Case 3373038

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ

East Cambridgeshire District Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
12 February 2026
Authority
East Cambridgeshire District Council
Inspector
Hickey A
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Reserved Matters
Development type
Change of use
Appellant
Mr Brian Rutterford
LPA reference
25/00497/ARN
ONS LPA code
E07000009
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
19 September 2025

Summary AI

The inspector dismissed the appeal due to concerns over the impact of noise from transport sources on future occupiers of the converted building. The proposal was found to conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework's requirements for a high standard of amenity for future users.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 January 2026 by A Hickey MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 February 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/W/25/3373038 Nerries Farm, Norwich Road, Kennet, Suffolk • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr Brian Rutterford against the decision of East Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00497/ARN. • The development proposed is conversion of one building into two dwellings. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the site address above from the decision notice as it more accurately describes the site location. Background and Main Issue 3. As the appeal proposal relates to a prior approval notification made under ‘the GPDO, development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) can be considered relevant, but only insofar as they relate to the development and prior approval matters.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision I have proceeded on this basis. 4. In accordance with transitional arrangements, the appeal proposal will use the permitted development right under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO as it stood prior to 21 May 2024, and I have determined the appeal on that basis. The local authority found the proposed development to constitute permitted development under Class Q, subject to the prior approval of certain matters in Paragraph Q.2 and I have no basis to conclude otherwise. 5. Having regard to the requirements of paragraph Q.2(1)(e), the main issue is whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses). Reasons 6. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out that impractical or undesirable are not defined in the regulations, and an authority should apply a reasonable ordinary dictionary meaning in making a judgment. Impractical reflects that the location and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V0510/W/25/3373038 siting would “not be sensible or realistic”, and undesirable reflects that it would be “harmful or objectionable”1. 7. The appeal site comprises an isolated agricultural building with an L-shaped curtilage. It lies in close proximity to the A14, a busy dual carriageway separated from the site by a planted embankment. Railway lines are located a short distance to the south. The proposal is to convert the building into two dwellings. 8. A Noise Impact Assessment2 identifies that sound affecting the building is predominantly derived from transport sources, namely the A14 to the north and the railway line to the south, affecting all façades. During my site visit, noise from both sources was clearly audible. 9. To mitigate the identified noise sources, windows and doors would need to be kept closed. Mitigation would include windows of enhanced laminate glass types and mechanical supply ventilation. 10. In my view, future occupiers would be harmed as a result of them being unable, or potentially unwilling, to open windows as a result of experiencing relatively high levels of noise and disturbance, which would also be present at night.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Moreover, I find that reliance on mechanical ventilation to obtain fresh air, rather than opening a window, would not be a desirable choice for future occupiers. 11. Additionally, future occupiers would have no dedicated private amenity space, which would be a reasonable expectation in this location. Even if future occupiers choose to use the external space outside, this would not provide satisfactory living standards, as it would be a shared space for vehicular parking/turning and subject to unacceptable noise impacts from the A14. 12. The appellant refers to other dwellings located adjacent to dual carriageways, including examples along Snailwell Road. However, I do not have full details of those developments, and in any event, each proposal must be assessed on its site-specific circumstances. The presence of other dwellings close to dual carriageways does not outweigh the identified harm in this case. 13. Whole house ventilation mitigation may be acceptable in certain circumstances, such as high-rise locations. However, it is not adequately justified for the purposes of the appeal proposal.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, the proposal would fail to provide a suitable standard of living conditions for future occupants in respect of noise exposure. It therefore conflicts with the Framework which state that planning decisions should ensure a high standard of amenity for future users, 14. Consequently, I conclude that the location and siting of the building make it otherwise impractical and undesirable to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses). As such, the proposal would fail to satisfy the condition at paragraph Q.2(1)(e) of the GPDO. Other Matters 15. The acceptability of other matters subject to prior approval under Class Q does not overcome the failure to satisfy paragraph Q.2(1)(e). 1 Paragraph: 109 Reference ID: 13-109-20150305 2 Noise Impact Assessment TECHNICAL REPORT 42599-R1 prepared by soundsolution consultants https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V0510/W/25/3373038

Page 3 · Chunk 6 INSPECTOR

Nerries Farm, Kennet , Suffolk, CB8 7RQ — East Cambridgeshire District Council — INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶10

The inspector found that future occupiers would be harmed by the noise and disturbance, and would not be able to open windows, relying instead on mechanical ventilation for fresh air.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶11

The inspector found that the lack of private amenity space would be a reasonable expectation in this location, and the shared space for vehicular parking/turning would not provide satisfactory living standards.

Heritage impact
Neutral

The inspector mentioned the presence of other dwellings close to dual carriageways, but found that this did not outweigh the identified harm in this case.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶13

The inspector found that whole house ventilation mitigation may not be adequately justified for the purposes of the appeal proposal, and that the proposal would fail to provide a suitable standard of living conditions for future occupants in respect of noise exposure.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
NPPF 208
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 4 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 12 February 2026 under the Open Government Licence.