Key decisions

Mixed development

The benefits of the regeneration of brownfield land in north London have been held to outweigh harm to area character and appearance.

The proposal was for the redevelopment of former railway land for a residential-led mixed use scheme. The scheme also included commercial, business and services uses, and incorporated three tall buildings. The site, which already benefited from two extant planning permissions, lay in a conservation area and near statutorily and locally listed buildings. It was common ground that the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.

An inspector agreed with an assessor’s report on the proposed development’s architectural quality and townscape impacts. This concluded that the scheme would cause a low level of harm to the character and appearance of the area due to the scale, height and massing of the tall buildings, which were up to 32 storeys high. The inspector also held that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and would harm other heritage assets.

However, he concluded that the level of harm was outweighed by the scheme’s public benefits and was not such that the ‘tilted balance’ should not be engaged. When applying this balance, the inspector noted that the proposal’s benefits included much-needed market and affordable housing delivery, supporting the area’s regeneration and helping to deliver the objectives of a local masterplan. These benefits were ‘very substantial indeed’, he ruled, and warranted a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

Inspector: Jonathan Manning; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-262

Comment: This case is a reminder that design and heritage concerns can still be trumped where the benefits of a proposal are sufficiently substantial, especially where a housing shortfall is in play. In this case, the developers proposed regeneration of the goods yard at Tottenham, north London, through a major mixed-use scheme including three tall buildings. The inspector accepted an assessor’s conclusion that the height, breadth and massing of the tall buildings would result in “an abrupt change in scale compared with the prevailing local townscape”. There would also be some harm to the North Tottenham Conservation Area, the inspector accepted. However, these impacts were balanced against the scheme’s benefits, which the inspector noted included the provision of 867 homes in the context of a significant housing supply shortfall. The scheme’s contribution towards the regeneration of Tottenham – one of the most deprived areas in the country – was also noted, as was the contribution towards the delivery of a masterplan for the area. Applying the tilted balance, the inspector allowed the scheme.

Housing new build

An urgent need for housing in a Gloucestershire town has been held to represent exceptional circumstances justifying major development in an AONB.

An inspector granted permission for 250 houses in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), on a site at the edge of the town. He acknowledged that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) instructs that permission should be refused for major development in AONBs, other than in exceptional circumstances, and where the development can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. The inspector went on to consider whether the proposal satisfied these tests, and cited a “very serious” shortfall of housing and the site’s urban surroundings as factors amounting to exceptional circumstances.

The council accepted it could only demonstrate a 2.9-year housing land supply, whereas the appellant claimed the figure should be 1.6 years. The inspector ruled that on either basis, the shortfall was very substantial with little prospect of a timely plan-led remedy. The proposed scheme, which included 100 affordable homes, would make an important contribution towards meeting housing needs, he held. 

The inspector accepted there would be an adverse effect on the AONB. However, he found that the impact was limited in both near and long-range views by the site’s unusually urban context, with existing development surrounding the site, which was located on the lower slopes of an escarpment. In his view, the appeal site was an obvious and logical extension to the town. Given the severe constraints of a district surrounded by AONB and green belt, the pressing housing need could not be met in another way, he held. There were, in his judgement, exceptional circumstances to justify the development and that the proposal would be in the public interest.

Inspector: Matthew Nunn; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-213

Comment: Three cases this month show the balancing act to be considered when assessing proposals for major housing developments in AONBs. NPPF paragraph 177 states that such developments should only be allowed in ‘exceptional circumstances’. In this case, the area’s pressing need for housing and lack of alternative housing sites, combined to form these exceptional circumstances, the inspector decided. The decision letter also noted that the specific urban context of the site meant the scheme’s impact would be limited. Contrasting with this are cases in Kent (DCS Number 400-037-193) and a second case in Gloucestershire (DCS Number 200-011-264), where the significant contribution of the respective sites to the AONB’s landscape ruled out any demonstration of exceptional circumstances justifying proposed major development.

Latest cases

Community facilities

The benefits of a retirement homes scheme in Devon have been held to outweigh the absence of a financial contribution to affordable housing.

The central issue relating to the proposal for an 84-retirement flats scheme in Exeter focused on the council’s claim that on sites of 10 or more dwellings, 35 per cent of the units should be affordable. The inspector noted that this was subject to assessment of a development’s viability and in exceptional circumstances a financial contribution towards off-site provision could be made.

