Appeal 6004217

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the erection of 3 dwellings, all matters reserved except for access at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/0988/OUT, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The original application was made in outline with means of access to be considered. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis and considered the other details as being for illustrative purposes only.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted further evidence in relation to land contamination, biodiversity net gain and highway matters. The Council has reviewed this as part of their appeal statement and confirmed that this evidence addresses reasons for refusal 3, 4 and 6. Therefore the appeal is determined based on the remaining reasons for refusal as set out within the main issues below.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the site represents an appropriate location for the proposed development; • whether the proposed development would protect and safeguard employment land and existing businesses within [name]; and • the effect of the proposed development on existing trees.

Policy SP12 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2025 (LP) sets out the spatial strategy for [name], stating that the provision of new homes will be directed towards the more sustainable settlements. The policy allows for residential development within housing settlement boundaries, with areas outside of the housing settlement boundaries being regarded as countryside, which is protected from unsustainable development.

The settlement of [site address] is classed as a Local Service Centre, within Policy SP13, the third tier of six categories. Paragraph 4.3.8 of the LP sets out that local service centres are amongst the most sustainable places in the district to live, and these areas will support much of the local need for growth and rural sustainability.

However, the LP table showing the components of housing provision and its spatial distribution indicates that housing within Local Service Centres will be through allocations in the LP and any neighbourhood plan and existing commitments. However, the plan does provide for 1,200 windfall homes in unspecified locations.

As the site is located outside of the settlement boundary for [site address] , it is within the Countryside for the purposes of LP policy. Policy SP21 sets out that new dwellings will be permitted within the countryside subject to a range of criteria. This includes development within a small cohesive group of seven or more existing dwellings next to or fronting a highway.

The site is adjacent to a lawfully extant planning permission for eight dwellings, with a recent planning application submitted for a variation to Plot 8 and pre commencement conditions have been discharged. Although the site is not currently under construction, it is a material consideration and the discharge of conditions indicates an intention to commence development.

There are also a number of houses opposite the site, and the existing bungalow on the neighbouring site, forming a small cluster of five dwellings. Even if the neighbouring site remained undeveloped, the proposal would result in a cluster of eight dwellings in a cohesive group.

It is not clear from the policy whether the development should comply with all of the criteria as this is not explicitly stated as it is in other relevant policies to be considered by this appeal. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would comply with SP21 (c).

Policy SP21 (b) sets out that the scale of development must consist of the infilling of a small undeveloped plot, commensurate with the scale and character of existing dwellings, within an otherwise continuous built up frontage. It indicates that this should be in the order of one dwelling or a pair of dwellings. The proposal before me is for 3 dwellings, which would in commensurate with the scale and character of existing dwellings on the opposite side of the road and would also relate to the extant permission on the neighbouring site as part of a continuous built up frontage.

As such, whilst the policy suggests any infilling should be in the order of one dwelling or a pair of dwellings, as the scale of development would relate to the scale and character of existing dwellings, I find no harm arising from the proposal in this regard.

Therefore, the proposal would find support from Policy SP21 if the extant permission was implemented, and there would be only a minor conflict if that proposal was not built out, as it would then be within an existing group of five dwellings rather than seven. The Council have not provided any evidence to justify setting the threshold for a group at seven houses and having regard to the existence of the extant permission, which is a material consideration, only limited weight is attributed to this conflict.

Policy SP12 of the LP provides the strategic context for rural employment locations and recognises the important role that existing general and rural employment areas play in accommodating local businesses. It sets out within paragraph 4.3.16 that the district's small settlements play an important role in accommodating local businesses within their local communities, and that the spatial strategy encourages appropriate sustainable rural enterprise and makes provision for rural employment through site allocations adjacent to rural employment areas.

The site is not allocated within the local plan and is therefore not identified as a rural employment area. However, policy LP24 seeks to protect and safeguard all employment land, including land and existing businesses which are not specifically identified in the local plan. It recognises that these businesses make an important contribution within [name] and that support is offered for their expansion.

The site has a lawful development certificate for the storage and haulage use of the site and buildings, including the maintenance and repair of vehicles and the appellant’s statement at paragraph 2.3 indicates that the use of the site remains current. Therefore, the proposal would result in the loss of the current employment use on the site and there is no indication that the current business will relocate to an alternative site in [site address] , or within the district.

