Appeal 6002007

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site lies within the Glemsford Conservation Area (CA). Accordingly, the statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) applies, which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The Council’s second reason for refusal was in respect of a lack of ecological information for Protected and [name]. As part of the appeal process additional ecological and arboricultural information has been submitted and subsequently reviewed by the Council. The Council is satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information in respect of the likely impacts on designated sites, Protected and Priority species and habitats and that appropriate mitigation measures could be secured through planning condition. Consequently, the ecological reason for refusal is no longer contested.

Accordingly, the main issues are: i) whether the proposal qualifies as an exemption from the mandatory [name] (BNG) and, if not, the implications of this; and ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would harm the setting of a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name].

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) introduced a statutory framework for BNG, and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development submitted on or after 2 April 2024. Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. The proposal is advanced on the basis that, as a self-build dwelling on a plot below 0.5ha, it is exempt from the BGC.

Policy LP08 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (JLP) is supportive of custom and self-build dwellings provided other policies in the plan have been satisfied.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes clear that in considering whether a home is a self-build or custom-build home, relevant authorities must be satisfied that the initial owner of the home will have primary input into its final design and layout.

The description of the development proposed refers to a self-build dwelling. However, this description alone would not exert sufficient control, restriction or limitation over the form of dwelling delivered.

It is not disputed between the parties that the appeal site is below 0.5ha. Nevertheless, there is no substantive evidence before me demonstrating whether the appellant has had a primary input into the final design and layout of the proposed dwelling. Furthermore, the appeal has not been accompanied by a planning obligation which would secure the dwelling for this purpose. Even if the intention was to occupy it as such, intentions may change and so too could the ownership of the property and without some formal means of ensuring that the dwelling was occupied as a self-build or custom-build dwelling this cannot be guaranteed. A condition to secure the dwelling as self-build would fail to satisfy the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). As such, the proposal cannot be deemed to be exempt from mandatory BNG.

The appellant asserts that the Council have not requested information in respect of self-build, nor did they for other examples approved within the District 1. However, I do not have full details of such cases and in any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits in accordance with the statutory provisions.

Policy LP16 of the JLP requires that, in relation to BNG, a minimum of 10% equivalent increase for biodiversity is necessary. Notwithstanding the submitted [name] Appraisal2 there is limited evidence alongside the appeal to demonstrate how 10% BNG would be achieved.

For the reasons stated above, I find conflict with Policies LP08 and LP16 of the JLP in this regard. This also draws the proposal into conflict with the Framework which advocates that developments provide for biodiversity net gains, seeking their integration as part of their design. 1 DC/25/03455, DC/25/01317 and DC/25/02948 2 Greenlight environmental consultancy, 2 July 2025

The site lies within the CA, which is characterised by ribbon development on either side of the principal route running through the settlement and also includes some areas along adjoining roads. The CA is predominantly formed of residential development with soft landscaped front gardens facing the main routes. It also includes shops, schools and public houses, and is interspersed with green areas of public open space, particularly near to key road junctions. Buildings in the CA vary in age but predominantly feature traditional architecture, including some historic listed buildings. The CA’s significance lies in its traditional verdant village character, the predominance of residential development along its main routes, and the traditional appearance of its buildings.

The appeal site comprises part of the undeveloped garden associated with Greenlawns. The appellant disputes the Council’s view that Greenlawns is a NDHA. The PPG sets out that NDHAs are buildings, monuments, sites, places or landscapes identified as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets. There are a number of processes through which NDHAs may be identified, including the local and neighbourhood plan-making process and conservation area appraisals. However, the PPG also sets out that in some cases NDHAs may be identified as part of the decision-making process on planning applications.

Greenlawns is an art deco style detached dwelling set within a spacious and verdant plot. Although set back from the site frontage, because of the site’s wide frontage and the buildings substantial scale, it is readily visible from the public realm. The untypical design of the dwelling illustrates the evolution of development within this rural settlement and is a distinctive feature of this part of the streetscene, contributing positively to the historic interest and significance of the CA. Accordingly, having regard to its aesthetic and historical value it is reasonable to consider Greenlawns to be a NDHA.

Although the proposed dwelling is of modest height, its siting within the confined plot would result in a cramped and contrived form of development. This would be at odds with the established character of the area, insofar as detached dwellings are generally set back from the highway and benefit from spacious, landscaped plots.

