An intriguing mystery

A proposal to develop the Binham Road/North Street site was put before North Norfolk District Council in 2019. The Senior Planning Officer’s response ended with a summary.

‘The proposal is situated within the Countryside as defined by Policy SS 1 where the principle of development is limited to that which requires a rural location and that meets one or more of the criteria within a closed list as defined in Policy SS 2. As the proposal is for market led housing this does not meet any of the required criteria, the rural location is considered to be unsustainable development and Contrary to Policies SS 1 and SS 2.

‘The proposed development is considered to have a potentially significant detrimental impact upon the natural environment as the site represents an important open space within Langham and is situated within the AONB. It is considered that the proposal for 27 dwellings in this location would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape and the AONB and is therefore not considered to be in accordance with Policies SS 4, EN 1, EN 2 and EN 9 of the Core Strategy.

‘The proposal is situated within the Langham Conservation Area and it is considered that the proposal for 27 dwellings would have result in significant harm to the designated heritage asset. At present [our emphasis] the benefits arising from the proposed scheme do not outweigh the potential harm and the proposal is, therefore, not considered to be in accordance with Policy EN 8 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 196 of the NPFF.

‘Norfolk County Council as the Highway Authority raise objections in regard to highway safety, particularly in regard to visibility splays at the Binham Road/Holt Road junction and the potential safety implications that this would cause. Further to this there is a lack of footways in the village and therefore pedestrian safety would also be compromised with the addition of further traffic movements. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies SS 6 and CT 5.

‘Were a formal application to be made on this site further consideration would also need to be given to the provision of open space (notwithstanding the suggested retention of the protected open space designated through Policy CT 1) and the potential impact of surface water and groundwater flood risk.

‘Based on the information provided it is considered that the principle of a residential, market led development would not be considered in accordance with the Development Plan and the case for a departure has not been made.’

This expert analysis of a proposal for ‘27 dwellings’ should surely have dissuaded any developer from wasting money on making a fresh proposal, not only for the same site but for almost 30% more dwellings. Unless something substantial has changed since 2019, the present proposal is a mystery.

The Senior Planning Officer’s letter ends with a list of ‘Validation Requirements’:

‘If a planning application were submitted the following items would be required:

• A full set of existing and proposed plans

• Application Form

• Completed ownership certificate

• Correct Fee

• Design and Access Statement

• Location Plan

• Site Plan

• Affordable Housing Statement

• Assessment of Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Broads

• Sustainable Drainage Strategy including Foul Water and Surface Water Management

• Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

• Flood risk assessment

• Foul Drainage Assessment

• Heritage Statement

• Landscape Character and Landscape Visual Impact Assessment

• Landscape Proposals

• Open Space Assessment and Strategy

• Planning Statement

• Refuse and Waste Strategy

• Section 106 Planning Obligations Statement including Draft Head(s) of Terms and undertakings to pay legal costs

• Statement of Community Involvement

• Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment

• Viability Assessment (if not in line with Affordable Housing Policy)’

The validation requirements, if satisfied, would involve the applicant in considerable and potentially futile expense, the more so were individual objections by residents to be numerous, coherent, apposite and comprehensive – which is precisely what we are hoping to foster.

We strongly recommend that the developer shelve this plan, just as the abortive 1991, 1992 and 2019 plans were shelved. Indeed, the 1992 application was rejected on appeal.