Proposals which result in the loss of employment land will only be permitted where a number of criteria have been met (set out in parts d–h of the policy). The policy also indicates that, as a minimum, evidence shall be submitted of a 12‐month marketing campaign to demonstrate that genuine attempts have been made to sell and/or let the site and premises in its existing use and other suitable uses and that no alternatives have been found; however, this marketing requirement is not itself part of criteria d–h.

The Council consider that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that criteria d-h of policy LP24 has been met, and no marketing evidence has been submitted. In the Council’s statement they set out that policy LP24 requires either a 12-month marketing exercise or robust justification under the criteria, and therefore I have considered the policy on that basis.

It has been put to me that Class P of the Town and Country Planning Act allows for the conversion of storage and distribution uses to residential uses, and therefore the existing building could be converted to a residential use, without the need for any prior marketing. However, to benefit from prior approval the appellant would need to apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required under the relevant criteria, and there is no certainty that prior approval would be granted.

Furthermore, the existing building on the site comprises a floor space of approximately 120 sq. m, which would be much less than the proposal before me for 3 detached dwellings. Therefore, the weight to be given to this suggestion is limited.

The appellant accepts that a marketing appraisal has not been undertaken, citing the Council’s lack of five-year housing land supply at the time of submitting the application as justification. This omission means consideration needs to be given as to whether the proposal accords with criteria d-h of the policy.

Criteria (d) of policy LP24 permits the redevelopment employment land where evidence is provided that demonstrates there is sufficient supply of alternative and suitable employment land available. The appellant’s evidence suggests that the local plan allocates 90ha of employment land, against a requirement for 86ha and, as such, there is an overprovision of allocated land for employment. The Council have not refuted this claim in their rebuttal and therefore given the lack of evidence to the contrary in relation to this appeal it would be reasonable to conclude that the proposal would comply with LP24(d).

Criterion (e) of policy LP24 allows for redevelopment where the existing use has created over‐riding environmental problems such as noise, odours or traffic. In relation to this the appellant has referred to the mitigation measures approved as part of the redevelopment of the neighbouring site, where a noise attenuation fence and bund was required between the appeal site and the neighbouring site. The appellant contends that this was to mitigate impacts arising from noise from the commercial use of the appeal site, which is said to demonstrate that the site has created over‐riding environmental problems.

The Council have said the bund was required to mitigate aircraft noise, rather than the neighbouring commercial use of the site, although it would be possible that it could achieve both aims to some degree. Furthermore, the appellant has provided a copy of the acoustic report from the reserved matters application, which suggests that the acoustic bund is to reduce plant noise from the adjoining builders’ yard. I do not know whether there are any restrictions on the lawful use in terms of hours of operation or outside working, and such uses can, if unrestricted, result in conflict with residential properties.

As such, any redevelopment of the site for non‐employment uses would be more appropriate in terms of its siting near to both existing and proposed housing.. However, the Council have accepted a proposal for residential development adjacent the site, which has been designed to mitigate any potential noise arising from the commercial use of the site. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that the existing site creates over-riding environmental problems or that the proposal would lead to a substantial environmental benefit. As such the proposal neither gains support from nor conflicts with policy LP24(e).

The remaining criteria, f – h, are not applicable to this proposal before me and therefore the proposal does not need to comply with them.

In conclusion, whilst there is a lack of a 12‐month marketing campaign, which is referenced as a minimum requirement where the loss of employment land would result, the loss of employment land would nevertheless be permitted by policy LP24 because the proposal complies with the relevant criteria of that policy.

The evidence includes an arboricultural impact assessment (AIA), which identifies a white poplar at the front of the site (G002) which is to be retained due to its high amenity value. The AIA sets out that the proposal requires the removal of existing hard surfacing within the theoretical root protection area (RPA) of G002.

It is considered likely that the presence of the hard surfacing will have precluded significant root encroachment. However, to ensure there is no damage to the roots of these specimens, works must only be completed under arboricultural supervision and primarily by hand (supported with appropriate lightweight machinery only if agreed by the supervising arboriculturist) within the calculated RPA.

In terms of the proposed development, installation of new hard surfaces encroach within a small portion of the RPA of G002. Given the minor extent of the intrusion at this location, the AIA considers it appropriate to undertake linear root pruning as part of the access facilitation pruning (AFP) works. The AIA indicates that this will obviate the need for “no dig” construction methods in this situation but that in the event that roots to be pruned are larger than 25mm in diameter or found in high density populations or substantial bundles where it is thought that severing the roots will be deleterious to the health of the tree, then works must cease and an alternative engineering solution to account for the roots must be sought.

