Initial Template - ipswich.gov.uk

Transcription

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Ref PD/05/05
DATE: WEDNESDAY 13th July 2005
SUBJECT: PLANNING APPLICATIONS
PORTFOLIO HOLDER: HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Brief description of report content and the decision being asked for:
This report lists those planning applications to be determined by the
Committee. It sets out relevant considerations, outstanding matters, and
makes recommendations as appropriate at the time of writing.
This report has been prepared by Mike Smith – Head of Planning & Development
Tel (01473) 432902 - Email: mike.smith@ipswich.gov.uk
This report was prepared after consultation with:
Strategic Planning and Others as listed.
The following policies form a context to this report:
(all relevant policies must also be referred to in the body of the report)
Transforming Ipswich
Development Plan and other policy documents as listed.
This report is not a key decision included in the Forward Plan
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 13TH JULY 2005 REF. NO. PD/05/05
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(papers relied on to write the report but which are not published and do not contain exempt information –
1.
All of the papers on the relevant planning application files that were
relied upon to a material degree in the preparation of the report.
2.
3.
OTHER HELPFUL PAPERS
(papers which the report author considers might be helpful – this might include published material)
1.Ipswich Local Plan adopted 1997.
2.First Deposit Draft Local Plan 2001
3.Suffolk Structure Plan 2001
4.SPG Good Practice Guide to Extending your Home
5.Other published Supplementary Policy Guidance
2
CONTENTS
Item No
Ref. No.
Address
Ward
Item01
IP/05/00493/FUL
The Cliffden Hotel
21 London Road
GIPPING
Item02
IP/05/00513/FUL
8 Meredith Road
CASTLE HILL
Item03
IP/05/00523/FUL
Lockup Garages Adj 30
Gibbons Street
GIPPING
Item04
IP/05/00290/FUL
Celestion Bull Motors And
Marlows, Foxhall Road
ST JOHNS
Item05
IP/05/00385/LBC
31 - 35 Fore Street
ALEXANDRA
Item06
IP/05/00386/FUL
31 - 35 Fore Street
ALEXANDRA
Item07
IP/05/00452/OUT
7 Playford Road
BIXLEY
Item08
IP/05/00541/OUT
2 - 4 Mersey Road
HOLYWELLS
Item09
IP/05/00559/FUL
149 And 151
Whitby Road
RUSHMERE
BACKGROUND PAPERS
All of the papers on the relevant planning application files that were relied upon
to a material degree in the preparation of the report, are regarded as
Background Papers which may be inspected by arrangement with the relevant
Case Officer.
3
Item 01
Application No. IP/05/00493/FUL
REPS
Ward:
Proposal:
GIPPING
Change of use from hotel to 12 studio apartments.
Address:
The Cliffden Hotel , 21 London Road
Applicant:
Christchurch Properties Ltd
Agent:
Last And Tricker Partnership
4
1. Proposal
This is to convert an existing building into 12 self contained "studio" apartments. The
floorspaces range from approx. 27m2 - 40m2. Five of the units would have bed-sit
arrangements i.e. combined sitting/living area. An amended layout plan has been
submitted which amended the floor plans to provide more windows instead of relying
exclusively on roof lights on two of the units. This also shows a small side extension.
Externally, there is a courtyard of some 95m2 providing for drying area, bin storage
and cycle parking. There would not be any on site car parking provision.
2. Background
The site is within an inner urban area relatively close to the central area, a locality
characterised by large Victorian buildings mostly in residential use ( often flats or
bed-sits) although there are some commercial buildings nearby. The site is at the
junction of London Road/ Stevenson Road and includes a large Victorian house that
has been in use as a hotel/guest house for many years. It is 2 storeys with attic
accommodation. A garage/coach house was converted to proprietors accommodation
some years ago and this faces a small courtyard which has access to Stevenson Road.
3. Consultations
BENG - Cycle store should be enclosed, secure, illuminated and hold more than one
cycle per dwelling; zero parking acceptable; remaining access shall have bound
surface for at least 4.5m from edge of highway; hedges should be planted min 1m
from highway; may be excluded from future Residents Parking Zones.
ESMH – Detailed concerns over natural daylight comments on Building Regulations.
ESMP – No objections.
Representations
The following representations have been received:Maddocks, Lusher And Matthews,North Lodge, 25 London Road received 02/06/05
Issues Raised:- too many flats in locality
- inadequate parking
5
4. Policy
The following policies of the adopted Local Plan apply:
All entrances must be easily accessible from the public highway avoiding awkward
rear approaches. Provision should also be made for refuse storage areas and access for
collection within 25 metres. An area of amenity space should be provided with
convenient access to each dwelling. The area of amenity space should be proportional
with the size of the proposal, the number of homes provided and the density of
development in the locality, based on a standard of 25 square metres per unit of
accommodation. A lower standard of amenity space provision may be acceptable in
appropriate locations e.g. on the top of the shops and in the Town Centre and
Transition Area mentioned in paragraph 6.56 above. Further guidance on standards
for conversions are contained in the Council’s Environmental Services HMO
Standards.
H19
Proposals to convert houses into flats, bedsits or other types of HMO
may be acceptable providing they:(a)
Comply with the Council's Standards for the provision of off-street
car parking space, private outdoor amenity and bin storage areas;
(b)
provide each unit of accommodation with a principal entrance
door conveniently accessible to the public highway;
(c)
do not lead to an overload of flats and other HMOs in the street
causing unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and activity;
(d)
do not involve the loss of modest sized family housing containing 3
bedrooms or fewer; and
(e)
would not have a detrimental effect on the character and
appearance of a listed building or conservation area.
5. Comment
On criteria H19(a), the site has very little space for any car parking at present for the
hotel use ( 15 letting rooms). It is unlikely that the proposals would generate any more
cars than the lawful use. The site is in a relatively central location being located only
360m from the central shopping area. Cycle parking provision will be made on site.
Bin storage areas are located in a discrete position. Of greater concern is the small
amount of amenity space which is well below the 25m2 standard referred to in para
6.62 of the ILP. Whilst this standard is flexible depending on the circumstances, here
there would be 12 separate households with very little external private space. The
space itself would be heavily overlooked by 3 of the units. Further consideration is
being given to this issue and the Committee will be updated orally. Also of concern is
the restricted outlook from some of the units.
Criteria H19(b) is met given the site's location close to two roads.
6
Criteria H19(c) is not directly relevant because this is not a conversion of an existing
house. Thus the proposals would not alter the existing balance of houses to
flats/HMOs (houses in multiple occupation)in the area. In any case, despite
perceptions, the number of flats/HMOs in London Road between Barrack Corner and
Mile End is less than 50%. Furthermore, due to its size it would be unrealistic to
expect this building to revert to a house. Some flats/HMO use is inevitable.
6. Recommendation
A final recommendation will be made at the meeting.
7
Item 02
REPS
Ward:
Proposal:
CASTLE HILL
Change of use of ground floor from shop (A1) to café (A3) with flat
above.
Address:
8 Meredith Road
Applicant:
Mr M Warren
Agent:
S C Fletcher (Architect)
8
1. Proposal
The application is for the change of use of ground floor accommodation from a
former fireplace retail shop (Class A1) to a café (Class A3), with a residential flat at
first floor level.
2. Background
The site has a chequered history but has always been a retail shop at ground floor
level and a residential flat above, a previous consent in 1990 allowed a part change of
use from shop to storage of flooring materials (I/90/011/FP), the use has since
reverted back to a retail unit (Class A1).
The unit has been empty since its previous occupiers – a retail unit for fireplaces
vacated. It is on the southern side of Meredith Road adjacent to the newsagents and a
tandoori restaurant. There is a separate doorway to the flat above, no. 8A Meredith
Road.
3. Consultations
BE - Applicant should be aware that the provision of a disabled ramp will be required
and any external seating on the highway will need to be licenced.
ESMP – Recommend two conditions 1) no amplified system of music or speech
unless a satisfactory scheme of sound insulation has been submitted and approved and
2) system of extract ventilation to be installed within the premises to a specification
that will prevent nuisance arising.
ESMC – Unable to comment at this stage, further information on Application of the
Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 is available from the Borough
Council if required.
SCI - No issues to raise regarding this application.
Representations
The following representations have been received:Mr E Osman, landlord 27-29 and 4-4A Meredith Road;
Mr S Kaptan, 4A Meredith Road;
Mrs S Kaptan, 4A Meredith Road;
KWRV Palmer on behalf of Palmers (Haughley) Limited, The White House,
Haughley, IP14 3NR
Leslie Short, MRTPI, MRICS, Peecock Short on behalf of Mr A Motlib, 10 Meredith
Road;
Two petitions, one signed by 215 interested parties, one by 214 interested parties.
Issues Raised:1. No more room for change of use under the Council’s 40% rule;
9
2. If café open till early hours of the morning won’t be able to sleep as live above
ground floor units;
3. Could mean closure of some takeaway shops due to too much competition;
4. Already have a large number of takeaway outlets, any more will turn Meredith
Road from a pleasant shopping area into a fast food haven;
5. No need for an additional A3 user in this location;
6. Addition of another A3 use will disturb the satisfactory balance that there is;
7. A balance of retail and service uses are required to be maintained;
8. A3 uses encourage higher rents which lead to a decline if not a change in the
function of this local shopping centre;
9. Proposal will contribute to a general decline of the shopping centre as a viable retail
offer;
10. A3 use will have an adverse impact on the character and quality of local amenity
particularly for residential occupiers – can lead to noise, pollution, litter, fumes,
cooking smells, disturbance etc11. True nature of proposal is not clear in the
application – could it not be mixed use proposed with café and takeaway;
11. Increased traffic will make the area more unsafe; and
12. Lack of sufficient parking to cover a further restaurant.
4. Policy
The following policies of Ipswich Local Plan are chiefly relevant:S18
