Change of use of part of Field 425312 to extend residential curtilage (retrospective)

General Policy 3

GP3 prohibits development in the countryside unless one of the listed exceptions applies. None apply here, creating face-value conflict, but the very limited visual harm from the small-scale extension at the rear of existing dwellings was considered not to undermine countryside protection objectives when weighed with other material considerations.

Environment Policy 1

EP1 protects the countryside for its own sake unless overriding national need exists. No such need here, but the proposal's absence of adverse visual impact on rural character, openness, or key views meant it did not adversely affect the countryside to a degree warranting refusal.

General Policy 2

GP2 requires proposals not to affect the character of the locality adversely. The extension complies as it matches surrounding plot depths (approx. 26m total), is unobtrusive in the streetscene, and causes no harm to visual amenity or landscape features.

Environment Policy 14

EP14 protects high-quality agricultural land (Classes 1/2, including 3/2) from loss unless overriding need and alternatives unavailable. The site is on the cusp of Class 3/2 and urban Colby; the minimal 0.17-acre loss from a 4.8-acre field was deemed acceptable given lack of visual harm.

Strategic Policy 4

SP4 requires protection or enhancement of rural landscape quality. The proposal complies as the rear-positioned extension does not erode openness, is contained within the existing linear cluster, and preserves key southward views.

Spatial Policy 5

SP5 requires new development to make a positive contribution to the environment. Achieved through no harm to landscape or amenity, alignment with local plot character, and retention of rural field dominance.