Rear first-floor extension at 8A Hartington Road, Aldeburgh

Earlier planning history

A similar extension was refused and its appeal dismissed because of unacceptable effects on a neighbouring property’s outlook and privacy.

“The property has one allocated parking space outside the property in Champion Road. 2.2.An application for an extension of a similar size has previously been refused under ref. DC/22/4469/FUL for the following reason for refusal: "The proposal is considered to be unacceptable due to its scale and design, which will result in a visually dominant addition to the existing property that fails to respect its character and that of surrounding development.”

“The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SCLP11.1: Design Quality and SCLP11.2: Residential Amenity of the East Suffolk Council Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (Adopted September 2020) and to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which requires developments to be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment." 2.3.This decision was appealed against and was upheld at appeal with the inspector concluding: "Although I have…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the revised scale, design, windows and tree removal acceptable and the effects on neighbours insufficient to justify refusal.

“7.5.The combination of render and timber cladding would help differentiate it as a contemporary extension and provide a lighter appearance. 7.6.When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset's conservation.”

“7.15.The applicant and the neighbour have both submitted daylight/sunlight assessments. 7.16.The applicants assessment conducted by Anstey Horne, doesn't include the tree now proposed to be removed and calculates the retention of 87% of the original light on an area which receives two hours of light per day. 7.17.The neighbours light assessment, by T16 Design Ltd.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Town Council objected, two representations opposed the scheme, one supported it, and the highways authority raised no objection.

“4.Consultees Third Party Representations Two representations of Objection raising the following material planning considerations: • Overdevelopment of site • Loss of light to neighbours garden and window • Inaccuracies on plans and supporting documents • Loss of Outlook • Inappropriate in a Conservation Area • Overbearing impact • Parking concerns with intensification of use • Building Regulation concerns • Substandard accommodation One representation of Support raising the following…”

“Aldeburgh Town Council furthermore requests that Cllr Whitelock recommend that this planning application go to the Planning Scrutiny Committee with the correct details and that Cllr Whitelock should support the objector as Cllr Whitelock does not sit on the Planning Scrutiny Committee." Statutory consultees ConsulteeDate consultedDate reply received SCC Highways Department12 August 20258 September 2025 Summary of comments: "Notice is hereby given that the County Council as…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector sought refusal, the applicant’s agent supported the revised scheme, and the Ward Member urged refusal or a site visit.

Members’ debate

Members debated the effects on the garden, landing window, light and outlook, with concerns that the extension would overdevelop the garden.

“The Chair invited any points of clarification. The Planning Manager noted that personal circumstances may be a material impact, but the key consideration was the enjoyment of the garden. He suggested that the Committee tempered that and focused their consideration on the development of the garden area in particular and the impact on the landing window.”

“Councillor Hammond considered the impact on the back garden more significant than on the landing, describing the proposal as overdevelopment of the garden. He stated that fear of appeal should not influence the decision and seconded Councillor Ashton’s motion to refuse.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillors Ashton and Hammond proposed and seconded refusal, which was agreed unanimously.

“Councillor Ashton noted that, while the previous appeal and officer advice suggested that the revised scheme may overcome earlier concerns, there remained grounds for refusal. He proposed that the application be refused due to the impact on the amenity of the property at number 8.”

“On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Hammond it was unanimously…”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because its relationship with neighbouring properties affected residential amenity, daylight and sunlight, and privacy or overlooking.

“The application be REFUSED on the grounds that it was contrary to the following:”

“E - resulting physical relationship with other properties C – access to daylight and sunlight A – privacy/overlooking.”

Minutes