Within the defined Local Shopping Centres proposals to change the use
from Class A1 shops to Class A2 Financial and Professional services and
Class A3 Food and Drink uses will be permitted, providing, as a result of
the change or otherwise, the percentage of non Class A1 uses does not
exceed 33% of the total identified shopping frontage or the shopping
character and range of shops is not unacceptably diminished.
S20
Within the defined Local Shopping Centres proposals to provide Class A3
hot food takeaway shops will only be acceptable providing:(a)
the criteria of Policy S18 can be met;
(b)
the proposal would not cause a loss of residential amenity because
of long opening hours or environmental nuisances from increased
noise and activity, fumes, smell and litter; and
(c)
there would be no unacceptable levels of vehicular traffic
generated to the detriment of highway safety and satisfactory
access and car
parking provision can be met.
The following policy of the First Deposit Draft Ipswich Local Plan is chiefly
relevant:-
10
S12
Within the defined District and Local Shopping Centres proposals to
change the use from Class A1 (Shops) to Class A2 (Financial and
Professional Services) and Class A3 (Food and Drink) uses will be
permitted, providing, as a result of the change or otherwise, the
percentage of non Class A1 uses does not exceed 40% of the total
identified shopping frontage or the shopping character and range of
shops is not unacceptably diminished.
5. Comment
Adopted planning policy accepts the change of use from Use Class A1 – retail units to
Use Classes A2 (Financial and Business) and Use Class A3 (at the time, cafes,
restaurants, bars, take-aways), within designated local shopping centres, provided the
level of A3/A2 uses does not exceed 33% of the total shopping frontage and provided
the range of shops is not unacceptably reduced, (Policy SE18).
Planning policy in the First Deposit Draft Ipswich Local Plan re-iterates this policy
but increases the total frontage to 40% before the level of non A1 – retail uses
becomes unacceptable. (Policy S12).
A calculation has been carried out on the Meredith Road shopping centre in order to
establish the frontage of A2/A3 uses in the area. It is important to note that since
April the Use Classes Order has been amended and the old A3 use class has been
divided into three:
A3 – Restaurants, snack bars, cafes
A4 – Pubs and bars
A5 – Take-aways
This application is specifically requesting a change of use to Use Class A3 – café.
The applicant has illustrated that they are aware of the changes to the use classes
order and are specifically not applying for an A5 – takeaway use.
However, in order to do the calculation within the development plan the old
classification has to be used as that is what the policies are based upon. As such there
is currently 25.4% A3 uses in Meredith Road (based on frontages), with the proposed
change of use this will rise to 30.3%. This is within the adopted policy guideline of
33% and well within the proposed policy guideline of 40%.
Planning policy refers to assurance that the character and variety of shops within a
local shopping centre will not be affected by a change of use from A1 retail. In the
Meredith Road shopping centre there is a small supermarket, a co-op store, offlicence, video rental store, hairdresser, bakery, post office/newsagent, pharmacy and
fruit and veg shop that are unaffected by the proposal. Therefore, your officer’s are of
the opinion that the range of facilities and stores in Meredith Road will not be
unacceptably diminished should the change of use from A1 be approved.
In addition to this, it is important to note, that the proposal is for a café and not a hot
food takeaway. The majority of the objectors to the proposal have raised concerns at
the introduction of a further hot food takeaway in the area in particular the noise and
11
rubbish associated with such a use and the saturation of hot food takeaways in
Meredith Road. It is acknowledged that there are a number of hot food takeaways
within the Meredith Road shopping centre, however, the proportion of shopping
frontage devoted to such uses is well within the guidelines of the Ipswich Local Plan
and will not be exceeded with the proposed café use. Any future change to a hot food
takeaway will require an application for planning permission, however the café (A3)
use could revert to an A1 or A2 use without the benefit of an application for planning
permission.
An objection has been raised to the increased traffic and vehicular movements the use
will entail coupled with insufficient parking the area. The Borough’s Highway
Authority are content that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on highway
safety. There are adequate car parking spaces for the centre as a whole and it is a
local shopping centre designed to serve the immediate locality, it is therefore hoped
that the majority of users would utilise alternative means of transport such as walking
to get to the facilities. There are no planning policy objections to the proposed change
of use.
In accordance with adopted planning policy and taking into account the revised Town
and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, the proposed change of use is acceptable.
6. Recommendation
Recommend planning permission be granted subject to appropriate conditions
requiring submission of details of ventilation and has amplified system of music and
speech.
12
Item 03
REPS
Ward:
Proposal:
GIPPING
Erection of 3-storey block of 6, 2 bedroom flats with associated
landscaping, parking and new vehicular access.
Address:
Lockup Garages Adj 30 , Gibbons Street
Applicant:
Jane Turner
Agent:
Brooks Architects Ltd
13
1. Proposal
This site is very small, at 0.0299 hectare. The proposal is for a 3 storey block of flats
located close to the north and south boundaries and to 4.5 metres from the west
boundary. There is thus high site coverage. 3 car parking spaces are shown beneath an
over sailing element of the building above. The flats would each be approx. 60m2 and
have 2 bedrooms. The design is modern, incorporating balconies, large bay window
and hipped roof sweeping down in a lean- to form over a two storey element at the
south. A cycle and bin store would be provided. Facing materials would be white
rendered walls and slate roofs.
2. Background
The site is in Gibbons Street, part of a large inner urban area of small Victorian
terraced houses. Some recent infill developments have taken place near the
application site. The design of these has followed the established context.
The site is occupied by 12 lock up garages all apparently in serviceable order. The
applicant has submitted a statement of usage. It states that 2 are being used to "store"
cars , the rest being used for general storage, workshop and a boat.
The site backs onto properties fronting London Road and Handford Cut. which
include small commercial buildings/uses in the vicinity of the application site. These
buildings are low grade and not used much and the sites appear ready for
redevelopment.
3. Consultations
BENG – TRO required on bend; detailed engineering.
ESMP – Noise and soil remediation assessments required.
CFO - Standard advice re access and fire fighting facilities
EA - Flood zone 3
Representations
The following representations have been received:Miss N Hale,30 Gibbons Street, Ipswich received 23/06/05
Issues Raised:Query over boundary treatments.
14
4. Policy
The following policies of Ipswich Local Plan are relevant:BE1
The Council will encourage and expect a high standard of design for new
development which should complement the character of Ipswich, respect
historic buildings and the mediaeval street pattern and contribute to the
creation of a sense of place.
BE2
Proposals for development should be designed to respect the
characteristics of the site and its surroundings. Where existing structures
and buildings detract from the townscape of an area the Council will
support redevelopment proposals providing they are consistent with the
other policies of the Plan.
BE7
Proposals for new housing will be assessed against the following criteria:
BE9
(a)
The need to provide an attractive human scale environment with a
sense of place;
(b)
The need to relate to the townscape character of the locality where
appropriate;
(c)
The need to provide satisfactory spacing between dwellings and an
appropriate level of private outdoor amenity space;
(d)
The need to ensure no undue disturbance from other land uses or
activities in the area; and
(e)
The need to achieve a safe secure environment which seeks to
reduce crime by providing vandal resistant street lighting, signs
and furniture and open unconcealed paths and amenity areas.
Proposals for severance plots, infilling and backland development may be
permitted providing they:
(a)
do not detract from the setting of existing buildings or the
character and appearance of the area;
(b)
have no undue adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring
properties in terms of loss of privacy, outlook, sunlight, daylight
and the generation of unreasonable traffic noise nuisance;
(c)
provide sufficient private garden area, off- street car parking
space (in accordance with the Council's Standards) and vehicular
access arrangements for the proposed and existing property;
(d)
have no adverse effect on any existing trees of amenity value and
architectural features within or close to the site; and
15
(e)
are in keeping with the prevailing spacing and
layout standards of the area.
5. Comment
The loss of the garages would not appear to prejudice the amenities of the area. There
are many terraced houses in the area with only on-street parking. There appears to be
little use and demand for car parking at the site. The application has not attracted any
opposition on this basis. It appears that their loss would not be detrimental to the area.
In terms of policy BE1 and BE2, it is considered that the modern design is over robust
in the context and bears little relationship to the context. In particular, the part lean-to
form, the hipped roofs and considerable modelling including over sailing elements are
over elaborate and unrelated to the context of uniform terraced houses. The 3 storey
scale would again be out of sympathy with the uniform 2 storey scale of houses
nearby. The modern design would be accentuated by the scale proposed contrary to
BE1, BE2, BE7(b) and BE9(a). The architect has issued a revised design which goes
some way to addressing these concerns but these have not yet been formally
submitted
There would be a large expanse of roof rising from 2-3 storeys 4.5m away from a
main window wall of the adjacent house 30 Gibbons Street which would cause visual
intrusion and loss of daylight, contrary to policy BE7(c) and BE9(b). The revised
design makes matters worse in this regard. Also, there would be overlooking of the
private area of no. 30.
On potential noise nuisance from nearby uses e.g. the builders merchants, Travis
Perkins Handford Cut, a condition of planning permission could be imposed requiring
noise insulation to the building envelope, to ensure compliance with policy BE7(d)
Regarding Miss Hale's comment, a normal conditions of permission would require