In assessing whether the scheme proposed was capable of making a financial contribution, the inspector focused on the gross development value (GDV), build costs and the benchmark land value (BLV).

With regard to the GDV, the inspector held that, given the location of the site relatively close to the city centre in combination with a review of comparative sales values on different retirement developments across the city, the council’s estimate of average sales value of the apartments equating to £505 per square foot was more likely. This was in contrast with the appellant’s estimate of £472 per square foot. The appellant estimated the scheme would cost just over £14 million to build whereas the council estimated this to be £12.3m. 

Turning to the BLV, the inspector noted that the appellant had paid £4 million for the site which was considerably higher than the £1.7 million BLV for the appeal proposal. While the council’s BLV of £820,000 seemed more likely, the inspector noted, it was difficult to be precise and he decided it was likely to lie somewhere between the two estimates.

Overall, therefore, the inspector concluded that some finance would be available towards a contribution to off-site affordable housing. But while there was a need for such housing, the inspector noted the scheme’s benefits. These included providing retirement accommodation on a brownfield site in a sustainable location, plus freeing up existing houses vacated by people relocating to the scheme. These benefits outweighed the absence of a financial contribution, he held.

Inspector: John Wilde; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-259

A proposal for retirement apartments in a Cambridgeshire village has been held to provide sufficient amenity space for future occupiers.

An inspector allowed the proposal for 39 retirement apartments on the site of a vacant commercial yard and buildings in the village. The council had objected to the amount and quality of private and communal amenity space, which it argued did not meet its specific policy and design guide requirements. It referred to previous appeal decisions which had highlighted the need for acceptable levels of amenity space notwithstanding the age of the residents.

The layout of the proposal incorporated communal gardens, the inspector noted. Although an area on the north side of the building would be overshadowed, she held that a shaded area of garden for those residents who did not wish to be in full sun was sensible, and a link to the main garden areas to the south could be achieved through landscaping conditions. The inspector was satisfied that the overall amount of private and communal outdoor space was suitable, having regard to the likely age of the occupiers of the development and the type of accommodation proposed.  

While some of the upper floor flats would have balconies, the majority would not due to issues of proximity to a railway line and overlooking of neighbours, the inspector noted. She acknowledged this did not comply with a design guide recommendation that upper floor apartments should have access to a private balcony in addition to the use of a communal garden and this counted against the scheme. However, she concluded that this small degree of conflict with policy was outweighed by the benefits of meeting an identified need for retirement housing and associated spin-off benefits.

Inspector: Rebecca Norman; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-211

Energy development

The public benefits of a wind farm extension in south Wales have been held to outweigh visual impact.

Welsh ministers approved the application for seven wind turbines and an energy storage facility in upland countryside, accepting an inspector’s recommendation in favour of the scheme. The wind turbines would in effect be an extension to an existing operational wind farm, the ministers noted. The scheme would provide an additional 25.2 megawatts of renewable energy, sufficient to power nearly 22,000 homes each year over its 35-year lifespan, displacing some 38,500 tonnes of CO₂ a year, they found. As the majority of the upland grazing site comprised common land, a separate application sought permission to deregister and register an equivalent area of replacement land adjacent.

The ministers noted the site’s states as a ‘pre-assessed area for wind energy’ in Future Wales, the national development framework. Under this policy, the likely landscape impact of wind energy had already been modelled and the area found to be capable of accommodating such development in an acceptable way. A presumption in favour of the proposal therefore applied, subject to satisfying a number of criteria. 

The Welsh Ministers agreed with the inspector’s assessment of visual effects. The turbines would be largely seen in the context of existing wind farm developments and would not appear overbearing individually or cumulatively, they agreed. Other impacts relating to noise, nature conservation including peat bogs, airport radar, scheduled monuments could all be mitigated through conditions, they concluded.

Overall, the Welsh Ministers agreed that the substantial public benefits of the development, particularly renewable energy, significantly outweighed localised visual harm and a minor negative impact on those who wished to use the common land for recreation.

Inspector: Richard Jenkins; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-196

 Housing new build 

A proposed urban extension in Suffolk was approved after the appellant agreed to mitigation of highways and other infrastructure impacts.

The hybrid proposal sought outline permission for up to 1,375 homes and detailed consent for the first phase of 287 homes. There was consensus between the parties that the development – proposed for an allocated site on the edge of a town – was acceptable in principle. However, the district and county councils and National Highways had argued that the appellant was failing to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements required by policy. This included funding for highway, public indoor sports and public libraries improvements.

