Appeal 6007237

The appeal is dismissed.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the building and the area.

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling set back from the road, as are adjoining properties, and is the final house on its side of the road and with countryside beyond. The front amenity space provides off-street parking on an area comprising paving and shingle.

The proposal is for an attached, single storey double garage, to be constructed with external materials to match the existing dwelling and with a pitched roof, all to reflect the architecture of the host property.

I do not find that the proposed development, when taking into account the alterations and additions which have previously been made to it1, would be a disproportionate addition or of poor design.

However, the existing dwelling and the properties immediately adjoining it, are set back from the road by comparable, though not by identical amounts, and this contributes positively and distinctively to the spacious character and appearance of the street scene. The proposed extension, by its forward position, would be significantly harmful and would not assimilate in a sufficiently acceptable way into the character and appearance of the host property or street scene.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not accord with policies LP03 and LP24 of the Babergh & Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan 2023 which require that extensions should be harmonious with their surroundings, maintaining and enhancing the appearance of buildings and the street scene, or with chapter 12 of the Framework which requires the same.

The appellant states that available off-street parking is insufficient for the five vehicles associated with the occupiers of the host property, such that cars have to be parked on the highway, to the detriment of neighbours and to highway safety. However, it may be possible that additional parking might be created, as is suggested in any case by the appellant, by draining areas which currently are considered to be too wet for parking.

I have also taken note that the front space, roughly in the position of the proposed extension, used to have a large wooden shed there at the time that the appellant purchased the house in 2020. However, I have no information as to any planning history associated with it and, in any case, it is no longer present and I can only afford it very limited weight in the decision making process.

Reference is also made to other houses which have extensions, such as porches and other additions, but I have no meaningful comparisons with the current proposal in terms of their sizes or their design impacts. In any event, I have determined the appeal based upon its individual planning merits.

The local planning authority raises no objections in terms of highway safety, which is a matter of neutral consequence in the overall planning balance.

I have noted the possibility, suggested by the appellant, that lighting might be fixed to the external wall of the proposed extension to illuminate the adjoining footpath, but this is only a suggestion.

I note that there are no objections from neighbours, and while this can be regarded as supportive of the proposal, there can be various reasons why objections are not submitted, and any views, or the lack of them, are not in themselves determinative when compared to the terms of the development plan. 1 DC/25/03124

Overall, the above matters, neither individually nor collectively, are of sufficient weight to overcome my conclusion upon the main issue.