- Decision
- dismissed, 17 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: H Marriott
- Authority
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6010197
- Application reference
- 25/02106/F
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of former vehicle workshop and erection of four duplex flats
- Homes
- 4
- Site context
- inside settlement, PDL, conservation area, listed building setting, flood zone 3
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(2)(c), DP3(1), DP3(3), HE4, HE6
- Development plan policies
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) LP02, LP06, LP18, LP20, LP21, LP25, LP40
- Main issues
- character and heritage setting; living conditions; flood exception test
Summary
Four duplex flats replacing a single-storey former workshop in central King's Lynn, behind a Grade II terrace and next to the Norfolk Street Conservation Area. Dismissed. The backland, back-to-back layout and deep M-plan roof were out of keeping with the railway-era grid and harmed the settings of the listed terrace and the CA. The inspector treated DP3 as a refusal policy that engages S4(2)(c). With considerable weight on the heritage harm, the benefits were "substantially outweighed" even though PDL redevelopment was given substantial weight under L2/L3. The flood exception test was passed. A costs application was made (separate decision).
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties had an opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3).
- Character/heritage: HARM. "the two dwellings to the rear would create a backland, back-to-back form of development … at odds with the character of the surrounding area and would erode the legible grid pattern" (DL ¶12). "The appellant contends that there is no conflict with a specific design standard, code or masterplan … However, that does not alter my assessment, which is ultimately a matter of planning judgement" (DL ¶15). The public benefits did not outweigh "harm to the significance of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶18).
- Flood F6: PASS. The exception test "requires a different exercise" from the heritage balance, and benefits outweighed flood risk given the defences (DL ¶27-29).
- S4 and DP3. "Policy DP3 states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 … Moreover, in line with Policy S4, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be outweighed by adverse effects include situations where the development proposals would fail to comply with Policy DP3" (DL ¶34).
Planning balance
S4(1)/S4(2)(c). For the scheme, "substantial weight to the redevelopment of this previously developed underutilised site in a sustainable urban location" (L2/L3), a housing contribution ("not aware of an acute need"), and economic benefits (DL ¶33). Against it, DP3 conflict and HE4/HE6 harm "which attracts considerable weight". The benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶35).
What made the difference
The heritage and design harm from a backland plan form in a planned Victorian grid. Using DP3(3) as a refusal policy fed straight into S4(2)(c), so substantial L2 weight for PDL could not carry the scheme. A frontage-only terrace that reflected the rhythm of the adjoining terrace would probably have succeeded.
Transferable points
- A DP3(1) conflict is a S4(2)(c) "refusal policy" circumstance, which tilts S4 towards refusal (DL ¶34).
- The absence of a design code does not prevent a DP3 refusal. Design is a matter of judgement (DL ¶15).
- The heritage balance and the flood exception test are different exercises. The same benefits can fail one and pass the other (DL ¶27).
- L2/L3 give substantial weight to urban PDL redevelopment, but that weight does not outweigh considerable-weight heritage harm plus DP3 conflict (DL ¶33-35).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6 | harm | considerable | harm to setting of Grade II 3-15 Portland Street and adjacent Norfolk Street CA; public benefits (PDL, housing, removing workshop fallback) do not outweigh (DL 15-18) |
| DP3(1) | fail | backland back-to-back layout, deep M-plan roof, flat frontage fail to respond to the railway-era grid; DP3(3) refusal limb engaged even with no design code conflict (DL 12-15, 34) | |
| L2 | benefit | substantial | substantial weight to redevelopment of underused PDL in sustainable urban location (L2/L3) (DL 33) |
| F6 | pass | FZ3/Tidal Hazard Zone; sequential test agreed passed; exception test met - a "different exercise" from the heritage balance (DL 25-29) | |
| S4(2)(c) | fail | failing DP3 is a S4(2) refusal-policy circumstance; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34-35) |
Key facts
- Previous 6-dwelling scheme dismissed at appeal (APP/V2635/W/21/3288475); this scheme reduced in scale
- Neighbour living conditions and flood exception test found acceptable
- No acute housing need identified by the inspector
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.