However, by the end of the inquiry infrastructure contributions had been agreed. In particular, highways and transport infrastructure would comprise works to improve several road junctions. The appellants also agreed to provide pedestrian and cycle links to the town centre to minimise traffic growth on the local road network. On this basis and subject to Grampian conditions, the inspector concluded the development would comply with the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 111 relating to the impact of development on the highway network.

Inspector: Nick Fagan; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-234

The contribution of two housing proposals in Greater Manchester to addressing a homes shortfall has been judged to outweigh landscape impacts.

An inspector allowed two appeals for housing totalling 302 homes, on the edge of a town. Both sites fell within an area where a development plan policy sought to restrict development to certain categories in order to protect the land’s openness and concentrate development in the existing urban area. There was consensus between the parties that both proposals conflicted with the policy.

However, the inspector noted there was a significant housing land supply shortfall and found the proposals would contribute to boosting the supply and delivery of homes in the area. Other benefits, he held, included the provision of affordable housing, biodiversity benefits, employment in the construction sector and the positive economic impacts from additional people living in the area.

In the inspector’s view, collectively the proposals would have only minor adverse landscape character and visual impacts. The two developments would deliver high quality buildings and places so would represent good design, he judged, and the scheme would not result in the development of isolated homes in the countryside. Overall, the adverse effects of allowing the developments, which included conflict with out-of-date development plan policies, would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the developments’ benefits, the inspector ruled.     

Inspector: Daniel Hartley; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-223

A major housing scheme has been approved in south-east Scotland, subject to a landscape strategy being implemented to safeguard the countryside.

A reporter approved the proposal for 300 homes in protected countryside between settlements. The 15.7-hectare greenfield site lay on a village edge surrounded by new and planned housing on three sides but within a designated countryside belt that fulfilled a similar function to green belt and was protected by restrictive development plan policy. 

However, the reporter was content that the village would not visually or physically coalesce with a large neighbouring town nor would its landscape setting be harmed, thereby protecting the strategic purposes of the countryside belt. This was subject to robust conditions to ensure the development would deliver the significant areas of green infrastructure and buffer landscaping shown on the appellants’ illustrative masterplan, the reporter stated.

In relation to other development plan policies, the reporter found the site to be in a sustainable location with good access to services and facilities by modes of transport other than private car. Having concluded a significant shortfall in housing land supply was most likely, the reporter also held the development was supported by strategic and local plan housing policies allowing for housing development on greenfield sites in order to maintain a five-year effective supply. She was satisfied that, subject to conditions, the proposal accorded with the development plan.

Reporter: Lorna McCallum; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-037-470

The ‘substantial’ benefits from greenfield housing at the edge of a market town in Essex have been held to outweigh any adverse impacts.

An inspector allowed the proposal for 233 homes on agricultural land after the council chose not to defend the appeal but the town council and a neighbouring parish council continued their opposition to the proposal. It was agreed between the main parties that the council currently had only a 3.52-year housing land supply, and the inspector held that the benefits of housing in such a context were substantial.

On the main issues, the inspector held that the proposal would provide sustainable transport measures including pedestrian and cycle links. She also ruled it would make adequate provision for any additional need for local services, amenities and infrastructure arising from the development. 

The inspector found no harm to the setting of a listed church, other listed buildings or to the town centre conservation area from off-site highway works and effects. She did not agree that the development would result in coalescence of the town with a nearby village and considered that landscape impacts would be adequately mitigated. Off-site highways works would help address existing network capacity issues beyond mitigation of the effects of traffic generated by the development, she held.

Inspector: Christa Masters; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-214

Two schemes for the redevelopment of a golf course in West Sussex with housing have been held not to harm area character and appearance.

The appeals, for 167 and 191 homes respectively, were for a site outside the built-up area boundaries of nearby settlements. A landscape study noted that the setting of the two settlements was heavily influenced by golf course developments. The inspector did not accept the council’s claim that it would create an enclave of development separate from the main urban areas, noting residents would be able to walk to schools and other services.

Nor would either scheme have a significant adverse landscape impact, the inspector considered. Both schemes would respect the character of the area which was characterised by traditional and recent residential developments, he held. The mix of dwellings and their form and layout would be similar to others in the area and incorporate and enhance existing landscape features, he noted. The fact that the council could only demonstrate 2.4 years’ supply of housing land was also an important consideration, the inspector concluded.

