Appeal 6003222

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a summer house and poly tunnels at [site address] , [site address] , Baylham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01538, subject to the following conditions:

The summer house hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 573-012 and 573-013.

No development of the summer house above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the summer house hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The recommendations contained within the [name] prepared by Greenlight Environmental Consultancy Ltd dated 29 January 2025 relevant to the permitted development shall be adhered to during construction of the summer house and all relevant recommended enhancement measures shall be provided prior to the first use of the summerhouse and shall be retained thereafter.

The summer house hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes that are part and parcel of the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] and shall not be used as a separate dwelling or as an independent unit of accommodation.

No development of the permitted summer house shall take place, including any works of demolition or site clearance until a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan (BNGP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The BNGP shall demonstrate how the development will deliver a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain. The BNGP shall include the following: (i) Baseline Assessment • A completed [name] calculation for the pre-development site. • Plans clearly showing existing habitats and their condition that have been included in the baseline assessment that shall be within the red line and blue line areas shown on drawing no 573-012 (ii) Post-Development BNG Proposal • A completed post-development [name] calculation demonstrating at least a 10% net gain in biodiversity. • Plans clearly showing on-site habitat creation and enhancements that have been included in the post development assessment that shall be within the red line and blue line areas shown on drawing no 573-012. • Details of the long-term management measures The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved BNGP and thereafter shall be maintained for a period of no less than 30 years after the summer house is completed.

I have amended the description of development to remove matters that are not acts of development. That said, I observed at the site visit that the poly tunnels have already been erected, and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

Although the [name] (PEA) dated 29 January 2025 refers to the creation of an external staircase on an existing outbuilding and construction of new sheds, the description of development and the appeal plans do not include such development, and I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are; • Whether or not the proposed summer house represents an outbuilding that is part and parcel of the existing dwellinghouse and accords with relevant planning policies that relate to residential annexes; and • whether or not the development would meet the requirements for the provision of biodiversity net gain.

The appeal plans show that the proposed outbuilding would accommodate a games room/gym and a room with a bed and ensuite shower room. I therefore do not agree with the appellant when they say that no sleeping accommodation is proposed as that contradicts the submitted plans. However, I do agree that no kitchen facilities are proposed.

The proposed summer house would be located to the rear of [site address] which is an attractive [name] listed thatched barn. In the [name], the proposal is described in a couple of places as being for a summer house in the rear garden of [site address] . However, it also indicates that the area where the summer house is proposed is not residential and appears to be paddock. I do not agree that the area of the appeal site where the summer house would be located is paddock. Rather, it is clearly the rear garden area of the property. Therefore, I agree with those sections of the [name] which describes it as rear garden.

I also agree with the [name] that the proposed development would be subservient to the main dwelling and is located within a non-prominent location to the rear of [site address] with hedging along two elevations, which would help to screen the proposal. I also agree that the proposed materials would be in keeping with the timber barn and overall, the design of the proposed summer house would be acceptable.

The proposal would relate well to the main house being in an area of garden that currently accommodates a greenhouse and raised planters. Moreover, any facilities such as access, parking, the garden and services/utilities would be shared.

Overall, although the proposed outbuilding would have a bedroom space and an ensuite shower room, as a matter of fact and degree I am satisfied that given the factors set out above, the outbuilding would not be a separate dwelling house, but rather would be a residential annexe that would be ancillary and subordinate in scale to the host dwelling and would not involve the physical subdivision of the residential curtilage.

I note that Policy LP02 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan, November 2023 (B&MSJLP) also sets out that any residential annex should be designed to easily allow for the annexe to be integrated later into the main building as a single dwellinghouse when the need for it no longer exists. However, in this case, of critical importance is that the host building is a Grade II Listed building.

Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The historic form and architectural interest of [site address] positively contribute to its significance. Nevertheless, given the location and subservient nature of the proposed development, I consider that it would preserve the setting of this listed building. I note that the Council has no concerns in this regard either.

To my mind, the setting has been preserved in large part because of the proposed siting of the outbuilding set away from the Listed Building in a discrete location. As a result, in the particular circumstances of this case, it would not be appropriate to require that the outbuilding should be sited so close to [site address] that it could be absorbed back into the main dwelling if at some later point it is no longer needed. Such an approach would likely harm the setting of this building. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that in accordance with the explanatory text in support of Policy LP02 of the B&MSJLP it would have a close spatial relationship with shared facilities and space.

Consequently, overall, bearing in mind the important relationship between the proposal and the designated heritage asset, the fact that it would not be possible to easily allow the proposed summer house to be integrated later into the main building as a single dwellinghouse does not materially weigh against the proposed development.