The Council’s arboricultural officer explains that further supporting information is required to demonstrate arboricultural engineering solutions that would prevent excavation into the soil and the severance of roots for the proposed new hard surfaces to G002 by employing a no‐dig methodology, as referred to in paragraph 4.3.2 of the arboricultural method statement (AIA).

Furthermore, the application is in outline, and therefore there is some flexibility in the layout, albeit the position of the access is fixed, but this does mean it is possible to impose a condition requiring the details of the tree protection measures to be submitted alongside the reserved matters application for layout.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that an engineering solution could be available, in the event that the tree roots have extended into the existing hard surface area.

On this basis the proposal would comply with policy LP12 of the LP, which sets out that, in order to conserve and enhance local distinctiveness in the landscape, development must retain and positively integrate existing trees, and with policy SP7, which requires individual proposals to take into account any mitigation so as to avoid negative effects.

The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition “the biodiversity gain condition” that development may not begin unless: (a) a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and (b) the planning authority has approved the plan.

The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if one is required in respect of this permission would be West Suffolk Council.

There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply. The parties have not made a case that these exemptions apply. Therefore, based on the information available, this development is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements are considered to apply in this case.

The appellant has provided an updated BNG assessment as part of the appeal and this concludes that a 10% increase in biodiversity cannot be provided on site. The evidence suggests the purchasing of off-site credits through a habitat bank in the neighbouring authority.

The parties agree that on this basis the approval of the biodiversity gain plan would be sufficient to secure the BNG and noting the appellant’s evidence received in relation to the [name], I am content to proceed on this basis.

The appeal scheme proposes dwellings on a site that lies within the Zone of Influence of the Breckland Special Protection Area as set out within the [name] and [name] (WSRDAM).

The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) require that the competent authority must ensure that there are no significant adverse effects from the proposed development, either alone or in combination with other projects, that would adversely affect the integrity of the Breckland Special Protection Area. The effects arising from the proposal need to be considered in combination with other development in the area and adopting a precautionary approach.

Since the development is for three residential dwellings, the number of additional recreational visitors would be modest and the likely effects on the Breckland Special Protection Area from the proposed development alone may not be significant. However, in combination with other developments it is likely that the proposal would have significant effects on the designated site.

Given my findings, the Regulations place a duty on the competent authority to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of the appeal scheme in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

The site is within the zone of influence where new residential development is likely to result in recreational pressure, which would, both alone and in combination with other development within the zone of influence, have a likely significant effect on the interest features of the aforementioned sites. Therefore, I consider that the development would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site, but regard can be had to whether these adverse effects can be mitigated.

The WSRDAM sets out a strategic approach to mitigation and it details mitigation measures that would be funded by financial contributions at a specified tariff per dwelling. Since these include a range of habitat-based measures such as education, communication and monitoring, and have been endorsed by Natural England, I am satisfied that the measures would adequately overcome any adverse effects of the proposal on the Breckland Special Protection Area.

The appellant has chosen not to submit a planning obligation for the per dwelling contribution to fund the WSRDAM but have explained the local planning authority accept direct payments. The Local Planning Authority have confirmed that the payment has been made.

This approach has potential drawbacks as there is no legal obligation on the Council to spend the money as envisaged or within a particular timescale. However, the evidence before me indicates that, as a responsible public body, the Council will be responsible for administrating the mitigation strategy. Therefore, I am satisfied that the mitigation measures have been secured and would be used for their intended purpose.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan, but for the reasons previously outlined this only attracts limited weight. The Framework supports the effective use of land and making as much use as possible of previously developed land. Furthermore, the proposal would provide housing which would contribute to the Council’s housing supply of windfall development, whilst noting that I have no evidence to suggest that they do not presently have a five-year supply of housing.

In addition I recognise that the support offered by the Framework for small and medium sized sites, which make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out relatively quickly.

The site is of a scale appropriate to the size of the existing settlement and there is no evidence that local infrastructure would be unable to meet the needs of the development. The development would also give rise to some economic benefits during the construction phase and provide limited support to local services. Given the scale of the development proposed, I have attributed moderate weight to the delivery of housing in this instance.

Although the proposal would result in limited conflict with Policy SP21 of the LP, this would result in only limited environmental harm which does not in this case outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The Council has suggested conditions which I have considered against the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have taken the opportunity to amalgamate some conditions in order to ensure brevity and have also had regard to the appellant’s comments on the suggested conditions.

I have attached conditions relating to the submission of reserved matters and the time limits associated with this. I have also included a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty.