Inspector: Nick Palmer; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-256

The benefits of a greenfield housing scheme on the edge of Gloucester have been held to outweigh only limited adverse impacts.

An inspector held that the benefits of the scheme, comprising 148 market and 37 affordable homes, would be significant. The site would be well-related to the city, which had been identified for growth in a spatial strategy, he noted. 

By the time of the inquiry, the appellant had satisfactorily addressed the council’s principal reasons for refusal, apart from a conflict with the spatial strategy. The council chose not to defend these aspects of the appeal, although other interested parties maintained their objections to the outline scheme.

On the issue of odour impacts, the inspector found that the site lay within a cordon sanitaire defined around a sewage treatment works. However, he held that the appellant had demonstrated through a robust odour assessment and proposed exclusion of housing from an odour buffer zone, that occupiers would not be adversely affected by odour nuisance. Continued operation of the works would not be harmed by the introduction of housing, he concluded. 

In the inspector’s view, the fact that housing would be restricted to the upper slopes of the site at low risk of flooding together with other measures such as a buffer of green infrastructure, would help the development to blend into the landscape. It would provide a clearly defined and defensible boundary to the further outward extent of residential development, he held. Harm to the rural setting of a village conservation area would be limited due to a lack of intervisibility, he concluded.

With a deliverable housing land supply agreed to be 4.41 years, the inspector concluded that the significant benefits of housing outweighed the limited conflict with the spatial strategy. 

Inspector: Jonathan Price; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-204

The landscape impact of a proposed housing scheme at the edge of a Kent town has been judged to be unacceptable.

An inspector dismissed an appeal for up to 100 houses on a sloping open field just outside the town. He identified a number of factors which led him to conclude it would have an unacceptable effect of more than local magnitude.

In the inspector’s assessment, the steeply sloping field next to a clearly defined settlement edge had a stronger relationship with the wider arable landscape than it did with the urban fringe. This was particularly appreciated in views and a sense of tranquillity experienced from a public footpath crossing the site, he held. The inspector judged that the relatively high-density housing estate would appear as a prominent intrusion into the countryside and visually distinct from the town. Noting the lack of tree cover in the surrounding coastal landscape, he held that suggested landscaping measures around the boundaries of the site were aimed more at obscuring an unacceptable development than successfully integrating it into the landscape.

The inspector attached significant weight to the irreversible harm to the character and appearance of the area which he held would be caused by the proposal. This would conflict with national policies requiring development to be sympathetic to local character and maintain a strong sense of place, he held. While acknowledging there would be a benefit from provision of housing given an accepted five-year shortfall, the inspector concluded this was outweighed by the scheme’s adverse impacts.

Inspector: John Morrison; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-215

The benefits of a housing proposal on a strategic gap in Devon have been held to outweigh the adverse impacts of the scheme.

An inspector approved the proposal for up to 100 homes on land between two settlements, after concluding that the scheme’s urbanising effect and reduction in the site’s openness would occur within a landscape that was not highly sensitive. He also concluded that the proposal would not result in coalescence or detract from the settlement’s attractive setting. 

The site lay outside a defined settlement boundary and comprised a number of fields, with one side lying adjacent to a recently approved major housing scheme. The inspector noted that it also fell within a strategic gap identified in the council’s development plan, which sought to maintain the distinct identities of two neighbouring settlements.

However, he found that the extent of encroachment into the strategic gap would be limited and tempered by the potential for boundary landscaping. Satisfactory mitigation of the development’s impact on nearby European nature sites could be secured by community infrastructure levy contributions and a submitted unilateral undertaking, the inspector held.

The inspector noted that the council was unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, so applied the tilted balance to the decision. In his view, there had been significant under-delivery of affordable housing in the past and the need was now acute. Overall, despite some conflict with the development plan, the inspector concluded that the proposal’s benefits outweighed its limited adverse effects.   

Inspector: Matthew Woodward; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-230

No exceptional circumstances have been found to justify 35 affordable homes on AONB land in Gloucestershire.

