Appeal 6004370

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence in the appeal provides conflicting arguments on whether the proposal is for a new self build unit or a replacement annex. I have considered the proposal based on the development description that details the development as a new annex.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be suitably subservient and functionally linked to the host dwelling. • Does the proposal provide [name] (BNG) and whether it needs to.

Policy SP03 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Part 1 2023 (Local Plan) provides the criteria of when development is acceptable in principle outside of the settlement boundaries, which includes Policy LP02 that allows for residential annexes.

The proposal is seeking to replace a two room annex, with a WC and links to a conservatory, a greenhouse with a two bedroom annex, with also a bathroom, en-suite, store/lobby area and living/dining/kitchen area.

Policy SP03 of the Local Plan provides a spatial strategy for the Council in order that development outside of the settlement boundaries is more tightly controlled. Therefore, the Local Plan neither prevents in principle nor is silent on proposed annexes in the countryside. The appellant has raised that the proposal could meet the definition of Policy LP03 of the Local Plan, though this policy has not been provided.

The site area of the proposal shows only a red line around the annex and separated from the host dwelling of [site address] . This places great difficulty in placing a condition to link the annex to the host dwelling. Therefore, whilst I agree that an annex does not necessarily need to be attached; the current proposal shows that the proposal is seeking to create a clear subdivision of the residential curtilage. It is also on this basis that I do not consider that the proposal could be considered as a residential extension.

The proposal is seeking a significant increase in the size of the annex, specifically in the size and number of habitable spaces. The proposal on this basis has not been demonstrated as ancillary to the host dwelling. In addition, based on the evidence that has been provided, the proposed replacement annex would not be subordinate in scale to the host dwelling.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal has not been demonstrated as subservient and functionally linked to the host dwelling. On this basis, the proposal does not comply with Policies SP03 and LP02 of the Local Plan, that seek to limit development in the countryside and provide criteria of how an annex should be provided.

As detailed above, I have considered the proposal based on it being a replacement annex. On this basis, the proposal cannot be a self-build unit, as the proposal does not seek the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside. Therefore, BNG would not be required on this site based on this criterion.

It is noted that the appellant is seeking to provide avoidance, mitigation and enhancement biodiversity measures on site that is appropriate given the site is within the [name] and Heaths National Landscape. If the proposal was to be allowed these measures would need to be controlled via condition.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal does not need to provide BNG and conditions can be used to ensure an appropriate level of biodiversity enhancement. On this basis, the proposal complies with Policy LP16 of the Local Plan that sets out how biodiversity should be protected and enhanced.

The potential benefits of a new dwelling are not applicable here. The proposal has been submitted and considered on the basis of a replacement annex. The proposal would have no impact on the number of housing units within the district, though could have a limited benefit on increasing the versatility of the housing stock. The economic benefits of the proposal are likely to be negligible. On this basis, while limited positive weight is given, this does not overcome the harm identified above.

As stated above, the site is located within the [name] and Heaths National Landscape. The statutory purpose of the National Landscape is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name], including National Landscapes. Similarly, paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues.

I am satisfied that the proposal would seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape, subject to a landscaping and biodiversity conditions. Therefore, the proposal complies with paragraph 189 of the Framework and section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as amended by section 245 of the LURA.

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.