suitable boundary treatments. In this case the lock ups would be demolished and a 2
metres high privacy fence/wall erected.
The main issue revolves around policy BE9(e). Firstly the density is very high and
the building would be sited close to rear and side boundaries contrary to normal
spacing standards- especially the amended sketch. As such, it would prejudice the
development of adjacent land, including the garage buildings at the rear of 95 London
Road. It seems sensible for the planning of the application site to allow for
satisfactory development of the adjacent sites, but the proposals would seem to
compromise this.
Some development could occur on the application site in isolation but it would have
to be considerably scaled down.
6. Recommendation
Refuse planning permission- scale and design out of keeping with area
- adverse impact on no. 30 Gibbons Street
- would prejudice satisfactory development of adjacent
land.
16
Item 04
REPS
Ward:
Proposal:
ST JOHNS
Residential development comprising 288 units, associated parking,
access and open space (development does not comply with
development plan).
Address:
Celestion Bull Motors And Marlows,, Foxhall Road
Applicant:
Barratt Eastern Counties/Mersea Homes
Agent:
Bidwells Carpenter Planning Consultants
17
1. Proposal
The application is for residential development of the 5.6 hectare site with 288 units,
associated parking at an average of 1.5 spaces per unit, vehicular access from Foxhall
Road using a ghosted right turn lane, and open space. The units are to be comprised
of:
Affordable Housing –
Other housing –
1 bed flats –
2 bed flats –
2 bed houses 3 bed houses 4 bed houses -
16
20
14
16
6
8
98
30
36
44
Total -
72
216
The net density of development is to be 62 dwellings per hectare, gross will be 52
dwellings per hectare.
The open space is to include four Local Areas of Play (LAP), one Local Equipped
Area of Play (LEAP), a pocket park to the front of the site incorporating one of the
LAPs and a strategic landscaping belt to the southern boundary of the site adjacent to
the railway line.
The development is formed around an existing public sewer line that runs directly
through the site from Foxhall Road and under the railway line at the southern end.
This restricts development within the site as no building construction is allowed to
take place within 6m either side of the centre-line of the 1800mm diameter sewer.
This application has been discussed prior to submission and since its submission.
There have been several alterations to the scheme as a result of this negotiation
including alterations to the site layout – primarily to incorporate highway
considerations and to ensure adequate garden sizes for properties. Other alterations
include the addition of further house types, amendments to house type designs, some
alterations to the layout of properties fronting the main through access along the line
of the public sewer and restrictions added to the main square to discourage
unnecessary through traffic. The previously proposed ghosted right turn lane has been
removed from the application as it failed the safety audit and cannot be safely
provided.
2. Background
The site is a former industrial area which has been subject to a previous outline
application for residential development and associated works, the previous scheme
has been authorised for approval but is still awaiting issue of the decision notice
following discussion of the related legal agreement. The site is not allocated for
residential development in the adopted Local Plan but was put forward as a residential
site in the Ipswich Local Plan First Deposit Draft 2001. The application has been
advertised as a departure from the development plan.
18
3. Consultations
BE (Drainage) - Vehicular access onto Foxhall Road is acceptable, proposal is in line
with agreed layout at outline stage It is to have a ghosted right turn lane. Careful
consideration of road levels will be needed at the Foxhall Road junction to avoid
floodwater flowing onto or from the site. Drainage layout SK-01 is unacceptable,
soakaways to be 4 metres from highway kerb and 5 metres from properties and trees.
Deep bore soakaways are unlikely to be acceptable for highway drainage. Full details
of the proposed drainage system will have to be submitted and approved by the
Council. Further details required to ensure this is capable of being provided (see EA
comments). Considerations recommended to ensure appropriate access and materials
used.
Sum of £70,000 to be paid for the Borough to carry out works to improve the junction
at Foxhall Road/Derby Road. Grampian conditions required for alterations to the
highway at entrance to site, bus shelter upgrades etc.
ESMP – Two issues – contaminated land and noise assessment. Noise assessment –
more detail required on the control of railway noise to the development. Concern at
Foxhall Road facades (NB not part of this development). Contaminated land –
reports submitted appear to be a positive approach, however, assumptions are made in
both reports. Validation required before ground works commence.
CED - Have provided a summary of need based on the number of units (minus the
affordable), nearest schools in catchment are Rose Hill Primary and Copleston High,
both of which will be over-subscribed. Development will generate 42 primary school
places, 22 high school places and 5 sixth form places at a cost to the developer of
£768,545. This is being re-calculated following the change in mix of units since
original submission.
EA - Object to the proposal until it is demonstrated that discharge of water from the
site is acceptable. Contaminated land issue needs further investigation. Reports
submitted do not adequately address the risk to the water environment. Further work
and details are required in order for the objection to be removed. The agency is
confident a solution can be found and any permission can be contained accordingly.
AW - The amount of surface and foul water to be discharged to the combined sewer
is excessive, conditions required for further details of foul and surface water drainage
to be submitted and approved. Details of surface water attenuation for the site have
been approved by the local planning authority. Advisory comments re: building close
to the public sewer crossing the site and surface water flows to be restricted to a
maximum discharge of 100l/s for a 1 in 30 year storm return.
SAU – Programme of archaeological works condition to be applied, some extra
fieldwork is required to answer outstanding questions from the archaeological impact
assessment and proposed mitigation strategy.
HRDO – Affordable housing is well distributed across the development. In terms of
units the number represents 26%, in terms of bed space only 23%, the calculation on
the basis of habitable rooms has not been carried out.
19
IB - There is little or no possibility of a bus service operating throughout the
development. Would wish to see developers responsible for providing bus waiting
facilities, improved shelters etc in the vicinity and possibility of providing each
household with a series of bus tickets to promote alternative means of travel to the
private motor car.
CFO – Access to buildings for fire appliances and fire fighters must meet with the
specified requirements of the building regulations. Minimum capacity for hard
standing of 15 tonnes. A fire hydrant will have to be installed to the rear of the site to
provide an adequate water supply for fire fighting.
LSP – Commuted sums required regarding play area, public open spaces etc. Trees to
be trimmed back for Camden Road residents as they overhang their gardens (TPO).
Some trees will grow too large for areas they are to be planted. Some units too close
to TPO trees. Open space adjacent to the railway line – should have an earth bund
that would be a natural sound barrier and provide a wildlife area along the railway
corridor. The management of the open spaces will need to be specific.
Representations
The following representations have been received:The Ipswich Society, 40 Glencoe Road, IP4 3PR
Mr & Mrs M Swift, 354 Foxhall Road, IP3 8JE
ABC Pre-School, 537 Foxhall Road, IP3 8LR
Mr D A Overall, 6 Camwood Gardens, IP3 8HY
Mr P Horsfield, 114 Camden Road, IP3 8JN
Maria Cook, 116 Camden Road, IP3 8JN
Mr & Mrs M Parker, 126 Henslow Road, IP4 5EJ
Mr G Harold, 402 Foxhall Road, IP14, 8JE
Issues Raised:1. Number of properties proposed has raised from 260 to 288, this will increase the
traffic using Foxhall Road even further having a negative impact on our quality of
life.
2. Three storey properties on frontage is not in keeping with the rest of the houses in
the road. (NB These properties are indicative, they are not included in the
application).
3. Proposed public area is a good feature as long as it is designed and policed in a way
that does not allow it to become a hangout for gangs of youths.
4. Three storey properties close to rear gardens of properties on Foxhall Road will
lead to overlooking and loss of light.
5. Large number of flats included that don’t fit with a family focused community.
6. Lack of a secondary access road will impact greatly on the already congested
Foxhall Road.
7. Developer should make a contribution to pre-school education and care.
8. The height difference between the application site and Camwood Gardens is
excessive, properties in Camwood Gardens would have no privacy from the adjacent
open space/properties.
20
9. The hawthorn hedge between the site and Camwood Gardens is inadequate for
safety reasons, would prefer a brick wall a minimum height of 2 metres with a hedge
planted to the front, with metal railings in front of that, creating a barrier (diagram
included).
10. Tree line as shown on plan to the east is not accurate and could lead to
overlooking, existing may need extending to match that on plan.
11. Need to ensure windows at first floor level to rear are obscure glazed where
necessary.
12. Site level is 2500mm+ below level of the boundary fence to the rear of 114
Camden Road, this must be maintained or lowered to minimise opportunity for
overlooking.
13. Increase in traffic on Foxhall Road needs addressing to prevent this becoming a
serious issue.
14. Nothing taller than 2 storey to be built at rear of 116 Camden Road as this is a
bungalow, some boundary screening would be appreciated.
15. Ipswich Society support the scheme provided the detailed architecture will be of a
high standard and that the pedestrian and cycle links are of a high standard
particularly to reach Derby Road station.
16. Disappointed that the original proposal for a roundabout is not included,
congestion will be increased, roundabout should be included.
17. Nothing included for extra facilities for schools, doctors, dentists.
4. Policy
The following policies of Ipswich Local Plan are chiefly relevant:NE6
Where appropriate, development proposals should be accompanied by a
comprehensive landscaping scheme including new tree planting to be
implemented as part of the overall development.
NE10 The Council will seek to retain all trees of high amenity value. Consent
will only be granted for the cutting down, topping, lopping or uprooting
