5
The Committee received report ES/2195 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/24/2894/FUL. The application was for modification of the existing building as follows:
• Extensions
• Repositioning of the front entrance for a revised parking area
• Erection of outbuilding in rear garden
• Erection of new western boundary wall
• Creation of larger rear parking area and associated landscaping
The application was before the Committee as an objection was received from the Town Council and Ward Member triggering the call in process.
The Committee received a detailed presentation from the Planner (Development Management), who was the Case Officer for the application.
The site location plan showing The Coach House backing on to Park Lane with Skilman’s Hill to the rear was displayed. The planner pointed out the listed buildings and those considered to have a positive contribution to the conservation area, and their proximity to The Coach House. It was noted that the rear garden area was considered to be a positive open space within the conservation area.
The planner displayed an aerial photograph and various existing plans covering:
• Block plan – highlighting current vehicle parking, access and outbuildings
• Existing ground and first floor plans
• Elevations of the property from all directions
The proposed plans were then shown, covering:
- Proposed block plan
- Proposed ground and first floor plans – noting the chimney on the boundary for the single storey element and the loft space bedroom and landing conversion
- Proposed elevations of the property from all directions
- Proposed outbuilding and rear parking, outbuilding elevational plans
Sectional drawings were shared, showing how it would be dug out and built downwards along with the landscape plan highlighting retained and replanted vegetation.
The proposed wall replacement at the front of the property was shared along with 3D visuals from all views.
Various photographs were displayed, covering:
- Original coach house, prior to the new modern replacement
- Front view of the building and views from the neighbouring properties
- View from Skillman’s Hill
- View of the rear access and the existing rear access gates
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:
- Overdevelopment of the site
- Design - Impact on appearance of the street scene, Conservation area and surrounding listed buildings.
- Solar panels not in keeping with Conservation Area
- Loss of green space within the garden
- Impact on wildlife
- Loss of Light to neighbouring properties.
- Sense of oppression and overbearing
- Overlooking and loss of privacy
- Outbuilding will potentially block views
- Night-time light pollution
- Greater vehicular traffic on Skilmans Hill
- Pedestrian Safety and access on Skilmans Hill
- Too much parking
- Provision of large chimney leading to carbon emissions
- Damage to vegetation from new wall
- Noise from air source heat pump
- Restrictive covenants
- Use as holiday let
- Requirement of a Construction Management Plan
The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee on the application.
In response to Councillor Pitchers, regarding the street scene, the planner confirmed that there were a variety of housing styles on the street. The area was part of the historic core of Southwold and the Coach House was one of the newer buildings, therefore the development was considered acceptable in principle, it would just be determining the level of suitable development.
Councillor Gee questioned what the purpose of the large outbuilding would be and the Planner replied it would be a studio with storage, that would have to be used incidentally to the use and could not be used as a business.
Councillor Graham queried the number of car parking spaces planned alongside the number of bedrooms. The planner noted there was a balance between the amount of parking provided, and the amount of garden provided and officers did not consider it an unacceptable amount of parking.
Councillor Ewart questioned the rear access and revisited the images of the back lane and access. The planner highlighted the private lane and rear gates and clarified the gates would be remaining in the same place.
Councillor Ashdown asked about the impact of loss of light on the neighbour at Number 22 from the planned extension. The planner noted that the applicant had submitted a light survey, which according to the BRE Standard Calculations implied an acceptable level of light would be provided to the neighbours.
The Chair queried the ownership of the Wall, asking if it was completely in the Coach House ownership or a party wall. This was to be clarified by the applicant.
Referring back to the light survey, Councillor Pitchers asked what was meant by implies. The planner confirmed that the survey had concluded that there would be no harm to the neighbouring properties, but this should be considered alongside how oppressive the proposal might be. The Chair invited questions regarding the third-party representations.
The Chair noted that one of the third-party representatives was talking about overhanging eves overhanging the property. The planner replied that the roof did have a slight overhang to the boundary.
Councillor Graham noted that several third-party representatives felt that the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan hadn’t been taken into consideration, particularly about garden space and views. In response the Planner confirmed that the East Suffolk Council Heritage Officer had considered the impact on the existing building, conservation area, views, Skillman’s Hill etc and concluded that the proposed design wouldn’t harm those heritage assets. It was a higher quality design than what was there currently. He added officers did not consider it be overdevelopment, but the Committee would need to make their own judgement.
