Appeal 6002107

The appeal is dismissed.

In the Council’s Appeal Statement, it furthers a point it raised in its [name] that it requires a payment to mitigate the impacts on the Breckland Special Protected Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Council stating that the appellant having not paid this, considers the proposal to be in breach of Policy SP11 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041 July 2025 (Local Plan). The appellant has not provided a [name] or demonstrated a payment has been made since the submission of the Council’s appeal statement.

Since the Council refused this application, it has now issued a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on three Norway maple trees located along the boundary of the site, which remains in force until the 1 June 2026.

The Council in its appeal statement clarifies that it incorrectly referred to Policy LP35 of the Local Plan that related to listed buildings, instead it should have referenced Policy LP37 of the Local Plan as this is the correct policy for Conservation Areas. The wording for this policy has been provided by the Council, and its submission does not prejudice the appellant.

The Council and the appellant were given the opportunity to provide additional information regarding potential mechanisms to demonstrate the development as a self-build dwelling. This also links to the requirements of biodiversity net gain (BNG), as if the property does not meet the requirements of a self-build then there is no exemption to BNG for this development.

I will merge the first and second reasons for refusal under the same main issue, as both cover effects on the trees in the short and long term.

The main issues are: • Effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area and the significance of the [address] Conservation Area, including the effect of the proposed development on trees. • Whether the proposal would provide adequate parking provision. • Whether the proposal meets the definition of a self-build dwelling.

The duties contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). The Act contains duties whereby special regard should be given to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

A small proportion of the site is located within the [site address] [address] Conservation Area, with the rest of the site being immediately adjacent.

[address] Conservation Area gains it special interest from its mid-19th century terrace streets, with vegetation/soft landscaping making a significant contribution to its character and appearance. Some of the streets within the Conservation Area are tree lined or benefit from planting in front gardens. In addition, large rear gardens and mature trees also make a significant contribution to both the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The most significant tree in [address] is at the entrance to the cemetery. However, it is noted that there are views of the trees along the boundary of the site now covered by the TPO from [address]. [address] is partially within the Conservation Area with this road’s character and appearance being significantly defined by trees.

The creation of the new dwelling could lead to the damage of the tree roots. However, I note and accept the appellant’s aboricultural report that it would be possible to provide specialised foundation, as well as use of no dig methods for hard surfaces, to prevent damage to the roots both in the short and long term.

However, it is also noted that two of the TPO trees require crown reduction to facilitate the development. This would noticeably reduce the quality of these trees and would cause harm to the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area and street scene.

While some prospective purchasers/occupiers would find a verdant setting attractive. In this case, given that a significant proportion of the proposed private rear garden amenity space would be in shadow there is a great chance that potential future occupiers would seek to further reduction in tree crowns overhanging the development.

I note the use of rooflights, as well as windows in the side elevation in the proposed design. While the proximity to trees is still likely to cause some shadowing, it is unlikely that further reduction of crowns would be sought for internal light. This is due to the proposal already seeking to reduce the crowns to the site boundary line of those trees likely to cause the greatest overshadowing. Therefore, the further reduction in crowns to gain more internal light is unlikely, though maintaining the currently proposed crown reduction is likely.

Much of the site is in what appears to be an additional garden space located at the rear of [site address] (No.85). This space is where the proposed dwelling would be sited and is located outside of the Conservation Area. However, the proposed parking area is located at the end of the traditional long garden space of No.85 and on this basis does erode the traditional large rear gardens that make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Both parties have provided previous appeal decisions and the appellant has provided reference to a previously approved development for 26 dwellings with access off [address] that I have duly considered. However, each decision is made on its individual merits. [name] note that the [address] this decision would have been made on significantly different levels of both harm and benefits.

The reduction of the tree crowns, specifically those benefiting from a TPO, as well as future pressure for future crown reductions and the limited reduction in the traditional garden space all cause harm to the qualities which are of importance to the Conservation Area. On this basis the proposal does conflict with the expectations of the Act.

In terms of National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) for similar reasons, the proposal causes less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that in these circumstances this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would provide a single new dwelling within the locality, which would provide limited benefit to both local services and facilities. In addition, there would be short term limited benefits from the construction work. However, these public benefits do not outweigh the great weight given to the harm to the [address] Conservation Area. Overall, the proposal conflicts with national policies that seek to protect the historic environment.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would harm the Conservation Area, as well as the character and appearance of the local area and to the TPO trees. On this basis the proposal conflicts with Policies SP4, LP9, LP12 and LP37 of the Local Plan that in total seek to ensure the preservation or enhancement of the historic appearance and character of an area, protection of landscaped areas that make a significant contribution to the character and appearance to the local area and providing good quality private outdoor space.

The proposed parking layout provides two spaces for the host property of No.85, a single parking space for the proposed dwelling and one visitor space. It was also noted during my site visit that the roads in proximity to the development having parking controls.

The Suffolk Guidance for Parking 2023 seeks two parking spaces for two bedroom dwellings, as well as 0.25 visitor spaces per dwelling. On this basis the proposal is missing one allocated parking space for the new dwelling and would likely park its second car in the visitor space.

While there can be a reduction in the amount of parking, this is where the proposal is exceptionally designed in transport terms and where it avoids the provision of parking adjacent or close to the dwellings. It also expects that there is availability for visitors to park, which might be in public car parks and that it would not cause inconsiderate or unsafe parking in the locality.

However, I note the proximity of the site to the centre of [site address] that benefits from both a wide range of services and facilities, including public car parks. In addition, the Local Highways Authority are not raising any objections to the proposal. Therefore, while the proposal is missing one parking space in this case the reduced level of car parking is acceptable and would not cause any harm to highway safety.

The Council has also raised concerns in the practicality of the parking layout. However, from the evidence before there appears to be adequate space for the parking and turning for four cars.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal does provide suitable parking provision. On this basis the proposal complies with Policies LP9 and LP44 of the Local Plan, which seek to ensure appropriate levels of car parking and allow a reduced amount of parking spaces where there is good access to facilities and services.

A condition has been put forward to control the self-build element. However, it is my judgment that it does not meet all the six tests for conditions as set out in the Framework, with specific reference to enforceability, and I do not see any amendment that would lead me to a different view. With no legal agreement to ensure the proposal comes forward as a self-build plot, the potential benefit of this coming as a self-build plot and fulfilling a demand in the district only holds limited weight.

With the proposal not meeting the definition of a self-build dwelling, it is therefore not exempt from BNG. With no valid exemption, the proposal would be subject to the biodiversity gain condition and the minimum information requirements as detailed under Article 7 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). The failure to provide the necessary information to satisfy the biodiversity condition substantially weighs against the application.

The site is located within the Zone of Influence of one or more [name] comprising the SPA and SAC. The Council applies the [name] and [name] (RAMS). If the appeal was to be allowed, it would be necessary to consider this matter within an appropriate assessment. However, as detailed above, there are strong reasons to dismiss this appeal.

The appellant has referred that the site is previously developed land. However, the Framework states that ‘Previously developed land excludes... land in built-up areas such as residential gardens’. On this basis the site does not meet the definition of previously developed land or brownfield.

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.