Appeal 6001268

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property, and • the effect of the proposal on protected species, with particular regard to [name].

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling characterised by steep well-proportioned pitched gables on the front and side elevations, and features well-proportioned and arranged window openings, all of which contribute positively to the traditional character of the property.

The neighbouring dwelling has undergone previous alterations, including a catslide roof incorporating a front porch. Like the appeal property, it also features a two-storey side gable projection that is well-proportioned relative to the host property, as well as a garage with a roof pitch reflective of the host property.

The proposed front porch extension, incorporating a catslide roof, would mirror the neighbouring property, providing a pleasing symmetry between the two properties on the main front elevation. I, therefore, have no concerns regarding this element.

The proposed two-storey rear extension would be of a significant size, almost doubling the footprint of the host dwelling. The property sits in a large plot and therefore it would not appear cramped or overdeveloped. However, even though the rear extension would be set down marginally from the ridge of the host dwelling and incorporate matching brickwork and roof materials, by reason of its depth, in combination with the two storey form, the extension would visually overwhelm the modest proportions of the existing property.

The shallow and asymmetrical pitch of the proposed side gable would appear incongruous and at odds with the proportion and pitch of the existing side gable. This would unduly draw the eye horizontally, exacerbating the increased depth of the dwelling. In addition, the proposed first-floor window on the southwest elevation appears off-centre, and the rear north-east elevation would contain large expanses of glazing that contrasts starkly with the proportions of the windows on the original cottage.

Drawing the above together, the design of the rear extension would not respect the scale and form of the host property, and would result in an adverse effect on its traditional character and appearance. Whilst the extension would not be highly visible from public vantage points, this does not preclude the need for a high-quality design that respects the character and appearance of the host property.

The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies LP03 and LP24 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) (JLP) and Policy BRET 9 of the Brettenham Neighbourhood Plan (2025) (NP). Together, amongst other matters, these seek to ensure that proposals for extensions incorporate a high standard of design which maintains or enhances the existing character and appearance of the buildings and is appropriate in terms of its scale, form and design. It would also conflict with the Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks good design and sets out that development that is not well-designed should be refused.

The Council also found conflict with Policy SP09 of the JLP on this main issue. However, this relates primarily to the natural and historic environment and as such I do not find it determinative on the main issue in this particular case.

The appeal site is within an amber zone for great crested newts (GCN’s). The Council’s ecologist raised a holding objection to the application, considering that insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely impact GCN’s.

In response the appellant has submitted an updated preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) as part of the appeal. This indicates that the area where the extension is proposed to be located is negligible in suitability for GCN’s; however, it recognises that nearby waterbodies may support them. [name] survey has been submitted. Instead, the appellant has applied to enter the Natural England Great Crested Newt District Level Licensing Scheme (DLL).

A DLL can be used to mitigate the impact upon the identified species. This involves the payment of an agreed financial sum to the DLL provider, which is used for the creation of GCN habitats in the local area. Consequently, a ‘Great Crested Newt District Level Licensing Impact Assessment and Conservation Payment Certificate’ (IACPC) has been submitted by the appellant and signed and dated by Natural England.

The submitted certificate is not a licence granted under regulation 55 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. However, in signing the certificate, Natural England has considered that these proposals will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of great crested newts at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Notwithstanding this, Natural England can only issue a license subject to three tests. These are: that the development is necessary for preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest; where there is no satisfactory alternative; and where the action will not be detrimental to maintaining the population of species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.

The decision about whether a mitigation licence can be granted is the responsibility of Natural England and is separate from the decision to authorise planning permission. However, the courts have established that when effects on European protected species are being considered in appeals, decision makers should have regard to the three tests that are used when licences are being determined.

The certificate signed by Natural England would satisfy the third test. However, given the nature of the proposal and from the limited information before, I am not persuaded that the proposed development would meet the other two tests and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate otherwise. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that Natural England would issue a licence and, as such, I do not consider that this can be used to mitigate the impact upon GCN’s.

For the reasons above, I cannot conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on GCN’s. It therefore conflicts with [name] SP09 and LP16 and BRET 6 of the NP. Together, these seek to avoid the loss of, or significant harm to biodiversity.

On the decision notice, the Council set out that the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy of the NP, in conflict with Policy BRET 1 by reason of being in conflict with the aforementioned policies on the main issues in this appeal. However, in my view, from reading the preceding text to this policy, it relates more to the principle of new housing development, rather than household extensions. I have, therefore, not found Policy BRET 1 to be determinative on the main issues in this appeal.

The appeal property is not a listed building. However, there are two [name] listed buildings nearby, [name] and [address], I have therefore had regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of these listed buildings as required under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The significance of these listed buildings is derived in part from their age and relationship to the evolution of the settlement. Given the physical separation between the appeal site and designated heritage assets and intervening mature vegetation, I am satisfied that the proposal would not affect the setting of these heritage assets and the contribution the setting makes towards their significance. I note the Council also had no concern in this regard.

The appeal property lies within the Brettenham Conservation Area (CA). I am therefore required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The significance of the CA, is in part, derived from its historical and architectural interest evidenced by the number of listed buildings, ancient woodland and mature trees which contribute to giving the village a strong rural and sylvan character.

Although the extension would be visible in glimpsed views from [address], having regard to the significance of the CA as a whole, given the limited scale of the proposal it would not result in harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and as such would preserve the character of the CA.

I acknowledge that the proposal has been designed to avoid adversely impacting on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. However, an absence of harm is of neutral weight.

I am aware that the proposal was amended following advice from the Council on a previous application. Nevertheless, I have considered the scheme on its individual planning merits and I have found it to be unacceptable for the reasons stated.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.