The appellants proposed 35 affordable homes on land adjoining a market town. The inspector noted that the triangular-shaped site was bounded by dry stone walls at the edge of a settlement within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), with housing nearby. A local plan policy supported the provision of affordable housing on exception sites to meet local affordable housing needs adjoining such settlements, provided the site was not subject to an overriding environmental planning constraint, the inspector noted. Particular importance was given in the policy to sustainability considerations, including the scale of development and the impact on the character of the surrounding landscape and countryside, he recorded.

The inspector found that the site and its rural environs made a significant contribution to the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. On the other hand, due to its nature, scale and setting, the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the natural beauty of the AONB and would constitute major development in the AONB, in terms of paragraph 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The scheme’s benefits, including the provision of affordable housing in the town, fell short of amounting to the exceptional circumstances that would justify the highly significant and permanent harm that would arise to the AONB, the inspector concluded.

Inspector: Matthew Jones; Hearing.
DCS Number: 200-011-264

Design concerns have scuppered two alternative proposals for housing on a brownfield site in an East Sussex town.

The schemes both proposed 28 homes for a site which was allocated for housing. They proposed a mix of houses and flats contained in a three-storey apartment block, with some variations in access, design and housing mix. The site was next to the town’s extensive conservation area, with a number of buildings of townscape merit nearby.

The effect of the proposals on area character and conservation area setting was a main issue. In the inspector’s opinion, in both schemes the block of flats would be overbearing in a street scene characterised by modestly scaled and predominantly terraced housing. The proposed use of varied house designs employing large windows and top-heavy mansards across the site would be out of keeping with cohesive local architecture, she held. In her view, this incongruous design and the scale of the apartment building would be stark and apparent in views from within the conservation area. The proposals would also result in the loss of mature trees on the site, she noted.

The inspector stated that the development’s design should be of the utmost importance. She concluded that the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, as well as to heritage assets, brought the scheme into conflict with the development plan. She also identified harm arising from a proposed mix of housing not reflecting local need.The inspector ruled that the development’s considerable benefits were not enough to outweigh these impacts.

Inspector: Rosalyn Kirby; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-207

A proposal for 23 homes on the edge of a Kent village has been held to constitute major development in the AONB and refused.

Referring to national policy, the inspector noted that permission should be refused for major development in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Whether a proposal is ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, she noted. Despite the appellant’s evidence relating to other schemes, the inspector in this case judged that the scale of development in the context of a modest settlement would be relatively large and therefore would constitute a major development. 

The inspector went on to agree with the conclusions of a local plan inspector who had deleted a draft allocation of the site. This held that development here would be an incursion into the countryside that would materially detract from the landscape quality of the AONB. She also held that proposed new landscaping would not be adequate mitigation of the effects of the development.

The inspector found further harm to the setting of a listed farmhouse and cottages from erosion of an historical farmland setting and the introduction of a widened and engineered access. Referring to the heritage balance set out in paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the inspector concluded the benefits of the scheme, notably for housing supply, did not outweigh this harm. Although the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the tilted balance in favour of the scheme had been disengaged by the identified harm to the AONB and listed buildings, the inspector held.

Inspector: Jaine Jolly; Written representations
DCS Number: 400-037-193

 Mixed development

A council has been held to have acted unreasonably in refusing a 700-home urban extension on a settlement edge in East Sussex.

An inspector made a full award of costs against the council for refusing the scheme, which also incorporated 8,600 square metres of employment floorspace. The proposal, he noted, was on land which had been identified for strategic development in a core strategy. 

The inspector noted that a previous appeal decision had rejected a similar proposal on the same site on highways grounds. The appellants had subsequently carried out work to address these issues to the satisfaction of the highways authority and the council’s officers, the inspector held. Given this, he held, it was “inexplicable” why the council then refused permission for the current scheme on highway grounds. Its conduct in the case was “the epitome of unreasonable behaviour”, he stated.

On the main issues, the inspector held that the additional traffic generated by the scheme could be accommodated in the road network without any unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe residual cumulative impact. Further amendments had addressed the specific concerns of the previous inspector, so that the development would not compromise planned bus priority measures or pedestrian safety. 

Overall, he decided that the proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole and its substantial benefits outweighed only limited harm from localised landscape and visual impacts. In his view, the entire appeal should have been unnecessary, adding that the quantity of objections alone cannot be determinative in decision-making. 

Inspector: Michael Boniface; Inquiry
DCS Number: 200-011-197

The benefits of proposed housing in East Sussex have been held to outweigh conflict with an out-of-date local plan policy.

