Planning – Application Comments

Consultation Date: Fri 09 Oct 2026

Consultation Date: Fri 09 Oct 2026

Consultation Date: Fri 09 Oct 2026

Consultation Date: Fri 09 Oct 2026

Comment Date: Tue 27 Oct 2026

This is a fundamentally inappropriate location for the proposed development. T2's age, size and substantial amenity value demand a precautionary approach. The minimum root protection area (RPA) of this tree should remain free from development, with consideration given to extending protection rather than accommodating further encroachment. The design of this proposal fails to respond to the tree's presence and influence. Its substantial canopy would completely dominate the dwelling and external space, with shading, restricted outlook, leaf and acorn fall, minor branch shedding and perceived apprehension during windy conditions creating an inherently conflicted relationship and foreseeable pressure for damaging pruning or removal. Neither satisfactory protection of the tree nor an acceptable long-term relationship with the dwelling has been demonstrated. Therefore, I am unable to support this proposal and recommend refusal.

T2 is a notable Category A oak, protected by Tree Preservation Order, which makes a substantial contribution to the landscape character and amenity of the locality.

The application proposes conversion of the existing stables together with new building work at the right hand wing extending southwards. The arboricultural assessment does not adequately demonstrate how the full construction requirements can be accommodated without harm to retained trees. In particular, protective fencing is set substantially inside T2's minimum root protection area (RPA) to accommodate working space, alongside permanent encroachment from two new parking spaces and footpaths around the existing and new parts of the proposed dwelling. The cumulative implications of construction access, excavation, drainage, services and surfacing are a problem, and the reports reliance on percentage incursions, temporary ground protection and an absent no-dig specification (it's not in the report) does not addess this matter in principle or make it acceptable.

The assessment also fails to adequately address the relationship between the proposed new dwelling and the tree. T2 is a large tree with a wide spreading low canopy directly south/southwest of the proposed dwelling with all major window and door opening looking directly onto the tree.

General references in the report to summer cooling in the report do not demonstrate satisfactory daylight, sunlight and outlook, or address foreseeable pressure for substantial pruning or removal arising from shading, canopy proximity and maintenance requirements.

All of these concerns were identified during the earlier pre-application enquiry, following which T2 was made subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The current submission has not resolved any of them.

Suggested reason for refusal:

The proposed development, by reason of its siting, layout and associated construction requirements, fails to make adequate provision for the protection and long-term retention of T2, a notable Category A oak protected by a Tree Preservation Order 2/TPO/00692. The proposed hard surfacing and construction working areas encroach into its root protection area, and the submitted information does not demonstrate that the development can be implemented without unacceptable damage to roots, soil structure or the tree's growing conditions. Furthermore, the close relationship between the proposed residential accommodation and the tree's substantial canopy will result in unsatisfactory living conditions, This unsatisfactory relationship would generate pressure for substantial pruning or removal, to the detriment of the tree's amenity value and the character of the locality. The proposal therefore conflicts with NPPF Policies N2(1)(d), N3(1)(c), DP3(1), DP3(2)(a) and (c), and P3(2)(a). In the absence of clear justification for these conflicts, refusal is warranted under Policy DP3(3).

Comment Date: Tue 20 Oct 2026

Thank you for consulting Ecology on p.a. 26/01595/F|Conversion and extension to stables to form dwellinghouse|Land And Redundant Stable Block S of 72 And 74 Ryston Road Denver Norfolk.

The following documents have been submitted in support of this application and are relevant to these comments:
' Preliminary Ecological Appraisal [Final] (Philip Parker Associates Ltd, 17/03/2025)
' Phase 2 bat survey [Final] (Philip Parker Associates Ltd, 10/07/2026)
' GIRAMS sHRA [Received 07/10/2026]
' Section 111 [Received 07/10/2026]

Species

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) identified a requirement for further bat surveys of the stable block. That further survey was undertaken and reported within the Phase 2 bat survey report. No bats were seen to emerge from the building but caution is recommended when removing the roof and verges and a toolbox talk is provided within the appendix of that report. Swallow and passerine nests were recorded by the PEA and compensation is recommended for the loss of these nests.

