7
The Committee considered report ES/1279 which related to planning application DC/22/0479/FUL. The application sought planning permission for a revision to an approved scheme to include the demolition of a single-storey side addition which would be replaced by a new single-storey side entrance, a two-storey rear extension, and internal alterations. A detached beach room to the side would be constructed and the boundary fence would be upgraded. The application was referred to Committee by the Referral Panel for further consideration of the application, primarily in relation to the use of the building and the design of the proposed parking area to the front of the building. The Planner clarified that the site was in a Conservation Area, and that contrary to the report, the proposed parking provision could not be achieved within permitted development rights due to the article 4 restriction covering the site. An update sheet had been published and circulated on Monday 12 September 2022 which included an additional condition relating to parking and further comments from Southwold Town Council.
The Committee received a presentation from the Planner, who was the case officer for the application. The site location was outlined, and a contrast was made between the previously approved scheme and the revised proposal, including illustrations of the potential impact on the street scene. The Committee also viewed the existing and proposed elevations, layout and floorplans, along with a photograph of the grass block paving that would provide the hardstanding for the parking.
The recommendation to approve the application, as set out in the report, was outlined
to the Committee and the Planner explained that the material planning considerations and key issues were: use, design, parking, natural environment, and loss of private garden space. The Planner surmised that the proposed beach room was a comparable ancillary outbuilding to what had previously been approved, would not be rentable separately from the main building, and that overall the development would not cause significant harm to the area.
In response to questions from Members about the future use of the site, Officers emphasised that whilst the whole house, including the beach house could be rented in the future, proposed Condition 4 provided a constraint that the beach house could not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of 23 Ferry Road. The applicant’s intention was to use the house as a home and Officers were content that the proposed parking layout was not contrary to Suffolk County Council's Technical Guidance for Parking. The Planning Manager urged Members that the Committee could only consider the application before it and could not speculate about any future application.
In response to two questions from Councillor Ceresa, the Planner firstly clarified that the site was in flood risk zones 2 and 3 and that a flood risk assessment had been provided with the application. Secondly, if the application was not approved, it would be possible to convert the existing garage into a room.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Southwold Town Councillor Jessica Jeans spoke on behalf of the Town Council in objection to the application. Town Councillor Jeans explained that the Town Council perceived that the report before Members had not demonstrated the correct application of policies SWD6, SWD7 and SWD12 of the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan, and would effectively neuter the future application of the plan. It was perceived that in the future the proposed beach room could be converted into standalone holiday accommodation, and the Town Council were concerned about the overall harmful impact that holiday letting was having on the town. The Town Council was of the view that the proposal did not satisfy the specific tests relating to parking set out in SWD7 (B) and that the proposal would:
- Result in a car dominated street scape, as the parking capacity of the site would increase from 2 to 3 cars
- Not preserve or enhance biodiversity, as part of the garden would be lost
- Not preserve the amenity space, as the existing patio would be lost
At the invitation of the Chairman, Town Councillor Jeans responded to Members questions as follows:
- The cumulative impact of the approved scheme and the proposed scheme on the rear and side of the site was, in the view of the Town Council, contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policies and approval would neuter the Neighbourhood Plan.
- Approval could set a negative precedent where the same Neighbourhood Plan tests would be applied to future applications
- The extant parking provision was for 2 cars, which would increase to 3, and the garage would be lost. Town Councillor Jeans referred to a colloquial term for large expensive cars dominating the frontage
- The approved consent would create a 3-bedroom property, and it was probable that the revised proposal for a beach house, would in effect, create room for a fourth bedroom at a future point.
The Chairman cautioned that the Committee could only consider the matter before it, and could not revisit the consent previously approved, nor speculate about any future application.
The Chairman invited the applicant, Mr Thompson to address the Committee. Mr Thompson clarified that the property was intended to be a family home, with the beach room being in daily use as part of that. The additional parking space that would be provided once developed, was for family and personal use, with modest vehicles and once complete, would improve the appearance of the property from the road, as well as making use of the redundant patio area. The proposed beach room corresponded to an outbuilding that had previously been located on the site in the 1950’s and was less wide than the garage. Mr Thompson had improved the property and had replaced the unsightly uPVC windows and introducing tiled roofing. With reference to the comments on the colloquial term for large expensive cars dominating the frontage, Mr Thompson said that he doesn’t own such vehicles and that would not be the case.
In response to a question from Councillor Goldson, Mr Thompson confirmed that the whole parking hardstanding area would be surfaced with grass blocks.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Planning Manager sought to clarify matters for Members. It was emphasised that the application was a homeowner application and should be treated fairly as such. The Town Council had demonstrably made assumptions in their consideration of the application and had used emotive language during the meeting which was unhelpful. The Planning Manager countered that the Neighbourhood Plan policies had been competently applied by Officers in making their recommendation, and no precedent would be set in approving the application. The Neighbourhood Plan was robust and well prepared, and its policies sat side by side with Local Plan policies. The Planning Manager confirmed that the recommendation certainly would not neuter the Neighbourhood Plan policies and that ESC Planners applauded the efforts of Southwold for its ambitious policies, including recent defence of them and similar neighbouring Reydon Neighbourhood Plan policies at appeal. There was no policy conflict, the application was relatively modest, the retained garden space would be consistent with other properties on the road, and the parking concerns had been addressed in the report, including a condition that the parking provision be completed prior to first use.
The Chairman invited the Committee to debate the application. Councillor Goldson noted that the amount of garden space that would be lost was small, and along with Councillor Pitchers observed that the one additional car parking space would not be visible from the road. Councillor Beavan concurred and noted that the grass block paving would mitigate drainage and biodiversity concerns. Councillor Cooper saw no evidence to support the assertion that the beach room would be used as a fourth bedroom; and Councillor Brooks was satisfied that the applicant had made clear the purpose for which the property was intended to be used.
Councillor Beavan moved that the application be approved, Councillor Pitchers seconded, the Chairman moved to the vote and it was by a majority unanimously
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED subject to conditions.
Conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with 05M and 06G received 18/05/2022, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity
4. The annex hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of 23 Ferry Road.
Reason: The proposal is inappropriate for use as a separate/independent dwelling.