Erection of a garage/workshop

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 February 2026 by R Gee BA (Hons) Dip TP PGCert UD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001473 1a Links View, Newton Green, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 0QT • 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 Mrs Jacqui Bell against the decision of Babergh District Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/03010. • The development proposed is erection of a garage/workshop. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. As part of this appeal the appellant has submitted revised plans proposing to reduce the proposal in both plan form and height to create a two-bay cartlodge. The Procedural Guide for Planning Appeals makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered is essentially what was considered by the Council, and on which interested people’s views were sought. 3. I have had regard to the principles established by the Courts in Holborn Studios Ltd1, which refined the “Wheatcroft”2 principles, and it would not be appropriate for me to consider the amended plans in this appeal. The reason being is that they represent a material change to the appearance of the proposal that would prejudice those who were previously consulted or submitted comments if I were to assess them in my decision. I have, therefore, determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that were before the Council when it made its decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises a single storey dwelling located on a residential cul-de- sac. The appeal site and neighbouring properties in the vicinity of the appeal site have open frontages, predominately laid to grass with some landscaping which gives the area a verdant and spacious character and appearance. 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWCH 2823 (Admin) 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd V SSE [1982] JPL 37 Appeal Decision 6001473 2 6. The proposed cartlodge would be unduly large and its visual impact would be exacerbated by its position forward of the dwelling. Although an area of lawn would remain between the proposal and the appeal site frontage given there is little development in Links View where outbuildings sit forward of the main dwelling and it would, therefore, appear incongruous within the streetscene. 7. By reason of its height, scale and position the proposal would be clearly visible within the public realm, and discordantly so. The retention of the tree, and the introduction of further landscaping, would not mitigate its harmful presence. In any event landscaping cannot be relied upon in the long term. Similarly, the use of traditional materials would not offset the negative effect the cartlodge would have on the streetscene. 8. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. This draws the proposal into conflict with Policies SP09 and LP24 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan 2023 and Policy NEWT 3 of the Newton Neighbourhood Plan 2022. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies require development to be of high-quality design, including responding to and safeguarding the existing character and context. Other Matters 9. The incorporation of bee bricks, bat boxes and an EV charging point are noted and would provide some biodiversity and environmental improvements. However, given the scale of the proposal such benefits would be limited and would not outweigh the harm identified. 10. A lack of harm in respect of living conditions upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, or highway safety, are neutral matters which neither weigh for or against the proposal. Conclusion 11. The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate the decision should be taken otherwise. For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R Gee INSPECTOR