The Chair invited the Objector, Michael Haslam to speak. Mr Haslam told the Committee that he was a retired Chartered Town Planner with over 50 years’ experience in both public and private sectors and a past President of the Royal Town Planning Institute. He had been asked to represent several residents. He referred the Committee to Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act of 1990, preserving the setting of listed buildings and paying special attention to the preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a conservation area. Mr Haslam said it was disappointing that these were not mentioned in the Committee report, as Statute took precedence over both national and local planning policies and consider these, could result in a judicial review. He stated two policies of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan were relevant but not assessed in the report:
Policy SWD 6 required compliance with all 5 clauses, but with clause B and C the front elevation was dominated by garage doors and high dormer windows that were out of character with the street scene. In the DNA statement the applicant sought to extend the building to the full width of the plot filling most of the gap between the Coach House and 20 and 22 Park Lane, reducing light to those properties and having a serious impact on the amenities of number 22. The views of the sky from the adjacent properties would be reduced and the seven new windows on the first-floor front elevation would reduce the privacy of the houses opposite.
Policy SWD 12 related to loss of private garden space, he considered the extension and the studio to be much larger than similar buildings approved in the immediate area and the studio was large with no justification for the size. The parking area was too small to work and if approved would lead to pressure to extend into the garden. He concluded that the proposal failed to conserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and the setting of the listed building was contrary to policies SWD 6 and 12 of the Neighbourhood Plan, representing overdevelopment, he urged the committee to refuse the application.
The Chair invited questions to the objector.
Councillor Pitchers asked why the objector felt the rear parking was too small to be effective. The Objector replied that it was not possible to get the car out of the space due to the wall, it would not work and would lead to pressure to extend.
Councillor Ewart asked what size for the studio he would consider to be correct. The Objector replied the studio was about 40 square metres and he would consider a normal size to be garden room size.
In response to Councillor Graham the Objector clarified the statutes he believed had been overlooked in the report as the Planning/Listed Building Conservation Area Act 1990 and that the Coach House setting was within a conservation area.
There were no further questions for the Objector. The Chair invited Councillor Flunder of Southwold Town Council to speak.
Councillor Flunder told the Committee that the Town Council recommended that the application was refused for the following reasons, which were considered contrary to the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan.
Overdevelopment of the site
The plans showed a very large increase in the volume of this property including a large increase in the footprint, first floor extensions which approach and impact on the neighbouring property (no 22). There is a large outbuilding described as a studio space in the garden, which has the potential to be converted into residential accommodation. The Southwold Neighbourhood Plan expressed concern about this issue as does the Southwold Conservation Area Management Plan, which describes overdevelopment as a key issue threatening Southwold’s built and natural environment. Although the applicant advises that this will not be a holiday let property, the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan expresses specific concern about the conversion of properties to provide holiday lets.
Design Concerns
The Neighbourhood Plan Policy SWD6 Design is relevant to this application
The materials, the size of the proposed development and the look of the property from Park Lane was a concern, especially as it was in a conservation and listed buildings area. The dormer windows appear out of character as does the extent of the timber on the front of the building. The use of the proposed materials and lack of windows on the front of the building give an overbearing sense to the street scene. Appreciating that the light report states that the loss of light to neighbours is within an acceptable range – the loss of light to the neighbouring property appears to be extensive and again is an amenity issue.
Environmental impact and rear vehicular access
It is noted that the Pre-App states that ‘There are also still concerns as to the over-development of the garden as it changes the open, green nature of the area which combines with the surrounding garden areas to reflect the villa status of Park view to create a contrast.’ Skilmans Hill which lies immediately south of the Coach House is an important part of Southwold Common. SWD12 of the NP cover this aspect. The Southwold Commons Trust and residents are active in trying to preserve its quality and minimise encroachment by vehicle traffic especially as it includes a Public Right of Way. The passageway from Skillman’s Hill is narrow and regularly used by walkers, families and children. Greater traffic activity will cause safety issues and there is a risk to the fabric of the existing historic structures.
Councillor Flunder concluded that the Town Council considered the present application to be not in accordance with SWD6 and SWD12 of the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan and further improvements would need to be made before an application could be acceptable.
There were no questions for Councillor Flunder.
The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Mr Ash, to speak.
