, temporary) revocation of the Regional Strategies in 2010. In the appeal at Stratford–upon-Avon (Ref APP/J3730/A/102139071) the site was identified as a Strategic Reserve Site in the local plan. At Moreton in Marsh (Ref APP F1610/A/10/2130320) a 5 year supply to meet the housing requirement in the Structure Plan did not exist, and this weighed heavily in favour of the development. At Marston Green (Ref APP/Q4625/A/11/2157515) there was a significant shortfall in the supply of housing land on any basis considered. Although there are some similarities between some aspects of the above cases and the appeal before me, none is directly comparable for the reasons given. Furthermore, they are based on advice which has been superseded by the Framework, and I give them little weight.

Character and appearance

14. Sports activities have not taken place on this former private sports field for some years. The site is vacant and largely unused, other than being cut for hay annually. It is not, therefore, previously developed land.

15. The site is not allocated for any use, but is within the countryside, beyond the built up area boundary of Clenchwarton, as defined on Inset Plan 77 of the Proposals Map of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan (LP), 1998. This remains extant, and is part of the development plan. Clenchwarton includes scattered pockets of development, with several defined built up areas, which are separated from the main part of the settlement. The proposal would infill the area between the existing housing at Coronation Road, Main Road, and the commercial units to west of the site. It would consolidate the sporadic development, which characterises the area.

16. At present views into and out of the site are very limited due to the existing hedges. The appellant would accept a condition requiring the retention of the hedges, but the proposed dwellings would have finished floor levels of at least 3.25m above Ordnance Datum, and each have a minimum of 2 storeys, in

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128

order to address the risk of flooding on the site, which is discussed further below.

17. My attention was drawn to the recently-built houses in Drain Road, which incorporate first floor accommodation within the roof space, and which have been designed with lower ridge heights than their immediate neighbours. However, these were clearly visible from within the site, and the appellant accepts that these do not have raised finished floor levels. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that the development would be effectively screened within the wider landscape, including from Main Road. The urbanising effect of the development would be materially harmful to the open character and appearance of the countryside. It would conflict with policy CS06 of the King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Core Strategy (CS), 2011, which seeks to protect the countryside beyond villages, and resists the development of green-field sites, unless it is essential for agricultural or forestry needs.

Flooding and Hazard Area

18. In common with much of Clenchwarton, the appeal site is within a Flood Zone 3 (high risk), as defined by the Environment Agency (EA). There is a tension between guiding new development away from areas at risk of flooding now or in the future, as required by CS policy CS01, and the identification of Clenchwarton as one of 20 Key Rural Service Centres (KRSC), where locally appropriate levels of growth may occur, in CS policy CS02. However, policy CS01 accepts that development may be required within flood risk areas to maintain the sustainability of local communities in rural areas.

19. Although the CS includes a settlement strategy, the identification of sites, including those in KRSCs will be through the Site Specific Allocations & Policies Development Plan Document (SSA). The SSA is at early stage of preparation, with adoption not anticipated before 2014, and I afford it little weight.

20. The appeal site has, however, been considered for housing within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) process, both in 2008 and 2011. On each occasion, together with all the other SHLAA sites in Clenchwarton, it was rejected due to the high flood risk. Nevertheless, in response to the appellant’s Flood Risk Assessment Report, the EA confirms that a combination of the proposed mitigation measures would be adequate to prevent ingress of flood water into homes in the event of a breach event, and for the estate roads to remain passable. On this basis, the EA does not object to the proposal.

21. Nonetheless, a further material consideration is that the site is also within a Hazard Area, as identified through the EA’s Tidal River Hazard Mapping for the River Great Ouse. In the event of an overtopping and/or breach of the defences of the River Great Ouse, which is identified as a 1 in 200 year event, the site could be flooded to a depth of up to 1m. The EA advises that further advice would, therefore, be required from its Emergency Planner on evacuation and rescue, since access and egress from the site could be impeded by floodwater.

22. Notwithstanding that new housing sites have yet to be identified in Clenchwarton in the emerging SSA, there is no dispute that there is undeveloped land adjacent to the main built up area of the village which is not in a Hazard Area, and which may be considered for housing in the future. The

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128

little information which has been provided about this land does not amount to a detailed Sequential Test, nor establish whether the land is available for housing. Nonetheless, it has not been demonstrated clearly that the development would be in sequentially preferable location with regard to flooding or the Hazard Area. The proposal therefore conflicts with advice in the Framework, paragraph 102, which requires both elements of the Sequential and Exception Tests to be passed for development to be permitted.

Other matters

23. The appellant would accept a condition requiring the delivery of 15 units of affordable housing within the development. This would accord with the CS requirement, and would contribute towards meeting the needs for affordable housing arising in Clenchwarton and the surrounding area. However, there is no evidence that the need for this quantity of affordable housing in Clenchwarton is so great as to outweigh the identified harm.

