Appeal 6003227

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against East Suffolk Council. This application is subject of a separate decision.

The appellant has provided a [name] (UU). However, the UU is only in a draft format. It does not clearly refer to the planning application, which in turn gives doubt to the site clearly being identifiable. In addition, the UU is not signed and witnessed.

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 requested ‘The Suffolk County Highways Adopted [name] 2023’ as referred to in the Council’s decision notice. I have received ‘Suffolk Guidance for Parking Technical Guidance 2023’, which I have taken to be the same document.

In the Council’s appeal statement, it has confirmed that since the application was determined the Lowestoft Neighbourhood Development Plan November 2025 (Neighbourhood Plan) had been made. Given this, I have considered the specific policies the Council has referred to in the Neighbourhood Plan. The appellant has had the chance to comment on these policies.

The main issues are:  The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  Whether the proposed development would have access to suitable car parking.  The effect of the proposal on the integrity of the features of European nature conservation sites situated along the Suffolk coast.  Whether the proposal meets the definition of a self-build dwelling.

The host dwelling of [site address] (No.61) forms half of a couple of semi-detached dwellings. [name].61 and [address] are set back from the pavement. There are also groups of semi-detached dwellings directly to the north and west of the site, though it is noted that there is a mix of terrace and detached dwellings in the wider locality. The street scene is partially defined by being relatively open with green verges.

The proposed dwelling would be attached to No.61 and would of similar architectural style, it would also sit adjacent to the pavement.

It was noted during my site visit that a dwelling on the other side of the road had a single storey extension adjacent to the footpath, though this is not a direct comparison to the current proposal of a two storey dwelling. It was also noted that there were some other two storey dwellings immediately adjacent to the pavement, though these were a minority in the street scene.

However, given the predominant character and appearance of the street scene and specifically that of the immediate setting of the proposed development the proposed dwelling would look out of place by being placed in front of the established building line. It would also reduce the openness within the street scene, which would further add harm to the character and appearance of the local area.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal does harm the character and appearance of the local area. On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Policies WLP8.29, WLP8.32 and WLP8.33 of the Waveney Local Plan 2019 (Local Plan that seek to protect local character and distinctiveness. Policy LOW9 in the Neighbourhood Plan also seeks development to respond to local context. It is considered the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area.

The surrounding area has dedicated off road parking areas, predominantly on this side of the road at the rear of the existing dwellings. The site is within easy walking distance of bus stops.

Whilst the proposal shows that the dwelling would be a one bedroom property with an upstairs office, given the size of this office I have considered the proposal as a two bedroom dwelling. The Suffolk County Highways Adopted [name] 2023, requires a minimum of two parking spaces for this size dwelling. The proposal shows no parking spaces, nor would it be likely that this could be provided by condition.

Though the proposal provides a possible office space, potential for secure cycle storage, is close to bus stops and well connected by pavements; the provision of no car parking spaces is a significant departure from the required minimum provision. The site while having sustainable attributes, is not exceptionally sustainable and on this basis, it is still likely future occupants would be required to drive to reach services and facilities. I have also given significant weight to the expertise of the County Council’s Senior Transport Planning Engineer.

When visiting the site, whilst on street parking was noted, there appeared to be no evidence of existing parking stress on the highway or obvious highway safety concerns. However, this could be materially different during other times. No party has provided street parking survey and on this basis the potential for on street parking is a neutral factor.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal does not provide sufficient car parking spaces. On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Policies WLP8.21 and WLP8.33 of the Local Plan that seek to ensure adequate parking and protect highway safety. Policy LOW19 of the Neighbourhood Plan states residential parking should be provided as part of the proposal, with some on street parking possible if well designed and does not cause risk to highway users. The lack of off-street parking weighs moderately against the proposal.

The appeal site falls within the recreational disturbance Zone of influence of European sites comprising the Stour and Orwell Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar and the [name] and Ramsar. The Council applies the [name] and [name] (RAMS).

The Council have provided the document ‘[name] and Mitigation Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) May 2021’, which details a range of wildlife and plant life that are requiring protection.

I have reviewed the advice of Natural England’s consultation response dated 20 October 2025 and agree that there is a strong probability that recreational use, including walking, would cause disturbance to a range of these species. In addition, the proposal, when combined with other additional residential growth in the locality, would likely have a significant adverse effect on these protected areas, due to the increase in recreational disturbance. On this basis an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is required.

The Council’s RAMS strategy provides a strategic measure to balance the additional recreational pressure from future occupants. The appellant has neither paid this contribution nor provided a completed UU.

On this basis I am not satisfied that the proposed development, in combination with other residential growth, would not result in detrimental and adverse impacts on the European sites. On this basis, the proposal does not accord with Policy WLP8.34 of the Local Plan that seeks to mitigate impacts on Special Protection Areas and Special Areas for Conservation. The proposal also does not comply with Policy LOW10 of the Neighbourhood Plan, which seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity.

Recommended conditions have been put forward to control the self-build element by both the Council and the appellant. However, it is my judgment neither condition meet all the six tests for conditions as set out in the National Planning Policy 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.

Given that the proposal does not meet the definition of a self-build dwelling, it is 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.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council accepts that they cannot demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land as required by Paragraph 78 of the Framework. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, which is a material consideration of significant weight, is engaged. It states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the Local Plan, with the harm to the character and appearance of the local area, the lack of parking spaces, disturbance on European sites and the lack of BNG.

The benefit of the net increase of a single dwelling in a relatively sustainable location. The net increase of one dwelling in supporting both services and facilities within the local community is limited. There are also likely limited short term economic benefits during the construction phase and potential longer term limited economic benefits from providing additional workforce.

However, I have concluded that there would be significant harm on the character and appearance of the area, potential moderate harm due to the lack of car parking spaces and substantial harm to ecology due to impact on European sites and lack of BNG.

The adverse impacts would, therefore, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.