Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2025 by Philip Mileham BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/W/24/3357201 Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Allen against the decision of King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. • The application Ref is 23/01121/F. • The development proposed is the erection of 3 x single-storey dwellings involving the demolition of the existing buildings. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2024 after the Council’s refusal of Planning Permission. As a result, I have had regard to the latest version of the Framework in reaching my decision. 3. The appellant raised concerns that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land as required by paragraph 78 of the Framework.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision The Council has identified that the Government’s published 2023 Housing Delivery Test (HDT) figure was inaccurate, and as such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at paragraph 11 of the Framework should not be engaged in this instance. This matter was considered in appeal decision reference APP/V2635/W/24/3344096 which found plausible evidence the HDT results are incorrect. Therefore, there is no clear evidence before me to indicate that I should take an alternative position in this appeal. 4. The Council has indicated that it can demonstrate 7.9 years housing land supply, and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11 should not be engaged in this regard. 5. The Council identified that at the time of its appeal statement, the examination of its emerging Local Plan review was at an advanced stage. The King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (KLWNLP) was subsequently adopted on 27 March 2025, and as a result, the policies previously cited on the Council’s Decision Notice referencing the Core Strategy (2011) (CS), and the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) (SADMP) have now been superseded by the policies of the KLWNLP.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision The views of the parties were sought on the superseded policies and I have taken these into account in my decision. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision The views of the parties were sought on the superseded policies and I have taken these into account in my decision. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V2635/W/24/3357201 6. The Council has referenced a number of newly adopted policies which are relevant to the appeal including Policy LP14 (parking provision), LP18 (Design and Sustainable Development), L19 (Environmental Assets, Green Infrastructure, Landscape Character, Biodiversity and Geodiversity), LP21 (Environment, Design and Amenity), LP27 (Habitats Regulations Assessment) and LP33 (Enlargement or replacement of dwellings in the Countryside). However, the Council’s original Decision Notice does not reference parking, design, environment, biodiversity and green infrastructure, habitats regulations or replacement dwellings as reasons for refusing the proposed development. Therefore, as these policies do not relate to the reasons for refusal, and thereby the matters in dispute between the parties, I have not addressed them further in my decision. Main Issues 7. The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for residential development; and • Whether the proposed development would accord with the sequential approach to flood risk. Reasons Suitable location 8.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal site comprises two agricultural buildings located adjacent to the property known as ‘Fairfield House’ and opposite properties at Crown Farm, Middle Drove. 9. Marshland St. James is identified as a rural village in tier 5 of the settlement hierarchy as set out at Policy LP01 of the KLWNLP (2025). Policy LP02 of the KLWNLP seeks to focus new residential development with the defined development boundaries of locations within the settlement hierarchy. The appeal site would be located a considerable distance outside the settlement boundary for the village. Policy LP02(5) of the KLWNLP indicates that tier 5 settlements which have a housing requirement may support small-scale development which is not being brought forward through a Neighbourhood Plan. However, there is no evidence that to suggest that opportunities to provide any such requirement would not be possible with the development boundaries as Policy LP02(5) requires. Therefore, due to its location outside of the development boundary, the proposal would fail to accord with Policy LP02 of the KLWNLP in this regard. 10. There is no evidence before me of the extent of local services or facilities in the vicinity of the site.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision Furthermore, no evidence has been provided of the extent of any public transport opportunities for future occupiers of the proposal to access larger settlements with a range of services by modes of transport other than private vehicles. Due to the distance from the village of Marshland St. James, future occupiers would be required to access day-to-day services and facilities by private vehicles. Over time this would result in a cumulatively significant number of private vehicle movements to and from the site. 11. Middle Drove has no footpath or streetlighting present. As a result, whilst the area is lightly trafficked, outside daylight hours the local road network would be unattractive for walking or cycling. Whilst in rural areas Policy LP13 of the KLWNLP https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V2635/W/24/3357201 recognises the private car will remain an important means of travel, the proposal would not promote the use of sustainable forms of transport appropriate to its location as required by Policy LP13(4) of the KLWNLP. 