24. The unilateral undertaking deed, which is referred to above, is signed and dated. It includes obligations relating to contributions towards education, libraries and community facilities, the provision of on site open space, the transfer of additional land and monitoring fees. It is supported by a legal opinion, made under the laws of the Isle of Man, which states, among other things, that the obligations in the deed would be legally binding on the appellant.

25. The education contribution has been calculated on the anticipated demand for additional primary school provision at Clenchwarton Primary School. It is directly related to the proposed development, necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms and would be fairly and reasonably related in scale to the proposal. It would, therefore, meet the 3 tests in CIL Regulation 122, and I have taken it into account.

26. The libraries contribution is required to address the increased pressure on library stocks and information technology arising from the development. It would meet the 3 tests in CIL Regulation 122, and I have taken it into account.

27. The community facilities contribution of £150,000 would be used for the renovation of an existing off-site sports pavilion, together with its extension to provide additional facilities in the centre of Clenchwarton village. The sum would be paid to the Council, but as the Council is not a party to the undertaking, it cannot be obliged either to receive the payment or to carry out the specified works. Although there is some support for the improvements from local people, including the Clenchwarton Youth Football Club, it has not been demonstrated that they would be necessary for the development to proceed. They do not meet CIL Regulation 122, and I have not taken them into account.

28. The monitoring fee of £600 arises from the County Council’s request for a monitoring charge of £300 in respect of each of the obligations in its favour. However, the extent of monitoring would be limited in both cases, and it has not been explained how the sum would be used, and I have not taken this into account.

29. The ‘additional land’ in the unilateral undertaking refers to the land edged blue of the submitted drawings. The appellant undertakes, for a period of 42 days prior to the occupation of the dwellings, to offer to transfer the additional land

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128

to the Council, in response to the public engagement exercises carried out in 2008 and 2011. The appellant contends that the transfer would provide land for additional public open space for informal recreation, allotments, and play areas, but as no sum for its future maintenance has been offered, the Council indicates that it would be unlikely to accept the offer. Moreover, as there is no information before me to demonstrate a significant shortfall in the provision of public open space in the vicinity, it is not necessary. It does not accord with CIL Regulation 122, and I have not taken it into account in reaching my decision.

30. The undertaking would further provide for the removal of fire-damaged buildings and the surrounding hardstanding on the additional land, but these works could be carried out regardless of whether the appeal is allowed. They do not accord with CIL Regulation 122, and I have not taken this obligation into account.

31. The appellant contends that the sustainable surface water drainage system on the site, which could be required by a condition, would increase the biodiversity within the area. This is not disputed, but it does not outweigh the harm identified.

32. The written submissions referred to Planning Policy Statements 1, 3, 7 and 25, all of which been replaced by the Framework. However, at the hearing the appeal was discussed in the context of current national planning policy, and I have reached my decision on this basis.

Conclusions

33. A presumption in favour of sustainable development is at the heart of the Framework, but the proposal would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside, and would not be in a sequentially preferable location. Even if there were a shortfall in the deliverable 5 year housing land supply, the limited benefits, in relation to affordable housing and biodiversity, would not outweigh the significant harm identified. The need for contributions towards education and library facilities would not arise in the absence of the proposal.

34. I have considered all other matters raised, but they do not alter my decision.

C A Newmarch

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/V2635/A/12/2175128

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Richard Brown MSc Planning Consultant Anthony Charles Bateman Pegasus Planning Group Ltd BA(Hons) MRICS MRTPI Kate Bailey MRTPI CMLI Landscape Architect Alan Wallis ARIBA Wallis Design

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Hannah Wood-Handy BA, MA Principal Planner MRTPI Peter Jermany Principal Planner Nikki Patton Housing Strategy Officer Cllr David Whitby Ward member

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Cllr Richard Brown Clenchwarton Parish Council

DOCUMENTS

1 Appeal decision Ref APP/H1840/A/12/2171339 2 The appellant’s ‘Five year supplied (sic) based in Policy CS09 of the adopted Core Strategy…’ 3 The Council’s ‘Clenchwarton Appeal 2012 Housing Land calculation’ supporting table 4 The Council’s ‘Clenchwarton Appeal 2012 Housing Land calculation’ 5 Certified copy of the appellant’s Unilateral Undertaking and covering letter 6 Callin Wild legal opinion dated 11 October 2012 relating to the appellant’s Unilateral Undertaking 7 E-mail trail dated 11 October 2012 relating to the legal opinion

PLANS

A Proposed Priority Junction Site Access off Main Road, Ref STH2713-007 Rev A, dated 20 December 2011 B Norfolk Mapping Browser Image Export – highway land – A4 print, dated 25 September 2012 C Proposed Priority Junction Site Access off Main Road, Ref STH2713-001 Rev B, dated 31 August 2011 D ‘Highway land hatched in blue’ dated 22 April 2008 E ‘Highway land hatched blue’ dated 23 April 2008

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7