Appeal 6005880

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on [site address] , as a non-designated heritage asset; and • whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for the proposed development, with particular regard to the Council’s spatial strategy.

[site address] is a rural hamlet within open countryside comprising a spacious arrangement of housing lining both sides of the road. Although the Council does not have a list of non-designated heritage assets (NDHA) as recommended by Planning Practice Guidance1 (PPG), the parties agree that [site address] is a NDHA. The timber framed farmhouse dates back to the 1600s with 19th and 20th century extensions. The farmhouse and associated buildings appear superficially, to be a typical, early Victorian farm grouping.

Although the farmhouse and its setting have changed over the years through the loss of many of the original farm buildings and the introduction of new dwellings and modern outbuildings, it maintains a distinctly rural agricultural character. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the farmhouse derives significance from its architectural character and detailing, its historic links to agriculture, primacy amongst the farm buildings and its rural agrarian setting. 1 Paragraph: 040 [name]: 18a-040-20190723

The appeal site comprises a former modern agricultural barn now used to store classic cars set to the rear of [site address] . The appellant suggests that the Council had previously2 opined that the storage barn was not within the setting of the NDHA, however the consultation appears to exclude the residential development to the north-east but not the storage barn to the rear. Nevertheless, based on my site visit I am satisfied that the storage barn falls within the setting of the NDHA.

The Council states that the storage barn detracts from the setting of the NDHA due to its scale, height, massing and materials. However, whilst the building may be a newer addition, for the aforementioned reasons, it has a utilitarian appearance featuring corrugated metal facades with minimal openings. Whilst it is larger than the farmhouse and with larger proportions than traditional agricultural buildings, the storage barn’s unobtrusive agricultural appearance maintains the primacy of the farmhouse and its’ agrarian character and therefore makes a neutral contribution to the NDHA’s setting.

The proposal would convert the storage barn into two dwellings. Whilst the scale, height and massing of the barn would remain largely the same, the external appearance of the barn would be significantly altered by the architect-led scheme, through the introduction of a substantial amount of glazing and the recladding of the structure. Although it is suggested that the chosen materials would be of a better quality than the existing cladding, the proposal would utilise a large number of different materials with a varied and contrasting colour palette, resulting in an overwhelming exterior appearance, at odds with the simplicity of the other nearby outbuildings.

Whilst the proposal would visually break up the large elevations, due to the busyness of the cladding, the barn would appear far more conspicuous and intrusive when viewed amongst the simple agrarian outbuildings, from all vantage points than the existing. Consequently, despite the proposed landscaping, the proposal would erode the agricultural setting of the NDHA and compete for primacy within the farm grouping, leading to a moderate level of less than substantial harm to its’ significance.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would detrimentally affect [site address] , as a non-designated heritage asset. It would conflict with policies LP16 and LP36 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041 (July 2025) (LP) which amongst other things require that development to be of a high-quality design whilst having regard to the setting of NDHAs.

The proposal would also fail to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) where it requires development to add to the overall quality of the area; be sympathetic to local character and history and maintain a strong sense of place.

Policies LP16 and SP21 of the LP allow for residential development in the countryside subject to a number of criteria, including but not limited to, design quality, the exploration of alternative uses, and access to sustainable transport links. 2 Application Reference: DC/24/0474/FUL

I accept that the storage barn is structurally sound and that the proposal would be safe from flood risk. Moreover, the proposal would be within a small cohesive group of existing dwellings at [site address] and although moderately set back, would be next to an existing highway. It would also comprise a pair of dwellings commensurate with the scale of surrounding properties.

Nevertheless, as a conversion set well behind the existing building line, the proposal would not constitute infilling within a continuous built-up frontage. As described above, the proposal would appear conspicuous and erode the rural agricultural setting of the NDHA. I note that it has been on the market since January 2026, but this falls significantly short of the required 12-month period. Moreover, I have not been provided with any information regarding the interest, or lack thereof, in the storage barn and as such cannot be satisfied that alternative uses have been fully explored.

The appeal site is located approximately 1.9 km away from the services and facilities provided within Wickhambrook as a local service centre. The route to Wickhambrook is predominantly on narrow, unlit roads with no dedicated footpath at the national speed limit, significantly reducing the desirability of the route. There are footpaths and [name] in the area, however due to the increased distances, unpaved surfaces and lack of lighting, these do not form a realistic alternative route towards Wickhambrook and would likely only be used for fair weather recreation.

The Pillar Box bus stop is adjacent to the site; however, the reported service is extremely limited and would not be sufficient to cater for the everyday needs of future residents. [name] acknowledge that sustainable transport options vary between urban and rural areas, due to the lack of realistic alternatives there would be an over reliance on private motor vehicles for even the most basic day-to-day requirements. The appellant suggests that ultra-low and zero emission vehicles could be utilised by future residents as a sustainable transport mode. Nevertheless, I have no mechanism before me which would restrict residents to these types of vehicles.

[name] acknowledge the substantial depth of the proposed gardens, this area of land, although adjacent to the storage barn, is already encompassed within the residential garden of [site address] . As such the proposed gardens would not constitute a large, obtrusive extension to a domestic garden within the countryside as defined by Policy LP18 of the LP.

Overall, for the reasons given above, the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for the proposed development with particular regard to the Council’s spatial strategy. It would conflict with Policies LP16 and LP21 of the LP where amongst other things they require development to be of a high-quality design, explore alternative uses and have appropriate access to sustainable transport links.

For the avoidance of doubt, the proposal would not conflict with LP18 of the LP as set out above.

The Framework seeks to boost the supply of housing and highlights the important contribution small sites can make and the speed at which they can be delivered. The proposal would provide two additional low energy and energy efficient family dwellings, making an efficient use of previously developed land and the adaptive reuse of an existing structure. Although exempt from the [name], some ecological enhancements would be made in line with the submitted preliminary ecological appraisal.

Short term employment would be provided during the construction and in the long term the future occupiers would benefit the local economy and community by helping to sustain the vitality and viability of local services and facilities. Nevertheless, these benefits do not outweigh the harm I have identified above in respect of the main issues.

I understand the appellants frustrations that the reasons for refusal are not concise and that the conservation officer’s comments were made verbally on the day the decision was issued. I also note the support from local residents and the parish council and concerns regarding the future use of the storage barn if the proposal were not to go ahead. However, each proposal must be assessed on its merits, and these matters do not alter my findings as set out above.

The parties agree that the development would likely generate additional recreational impact on [name] and is therefore subject to a one-off tariff as described in the [name] and [name]. I acknowledge that the tariff has been paid, however, as I have already identified harm in respect of the main issues, it is not necessary for me to undertake an appropriate assessment, as even if no harm was identified or any harm successfully mitigated, these would be neutral considerations at best and therefore would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions in the Framework and the benefits of the proposal, which indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.