The site forms part of the undeveloped rear gardens of a row of historic buildings within the Queniborough Conservation area and the setting of grade II Listed buildings at 71-81 Main Street. The village essentially appears as a linear settlement consisting of a single main street and many of the houses still occupy the burgage plots laid out in medieval times. As such, the Queniborough conservation area has a distinct grain or pattern of built form and spaces which are part of its historic development. This 'grain' is an important part of the character of the conservation area and, in accordance with the Conservation Area Management Plan, should be protected. The proposal would introduce a back land form of development which is at odds with the prevailing linear and historic form and pattern of development that defines this part of the conservation area, and which also contributes to its heritage significance and the heritage significance of nearby Listed buildings. The proposal is therefore considered to neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Queniborough conservation area or the setting of the grade II Listed buildings at 71-81 Main Street as required by sections 72 and 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposal is also contrary to policy CS14 of the Core Strategy (2015 and the Queniborough Conservation Area Character Appraisal which seek appropriate forms of development that conserve and protect heritage assets and their settings.

It has not been demonstrated that the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the proposal would not cause harm to features of biodiversity, protected species or their habitats and that appropriate mitigation can be provided. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraph 170 of the NPPF which states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the local environment by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity and paragraph 175 which requires that local planning authorities refuse planning permission for developments that do not mitigate the impacts of significant harm to biodiversity. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy (2015) which expects development proposals to consider and take account of the impacts on biodiversity.

The National Planning Policy Framework, although not distinguishing between different types of heritage assets, requires local planning authorities, in considering development proposals, to consider their significance. The application site lies within the historic medieval core of the village and an Area of Archaeological Alert. The applicant has provided no information regarding the potential for buried remains to be affected by the development, and, in the absence of any statement of significance, desk-based assessment or field evaluation, the local planning authority is unable to undertake the necessary assessment of harm. The development is therefore contrary to advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to protect historic assets from inappropriate development.

The pattern of development and the character of the area has a distinct linear grain and style of built form and spaces which define this part of the village. This 'grain' is an important part of the character of the area. The proposal would introduce a back land form of development which is at odds with the prevailing linear form and pattern of development that defines this part of the village. The architectural form of the proposed dwelling also fails to relate to the host dwelling or any other properties within the historic core of the village. The application is therefore contrary to Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy which requires that proposals respect and enhance the character of the area having regard for scale, density, massing, height, landscape layout, materials and access arrangements. The proposal is also contrary to Saved Policy EV/1 of the Local Plan (2004) and Paragraph 130 of the NPPF which requires that permission be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.