of any tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order providing the works
are necessary:(a)
to secure the proper maintenance of the tree(s)for good
arboricultural reasons; or
(b)
to secure the removal of the tree(s) so that the survival or growth
prospects of other protected trees are enhanced.
NE21 Proposals for development on potentially contaminated land will be
expected to be accompanied by details of:(a)
a survey to establish the actual level of contamination; and
(b)
how the contamination will be dealt with to eliminate any future
danger.
NE23 The Council will normally resist development proposals likely to be prone
to flooding and proposals which would be likely to lead to an increase in
21
the risk of flooding of land and property elsewhere unless appropriate
flood protection measures are incorporated as part of each scheme.
BE1
The Council will encourage and expect a high standard of design for new
development which should complement the character of Ipswich, respect
historic buildings and the mediaeval street pattern and contribute to the
creation of a sense of place.
BE2
Proposals for development should be designed to respect the
characteristics of the site and its surroundings. Where existing structures
and buildings detract from the townscape of an area the Council will
support redevelopment proposals providing they are consistent with the
other policies of the Plan.
BE3
The Council will in appropriate cases encourage the provision of new
works of art as part of schemes of development where they would
contribute to the appearance of the scheme and to the amenities of the
area.
BE7
(a)
sense of place;
(b)
appropriate;
(c)
(d)
(e)
BE13 In considering development proposals, the Council will seek to ensure
that the design and layout of buildings, highways and the spaces around
them provide for public safety and deter vandalism and crime.
BE15 In considering development proposals the Council will seek the retention
and reinstatement of existing or former boundary walls, railings, fences
and gates which complement the character and appearance of an
individual building and the surrounding area.
BE16 Proposals for new buildings should include the provision of appropriate
boundary features.
BE17 The Council will require proposals for new development including
changes of use to include suitable provision for the adequate siting and
screening of bin storage areas and statutory undertakers equipment
22
BE47 Where research indicates that archaeological remains may exist, the
Council will require that a developer submits an archaeological field
evaluation prior to the determination of a planning application. Planning
permission will not be granted without adequate assessment of the nature,
extent and significance of the remains present and the extent to which the
proposed development is likely to affect them. Where proposals are
considered acceptable these conservation/preservation arrangements will
normally be secured by a condition of planning permission and/or a
planning obligation agreement.
H10
RL6
When considering proposals for residential development on sites of 1.5
hectares or more, or for 40 or more dwellings the Council will seek to
achieve a mix and balance of dwelling types to cater for a range of
housing needs including an element of affordable housing. The Council
will need to be satisfied that such affordable housing:(a)
will be available to meet long term local needs through secure
arrangements being made to restrict the occupancy of the
development; and
(b)
is compatible with other policies of the Plan.
It will be expected that in residential developments providing 15 or more
homes open space will be provided sufficient to meet the needs of the
residents for children's play and informal recreational use where this is
not available from public provision convenient to the site. Such land
should be landscaped and equipped for its purpose by the developer and
retained permanently as open space. On sites where the provision of such
open space is not practical a contribution may be sought for the provision
of comparable recreational provision as a part of public open space
proposals convenient to the site by way of planning obligation
agreements.
RL12 Proposals for residential development on sites of fifteen or more homes
will normally be expected to provide for a children's play area in
accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance. On
sites where the provision of usable recreational open space is not
practicable the developer may be expected to provide for a comparable
recreational facility elsewhere secured as part of a planning obligation
agreement.
RL13 Where the Council agrees to adopt a play area, it should first be laid out
in accordance with the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning
Guidance for play areas.
CF8
Where residential development creates extra demand for school places
which cannot be accommodated within existing schools, the developer will
be expected to contribute towards meeting this additional demand.
EMP2 Land within the following Employment Areas indicated on the Proposals
Map will be reserved for employment use:23
(t)
Bull Motors/Celestion, Foxhall Road;
T1
Development proposals will be assessed in terms of their effect upon the
environment and transport systems. Where, as a result of development
proposals environmental and transport infrastructure improvements are
considered to be necessary, developers will be expected to make
appropriate contributions.
T10
Proposals for development will be expected to respect the line of identified
cycle routes and where appropriate provide cycle parking facilities in
accordance with the Council's parking standards.
T11
All proposals for development will be expected to comply with the
Council's car parking standards.
5. Legal agreement
The following heads of terms have been proposed for the legal agreement:
1. Affordable housing units – 72, as indicated in the plan and schedule;
2. Environmental improvements - £70,000 (incorporating highway improvements);
3. Education contribution - £768,545;
4. Children’s play areas to be laid out and equipped and £135,202 by way of
commuted payment sum for future maintenance;
5. Public open space - £19,101 to be paid per hectare based upon the actual area of
public open space by way of a commuted payment sum;
6. Developer to offer each household the option of a voucher for free/reduced bus
travel for a limited time.
The agreed heads of terms for the S106 will be confirmed orally.
6. Comment
Compliance with adopted planning policy
Considerable efforts have been made to create an interesting but high density scheme
here furthering policy objectives for the beneficial use of urban land.
A detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted with the application that details the
proposed materials for use within the application site, this includes concrete tegula
paving setts for pavements and tables throughout the side and the proposed detailing
required for the pocket park to the front of the site and smaller landscaped areas
throughout the site. Street furniture has been incorporated where appropriate and
possible throughout the site. The overall scheme subject to further detail on precise
planting of the strategic zone complies with Policy NE6 of the Ipswich Local Plan.
A band of protected trees are to be retained on the eastern boundary of the site to
provide effective screening between new dwellings and those on Camden Road,
24
however, a scheme for their effective management will be required to ensure their
continued survival in accordance with Policy NE10.
The level of contamination on the site and its successful removal and remediation is
still under discussion at the time of this report, however, the Environment Agency, are
content that they will reach a suitable programme for works required to ensure no
contamination remains at the site in accordance with Policy NE21.
The disposal of surface and foul water generated through the development has been
under discussion to ensure the development does not lead to flooding of land and
property, Anglian Water and Environment Agency are content that the drainage of the
site can be dealt with in a sustainable manner in accordance with Policy NE23.
The design of the proposal is a mixture of modern and traditional design styles with
some characteristic period elements added to some house types that will create an
estate that has its own individual character whilst reflecting that of the surrounding
areas such as Orwell Road and Camden Road. The existing buildings on the site that
have been demolished, although an historic use, were out of character with the
surrounding predominantly residential area and their replacement with a residential
estate will be more consistent with the surroundings in accordance with Policies BE1
and BE2.
The pocket park is to incorporate an element of public art to be agreed in discussion
with the local planning department in accordance with Policy BE3, this will be
situated at the front of the site and will therefore benefit the wider community.
Appropriate fencing and boundary walling, will be implemented/replaced where
necessary within and around the site, the placement of such boundaries will seek to
ensure the public spaces throughout the site are safe and do not promote vandalism
and crime (Policies BE13, BE15 and BE16).
The revised site layout drawing incorporates bin stores that will shield the number of
the waste bins that will be required for the flat units on site. (Policy BE17).
Further archaeological work is to be required in accordance with Policy BE47.
25% affordable housing in a mix of unit types is to be provided in a pepper pot
formation throughout the site in accordance with Policy H10 and 4 LAPS and 1 LEAP
are to be provided along with public open space in accordance with Policies RL6,
RL12 and RL13.
An education contribution has been requested and is to be provided through a legal
obligation in accordance with Policy CF8 in order to meet the future need of Rose
Hill Primary School and Copleston High School.
The development will provide pedestrian links from Foxhall Road and Orwell Road to
the public open space at the southern end of the site, the pedestrian friendly approach
to the development includes promoting the use of the central square for pedestrians
first and motor vehicles second by changing the road surfacing material to block work
and narrowing the entrances in a gateway effect. Natural speed calming through
narrowing of the road in sections is used throughout the site, emphasised by a change
in surface material in these areas. The developer is prepared to fund a system
25
whereby occupiers of the new properties are offered the opportunity to purchase a set
of bus tickets via a voucher system, it is hoped that this will encourage use of local
transport systems rather than the private motor car. These policies promote
sustainable development with regard to transport in accordance with Policies T1 and
T10. Overall the site provides an average of 1.5 car parking spaces per dwelling, this
complies with the Council’s car parking policies and Policy T11.
