Appeal 3371948

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for o remove existing shed and erect two bay cart lodge and store at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/1051/VOC, without compliance with condition number 2 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/20/3495/FUL, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing number 25-19-100-B.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved under application reference DC/23/0301/DRC.

The application form states that the development has commenced but is not yet complete. Whilst the roof trusses have been constructed, and the building is watertight the development has not been completed. In any event, I shall make my decision against the plan submitted with the application.

The appeal site consists of the dwelling, known as [site address] and its associated garden. Planning permission was granted under application reference DC/20/3495/FUL for the removal of an existing shed and erection of a two bay cart lodge and store, subject to conditions. This included, at condition 2, that the development shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with 19111-

An application to vary condition 2, to amend the building through an increase in the eaves and ridge height, was refused under reference DC/25/1051/VOC.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site extends to the side of the existing dwelling and annexe and to the rear towards the [name]. The land at the site is set below that of [site address] and continues to gradually fall towards the river. On the other side of the road, the land rises considerably before the gradient reduces. Development in the area typically fronts [site address] and consists of dwellings of primarily two-storey and one and a half-storey scale. The area has an overtly rural character typified partly by open fields and mature trees and hedges.

The development is for a building with a ridge height 1.2 metres taller than that approved under application reference DC/20/3495/FUL. The land level at the position of the building has been lowered resulting in the actual difference in ridge heights being 0.9 metres, once the building is complete. Nonetheless, given the increased ridge height, the building is more visible within [site address] than what the approved building would have been.

Nonetheless, visibility is not analogous to harm. The building is within a row of dwellings forming [site address] , Letheringham and is viewed within the context of the existing development in the area. Whilst the building is more visible, the limited height difference in comparison to the approved scheme restricts the visual impact on the area. The external material finish, including dark stained timber weatherboarding and a clay pantile roof, would reflect the ancillary nature of the building. Moreover, the sympathetic material finish and simple pitched roof design would respect the prevailing rural character of the area once the building is complete.

I conclude that the development, once complete, would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore accords with Policies SCLP10.4 and SCLP11.1 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan 2020, which collectively require that proposals are of a high quality design that respects local character and responds to the scale and form of surrounding buildings and preserve the special qualities of the area.

Concerns have been raised that the development has been carried out in breach of the planning permission. Whilst the development is not complete, the provisions of Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allow for the submission of retrospective applications, which are subject to the same considerations as those made prior to development commencing.

The dwelling at the site, [site address] , is a [name] listed building. Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting.

The cart lodge and store is set away from the listed building, beyond an existing single-storey building linked to [site address] via an arched gateway. Given the modest scale of the building, its position away from the listed building and its sympathetic design and palette of materials, the development would not harm the significance of the listed building.

The building is close to an existing hedge forming the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling at Cherry Tree. The increased ridge height would make the building more visible than the approved building. Nonetheless, the modest increase in height in addition to the position and separation distance from the neighbouring dwelling, would not lead to a harmful loss of light or outlook for occupants of Cherry Tree.

The land levels at the site have been lowered to accommodate the building. However, based on the evidence before me, the building is within [name] 1 on land significantly above the river. Given the limited size of the footprint of the building, and in the absence of contrary evidence, the development is unlikely to lead to an increase in flood risk elsewhere.

While concerns have been raised regarding the future use of the building, the development is for a cart lodge and store associated with the dwelling at [site address] . I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should also restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect. The Council state that condition 3 of the original planning permission has been discharged and has suggested that a condition be included that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. I will grant a new planning permission varying the disputed condition and restating the undisputed condition that is still subsisting and capable of taking effect.