An inspector approved the proposal for up to 180 homes, a medical centre and open space, proposed for a site on the edge of a settlement. The site comprised former playing field land that was private, rather than public open space. The inspector noted it could no longer be considered to be within the countryside by virtue of its allocation for strategic development in the council’s core strategy. The main parties had agreed that policies in a local plan from the late 1990s that sought to restrict development outside settlement boundaries were out of date since they did not reflect the district’s current housing needs and were inconsistent with the core strategy. The inspector therefore concluded that the principle of the proposed development was acceptable and in accord with the council’s more recent plan. The inspector also agreed that the appeal site was well located relative to services and facilities, including the facilities and employment opportunities in a nearby town.

Having considered the appellant’s Habitats Regulation Assessment and further evidence, the inspector concluded there would be no harm to the European nature sites, and identified no other significant harm arising from the scheme. The proposal would also deliver a number of benefits, the inspector held. These included market and affordable houses in a sustainable location, economic benefits through job creation and the provision of a new medical centre. 

Inspector: Lesley Coffey; Inquiry.
DCS Number: 200-011-226

Harm to area character has ruled out a proposal for housing and a sports pavilion on open land at a Gloucestershire college.

An inspector held that the benefits of the scheme, which incorporated 52 new homes, were outweighed by conflict with neighbourhood plan policies aimed at protecting important open spaces. The site comprised a fairly extensive area of private open space within the built-up area of the town and included a number of playing fields. Although there was no public access, views of the land were available from an adjoining footpath and several public places. A neighbourhood plan identified the site as a protected outdoor playspace.   

The inspector accepted the site was well located for housing, with good access to local schools, a medical surgery, shops and other services and facilities. The proposed development would also deliver a range of benefits, which included affordable housing, he held. In particular, he noted the sale of the housing land would help cross-subsidise the costs of the construction of the sports pavilion. Without permission for the housing, the improved sporting facilities for the pupils at the college were unlikely to be realised. Additionally, a planning obligation would allow the pavilion and hockey pitch to be used by the public at certain times, he found. 

Despite these and other benefits, the inspector concluded that the site contributed positively to the make-up of the town’s green infrastructure. This, he noted, was acknowledged in the neighbourhood plan. Locally distinctive views would be undermined, he held, and the site-specific effects of the development would be “very harmful”. The level of adverse impact was such that the planning balance fell against the scheme, he concluded.

Inspector: David Wyborn; Hearing
DCS Number: 200-011-227

Transport development

The benefits of a highways junction improvement in Norfolk have been held to outweigh the adverse impacts of the scheme. 

The secretary of state approved the proposal for junction improvements on the A47/A11 junction to the south-west of Norwich, after agreeing with an examiner’s report’s conclusion that a need for the development had been proven. 

Government agency National Highways had applied under the Planning Act 2008 for consent to connect the A11 northbound to the A47 via two underpasses, including wider improvements to the existing junction and improving connections to the B1172. The agency argued there was a need for the development to support growth in the area, and that the junction was already operating in excess of its design capacity. National policy recognised the need to improve strategic road networks which better support social and economic activity and which deliver safe and reliable journeys, it argued. 

The agency stated the junction was well known to be a point of congestion and the improvements were needed to reduce congestion and delay. It also claimed the proposal would deliver many benefits including reducing accidents and supporting local housing and employment growth. It also argued the scheme would improve access to other centres including Cambridge, Peterborough, King’s Lynn, the Midlands and the north.

The examining inspector agreed there was no viable and suitable alternative to the planned works. A range of impacts would arise in relation to air quality, noise and vibration, the water environment, he noted. He also acknowledged the scheme would have an impact on the landscape, heritage assets and climate change, and would lead to the loss of two veteran trees. However, he held the need for the scheme outweighed their removal. Thus, the national need for the scheme together with the public benefits outweighed the adverse effects, he concluded.

In his decision letter, the secretary of state noted the requirements of the 2015 Paris Agreement, together with the government’s net zero 2050 target. However, he concluded there was no reason to consider that the proposed development would hinder the transport decarbonisation plan and that it would not have a material impact on meeting the 2050 target. Overall, the net carbon emissions resulting from the proposal would decrease as measures to reduce emissions from vehicle usage were delivered, he held. Plans were in place to ensure the various reduction targets were met and therefore consent was justified, he held.

Inspector: Matthew Shrigley; Examination
DCS Number: 200-011-238