The proposal does not comply with formally adopted planning policy as the site is
allocated in the adopted Local Plan for employment uses (Policy EMP2). However,
the First Deposit Draft Local Plan (2001) proposed to allocate the site for residential
development. This is not part of the adopted Development Plan and therefore the
proposal is strictly speaking contrary to policy. However, national Government
policy promotes the use of brownfield sites within town centres to provide residential
development at high densities. This application therefore complies with current
national planning policy, and could not be objected to on land use policy grounds.
Local resident concerns
A number of local residents have written in with reference to the application, the
representations received are summarised in section 3. One recurring concern is the
impact of the 288 units on traffic in Foxhall Road and other nearby side streets. There
are concerns that congestion levels are currently high and will be made worse should
the application proceed. The Borough’s highway engineer has been involved in this
proposal since the outline application, the issue of access to the site has been much
debated.
Initially a roundabout was proposed at the entrance of the site with Foxhall Road,
however, following on from calculations there is not the width of road required and
the off-set between the application site and Henslow Road rendered the provision of a
roundabout unsuitable. The agreed alternative is a ghosted right turn from the Foxhall
Road into the site that has been agreed by the highway engineer as the preferable and
suitable alternative to a roundabout.
A secondary access from the site direct into Orwell Road was discounted through
fears of short cuts being created through the site and the adverse impact this would
have on the amenity of occupiers of Orwell Road, the road itself is quite narrow and
unsuitable for use unless necessary. Therefore the secondary access was removed
from the proposal. However there is pedestrian and cycle access from Orwell Road to
the site and emergency access should this be required (bollards will be used to restrict
other vehicles from using secondary access).
The parking is spread throughout the site, in rear parking courts where necessary, at a
an average of 1 ½ spaces per unit. In reality the larger houses have two spaces
allocated or a garage and a space, and the small units have one space each. This
complies with national and local car parking standards and should have no adverse
impact on the parking in nearby residential streets.
Concern has been raised at the number of flat units to be provided on the site, about
50% of the total. The surrounding area is predominantly housing, however, it is
national and local planning policy to encourage a range and mix of housing types in
new residential development sites. The site has a high proportion of two bedroom
residences, however, these are a mix of flats and houses. The flats are a mixture of
26
two, three and four storey blocks, combined with housing of two and two and a half
storey. The flats are mixed with the houses on the site and are aimed at boosting the
community within the site rather than disrupting it. The provision of flats close to the
open space and LAPs will ensure adequate open areas for occupiers of the units close
to the housing thus encouraging a mixed community. There is no reason to object to
the element of flats provided.
The application site has a number of level changes with the surrounding area. With
respect to this a number of representations seek confirmation of the height of
dwellings proposed to the rear of them. Sections of the site have been submitted and
the level of potential overlooking minimised by careful positioning of house types .
However, all proposed dwellings meet the back-to-back standards as required by the
Borough Council and the two and half and three storey dwellings have been restricted
to areas where there is adequate screening and overlooking is not an issue.
All boundaries around the site are to be renewed and improved where necessary, in
particular on the boundary with Camwood Gardens where the new dwellings will be
at a higher level, the buildings have been oriented so as to avoid any direct
overlooking potential and the distance between the properties will ensure no
unacceptable loss of light to the dwellings in Camwood Gardens. The boundary
treatment in this area will include hedging and walling/fencing to ensure no loss of
privacy and an adequate separation between the two sites.
A request has been made for a developer contribution to be made towards pre-school
education and care, however, Suffolk County Council acting as the Local Education
Authority have not requested a contribution towards this, only towards primary –
sixth form education provision. A further request could not be sustained through
adopted policy, and would be resisted by the developer.
Conclusion
As proposed the application meets national and local government standards for the
redevelopment of brownfield sites for residential purposes. The density and mix of
units proposed has been considered and is acceptable and appropriate for this site. The
application layout has been well planned and provides links throughout the site and
beyond for pedestrians and cyclists. The level of public open space and play areas to
be provided will be for the benefit of new and existing local residents and the design
quality is of a high standard that will be of benefit to residents of the development and
the surrounding area.
The application has been amended since its original submission, however, there are
still minor amendments to make, primarily to the individual house types as proposed.
These are not major changes and it is envisaged that they can be made relatively
swiftly.
Subject to final confirmation of figures for the S106 legal agreement and the
attainment of the final house type drawings at an agreed high standard, the application
is acceptable.
27
7. Recommendation
The Head of Planning and Development be authorised to approve the application
subject to a S106 agreement and appropriate conditions once the final revisions have
been submitted and agreed.
28
Item 05
Application No. IP/05/00385/LBC
Ward:
Proposal:
ALEXANDRA
Demolition of rear buildings to No.31 Fore street and reconstruction
forming offices and restaurant extension to 27-29 Fore Street.
Address:
31 - 35 Fore Street
Applicant:
Elizabeth Holdings PLC
Agent:
Michael J Offord And Associates
Item 06
Ward:
Proposal:
ALEXANDRA
Demolition of rear buildings to No.31 Fore street and reconstruction
forming new offices and restaurant extension to road frontage to 2729 Fore Street, including change of use from Office to Restaurant.
Address:
31 - 35 Fore Street, Ipswich,
Applicant:
Elizabeth Holdings Plc
Agent:
Michael J Offord And Associates
29
30
1. Proposal
The proposal consists of full planning and listed buildng applications for consent to
demolish buildings at the rear of No 31 Fore Street and to create a new single storey
extension incorporating the existing extension to No 35 Fore Street. It is proposed that
the extension will consist of offices. The application also involves a change of use of
the retail premises at the front of No 31 Fore Street to form an extension to the
adjacent restaurant (The “Passage to India”).
2. Background
There have been a number of previous applications relating to the site. Those of
relevance are as follows:
I/90/0339/FP & I/90/338/LBC – Alterations including new shopfront and change of
use of first floor of 27 and 29 Fore Street from part residential and part retail to form
offices
3. Consultations
BENG. – no objection
There were no written representations
4. Policy
The following policies of the Ipswich Local Plan are relevant:Local Plan Adopted November 1997
BE6
Proposals for industrial, commercial and retail development will be
expected to provide a high quality external environment. Proposals
should include details of how the development will relate to its wider
setting and provide screening and planting areas as appropriate, with car
parking, servicing, external storage areas and roof top plant
accommodated unobtrusively.
BE40 In considering proposals for external or internal alterations to a listed
building, the Council will seek to ensure that there would be no adverse
effect on its special architectural or historic interest.
BE41 In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of listed
buildings the Council, in granting listed building consent (and planning
permission where applicable), will seek to ensure that the loss or damage
of historic fabric in the execution of the works is minimised.
31
S5
Within the identified Speciality Shopping Area, proposals for change of
use from Class A1 Shops use at ground floor level to Class A2 Financial
and
Professional Services and Class A3 Food and Drink uses will be
acceptable providing the percentage of non-Class A1 uses whether as a
result of the proposal or otherwise does not exceed 33% of a group of
identified frontages or the shopping character of the street would not be
adversely affected and the provisions of Policy S4(b), S4(c) and S4(d) can
be met.
The following policy of the First Deposit Draft Ipswich Local Plan FDD (2001) is of
some relevance:
S4
Within the identified Speciality Shopping Areas, proposals for change of
use from Class A1 (Shops) use at ground floor level to Class A2 (Financial
and Professional Services) and Class A3 (Food and Drink) uses will be
acceptable providing the percentage of non-Class A1 uses whether as a
result of the proposal or otherwise does not exceed 40% of a group of
identified frontages or the shopping character of the street would not be
adversely affected and the provisions of Policy S3 (b), (c) and (d) can be
met.
The following recent Appeal Decisions are relevant:
(i) 348 Nacton Road, (Council Reference: IP/03/01215/FUL), change of use from Use
Class A1 retail to Use Class A3, Café, with erection of ventilation flue at rear of
premises. The Inspector concluded that: in considering Local Plan Policies on
shopping frontages, it was important to note the word “or” that separated the criteria
ie. Percentages of frontage can be exceeded as long as the shopping character and
range of shops is not unacceptably diminished.
(ii)27-29 St Nicholas Street application (IP/02/00956/FUL) dismissed at appeal
(APP/R3515/A/03/1108988) for a change of use from A1 to A3. Permission was
refused because.
The premises are located within a defined “Speciality shopping street” within
the Ipswich Central Shopping Area. The proposal would increase the level of
non-retail use in the street, adversely affecting the shopping character of the
street, contrary to Ipswich Local Plan Policy S5.
The Inspector concluded that the main issue in this case was the effect of the proposal
on the aims and objectives of the Council’s strategy for protection of the shopping
character of the street. The appeal premises are within an area designated as a Special
Shopping Area, and the percentage of non-Class A1 uses in the Identified Frontage on
St. Nicholas Street already exceeded the 33% allowed under LP Policy S5. The
