Appeal 6001472

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the erection of one dwelling at [site address] , Suffolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01064, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal scheme is an outline proposal with all matters reserved. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

There is an extant planning permission ([name]/24/00522) for the erection of one dwelling on land that includes part of this appeal site. However, the appeal is accompanied by a unilateral undertaking (the UU) pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) dated 3rd February 2026 which states that should this appeal be allowed, the appellant would not implement the fallback planning permission. The UU also seeks to secure the plot for a self-build dwelling so as to fall within the definition of a self-build home as set out in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) and ensure the dwelling is designed, built and occupied in order to meet this definition. As the UU is completed, I have taken it into account in my consideration of the appeal and shall return to this matter later.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for housing, having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a parcel of land between the properties known as [address] and [site address] . The site is on the south-western side of the A1141 ( [site address] ), predominantly enclosed by trees and set back some distance from the highway, which limits visibility of the site from the public realm.

On the appeal site side of the road, nearby development comprises a variety of dwelling sizes and styles. Properties are set back fairly consistently from the highway and within spacious plots which are relatively well contained from the surrounding countryside by established boundary trees and hedgerows. However, close to the appeal site, there are also examples of buildings set much further back from the highway with more irregular spacing. For example, regardless of how [site address] to the south-east came to be in residential use, its set back positioning from the highway, along with other buildings such as the large agricultural barn adjacent to the appeal site, forms part of the established pattern of development along this part of [site address] . This results in a more varied pattern of development immediately surrounding the appeal site.

Policy SP03 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Part 1 (2023) (the JLP), seeks to focus new development including housing, to sites within settlements. There is no dispute that the appeal site is outside of any defined settlement boundary. In such locations, Policy SP03 will normally only permit development where it meets one of four specified criteria.

The appeal site is not allocated for development in the JLP or any made Neighbourhood Plan. No evidence has been presented that the development would be in accordance with paragraph 84 (previously paragraph 80) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which provides exceptions for isolated new homes in the countryside. The only remaining criteria of Policy SP03 is the provision of development in accordance with one of the policies listed in Table 5.

The only relevant development type listed in Table 5 is infill housing development which directs to Policy LP01 of the JLP. In short, this policy sets out that windfall infill housing development outside settlement boundaries will be supported subject to meeting several criteria. The appeal scheme is for one dwelling. The Council accepts that the appeal site is within a cluster of at least 10 well related dwellings and would not result in consolidating sporadic or ribbon development or the loss of a gap between settlements resulting in coalescence. The crux of the matter in dispute is therefore whether the scheme would represent infill development that would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the settlement.

Policy LP01 defines infill development as the filling of a small undeveloped plot in an otherwise built-up highway frontage. The appeal site is set back from [address]. Due to the looser and more irregular urban grain at this point on [site address] , the appeal site doesn’t fall neatly into being considered as a typical infill plot. However, pertinent to this consideration is the extant outline planning permission1 on land that includes part of this appeal site, in which the Council has approved the principle of one dwelling. In this case, permission was granted for a plot occupying a setback position from the highway compared to [address] and loosely located between two existing developments set on a staggered alignment, on the basis that it constituted infill development.

While this appeal site is located further away from the highway, it remains located between these two properties, which the Council has concluded to form part of the built-up highway frontage. Irrespective of whether the Council was generous in previously drawing this conclusion, it is their established position which forms a material consideration. In this particular case, the appeal scheme would be no more or less infill development in comparison. 1 Council Ref. DC/24/00522

Moreover, even though the exact layout of the dwelling would be considered as part of a future reserved matters application, the extant permission is likely to have resulted in a dwelling located further away from the highway than [address], particularly when accounting for space to the front of the dwelling for parking and manoeuvring. The appeal scheme before me could result in a dwelling set further away from the highway and the building line of properties to the north-west in comparison to the extant permission. However, this would not be out of character with the surrounding area given the more irregular spacing and positioning of [site address] and the adjacent agricultural barn which form part of the established pattern of development. I am therefore satisfied that an appropriate layout could be achieved on this appeal site at reserved matters stage that best responds to the positioning of nearby development and preserves the character and appearance of the area.