The submission and implementation of a construction management plan is necessary to minimise detrimental effects to the living conditions of neighbouring residents and ensure highway safety during the construction phase. In addition, I have imposed a condition restricting the hours of operation during construction.

In order to ensure that the roads and junctions are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification, with parking for vehicles and cycles and the appropriate levels of visibility, I have imposed conditions which require the works to be completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

To ensure that any unexpected contaminants are correctly identified and remediated to ensure that the future users of the site are protected from risks associated with contaminants it is necessary to require an assessment of the risks posed and details of remediation.

To ensure the appropriate hard and soft landscaping of the scheme, incorporating areas for the storage and presentation of refuse and recycling bins, I have imposed a condition with the details to be submitted concurrently with the submission of reserved matters.

Noting the outstanding matters in relation to the protection of trees, I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of an arboricultural method statement, including details of all construction measures within the root protection area.

To manage the surface water environment of the scheme a condition is necessary that secures a detailed surface water drainage scheme to be submitted to and agreed by the Council.

Furthermore, in order to support the government’s objective of increasing sustainable development I have imposed a condition to ensure that measures for water efficiency are provided within each dwelling.

To protect and enhance biodiversity and to ensure light pollution is minimised I have found it necessary to impose a condition requiring details of any external lighting to be submitted. Furthermore, to ensure the proposal provides for biodiversity net gain, I have imposed a condition ensuring that the Biodiversity Gain Plan is prepared in accordance with the submitted details and thereafter implemented.

Comments made by the appellant in relation to the proposed condition for a landscape and ecological management plan, with details of enhancements to be submitted and agreed, have been taken into account. Having regard to the schemes provision of off site [name], the small scale of the submitted scheme, and that the schedule of conditions includes the submission of a landscaping scheme, I have not found it necessary in this instance to impose the suggested condition.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

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

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

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, ("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.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. Location Plan ref. CS01 and Proposed Site Layout Plan ref. 345/03/F.

Demolition or construction works and deliveries to/collections from the site in connection with the works shall take place only between 0800 to 1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

Prior to the installation of external lighting, full details, including height, design, location and intensity, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: iv) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and v) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) wheel washing facilities; v) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vi) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

Concurrent with the submission of reserved matters for landscaping, details of both hard and soft landscape works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include - details of the areas to be provided for the storage and presentation for collection and emptying of refuse and recycling bins; - details of the areas to be provided for the secure, covered and lit cycle storage including electric assisted cycles; - details of the areas to be provided for the unloading, loading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure; - landscaping plan drawn to a scale of not less than 1:200, demonstrating how the soft landscaping details have been sensitively designed for their woodland context and character and shall include planting plans; written specifications; schedules of plans noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and densities; - earthworks showing existing and proposed finished levels or contours; - means of enclosure and retaining structures; - boundary treatments, including the siting, design, height and materials of the screen walls/fences to be constructed, or species, spacing and height of hedging to be retained or planted. - other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; - hard surfacing materials. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the agreed implementation programme. The completed scheme shall be managed and/or maintained in accordance with an approved scheme of management and/or maintenance.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Building Regulations optional requirement of a water consumption rate of no more than 110 litres per person per day has been complied with.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development, which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

The 2.4m by 43m visibility splays shown on plan no. 345/03/F shall be provided prior to the first occupation of any dwelling. They shall be free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height and shall be retained as such thereafter.

No development shall take place until details of the standards to which the roads serving the development are to be constructed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No house shall be occupied until the roads have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

The Biodiversity Gain Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment dated 05 March 2026 and prepared by [name]. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until the Biodiversity Gain Plan, as approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority has been implemented in full.

Prior to commencement of development an [name] (including any demolition, groundworks and site clearance) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement should include details of the following: a. Measures for the protection of those trees and hedges on the application site that are to be retained; b. Details of all construction measures within the 'Root Protection Area' (defined by a radius of dbh x 12 where dbh is the diameter of the trunk measured at a height of 1.5m above ground level) of those trees on the application site which are to be retained specifying the position, depth, and method of construction/installation/excavation of service trenches, building foundations, hardstanding, roads and footpaths; and c. A schedule of proposed surgery works to be undertaken to those trees and hedges on the application site which are to be retained. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved [name] unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

All mitigation measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the [name] ([name], March 2025) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination. This may include the appointment of an appropriately competent person e.g. an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) to provide on-site ecological expertise during construction. The appointed person shall undertake all activities, and works shall be carried out, in accordance with the approved details. -END-