Mr Ash told the Committee that the applicants had a family home in Southwold for 12 years, which had always been used for family and never as a family let. They purchased the Coach House in 2020 because of its location, south facing garden and the ability to redesign it to suit the family needs and be respectful of their neighbours. The applicants were planning to spend more time in the town, and it would always be a family home, as such they were happy to accept a condition which precluded the use of a holiday let. Mr Ash said their preference was to retain and extend the existing structure as opposed to demolition and redevelopment, however the consensus view was that the house makes a poor contribution to its setting within the conservation area currently. The plan is to extend and refurbish the property and increase its footprint, but this would only cover 25% of the plot area leaving a substantial rear garden. The applicants plan to enrich the planting and ecological value of the garden. The redesign has been noted by the Heritage and Design Officer to add interest and quality over the existing arrangement. The design is committed to sustainability and much of the original building fabric will be retained and insulated and overclad in brick, referencing the original coach house design. The dormer windows are a feature of many of the properties in Park Lane. The ridge and eaves height of the existing building would be maintained, as is the 6 metre set back from the street edge, therefore it would not be overbearing. Proposal is in keeping with the rest of the street. Off street parking remains unchanged, highways not objected, parking would be an improvement. He summarised that the development was a sustainable sensitive design, for a family that loves and is committed to life in Southwold.
The Chair invited questions to Mr Ash. Councillor Ashdown asked about the rear access for parking, particularly how it was used and how many parking spaces. Mr Ash said it was for 2 spaces and in the new design there was room to turn, allowing safer parking. He clarified that it was a 4-bedroom design property, previously it was 3 bedrooms.
Councillor Ewart had a number of questions.
The covenant on property was referred to in the report and it stated that there were certain areas that can’t be built on. The applicant’s agent confirmed that their role was to design and they couldn’t comment on the legal covenant.
Councillor Ewart asked what the reason was for going so close to number 22 on the outside flank wall. The agent referred the Committee to the plans of number 22 and clarified that the room affected was secondary lighting on the ground floor and was 5 metres away from the flank wall. He felt it was necessary to review the design of the properties, and that it was misrepresentative to say they were impacting negatively on that property. A 5 metre distance was substantial and unusual.
He clarified to Councillor Ewart that the size of the studio, was approximately 43 square metres, including cycle storage and external storage.
In response to the Chair, the agent confirmed that all planning was within the plot of the Coach House adjacent to the boundary wall and all works carried out would be within the rights of the Party Wall.
There were no further questions for the agent.
The Chair invited Councillor Beavan, Ward Councillor to speak. He raised the following points:
He noted that the studio had been restricted as ancillary to main house, he thanked the applicant for that.
The development was practically a new build and walls were going to have to be knocked down to create the larger house. If it was a new build it should have a main residence clause otherwise it could become a sui generis house. The applicants have accepted the condition, councillor Beavan asked that the condition was made.
Light to number 22 - Window 5 on lighting report has a vertical sky component, he noted the data in the light survey and that it should be used flexibly. Having sat in the property at night, he felt it would be oppressive and overbearing. It affected the kitchen and breakfast room which could be considered as a primary room.
Loss of green hedges and bushes and possibility of over development, it is a feature of Skilman’s hill to have open space, that along with noise and light pollution, in his opinion, harms the setting of Skilman’s hill.
Referring to the street scene, he noted the variety of housing, but in the middle of the area there was a break that gives light, he felt the imposing building would fill the gap and take light away.
He concluded by asking the Committee if they were minded to approve the application that they considered a site visit to see the impact.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee.
The Principal Planner referred to the comment regarding the new build condition and noted that this was submitted as a householder application with renovation to an existing property. Therefore the new build condition could not be applied.
Councillor Graham sought a response from the Officers regarding the objector commenting on the lack of regard to the Planning Act. The Officers confirmed that the Design and Heritage Team were there to consider such matters and therefore that had been taken into account and the view given that it wouldn’t harm the setting of the heritage assets.
There being no further questions, the Chair invited the Committee to debate the application.
Councillor Ewart considered it necessary to carry out a site visit. Councillor Ashton noted a lot of issues had been raised, particularly the overbearing nature on the property at number 22, he therefore supported a site visit.
Councillor Pitchers agreed that it was important to view the potential loss of light.
On the proposition of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Ewart it was unanimously
RESOLVED
To defer the decision to carry out a site visit.
Cllr Graham supported the concern to pay more heed to the neighbourhood plan and conservation area and suggested this also needed to be considered as part of the site visit.