I therefore conclude that the proposed summer house would represent an outbuilding that is part and parcel of the existing dwelling house and for the reasons set out above it would not be at such odds with Policy LP02 of the B&MSJLP to justify dismissing the appeal.

The appellant has prepared a detailed Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment (BNG assessment). I acknowledge that the site boundary included in the habitats baseline and habitats post-development (BNG plans) are inconsistent with the appeal site boundary shown on the appeal plans. However, I note that the BNG plans do not fall outside the red line and blue line areas shown on the appeal plans. I am therefore satisfied that the BNG plans and any proposed new habitat or enhancements are within the appeal site or within land controlled by the appellant.

The proposal would involve the retention of a native hedgerow and a species rich hedgerow with trees, associated with bank or ditch (H1 and H2 on the BNG plans) as well as the enhancement of a species rich native hedgerow from poor condition to moderate condition (H3 on the BNG plans). Moreover, the proposed scheme would also result in the planting of 23 small urban trees.

According to the BNG assessment overall these measures would result in a BNG of 10.11% in habitats and a BNG of 44.17% in hedgerows. It also highlights that other biodiversity improvements would be secured as a result of the implementation of the recommendations included within the [name]. Based on the available evidence I am satisfied that a BNG of at least 10% could be achieved. Moreover, I am satisfied that a suitably worded condition could be imposed to ensure that appropriate BNG measures can be secured, even if they fall outside the appeal site boundary as they would be located within land controlled by the appellant.

I therefore conclude that the development would meet the requirements for the provision of biodiversity net gain. Consequently, the proposal accords with Policies SP09 and LP16 of the B&MSJLP which among other things seek to ensure that development protects and enhances biodiversity through BNG and that proposals identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains equivalent of a minimum 10% increase for biodiversity.

The Council confirm that although the poly tunnels have a utilitarian design such a design is appropriate for the use and setting. They also highlight that given the distance that the poly tunnels would be from the listed building they would not harm its setting. I agree with that analysis.

Moreover, I am satisfied that the use of the poly tunnels for growing fruit and vegetables within a field also used for growing fruit and vegetables is entirely compatible in land use terms within this setting and this matter does not weigh against this development. I therefore consider that the poly tunnels are acceptable both in terms of their impact on the character and appearance of the area and in land use terms.

As outlined above, the poly tunnels have already been erected and therefore part of this development is retrospective, and I have taken account of that situation when considering the conditions suggested by the Council. This task is assisted by the fact that the appeal site boundary comprises two distinct areas, one which is drawn around the already erected poly tunnels and the other drawn around the proposed summer house.

In the interests of clarity, precision and to avoid duplication I have made changes to some conditions to ensure that any condition I impose accords with the Framework which sets out that they should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

Some of the proposed conditions are not necessary given the scale of the proposal and bearing in mind that the poly tunnels have already been erected. For the avoidance of doubt, it is necessary to impose a condition setting out the approved plans.

In relation to the poly tunnels, as they have already been erected it is not necessary to impose the commencement condition to this element of the development. Similarly, as the materials used are entirely compatible with this setting it is not necessary to impose such a condition.

As set out in the PEA the poly tunnels provide unsuitable bat roost environments, and I agree that they should be assessed as having no roost suitability for bats. Further, as this element is retrospective no further clearance of habitat is required. As a result, it is reasonable to link implementation of the recommendations contained within the PEA to the use of the summer house. Similarly, as the poly tunnels have already been erected and this element is retrospective, it is also reasonable to link the BNG requirements to the summer house.

Turning now to conditions related to the summer house, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area it is necessary to impose a condition in relation to the materials to be used for the external surfaces of this building. Further, in the interests of ecology and biodiversity net gain it is necessary to impose relevant conditions, and this will ensure that relevant hedges are retained and enhanced and that additional trees would be planted.

However, as I shall impose a condition requiring that the relevant recommendations contained in the PEA are implemented and that a biodiversity net gain plan is submitted and approved it is not necessary to impose a separate condition in relation to a biodiversity enhancement layout. Moreover, given the scale of the development and that BNG will be secured which will include the planting of trees and the retention and enhancements of hedges, it is not necessary to impose separate landscaping conditions.

Bearing in mind the scale of development, the fact that the appeal site boundary is limited to relatively small areas around the poly tunnels and the proposed summer house and the guidance contained in the Planning Practice Guidance – Use of Conditions, it is not necessary to restrict permitted development rights. However, it is reasonable to impose a condition to ensure that the summer house would remain part and parcel of the existing dwelling and is not used as a separate dwelling house. For the avoidance of doubt, I would also highlight that I do not agree with the Council that such a condition would not be effective or enforceable and it follows that I consider that it is reasonable to impose such a condition.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.