proposed change of use would cause further departure from that target figure resulting
in a change from 40% currently in non-Class A1 use to 48% under the appeal
proposal. Therefore, be concluded that the appeal proposal would be clearly contrary
to Policy S5 because it fails against the percentage criterion, which aims to ensure a
balanced mix of uses within the identified frontage.
32
He shared the Council’s view that the current state of St. Nicholas Street was finely
balanced, and in his view, a cluster of three consecutive Class A3 uses would further
accentuate the loss of daytime vitality of the identified frontage, which the Council’s
policies are seeking to avoid. He also concluded that the evidence of lack of demand
for retail premises in the area was not conclusive. It was insufficient to outweigh the
harm which would be done to the shopping character and the retail potential of the
street if the number of shops falls below a level sufficient to attract shoppers.
5.Comment
Although Nos 31-35 Fore Street are listed buildings the demolition of the relatively
modern single storey structure at the rear of the property is not considered to be
inappropriate in conservation terms. The construction of a new single storey extension
incorporating elements of the existing rear extension to No 35 Fore Street is
acceptable subject to appropriate detailing.
With regard to the change of use of the front part of 31 Fore Street to an extension of
the restaurant at 27-29 Fore Street it is relevant to note that a recent application for a
change of use to an A3 restaurant use at 20A and 22 Fore Street was refused on the
grounds that it would increase the level of non-retail use within this Speciality
Shopping Street, adversely affecting the shopping character of the street. However,
this was a proposal for a new use and would have resulted in a non-retail frontage of
94%, on that side of the street, while the application under consideration is for an
extension to an existing use which would result in a non-retail frontage of 63%,
although this would still be in excess of the 40% set out in the Draft Local Plan
policy. Site investigations show that No 31 Fore Street is already not presently being
used for its lawful use of A1.
If the current proposal is allowed, the already high level of non-A1 uses in this
identified shopping frontage will increase. Given the St Nicholas Street appeal
decision referred to above, the proposal could be refused permission for the same
reason. The Inspector at St. Nicholas Street confirmed key issues associated with
further A3 use – (a) lack of business and activity in the street throughout the daytime
period, (b) the lack of interest and vitality on a key link to the Waterfront area.
However the Nacton Road appeal makes clear that notwithstanding the numerical
assessment of the proportion of the relevant frontage in non-shopping uses, some
qualitative assessment must also be made of the shopping attractions of the areas and
the effect of the proposal.
The issues here are finely balanced, and perhaps the deciding factor can be that the
proposed change of use will facilitate the expansion of an existing successful
restaurant. The Council has in the past been prepared to give weight to this issue.
6. Recommendation
Approve subject to restaurant use being used only as such (within Class A3) and an
extension to existing adjacent premises.
33
Item 07
Application No. IP/05/00452/OUT
REPS
Ward:
Proposal:
BIXLEY
Residential development of site and new vehicular access.
Address:
7 Playford Road, Ipswich, IP4 5QZ
Applicant:
Mr Harry Robert Hoy
Agent:
Mr David R W Hoy
34
1. Proposal/Background
The application is submitted in outline form, seeking consent to the principle of
residential development of the site. The site plan simply identifies the overall
curtilage of no. 7 Playford Road, extending to 0.2 hectare. The site has a frontage of
some 17 metres to Playford Road and an overall depth of approximately 100 metres.
The site is located on the north side of Playford Road, alongside the eastbound slip
road leading from Woodbridge Road East. There is an existing detached bungalow at
the site and the rear part of the site is presently laid out as mixed fruit orchard.
Vehicular access is a conventional domestic access, sited alongside the boundary to
no. 5 Playford Road.
Although the application refers simply to “residential development”, an indicative
layout has been provided which indicates retention of the existing dwelling and the
existing driveway access extended to the rear of the site where two new detached
dwellings are illustrated. The supporting statement accompanying the proposal states
that “this site could comfortably accommodate at least an additional two units”.
There have been no previous relevant planning applications affecting the site.
Representations
The consultation period expired on 6th June 2005. Five letter of representation have
been received
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mr N.J. Whight 11 Playford Road, Ipswich, received 20.05.05.
Mr D.C. Atthill 9 Playford Road, Ipswich, received 23.05.05.
M.K. Hubbard, 9 Playford Road, Ipswich, received 23.05.05.
Mr, N.J. Whight, (Petition) 11 Playford Road, Ipswich, received 31.05.05.
Issues Raised:
-
access to/from application site at Playford Road Triangle very dangerous.
proposal will lower the value of my property (nos. 9,11 Playford Road). (Not
a planning consideration).
long access from main road.
extra traffic if these bungalows were built.
extra fumes, noise and dust from vehicles accessing/exiting proposed
development if this was built.
5.
Mr and Mrs Hoy, (Applicant) 7 Playford Road, Ipswich, received 23.06.05, in
support of the proposal.
2. Consultations
BE – No objection to the proposal with comments regarding drainage, access and
waste collection.
Matters dealing with drainage and access may be dealt with appropriate
conditions if the application is successful. However, the Borough Engineer
35
notes that waste collection should not normally be required to move wheeled
containers for a distance of more than 15 metres.
LSP - The rear half of the site to the north of the foul sewer line is a very attractively
maintained old orchard comprising around 35 fruit trees including apple,
plum, pear, and cherry and bounded by maintained hedges. Being fruit trees
cultivated for their fruit none of the trees is appropriate for retention by a Tree
Preservation Order and their wider amenity value is somewhat limited.
However, the loss of the old orchard is regrettable as it provides a valuable
refuge for wildlife and gives the site a unique identity and sense of place.
There is a worthwhile 15 metre tall multi-stemmed sycamore tree actually in
the rear corner of no. 5 which overhangs the site by approximately 4 metres
and some cherry trees in the bottom of no. 1 also overhang by a similar
amount.
3. Policy
The following policies of the current Ipswich Local Plan are relevant:BE7
BE9
(a)
sense of place;
(b)
appropriate;
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)
(c)
36
(d)
(e)
are in keeping with the prevailing spacing and layout standards of
the area.
4. Comment
This is an outline planning application to test if a residential development together
with its means of access would be acceptable in principle.
The application literature suggests that “this site could comfortably accommodate at
least an additional 2 units”. The indicative site layout (not part of the application
submission) suggests a tandem development with access from the private drive of
existing no. 7 Playford Road to the rear of the premises, with two units sited at the
end of this extended driveway.
While the Council has been prepared to consider proposals for backland
developments where the proposal has been for a cohesive proposal with suitably
commodious access and a layout which respects the setting and amenities of existing
surrounding development, the present application does not propose a development
which follows these principles regarding layout, and the access as proposed would be
cramped alongside the existing dwelling at the site in an unsatisfactory manner
The outline application would therefore be contrary to the current Ipswich Local Plan
Policy BE9.
5. Recommendation
Recommend refusal, substandard backland development with poor access, contrary to
policy BE9 (a), (c) and (e).
37
Item 08
Application No. IP/05/00541/OUT
REPS
Ward:
Proposal:
HOLYWELLS
Severance of part of rear gardens and erection of pair of semidetached houses and construction of a new vehicular access.
Address:
2 - 4 Mersey Road
Applicant:
Renasance Limited
Agent:
Mr G. Page
38
1. Proposal
The proposal is an outline planning application for the severance of part of the rear
gardens to 2 and 4 Mersey Road and the erection of 2 semi-detached houses with
frontages onto Severn Road.
The proposed severance site has a frontage of some 10 metres and is approximately
25 metres deep and at its southern boundary backs onto the gardens of properties in
Mersey Road. The site is in a residential street which consists of predominantly semidetached dwellings.
While the application is submitted in outline form, seeking to establish the principle
of developing the site for a pair of houses, an illustrative layout plan has been
submitted showing the new dwellings constructed along the building line as set by 4
and 6 Severn Road, each house having its own drive and garage. However, there
would be no separate access to the rear gardens.
No details of the design of the properties has been submitted although the application
indicates that the materials will include red facing bricks and dark grey roof slates.
2. Background
There have been a number of previous applications relating to severance/infill
proposals at the site. Those of relevance are as follows:
0/98/68 – severance of land for erection of dwelling (approved with conditions
November 1968)
0/8/69 – severance of land and erection of pair of semi-detached houses with garages
(approved with conditions November 1969)
0/73/69 – severance of part of rear garden and erection of dwelling (refused
November 1969)
I/89/0621/FP – severance of part rear garden of Nos 2 and 4 Mersey Road and
erection of 2 detached dwellings fronting Severn Road (refused July 1989)
I/89/1327/OL - severance of part of rear gardens and erection of 2 bungalows fronting
Severn Road (refused January 1990)
I/93/0620/OL – severance of part rear gardens and erection of a pair of houses
fronting Severn Road (refused September 1993 and appeal dismissed February 1994)
I/94/0344/OL – severance of part rear gardens and erection of a detached dwelling
fronting Severn Road (refused June 1994)
IP/05/00354/OUT – severance of part of rear garden and erection of detached singlestorey dwelling with new vehicular access (refused June 2005)
The current application has been made without further discussion with the planning
officers.
39
3. Consultations
BENG. –
Drainage
In accordance with the Council’s “Drainage and Flood Defence Policy” if appropriate
and reasonably practicable the Developer should consider the use of soakaways, to
