Proposed part single storey/part two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit 18 June 2026 by C Walker BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007173 The Oaks, Playford Lane, Rushmere St Andrew, Suffolk, IP5 1DW • 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 P Clark against the decision of East Suffolk Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/4298/FUL. • The development proposed is described as proposed part single storey/part two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the host property and the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The Oaks is a two-storey detached dwelling of distinctive modern design, characterised by a flat roof and set within generous grounds. Its smooth cream render finish and dark fenestration detailing, make this a striking addition to the rural street scene. It lies outside the main built-up area of Rushmere St Andrew in a rural location, adjacent to an existing bungalow and surrounded by agricultural land, with access taken from a narrow country lane typically bound by hedgerows. 4. The proposed extension would be substantial in size and scale, introducing a built form that competes with the footprint of the host dwelling. Whilst the single-storey element would connect the existing dwelling to a two-storey wing extending along the boundary and projecting beyond the principal elevation, it would also serve to visually separate these elements. This would result in the development being perceived as two distinct forms, rather than a coherent addition despite the consistency in materials and architectural detailing. Consequently, the proposal would appear as a competing structure and contribute to an increased sense of sprawl across land that is currently undeveloped. 5. While the extension would not exceed the height of the host dwelling, its closer proximity to the site boundaries and highway would increase its prominence within the public realm, particularly from the south-west. Its distinct design would further accentuate its visibility, appearing incongruous when compared to the more restrained pattern of development in the surrounding rural area. Moreover, existing landscaping would be insufficient to mitigate the perception of sprawl arising from the proposed development within the site. Appeal Decision 6007173 2 6. I have had regard to examples within the wider area where garages are positioned forward of the principal elevations of dwellings. However, the proposal before me differs materially, as it comprises a two-storey form rather than a subordinate single-storey garage, and is therefore not directly comparable. Whilst the existing garage would be demolished to facilitate the proposed development, this would not sufficiently mitigate the harm identified to the character of the host dwelling or to the wider character and appearance of the area. 7. Having regard to the above, I find the proposal would give rise to significant adverse effects on both the host dwelling and the character and appearance of the rural area. This brings the scheme into conflict with Policy SCLP11.1 of the East Suffolk Council Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) and Policy RSA 9 of the Rushmere St Andrew Neighbourhood Plan (2023). Amongst other things, these policies expect legible development of an appropriate scale, where there is a clear relationship between buildings, and high-quality design that responds to local context. Conclusion 8. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed. C Walker INSPECTOR