Irrespective of its roof form and alignment the very presence of built form would intrude into the sense of spaciousness in front of Greenlawns. Furthermore, due to its siting close to the back edge of the pavement, the dwelling would be highly perceptible within the streetscene. Consequently, the proposal would diminish the setting of the NDHA, and cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the CA.

The appellant states that locally distinctive materials would be used to maintain local character. and that additional landscaping would help assimilate the development into its surroundings while maintaining the undeveloped ‘natural break’ in the view towards the [site address] open area, designated as an Area of Visual and/or [name]. Nevertheless, these measures would not outweigh the harm identified.

My attention has been drawn to other examples of tandem residential development, including a new dwelling allowed on appeal3 in a back-land position nearby. The full details of this case are not before me. However, the proposal appears to relate to a dwelling to the rear of an existing property on the opposite side of the road. Irrespective of whether Greenlawns is an NDHA, the positioning of the proposed dwelling relative to the existing property differs and therefore its impact on the streetscene, and wider CA, is not comparable. I am, therefore, not convinced that the decision-making context of the two schemes are very similar. In any event I must consider the appeal proposal before me on its own merits having regard to the evidence before me now.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would result in unacceptably harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area, and it would fail to preserve, or enhance, the character and appearance of the CA.

Taking the above points together, and mindful of the duties arising from section 72(1) of the Act, the proposal would fail to preserve, nor enhance, the character or appearance of the CA and would not meet this duty. Whilst the harm to the heritage asset would be less than substantial, I must nonetheless give this considerable importance and weight in the context of a duty to favour preservation or enhancement.

The Framework states that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, irrespective of whether the harm to the significance is substantial or less than substantial. This harm must be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal.

As a small-scale development the proposal could be built-out relatively quickly, adding to the choice of homes and supporting the Government’s objective to boost the supply of housing. There would be some economic benefits associated with the construction process and future occupiers would feed into the local economy, including support to local services and facilities within the village and nearby settlements, which weigh in favour of the proposal.

The incorporation of planting, together with the installation of bee posts and bird boxes, would deliver some ecological enhancement at the site. The appellant indicates that the dwelling would include various renewable energy measures and technologies, including, though not limited to, an air source heat pump, solar panels, electric vehicle charging, cycle storage and LED lighting. However, only limited evidence has been provided to substantiate these claims. In these circumstances given the modest scale of development proposed, the benefits arising from these aspects of the scheme would be modest and attract limited weight.

Even when considered cumulatively, the wider public benefits associated with the proposed dwelling carry only limited weight in favour of the proposal. The Framework requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage asset, irrespective of whether there would be less than substantial harm to significance. On balance, the weight of public benefits in favour of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh harm to the significance of the identified designated heritage asset. The proposal therefore 3 APP/D3505/W/23/3325891 20 [site address] , Glemsford conflicts with Policies SP09 and LP19 of the JLP, the historic environment protection policies of the Framework and the provisions of the Act.

The parties agree that the principle of a dwelling within the settlement is acceptable, and I see no reason to conclude otherwise. Adequate amenity space, access and parking would be provided; however, these are neutral matters that attract neither positive nor negative weight.

I have had special regard to whether the setting of nearby listed buildings would be preserved, notably No 17 [site address] and the [name]. However, the location of the appeal scheme, and the nature of the proposals relative to these designated heritage assets, leads me to the view that their setting would be preserved.

I acknowledge the evolution of the proposal from the pre-application advice provided by the Council. However, I have determined the appeal having regard to the merits of the proposal before me.

My attention has been drawn to the approval of extensions and alterations to Greenlawns4 and that the property was not considered to be a NDHA by the Council at the time. The information before me indicates that the works were largely contained at the rear of the property and that the Council did not find harm in respect to the CA. Whilst the Council’s position regarding Greenlawns appears to have changed given the substantially differing nature of the proposals the impact on the CA is not comparable to the appeal scheme before me.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that a determination is made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I have identified conflict with the development plan in respect of character and appearance and the proposal would fail to preserve the significance of the [name]. I have carefully considered the benefits associated with the proposal. However, taking all these matters into consideration, I conclude that the benefits associated with the proposal do not outweigh the harms identified. Even if the custom/self-build housing were secured through a signed and executed planning obligation, thereby confirming that the scheme would be exempt from the requirements for BNG, my decision would still be to dismiss the appeal for the reasons outlined above.

The appeal is dismissed.