Described in the application as a rear two-storey extension, ground floor to have kitchen, utility, w/c and dining room, while first floor has new bedrooms and an ensuite

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2026 by Jonathan Price BA(Hons) DipTP DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011384 34 Aldham Road, Hadleigh, Suffolk IP7 6BP • 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 Ms Jesse Gilbey against the decision of Babergh District Council. • The application Ref is DC/26/00772. • The development proposed is described in the application as a rear two-storey extension, ground floor to have kitchen, utility, w/c and dining room, while first floor has new bedrooms and an ensuite. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. On 17 August 2026 the Government published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This does not alter the requirement in planning law that appeals be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Because the relevant development plan policies in this case are not materially inconsistent with those of the new Framework, I have not deemed it necessary to seek the further views of the parties. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effects of the proposal on the living conditions at 32 Aldham Road, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 4. The house at No 34 is one of a semi-detached pair, each with long back gardens. The proposal would extend the house substantially at the rear, at the same eaves height and to its full width with a twin gable roof arrangement. The two storey extension and hipped roof would run directly along the boundary with the neighbour at No 32. The height, extent and proximity of this very large rear addition would detract from this neighbour’s living conditions to a notably harmful degree. Although this neighbour would still retain a clear outlook towards the rear and to one side, the significant mass of this extension would have an unacceptably overwhelming and oppressive impact at the side of the neighbour’s garden it would abut. This impact would be most acute within the nearest and more regularly used parts of the adjacent back garden at No 32. The large extension would also have an overbearing and confining impact on the view from this neighbour’s master bedroom, judging from the plans submitted as part of the appellant’s statement. Appeal Decision 6011384 2 5. Although this proposal would not harm the character and appearance of this area, being to the rear and not visible in the street scene, this would not offset the harmful impacts found on the present living conditions at No 32. Nor does the fact that the long plot can comfortably accommodate such a large extension assist in this case, as this has no bearing on the unacceptably confining effects caused to the next door neighbour. This neighbour might be afforded greater privacy as a consequence of this extension, which would also avoid blocking any direct sunlight, but this would be scant compensation for the harmful confinement of outlook that it would cause. Conclusion 6. The development proposed would cause substantial harm to the living conditions at 32 Aldham Road, with particular regard to the confining impact on outlook at the rear. This would be specifically contrary to policies LP03 (1-c) and LP24 (2-i) of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) and brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole. The proposal would also run counter to the objectives of the Framework over achieving well-designed places. As a consequence, I conclude the appeal does not succeed. Jonathan Price INSPECTOR