control surface water runoff as close to its origin as possible and to avoid increasing
any pollution.
Highway
No objection to the application.
The new vehicular access shall be laid out and completed in accordance with drawing
D.C. 105, including boundary marker.
The access shall have a bound surface for a distance of at least 4.5m from the edge of
the highway to prevent stones from tracking out onto the highway, blocking gullies
and forming a hazard.
No water from the proposed development is to be permitted to flow onto the highway.
A drain must be installed if the surface of the hardstanding cannot be arranged to
slope away from the highway. Consideration should be given to permeable surfacing
to replicate natural infiltration as closely as possible.
Representations
The following representations have been received:Mr & Mrs. K McKenna, 6 Mersey Road, Ipswich
Mr S Rickett, 6 Severn Road, Ipswich
P J Rush, 9 Severn Road, Ipswich
Mr & Mrs Isaacs, 7 Severn Road, Ipswich
Mr A Gardiner, 43 Derwent Road
Issues raised
concern about overlooking of house and garden
cramped spacing and impact on neighbouring properties
traffic and parking congestion
development of gardens of corner properties
4. Policy
The following policy of the Ipswich Local Plan is chiefly relevant:BE9
(a)
40
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
5.Comment
This is an outline application which proposes two semi-detached houses with attached
garages within the site. Although the positioning of the houses is indicative only the
rear gardens as shown would provide adequate outdoor amenity space for each
dwelling, although some amendment would be required to provide for access to the
rear gardens.
Of the previous applications relating to this severance site, the most relevant is
I/93/0620/OL which proposed a similar scheme to the current one. That application
was refused by the Council and later turned down on appeal, one of the main concerns
being the depth of the site which it was felt, would contribute to the houses appearing
cramped in relation to their surroundings. At that time (1993) the Inspector concluded
that ‘.. the proposal would cause material harm to the open and spacious character
and appearance of the area ..’.
However, the situation needs to be re-assessed in the light of a recent application in
respect of a severance plot in Medway Road which was originally refused but later
approved following an appeal by the applicant. The Inspector at that time (2004)
commented ‘.. the appeal proposals could be of a size and position so that the garden
area of the proposed dwelling would be adequate to meet the needs of future
residents. The residual gardens of the two existing houses would also be of sufficient
size to fulfill this requirement. Although the gardens would be generally smaller than
those in the area in my judgement this would not be readily evident in the street scene.
Given the particular circumstances of the size of the existing gardens and the absence
of significant harm to the visual character of the locality, I consider that the
proposals would not set a precedent for development on other areas of garden land.
Accordingly, they would not result in material harm to the prevailing space and
layout standards of the area.’
Additionally, there have been changes in local and central government policy since
the original appeal. In particular, Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 states that
increased emphasis should be given to the effective re-use of previously developed
land and it is in this context that the decision needs to be taken.
It is likely that refusal of the current proposal could not be sustained if the applicant
were to appeal against the decision given current government policy, and the attitude
41
of Inspectors to allowing reasonable infilling sites, so as to minimise the Greenfield
land take.
So far as the issues raised in the representations are concerned, the most significant
relates to the impact on the neighbouring properties due to spacing and overlooking.
However, the layout as shown on the application, although indicative, exceeds the
guidelines set out within the Supplementary Planning Guidance and it is not
considered that this amounts to a reason for refusal. The Borough Engineer has
indicated that there are no objections on highway grounds.
6. Recommendation
that outline planning permission be granted. Scheme to be based on illustrative plan
(rear access required though).
42
Item 09
REPS
Ward:
Proposal:
RUSHMERE
Severance of side garden and erection of two storey building
containing 2 flats, prevision of car parking and vehicular access.
Address:
149 And 151, Whitby Road
Applicant:
Dc And Br Williams
Agent:
Last And Tricker Partnership
43
1. Proposal
This proposal is for full planning permission to erect a detached two storey building,
accommodating two one-bedroom flats, on land to be severed from the present
curtilage of nos. 149 and 151 Whitby Road. The application site comprises a side
parking/garden area to the west of the existing property at nos. 149/151 (part of a
semi-detached two storey building accommodating four purpose-built flats). The site
dimensions are 8 metres frontage by 18 metres depth. The building is proposed to be
set back behind a forecourt area chiefly laid out as parking (two spaces) and an
amenity area some 4.5 metres deep is indicated behind the proposed flats, extending
to the rear garden of no. 137 Sidegate Lane, which extends past the rear of the
existing properties.
The proposed building is designed in traditional form, with facing brick elevations
under a pantiled hipped roof of pyramidal form.
2. Background
The existing flats at the site date from the 1930’s, part of a group of similar buildings
at the eastern end of Whitby Road, at the junction with Sidegate Lane.
While there have been no previous planning applications at the application site, the
adjacent site (an overgrown backland site presently accommodating disused garages)
was recently approved for development of a single dwelling – Council’s reference
IP/05/00280/FUL.
3. Consultations
BE - No objection on highway grounds.
- drainage comments.
Representations
One letter of representation has been received to-date:- (i) from P.G. Harper,
137 Sidegate Lane, dated 28.06.05.
Issues Raised
-
severance will remove parking spaces for existing flats, leading to
congestion on the highway.
reduction in existing garden space.
design out of keeping with area.
conflict with siting of recently – approved dwelling at rear.
overlooking from rear upper floor windows.
inadequate amenity space for existing and proposed dwellings.
4. Policy
The following Ipswich Local Plan Policy is chiefly relevant:44
BE9
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
5. Comments
The proposal gives rise to a number of concerns in relation to layout/design; relative
to Policy BE9.
The scheme involves severance of an existing side garden/parking area serving the
two flats at 149 and 151 Whitby Road. While the scheme includes forecourt parking
space (two spaces) for the proposed new flats, no provision is indicated for the
existing flats and, so far as amenity space is concerned, the space to the rear of the
existing flats would be much reduced from the existing situation, to provide an area of
only some 32 square metres – well below the Council’s normal minimum guideline
standard of 25 square metres per flat. For the two new flats, the rear amenity space
would amount to some 34 square metres. Overall, the proposal is considered to be
unduly cramped and would not comply with criteria (c) and (e) of Policy BE9.
The proximity of the proposed block to the rear boundary echoes that of the existing
building but would, in addition to the existing, add to the degree of enclosure of the
rear garden of 137 Sidegate Lane. At first floor level, the plans include a bedroom
window which, at less than five metres from the boundary, would promote close
overlooking of the rear garden area of 137 Sidegate Lane. Such a relationship is
considered to be substandard relative to criteria (a) and (b) of Policy BE9.
The proposed layout of the frontage of the application site would be unduly
dominated by the vehicular access and parking area. This would amount to an
unsatisfactory standard of layout, detracting from the appearance of the proposed
building and the area generally, contrary to criterion (a) of Policy BE9.
6. Recommendation
Refuse planning permission
45
Reasons
1.
The proposal would amount to an unduly cramped form of development, out
of keeping with the prevailing spacing and layout standards of the area, and
lacking satisfactory outdoor amenity space for the existing and proposed
dwellings and parking facilities for the existing dwellings, contrary to Ipswich
Local Plan Policy BE9 (c) and (e).
2.
The proposal would result in a built-form unduly close to and closely
overlooking the rear garden of the adjacent dwelling (no. 137 Sidegate Lane),
adversely affecting the amenities of occupiers of that dwelling, contrary to
Ipswich Local Plan Policy BE9(a) and (b).
3.
The frontage of the proposed development would be unduly dominated by car
parking and access arrangements which would detract from the setting of the
proposed building and the street scene generally, contrary to Ipswich Local
Plan Policy BE9(a).
46
INFORMATION FOR COUNCILLORS
1. DECISIONS BY SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
None since Last Committee
2. DELEGATIONS EXERCISED BY HEAD OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT SINCE LAST COMMITTEE –
TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
The following Tree Preservation Orders have been served.
TPO REF NO.
ADDRESS
TPO NO 5 2005
Land Rear Of 1 And
3
Lyndhurst Avenue
DATE OF
AUTHORISATION
Provisional TPO
DATE SERVED
3. COMPLAINTS.
Since the last Committee the following complaints have been received.
SERIAL NUMBER
COMPLAINANT
ADDRESS
NATURE OF
COMPLAINT
RESPONSE MADE
MR G BURN
32 Eccles Road
IP/05/00503/FUL –
Unhappy with
Planning Officer’;
response to
concerns.
Letter of explanation.
4. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
The following Enforcement action has been authorised.
ENFORCEMENT
REF NO
ADDRESS
TYPE OF NOTICE
DATE OF
AUTHORISATION
REASON FOR
ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENFM/05/0004/S21
5.
51 Neath Drive
Ipswich
IP2 9TA
S215
20/06/2005
Copmplaints from
neighbourhood that house
has been empty for years
and now an eyesore.
47
5. APPEALS
Since the last report the following appeals have been received.
APPEAL REF NO
ADDRESS
APPLICATION
DESCRIPTION
/ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
DATE APPEAL
LODGED
STATEMENT
DUE
05/00018/REFUSE
St. Johns Post Office
147 Spring Road
23/06/2005
03/08/2005
05/00017/REFUSE
77A Henley Road
15/06/2005
22/07/2005
05/00019/REFUSE
314 Colchester Road
Change of use from shop /
post office to hot food
takeaway and retention of
flat above.
Felling of Beech tree in rear
garden protected by Tree
Preservation Order No. 10
(2003)
Severance of side garden
and erection of two-storey
detached dwelling house.
30/06/2005
10/08/2005
5. APPEALS
Since the last report the following appeals have been determined.
APPEAL REF NO
ADDRESS
04/00032/REFUSE
