11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

In this case, the proposal is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of
the site but may have a significant effect on a European site (North Norfolk and Wash SPA),
in terms of its use by Pink Footed Geese which is reinforced by the comments of Natural
England, as well as the RSPB and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust.
Consequently, with legal doubt cast on the mitigation proposed to reduce the impact upon
the geese, the conclusion of the Appropriate Assessment is that, solely with regard to the
impact upon the SPA, ‘permission must not be granted’, particularly as the developer has not
demonstrated that there are other, alternative sites either within the Borough or outside it
that could accommodate the development without impacting upon the SPA.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
Planning Policy Statement 5; Planning for the Historic Environment is relevant to the
determination of this application. Policy HE1 (heritage assets and climate change) provides
guidance in determining applications where there is conflict between climate change
objectives and the conservation of heritage assets. It states that the public benefit of
mitigating the effects of climate change should be weighed against any harm to the
significance of heritage assets in accordance with the development management principles
in this PPS and national planning policy on climate change. In addition Policy HE10
(additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for development
affecting the setting of a designated heritage asset) states ‘When considering applications
for development that affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities should
treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive
contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications
that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider
benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the
heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval’.
PPS5 provides a definition of setting and states that it is:
‘The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may
change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive
or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate
that significance or may be neutral.’
In terms of archaeology your officers are satisfied that the proposed development would not
cause any adverse impact on archaeology and that a suitably worded condition (as
recommended by Historic Environment Service) would ensure adequate monitoring during
construction.
Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
establishes the need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of
listed buildings.
There are 38 listed buildings within 2.5 km of the centre of the site; this includes grade II
listed buildings in South and North Creake. Grade I and II* listed buildings were also
identified that lie within 10km of the centre of the proposed development.
The ES concludes that in respect of indirect adverse impact, there is a likelihood of medium
term reversible impact of lower moderate and moderate magnitude (respectively) upon the
setting of two visible heritage assets (Grade I listed churches); the assets themselves are of
national importance, whilst the setting detriment would be of local-to-regional significance.
The ES states these impacts are to be managed, through mitigation by agreed screening
10/01419/FM Development Control Board
25 July 2011
59