Furthermore, I note that the appeal site is relatively well contained from the surrounding countryside by established boundary trees, which also filter views into the site from the public realm. As such, a new dwelling on this site would not be highly prominent and arguably would be less prominent than the positioning of a dwelling that could be built out under the extant permission. Drawing the above together, and particularly when considering the Council’s previous conclusion which has led to the extant outline planning permission as a material consideration, I therefore find that in this particular case, the scheme would constitute windfall infill development that would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the settlement. This accords with the aims of the Framework which support developments that are sympathetic to the surrounding built environment.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the site is a suitable location for housing, having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. This accords with Policies SP03, LP01, LP17 and LP24 of the JLP insofar as they support appropriate windfall infill housing development outside settlement boundaries and developments that respond to and conserve existing landscape character and context.

Concerns have been raised in relation to the potential effect on nearby trees. However, I am satisfied that the appeal site is of a sufficient scale to accommodate one dwelling without adversely affecting surrounding trees. Moreover, any concerns relating to suitable access would be for consideration as part of the relevant reserved matter.

As there is an extant planning permission for one dwelling on the wider land which includes part of the appeal site, if this appeal were to be allowed, this could be constructed in addition to the proposed dwelling. This could result in the conglomeration of built development on the wider site and dwellings set directly behind one another which would be out of character with the surrounding pattern of development. The appeal is therefore accompanied by a UU pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which effectively forfeits the original outline permission granted under DC/24/00522 in the event this appeal is allowed. As the implementation of both permissions could result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, this would be necessary to ensure the acceptability of the scheme.

The UU also seeks to secure the plot as a self-build dwelling, so as to fall within the definition of a self-build home as set out in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) and to ensure the dwelling is built and occupied in accordance with what is proposed. Self-build and custom housebuilding is exempt from mandatory [name] (BNG).

The UU effectively requires that the dwelling is only commissioned, constructed and completed as a self-build dwelling and that first occupation is by the intended occupants who qualify under the self-build definition. This ensures that the dwelling would qualify as self-build housing. Consequently, the development would be exempt from BNG requirements and would contribute towards the Council’s self-build and custom housebuilding requirements.

I am satisfied that the UU will achieve the desired objective of securing the property as self-build for the purposes of the BNG exemption. I am also satisfied that all of the undertakings secured through the UU are reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable. They are directly related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. The UU therefore complies with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and paragraph 58 of the Framework.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the Framework and PPG. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions in the interests of precision and enforceability.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the submission and approval of reserved matters, the commencement of development and the approved site location plan. I have combined the Council’s suggested conditions relating to the various reserved matters in the interests of clarity.

As drainage falls outside of the scope of the reserved matters, I have imposed a condition relating to the submission of a foul drainage scheme, to ensure appropriate management and disposal. However, I have adjusted the suggested submission timescale so as not to unnecessarily delay the commencement of development.

A condition has also been imposed to ensure compliance with the [name] and implementation of biodiversity enhancement measures in the interest of protecting local ecology and biodiversity. I have also imposed a condition as suggested by the Senior Environmental Management Officer for the reporting of any unexpected contamination in the interests of health and safety for construction workers and future occupiers.

I have not imposed the conditions relating to the submission of details for the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles, secure cycle storage, bin storage, external lighting or details relating to chimney flues or air source heat pumps as these matters would fall to be considered and controlled under the relevant reserved matters relating to layout, access, landscaping and appearance. Provision of EV charging facilities are also covered under Building Regulations, so I have not imposed a condition relating to this either.

Various conditions have been suggested relating to construction activities, including limiting construction hours, a scheme to control dust, notifying neighbours and production of a construction management plan. However, the site is relatively well contained and separated from neighbouring dwellings and given the nature and scale of the appeal scheme I do not consider these conditions to be necessary in this instance.

The Council has also suggested that various permitted development rights should be restricted. The Framework advises that conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. However, I have not been presented with any compelling evidence that the site circumstances are such to justify the removal of these permitted development rights or that harm would arise to the character and appearance of the area in the absence of this condition. As such, this condition has not been imposed.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme is considered to accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.

Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Any application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. Block Plan and Location Plan ref. 2147/24/01 [name].

No development above ground level shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the [name] prepared by Arbtech, dated 5th February 2025, including the ecological mitigation and enhancement measures which shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. ** END OF SCHEDULE **