Sites

A GIRAMS sHRA has been submitted and a GIRAMS tariff payment (Section 111) has been made. Given the small scale and location of proposals there are unlikely to be any impacts other than recreation (mitigated by the GIRAMS) on Habitats Sites. Once the Officer has reviewed and completed the remaining sections of the GIRAMS form it can be saved as the LPA record of HRA.

Habitats

The applicant has claimed an exemption form Biodiversity Net Gian under the <0.2ha development exemption which is not controversial. An exemption from Biodiversity net gain does not preclude the duty of every development to deliver a gain in biodiversity under the NPPF. Sufficient recommendations are made to achieve this within the PEA and should form a condition of any consent.

I have no objection to the proposed development but the following conditions and informative are required on any grant of consent:

Condition 01: Ecological enhancement

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the mitigation and enhancement Strategy outlined in Sections 8 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Section 6 of the Phase 2 Bat Survey prepared by Philip Parkers Associates Ltd dated 17/03/2025 and 10/07/2026 respectively. Locations of these enhancement measures must be mapped in relation to the proposed development and submitted to the LPA alongside photographic evidence of installation prior to occupation of the dwelling. A record of the delivery of the required toolbox talk must be kept and submitted. Measures shall be implemented in full and the habitats maintained thereafter.

Condition 02 - Light

No external lighting shall be erected unless full details of its design, location, orientation and level of illuminance have first been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Such lighting shall be kept to the minimum necessary for the purposes of security and site safety and shall prevent upward and outward light radiation. Lighting should take into consideration recommendations made in Section 8 of the Phase 2 Bat Survey Report Philip Parker Associates Ltd, 10/07/2026) submitted with the application. The lighting shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason 1 & 2: In order to ensure the development does not result in the loss of habitat for protected species and to enhance biodiversity on the site in accordance with Policy N2 of the NPPF and local planning policy.

Informative 01 - Protected Species
In the UK several species of animal and plant are legally protected. Some species are referred to as European protected species (e.g. great crested newt, otter, and bats), which are those receiving strict protection under the Habitats Directive and others are referred to as nationally protected species (e.g. badger, water vole, and reptiles) which are those protected through domestic legislation.

Occasionally protected species, such as great crested newts or bats, can be found during development works even when the site appears unlikely to support them. If this occurs, it is advised that the developer stops work immediately and seeks the advice of a suitability qualified ecological consultant.

To find a consultant you can use a search engine or CIEEM's Members Directory. The following document may also be of use 'A Householders' Guide to Engaging an Ecologist'.

Informative 02 - Biodiversity Net Gain - 0.2 ha exemption
The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition '(the biodiversity gain condition') that development may not begin unless:
(a) a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and
(b) the planning authority has approved the plan.
The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan, if one is required in respect of this permission, would be Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply.
Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will NOT REQUIRE the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because the following statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements are considered to apply.

1. Development no larger than 0.2 hectares.
(1) The biodiversity gain planning condition does not apply in relation to planning permission (2) for development which meets the first and second conditions.
(2) The first condition is that the development does not impact an onsite priority habitat.
(3) The second condition is that the development is carried out on a site which has an area no larger than 0.2 hectares.
(4) The exemption in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to planning permission where the application for planning permission was made before 6th August 2026.
(5) The exemption in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to a section 73 planning permission where'
(a)the application for the original planning permission to which the section 73 planning permission relates was made before 6th August 2026; or
(b)the original planning permission to which the section 73 planning permission relates was granted before 6th August 2026.
(6) In this regulation'
(a)'original planning permission to which the section 73 planning permission relates' has the same meaning as in regulation 3;
(b)'priority habitat' has the same meaning as in regulation 4(3);
(c)'section 73 planning permission' has the same meaning as in regulation 3;
(d)a habitat is impacted where the habitat is lost or degraded such that there is a decrease in the biodiversity value(4) of that habitat