Proposed alterations and 2 storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 August 2026 by A Wright BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010281 1 Nursery Cottages, Norwich Road, Claydon, Suffolk IP6 0PR • 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 Oliver North and Rebecca Donald against the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council. • The application Ref is DC/26/00125. • The development proposed is described as ‘proposed alterations and 2 storey side extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026. As this could affect the issues and matters in this case, the Council and the appellants were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset; and • protected species, with particular regard to bats. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site comprises one half of a semi-detached pair of two storey cottages facing the old Norwich Road. The surrounding area features a mix of domestic properties of varying ages and styles, though the prevailing character is traditional. 5. Policies HE1 and HE3 of the Framework set out plan-making policies relating to the historic environment. They require plans to be supported by a local heritage list identifying non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs), and local planning authorities to have access to a Historic Environment Record to be used to assess the significance of heritage assets and inform the preparation of local lists, amongst other things. Further, Policy HE5 of the Framework outlines the requirements for assessing the effect of proposals on heritage assets, including the degree of harm. Appeal Decision 6010281 2 6. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out that NDHAs include buildings, identified as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets. There is no local heritage list entry for the appeal site. However, the PPG states that NDHAs may be identified as part of the decision-making process on planning applications. Further, Historic England’s Local Heritage Listing: Identifying and Conserving Local Heritage (HEAN7) indicates that NDHAs can be identified through decision-making on planning applications and must be based on sound evidence. 7. A building is shown at this location on the 1830s OS map and consistently on subsequent historic mapping, indicating early 19th century origins. The pair of cottages were constructed in Suffolk Gault white brick which has historic associations with the wider Shrubland Hall estate where this material was widely used for the rebuilt hall, its ancillary buildings and the estate’s various lodges and gatehouses. 8. The appellants refer to various other buildings in the area which have not been designated as NDHAs, including other structures associated with Shrubland Hall and ones which have been extended. Nevertheless, Nursery Cottages exhibit a high degree of architectural uniformity, symmetry and craftsmanship. This includes mirrored building forms, and matching materials, fenestration and canted bays. The pitched roof porches are distinctive features that appear original or early additions and provide a focal point for the side elevations, reinforcing the balanced composition of the pair. 9. Having regard to its historic, group and architectural value, it is reasonable to consider Nursery Cottages as an NDHA. Policy LP19 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Part 1 2023 (JLP) requires NDHAs to be conserved in accordance with their significance. This is broadly consistent with Policy HE4 of the Framework. 10. The proposed two storey extension would be slightly lower than the existing dwelling and marginally set back from the frontage so would not impinge on the front building line. Nevertheless, it would be a sizeable addition, adding significant mass to the side of the original structure. Due to its substantial width, height and depth, the proposed development would appear as a dominant addition, adversely affecting the balanced, symmetrical built form of the pair of cottages. 11. In addition, whilst the porch would be retained, its repositioning to the front of the dwelling would cause further harmful erosion to the architectural uniformity of the building and the loss of this key side design feature which is particularly evident in views when travelling westbound along the road. The roof tiles and joinery would match the ones on the existing property, but the proposed decorated render walls would appear discordant with the Suffolk Gault white brick cottage walls. 12. For these reasons, the proposal would cause moderate harm to the significance of the NDHA. In such circumstances, Policy HE7 of the Framework states that this harm should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal. The appeal scheme would increase the accommodation within the dwelling, meeting the needs of the appellants’ family. However, when taking a balanced judgement having regard to the significance of the NDHA, I find the scale of harm unacceptable. Appeal Decision 6010281 3 13. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of a non-designated heritage asset. This would be contrary to Policies SP09, LP19 and LP24 of the JLP. Amongst other things, these seek to conserve the historic environment, including heritage assets and require new development to respond to and safeguard the existing character. It would also conflict with Policies DP3, HE4 and HE7 of the Framework, which set out the approach towards NDHAs and require proposals to respond to their context so that they integrate with their surroundings. Protected Species 14. Bats are a European Protected Species, protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In addition, public authorities have a statutory duty to conserve biodiversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2000. 15. I note that the Framework’s decision-making policies seek only the minimum necessary information requirements to enable a decision, and that this should be proportionate to the scale of development and its potential impact. 16. Nevertheless, the government’s standing advice in relation to bats states that developers should submit information with their planning application on how their proposal avoids or mitigates harm to bats. Further, the government advice for local planning authorities on protected species and development outlines the need to consider the full impact of the proposal on protected species before granting planning permission. It indicates that planning conditions that ask for surveys should not usually be attached. 17. The appellants’ Bat Survey includes the results of a scoping survey carried out on 26 January 2026. This indicates that the appeal building provides features suitable for bats and a small number of old bat droppings were found in the roof void. It outlines that the property has moderate suitability for roosting bats and recommends that at least two bat emergence surveys should be undertaken between May and August. 18. However, no details of bat emergence surveys have been submitted. In the absence of this information, the presence of roosting bats cannot be ruled out, and I cannot be certain as to the extent to which they may be affected. Furthermore, if protected species were affected, I cannot be certain as to what mitigation if appropriate, in addition to bat-friendly lighting, may be required. 19. Therefore, I conclude that there has been a failure to demonstrate that the proposal would not harm protected bats. This would conflict with Policies SP09 and LP16 of the JLP where they seek to conserve the natural environment, including priority species. It would also be contrary to Policy N2 of the Framework where it seeks to minimise any adverse impacts on biodiversity. Other Matters 20. The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including impacts on designated heritage assets, flood risk, living conditions, highway safety and landscape. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme. Appeal Decision 6010281 4 Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. A Wright INSPECTOR