Erection of detached cartlodge outbuilding with study space in attic

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 January 2026 by H Marriott MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001297 Beech Trees, School Road, Coddenham, Suffolk IP6 9PR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr S Birch against the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/02924. • The development proposed is the erection of detached cartlodge outbuilding with study space in attic - alternative design and location to that approved in DC/19/04207. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of detached cartlodge outbuilding with study space in attic at Beech Trees, School Road, Coddenham, Suffolk IP6 9PR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/25/02924, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 2021218/30, 2021218/31 and 2021218/32. 3) No development above ground level shall take place until manufacturers details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples. 4) No development above ground level shall take place until large scale elevational and sectional drawings, manufacturers details and finish of proposed fenestration details including rooflights, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) Prior to installation, manufacturers details and finish of proposed rainwater goods shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Preliminary Matters 2. The decision above removes reference to the previous permission from the description since this is not an act of development. 3. The site is located in the Coddenham Conservation Area (CA). There is a duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Act requiring decision makers, in the exercise of Appeal Decision 6001297 2 planning functions, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 4. On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the potential changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Reasons 6. The CA encompasses the majority of the village of Coddenham together with adjoining farmland. The settlement’s built form radiates from the junction of School Road, High Street and Church Road, where the village shop is located. St Mary’s Church is a prominent landmark visible from this junction. The village displays a variety of building types and styles, unified by the consistent use of traditional materials including brickwork, render and weatherboarding. Boundary treatments are typically formed by walls or hedgerows. The significance of the CA derives from the village’s historic development, evident in the range of buildings that often sit close to the footpath or roadside edge, as well as from its connection to the surrounding countryside. The combination of traditional materials, consistent boundary treatments and the arrangement of buildings are key elements that underpin the significance and special interest of the CA as a whole. 7. Beech Trees is a two-storey cottage featuring a front porch and a steeply pitched pantile roof incorporating chimneys. The property occupies a large plot, with vehicle access close to the junction of School Road and Blacksmiths Lane, and driveway that extends around the rear of third-party land containing two modern shed structures and a phone box. The appeal site occupies a prominent position, visible from School Road, which rises gently in gradient towards the village centre. Despite later alterations and extensions, the cottage retains a historic character that shares features with other dwellings located in the wider CA. In these respects, Beech Trees and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the locality. 8. Planning permission was granted in October 20191 for a single-storey garage on a similar part of the appeal site as the proposed two-storey cartlodge outbuilding (‘outbuilding’). There is no dispute between the main parties that this permission remains extant. The appeal building differs from that permission insofar as it would be sited closer to School Road and would have a different orientation and noticeably greater eaves and ridge height. 9. The appeal site is visually separated from the host dwelling by the intervening shed structures, which would limit any direct visual relationship between the proposed building and the main house. Nonetheless, the outbuilding would be 1 Council ref: DC/19/04207 Erection of garage (following demolition of existing garage); Erection of two storey rear extension; Changes to fenestration; Widen existing vehicular access. Appeal Decision 6001297 3 visible from the CA above the boundary wall, with its presence accentuated by the rising ground level along School Road. That said, steeply pitched roofs are a familiar element of the local vernacular and are evident on a range of traditional buildings within the wider CA. The proposal appropriately responds to this context and as such, would not appear unduly top heavy. Moreover, its linear form and modest footprint would align with other buildings on the street and would sit comfortably within the established street scene. The use of black weatherboarding and pantile roof would further reflect materials found in the wider CA and would assist in integrating the outbuilding with the surrounding built form. For these reasons, the outbuilding would not appear visually intrusive or discordant and would accord with the statutory duty under s72(1) of the Act. 10. I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the character or appearance of the CA. It would therefore comply with Policies SP09 and LP19 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Part 1 (2023) (LP) which require development to support and contribute to the conservation of the historic environment and to support development proposals that contribute to local distinctiveness, respect built form and the scale of heritage assets, through the use of appropriate design and materials. For the same reasons, there would be no conflict with historic environment policies of the Framework. Conditions 11. Various conditions have been suggested by the Council in the event the appeal is allowed. I have considered these against the tests set out in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary, I have amended the wording to ensure precision. One suggested condition has been omitted for the reasons explained below. 12. In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans (2) in the interests of certainty. Conditions relating to materials (3), fenestration details (4) and rainwater good (5) are necessary in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the CA. 13. The Council has suggested a condition requiring biodiversity enhancement measures in line with Policy LP16 of the LP. However, the nature and extent of the enhancements sought has not been specified. In the absence of such detail, I am not satisfied the condition would be precise, enforceable, reasonable or that it would be commensurate with the scale of the development. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. H Marriott INSPECTOR