6
The Committee received report ES/2795 which related to application DC/26/0438/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the construction of one single-storey self-build dwelling at North Green Farm, North Green, Kelsale cum Carlton, Suffolk. The application was at Planning Committee North, following the referral panel, because the officer’s recommendation to “refuse” was contrary to the Parish Council “support” for the scheme.
The planner presented the application to the Committee. The site location and photographs showing the site within its wider street scene context were shared. The location of the existing dwelling site and nearby listed farmhouse was shown and photographs shared showing the design, character and scale of the listed farmhouse along with the surrounding curtilage-listed outbuildings.
Plans were presented showing the existing and proposed layouts, including the new dwelling, landscaping, and driveway. The proposed floorplan and elevations for a 2–3 bedroom property were shown. The site was located adjacent to a building known as Apple Tree Barn. Several consents on this site had been granted for a new dwelling, the most recent being a full application in 2024 and current variation of condition (DC/26/0017/VOC) which was awaiting decision.
Reference was made to a previously refused full application (DC/23/0510/FUL) from 2023 for a similar scheme on the same site. Although the current proposal included design improvements, the fundamental reasons for refusal remained unchanged. These reasons were summarised for the Committee, noting that the planning inspector agreed with the officer’s assessment and dismissed an appeal.
It was recommended that the application be refused as it was contrary to policies SCLP 5.3, 5.4(d), 11.3, 11.4 and paragraph 66(1) NPPF (2024), and contrary to policy SCLP 10.1 and Chapter 15 NPPF (2024).
There were no points of clarification from the Committee. The Chair invited the objector to speak.
The objector thanked the planning officers for their diligence and professionalism. She emphasised the importance of preserving the area’s tranquillity, natural environment, and rural character. She highlighted the lack of public transport and pressure on already stretched local services. Attention was drawn to the site’s setting next to a 16th-century listed farmhouse, noting that the proposed development would sit within a small front garden facing the road and a historic barn. The speaker argued that the “tilted balance” and housing land supply shortage did not apply, as the location was not sustainable, as it was remote and accessed by a narrow lane, and around three miles from amenities. She said that the area had experienced incremental development and should not be developed further. She disagreed that there would be no heritage harm as it would cause significant impact on the setting. She concluded that she supported the planning officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as it conflicted with the Suffolk Local Plan.
There were no questions from the Committee for the Objector.
The Chair invited the Ward Councillor, Councillor Ewart to speak.
Councillor Ewart supported the refusal of the application, agreeing with the officer’s clear, policy-based recommendation. She emphasised the need to protect the distinctive rural character and historic identity of Kelsale Heath, describing it as a sensitive, low-density hamlet with limited infrastructure and reliance on cars.
The proposal was considered an inappropriate development in the countryside, particularly given its location in an open garden setting in front of a historic barn and beside a farmhouse, where spatial relationships were essential. The new dwelling would be intrusive, out of keeping, and harmful to the setting and character of the area. She stressed the risk of cumulative incremental development eroding the hamlet’s special qualities over time. The scheme conflicted with local and national planning policy, including sustainability principles, countryside protection, and heritage conservation requirements. The development would cause significant harm to the setting of listed buildings and failed to respect local character. Overall, there were no overriding benefits to justify the approval, and she urged the committee to uphold the local plan and protect the historic integrity of Kelsale.
There were no questions for Councillor Ewart.
There were no points of clarification from the Planning Officer.
Councillor Hammond asked about the size of the settlement and for clarification as to what constituted a cluster for a community and whether this could be defined as infill.
The Planning Manager noted that while the hamlet must comply with cluster policy requirements, the key issue was the impact on the listed building, which outweighed other considerations. Although the site might otherwise be viewed as suitable infill development under Policy SCLP 5.3, this was negated by the heritage constraints. The location itself was not inherently unsuitable for housing, but the specific local context and resulting harm to the heritage setting made the proposal unacceptable.
Councillor Hammond asked as there was existing consent for the neighbouring property, could that be shown on the map to ensure they were being consistent with their views.
The Planner showed the site in context to the Planning Committee. The Senior Design and Heritage Officer explained the historic context of the farmstead in detail and how the extra buildings coming towards the farmhouse would stop it being viewed in the open setting that it was at the moment.
The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application.
Councillor Pitchers agreed with the officers and the speakers. Councillor Ashdown concurred with the officers.
On the proposition of Councillor Pitchers, seconded by Councillor Gee
It was
RESOLVED
That the application be REFUSED.
The reasons for the decision to refuse permission are:
1.1. Planning permission has been sought for the construction of 1 no. single-storey self-build dwelling at Land and Buildings at North Green Farm North Green Kelsale Cum Carlton Suffolk.
The impact of the construction of the new dwelling within the curtilage of the listed farmhouse, in close physical proximity to it and within the historic grouping of farmhouse and farmstead will give rise to adverse effects on the listed farmhouse. This proposal alongside the adjacent consents brings a cumulative impact of growing urbanisation of a very rural historic farmhouse setting. These effects will harm the significance of the farmhouse, which harm will be less-than-substantial and of a moderate level. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of North Green Farmhouse, Kelsale, a designated heritage asset. The NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.
The 'tilted balance' for decision making is engaged under para 11 NPPF (2024) due to the lack of a 5-year housing land supply across the district, the proposed dwelling will not be located in a sustainable location due to its position outside of the settlement boundary of Kelsale (failing to meet any of the permitted exceptions). The works undertaken have caused a demonstrable adverse impact to the historic environment and character of the site, and the result of those works in an unsustainable location has significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of establishing one new dwelling, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF (2024) taken as a whole, which seek to direct development to sustainable locations and securing well-designed places. This is contrary to policies SCLP 5.3, 5.4(d), 11.3 and 11.4 and para 66(1) NPPF (2024).
1.2. The development site is within the recreational disturbance Zone of Influence for the following Habitats Sites (European Sites) in East Suffolk, as set out in the Suffolk Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS), Sandlings SPA. Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Local Plan has identified that new residential growth in East Suffolk will result in increased recreational disturbance on Habitats Sites.
the in-combination effect of this new growth will, in the absence of adequate mitigation measures, result in an adverse effect on the integrity of Habitats Sites in East Suffolk. The Suffolk Coast RAMS provides strategic mitigation measures to address this impact. To fund this mitigation financial contributions are collected from new developments.
In order to conclude that this development will not result in an in-combination adverse effect on the integrity of Habitats Sites the relevant financial contribution to the strategy is required to be secured prior to determination. The required contribution has not been secured, nor has alternative evidence been provided to demonstrate that the proposal will not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of Habitats Sites.
A conclusion of no adverse effect on the integrity of Habitats Sites can therefore not be reached, and the application must be refused in accordance with the requirements of Local Plan policy SCLP 10.1 and NPPF Chapter 15 and therefore, the scheme is recommended for refusal.