1 Benezet Street
04/00033/REFUSE
1 Benezet Street
05/00007/COND
116 Fore Hamlet
04/00047/REFUSE
67 Valley Road
APPLICATION
DESCRIPTION
/ENFORCEMENT
NOTICE
Erection of 11 flats in
three storey building
with new vehicular
access to Gaye Street
and associated works
Erection of 12 three
storey residential flats,
creation of new
vehicular access to
Gaye Street and
associated works
Erection of 24 flats and
1 shop/office unit in
single building with 3, 4
and 6 storey elements,
car parking with access
off Myrtle Road.
Two 2 storey houses
and shared access of
present address.
48
DATE APPEAL
DECISION
APPEAL DECISION
16.01.05
Appeal Dismissed
16.01.05
Appeal Dismissed
23.06.05
Appeal Allowed
subject to conditions
23.06.05
Appeal Dismissed
6. SECTION 106 OBLIGATIONS
1) Agreements completed since the last meeting.
APPLICATION
REF NO
ADDRESS
PROPOSAL
OPERATIVE
CLAUSES
TRIGGERS
04/00313/FUL
Redevelopment
College Street
Ipswich
PAULINE HART Sell 26 of the
Affordable Housing
Units to a
Registered Social
Landlord
TRIGGER DATE - On
occupation of 136 units
of the Open Market
Housing
04/00313/FUL
Redevelopment
College Street
Ipswich
Redevelopment of
former Cranfield Mill site
and associated garage
and lorry parking areas
for mixed use
development in multistorey blocks (up to 23
storeys), comprising:
residential use
(private/affordable
residential apartments 384 units in total);
live/work units;
commercial use (within
use classes
A1/A2/A3/B1 and D2 total floorspace 3840
square metres; dance
studio/performance
spaces with associated
accommodation (total
2460 square metres
approximately); 81
bedroom hotel; car
parking;
formation/alteration of
vehicular accesses;
laying out of open
spaces and associated
works.
Redevelopment of
for mixed use
residential use
(private/affordable
live/work units;
use classes
studio/performance
PAULINE HART Provide 52 units of
Affordable Housing
Units.
TRIGGER DATE - On
occupation of 136 units
of the Open Market
Housing Units
49
APPLICATION
REF NO
04/00313/FUL
ADDRESS
Redevelopment
College Street
Ipswich
PROPOSAL
2460 square metres
approximately); 81
bedroom hotel; car
parking;
vehicular accesses;
laying out of open
works.
Redevelopment of
for mixed use
residential use
(private/affordable
live/work units;
use classes
studio/performance
2460 square metres
approximately); 81
bedroom hotel; car
parking;
vehicular accesses;
laying out of open
works.
50
OPERATIVE
CLAUSES
TRIGGERS
IAN MAXWELL Education
Contribution of
£262,018 to be
paid to Suffolk
County Council
TRIGGER DATE - On
occupation of 140 of
the Open Market
Housing Units.
OFFICER DELEGATED DECISIONS TAKEN SINCE LAST PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE – FROM 13th June 2005.
1.
IP/04/00685/OUT
12 Tacket Street
2.
IP/04/00686/CAC
12 Tacket Street
3.
IP/05/00310/FUL
Wet Dock Neptune Quay
4.
IP/05/00323/ADV
31 Princes Street
5.
IP/05/00417/TALF
51 Marlborough Road
Removal of split branch of False Acacia Tree (T2) of
Tree Preservation Order 11 (2001).
6.
IP/05/00475/LBC
59 Tooleys Court Foundation
Street
Installation of additional window at ground floor level.
7.
IP/05/00315/FUL
618 Foxhall Road
Erection of single storey rear extension
(conservatory).
8.
IP/05/00387/FUL
34 Heath Lane
Erection of single-storey rear extension and
alterations to front porch.
9.
IP/05/00409/FUL
26 Bucklesham Road
Two-storey side and rear extension with single storey
garage.
Demolition of existing premises and new
development of 2 retail units, 7 one bed flats and 7
two bed flats in 4 storey building
Demolition of existing premises
Retention of use of dock-side and water for marina
mooring/pontoons providing 150 berths (on a
permanent basis).
Erection of one fascia panel (Illuminated).
51
Refuse Permission
01.07.2005
ALEXANDRA
Refuse Permission
01.07.2005
ALEXANDRA
Approved/Conditions
15.06.2005
ALEXANDRA
Approved/Conditions
24.06.2005
ALEXANDRA
Approved/Conditions
23.06.2005
ALEXANDRA
Approved/Conditions
30.06.2005
ALEXANDRA
Approved
24.06.2005
BIXLEY
Approved/Conditions
13.06.2005
BIXLEY
Approved/Conditions
24.06.2005
BIXLEY
10. IP/05/00419/FUL
36 Fernhayes Close
Erection of conservatory.
11. IP/05/00508/FPI3
1 Bath Street
12. IP/05/00379/FUL
418 Norwich Road
Application by Ipswich Borough Council for change
of use from (B1) offices to (B1) offices and/or (D1)
Training Centre. (Development to be carried out by
others).
Demolition of rear single-storey structures and
erection of new single-storey rear extension.
13. IP/05/00406/FUL
430 Norwich Road
Widening of existing vehicular access.
14. IP/05/00423/FUL
4 Beechcroft Road
Erection of single-storey dwelling house and new
vehicular access.
15. IP/05/00325/FUL
63 Boyton Road
Erection of single-storey front extension (porch).
16. IP/05/00326/FUL
12 Boyton Road
(conservatory).
17. IP/05/00454/FUL
25 London Road
First floor extension to rear elevation and additions to
main entrance including new stair and sloping glass
roof.
Erection of part single / part two-storey side and rear
extension.
18. IP/05/00468/FUL
9 Grantham Crescent
19. IP/05/00373/FUL
11 Cliff Lane
Erection of single-storey front and side extension.
20. IP/05/00432/FUL
64 Severn Road
Erection of two-storey rear, part two storey/part
single storey side and single storey front extensions.
53
Approved/Conditions
24.06.2005
BRIDGE
Approved/Conditions
16.06.2005
BRIDGE
Approved/Conditions
14.06.2005
CASTLE HILL
Approved/Conditions
20.06.2005
CASTLE HILL
Refuse Permission
20.06.2005
CASTLE HILL
Approved/Conditions
24.06.2005
GAINSBOROUGH
Approved
24.06.2005
GAINSBOROUGH
Approved/Conditions
29.06.2005
GIPPING
Approved/Conditions
28.06.2005
GIPPING
Approved/Conditions
13.06.2005
HOLYWELLS
Approved/Conditions
30.06.2005
HOLYWELLS
21. IP/05/00241/FUL
Land Between A14 And
Railway Line Adj Ransomes
Nacton Road
Erection of two-storey office buildings, with
associated external works, including access roads,
parking areas and landscaping.
Approved/Conditions
13.06.2005
PRIORY HEATH
22. IP/05/00285/REM
Ravenswood Nacton Road
Approved/Conditions
17.06.2005
PRIORY HEATH
23. IP/05/00407/FUL
29 St. Leonards Road
Erection of 62 private dwellings and 33 affordable
dwellings with access roads and garaging (Area M
and part Areas Q and R) Submission of Reserved
Matters under outline permission I/98/0314/OLI).
Erection of two-storey rear extension.
24. IP/05/00418/FUL
1 Packard Avenue
(conservatory).
25. IP/05/00383/ADV
Erection of advertising boards along side of tennis
court.
26. IP/05/00389/FUL
Greshams Sports & Social Club
(Ipswich) Ltd Tuddenham
Road
58 Sherborne Avenue
Single-storey rear extension.
27. IP/05/00395/FUL
138 Whitby Road
Erection of first floor rear extension.
28. IP/05/00431/FUL
117 Rushmere Road
Erection of single-storey side and rear extension.
29. IP/05/00403/FUL
Lockup Garages Between 2-12
And 14 Lakeside Close
30. IP/05/00415/FUL
2 Curlew Road
Demolition of 10 garage units and repair of hard
standings and construction of new retaining wall in
front of existing wall.
Retention of domestic garage on permanent basis
(renewal of planning permission IP/00/0192/FP).
31. IP/05/00473/FUL
7 Manchester Road
Erection of single-storey side extension.
54
Approved/Conditions
15.06.2005
PRIORY HEATH
Refuse Permission
29.06.2005
PRIORY HEATH
Approved/Conditions
15.06.2005
RUSHMERE
Approved
15.06.2005
RUSHMERE
Approved
15.06.2005
RUSHMERE
Approved/Conditions
15.06.2005
RUSHMERE
Approved/Conditions
21.06.2005
SPRITES
Approved/Conditions
22.06.2005
SPRITES
Approved/Conditions
28.06.2005
SPRITES
32. IP/05/00381/FUL
St. Clements Hospital Foxhall
Road
Retention of single-storey ward building for further 5
years (renewal of IP/00/0390/FP).
33. IP/05/00408/OUT
164 Freehold Road
Erection of block of six flats and new vehicular
access.
34. IP/05/00376/TALF
24 Brettenham Crescent
35. IP/05/00390/OUT
8 Brackenbury Close
36. IP/05/00413/FUL
213 Tuddenham Road
Removal of overhanging branch (over No.23) of Oak
Tree (T9) protected by Tree Preservation Order No.
3 (1994).
Severance of side garden and erection of dwelling
and double garage (renewal of outline planning
permission IP/02/01017/OUT).
Erection of detached garage in front garden and
external alterations to dwelling house.
37. IP/05/00446/CALF
Coach House 1A
Gainsborough Road
Reduce crown of Tulip Tree by 20% located in front
garden.
38. IP/05/00453/CALF
44A Anglesea Road
Felling of 2 Leylandii trees at corner of Paget
Road/Ivry Street.
39. IP/05/00421/PALF
46 Abbotsbury Close
40. IP/05/00425/FUL
55-57 Stoke Park Drive
Removal of 2 sycamores, 2 Leylandii and 2 Conifers.
Reshape and reduce crown of Laurel Bush in rear
garden protected by condition 1 of planning
permission I/523/72.
Installation of security shutters to front and return
shop fronts.
41. IP/05/00410/TALF
14 Salmet Close
42. IP/05/00442/FUL
27 Leicester Close
Reduction of branches by 2-4 metres, of Oak Tree
(T1) of Tree Preservation Order 6 (2000), that
overhang garden of 14 Salmet Close.
Erection of front porch and canopy.
43. IP/05/00458/FUL
207 Fountains Road
Erection of two-storey front, first floor side and two
55
Approved/Conditions
13.06.2005
ST JOHNS
Application Refused
15.06.2005
ST JOHNS
Approved
14.06.2005
ST MARGARETS
Approved/Conditions
15.06.2005
ST MARGARETS
Approved/Conditions
14.06.2005
ST MARGARETS
Approved/Conditions
22.06.2005
ST MARGARETS
Approved/Conditions
22.06.2005
ST MARGARETS
Approved
28.06.2005
STOKE PARK
Approved/Conditions
20.06.2005
STOKE PARK
Approved/Conditions
29.06.2005
STOKE PARK
Approved/Conditions
15.06.2005
STOKE PARK
Approved/Conditions
storey rear extensions.
44. IP/05/00521/FUL
2 Hexham Close
Erection of front porch and single-storey side
extension.
45. IP/05/00439/CALF
54 Berners Street
Felling of Oak Tree in rear garden.
46. IP/05/00460/FUL
50 Berners Street
Basement to new extension below dining room
extension, new windows in rear of garage.
47. IP/05/00461/LBC
50 Berners Street
Basement to new extension below dining room
extension., new windows in rear of garage.
48. IP/05/00488/FUL
27 Lister Road
Erection of single-storey side and rear extension.
49. IP/05/00401/ADV
Park And Ride Terminal 1
Anglia Parkway North
Erection of two roof mounted illuminated signs.
50. IP/05/00416/ADV
4 Anglia Parkway South
Erection of 4 fascia signs (3 of which are
illuminated).
51. IP/05/00429/FUL
15 Aldercroft Close
Erection of single-storey side, rear and front
extensions.
56
15.06.2005
STOKE PARK
Approved
01.07.2005
STOKE PARK
Prior Approval not required
20.06.2005
WESTGATE
Approved/Conditions
28.06.2005
WESTGATE
Approved
28.06.2005
WESTGATE
Approved/Conditions
28.06.2005
WHITEHOUSE
Approved/Conditions
20.06.2005
WHITTON
Refuse Permission
17.06.2005
WHITTON
Approved/Conditions
14.06.2005
WHITTON

Initial Template - ipswich.gov.uk

Transcription

Similar documents

IPSWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL

IPSWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL 4 COLLEGE STREET IPSWICH

The Thurkill the Tall Medallion

Inżynier Utrzymania Ruchu – Elektryk

27 RVS Week in Pictures PDF

Save on Parking Expenses with TransitChek

Bestop Duster Cover

Scanned Document - Covenant Health

Ref: SB0160 Sun and Mountains Near the Sea, Busot Alicante

Click Here to load a PDF with ads and articles about the 1935

suzuki boulevard s40