12. The appellant has drawn my attention to previous consent granted under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) for the conversion of the buildings to three dwellings which they consider serves as a fallback to the appeal proposal. However, the submitted evidence indicates that this Prior Approval has lapsed and therefore cannot be implemented at the time of this decision. Therefore, whilst the principle of residential development has existed on site, this could only be implemented by seeking further Prior Approval from the Council. As a result, the previous Prior Approval is of limited weight in my decision. 13. In light of the above, I conclude that the proposal would not be in a suitable location for residential development. It would therefore fail to accord with Policies LP01 and LP02 of the KLWNLP for the reasons set out above.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision It would also fail to accord with Policy LP13(4)(a) of the KLWNLP which requires development proposals to promote sustainable forms of transport appropriate to their location. Flooding 14. The appeal site is located within Flood Zone 3 in an area with a high probability of flooding. Paragraph 173 of the Framework requires a sequential risk-based approach to be taken to individual applications in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from flooding. Paragraph 174 of the Framework indicates that the aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. 15. No evidence is before me to indicate that the appellant has considered whether there are any reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas at lower risk of flooding that paragraph 174 of the Framework expects. Whilst the appellant considers the application of the sequential test would not be necessary due to the fallback position, as set out above, the fallback is of limited weight as it cannot be implemented. Therefore, there is insufficient justification to conclude that the proposal would be located at the lowest risk of flooding. 16.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellants submitted Flood Risk Assessment recommended flood risk mitigation measures including the use of a finished floor level of 300mm above ordnance datum (AOD). Although raising floor levels may provide some mitigation towards the safety of the proposal from flood risk, as the FRA does not include evidence to address the requirements of the sequential test it would nonetheless fail to accord with the Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 7-020-20220825) in relation to the objectives of FRAs. 17. There is no clear evidence before me that the proposal could not be located in areas at lower risk of flooding and has therefore not passed the sequential test. As a result, it is not necessary for me to go on and consider the exceptions test in this instance. 18. In conclusion, the proposal would not accord with the sequential approach to flood risk. It would therefore fail to comply with Policies LP06 and LP25 of the KLWNLP which seek to ensure that development is designed to incorporate flood risk resilience measures and that proposed development should be located in areas with a lower probability of flooding. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V2635/W/24/3357201 19. The proposal would also fail to accord with paragraphs 173 and 174 of the Framework which seeks to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. It would also fail to accord with paragraph 20 of the Planning Practice Guidance for the reasons above. Other Matters 20. The proposal would result in the addition of 3 dwellings to the Borough’s land supply and thereby make a positive contribution to meeting wider housing needs in the area. There would also be economic benefits through the construction of the proposed development in terms of local construction jobs, and in the accompanying materials supply-chain. 21. Concerns have been raised by third parties that the proposal would experience significant highway access issues and harm natural habitats. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to address these matters further. Conclusion 22. As set out above, whilst I acknowledge the site previously had Prior Approval for the conversion of the agricultural buildings to dwellings, it has been confirmed this approval has lapsed. As such, I afford limited weight to the fallback as it cannot be implemented. 23.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Appeal Decision Overall, I find that the proposal would not be in a suitable location for new residential development. The proposal would also fail to accord with the provisions of the sequential test as set out in the Framework. It would thereby fail to accord with the Development Plan when read as a whole. 24. Whilst the proposal would have some benefits as set out above, due to the scale of the proposal these would be limited. Therefore, the benefits along with the other considerations advanced are insufficient to outweigh the conflict with the Local Plan. The proposal should in this instance be determined in accordance with the Development Plan. 25. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

Crown Farm Middle Drove, Marshland St. James, WISBECH, PE14 8JT — King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council — Philip Mileham INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4