A bid by the Brewers Arms bosses at Polstead to have a planning refusal by Babergh District Council overturned has failed.

Planning Inspector Ian Preston ruled Babergh was correct to refuse the job owners permission to build a farm shop, covered pergola, extension to car par and the erection of five holiday let cabins with associated car park and planting. along with seven bungalows, two of which would be affordable housing.

The inspector rued that on balance the harm from the proposal outweighed any benefits as highlighted below.

Conclusion/ Planning Balance

1. The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the two listed properties within the adjacent settlement. However, having regard to the national importance and the statutory duty which requires me to pay special regard to preserving the setting of the listed buildings, that is a matter of considerable importance and weight. The proposal would also cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
2. It is in an unsuitable location for development having regard to likely travel patterns and the accessibility of local services and clearly contrary to the relevant policies of the development plan in that regard. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that surface water would be properly drained or that the impact on designated sites for nature conservation would be mitigated.
3. The benefits to the local economy would be positive but moderate in scale and I can attach limited weight to any benefit to the Brewers Arms in the absence of any significant evidence as to the financial position of the business, added to the fact that the mechanism put forward in the UU wouldn't necessarily secure the delivery of the non-residential elements of the scheme. Moreover, whilst there may be economic benefits in a general sense, I am not convinced that providing a new retail use in an out of centre location, comparatively remote from those who would use the facility is necessarily a public benefit in a planning context.
4. Some benefit would arise through the delivery of single storey dwellings, given local demand for such accommodation, and through the provision of affordable housing but those benefits would also be modest in the context of the overall housing supply position. For the reasons given above, the other benefits put forward attract limited to modest weight.
5. Overall, it is clear that any public benefits do not outweigh the harm identified to the setting and significance of the listed buildings. Moreover, the proposal is clearly contrary to the relevant policies of the very recently adopted development plan with regard to the location of new development and would cause harm in other respects. The other material considerations put forward do not justify a decision other than in accordance with the policies of the development plan when the balance of harm and benefit is considered in the round.
6. In reaching my conclusion I am mindful that the absence of mitigation in respect of the Suffolk Coast RAMS is essentially down to a drafting error within the UU. Had I been mindful to grant permission that is something that could have been resolved before reaching my decision. However, even setting that issue aside, the other harm and conflict with the development plan clearly outweighs the moderate benefits put forward.
7. Accordingly, having regard to all matters raised, I shall dismiss the appeal and refuse to grant planning permission for the proposal.

The full determination can be found on the planning inspectorate website here. using reference APP/D3505/W/22/3312504.