Rear extension and garage at 7 Manor Road, Woodbridge

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-storey rear extension, a detached garage replacing the existing outbuilding, and a five-metre boundary wall.

“The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the dwelling, a detached garage within the rear garden, and the erection of a 5metre long boundary brick wall with a height of 2.0 metres above ground level.”

“The application description and plans also refer to a boundary wall on the western boundary of the rear garden (i.e. the boundary with the attached neighbour). It is proposed to extend 5m down the garden from the corner of the proposed rear extension. 56”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The semi-detached home has a large rear garden, established trees and hedging, an existing outbuilding, and neighbouring homes on both sides.

“It is a semi-detached two-bedroomed dwelling, which has accommodation set over two- floors, the upper of which is contained within the roofspace and is served by a dormer on the front roofslope. The property benefits from a large south facing rear garden with established trees and boundary hedging. There is currently a detached outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling located towards the eastern boundary.”

“The attached neighbouring dwelling is located to the west, and has been extended to the rear previously. The property to the east is a detached dwelling which has accommodation set over two-floors, the upper of which is within the roofspace, served by windows in the front and rear gables and rooflights on the side roofslopes including the roof slope facing the application property.”

Officer report

Earlier approved scheme

The rear extension was similar in design, form and scale to a scheme approved in 2004.

“The rear extension is proposed to have accommodation set over two floors, the upper of which would be within the roofspace, providing an additional bedroom. This addition would have a gabled roof, with a window in the gable end facing down the garden, and rooflights on the side roofslopes. It would project approximately 1.4m beyond the rear wall of the existing extension on the attached neighbouring dwelling.”

“The proposed rear extension is similar in design, form and scale to a scheme which was previously approved in 2004 (case reference C/04/1868).”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the design, residential amenity, parking and highway effects acceptable and found the proposal consistent with relevant planning policies.

“The proposal complies with the relevant parts of the NPPF, the relevant policies of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, including SCLP11.1, SCLP11.2, as well as SCC Parking Guidance, SPG16.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council and landscape team raised no objections, while one eastern neighbour supported the replacement garage, boundary wall and improvements.

“Support expressed for the replacement garage due to its current poor condition, including decay and a lack of weatherproofing. • Existing hedgerow and chain link fencing are in poor condition. Point raised that existing chain link fencing is a hazard due to rusted broken wire. • Support for the replacement boundary wall on the basis that it would improve privacy between neighbouring properties.”

“Consultee Date consulted Date reply received Woodbridge Town Council 17 April 2026 24 April 2026 Summary of comments: No Objections.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An Assistant Planner presented the application and explained the proposal, materials, planning issues and recommendation to approve.

Members’ questions

Members discussed the wall height, the sloping ceiling, whether a car could use the garage, and available parking.

“Planning Committee for determination as the application is from a member of staff. The Assistant Planner gave a presentation. She showed the site location plan and an aerial photograph together with photos of the site. She explained the extension is in keeping with surrounding properties. Members were shown the proposed block plan and elevations. She ran through the proposed materials to be used. It was explained that the ridge line will be 600mm higher than the existing.”

“A fence adjacent to a highway can only be 1m. Councillor Ninnmey asked about the first floor plan and asked for clarity that it will have a sloping ceiling, which was confirmed. Councillor Reeves said it didn’t look like you could park a car in the garage and asked if there was room for turning. The Assistant Planner said there would be room to turn but it would be tight and it would be possible to park in the garage.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Following a proposal and seconding, the committee unanimously approved the application subject to conditions.

“That the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out below. Conditions: The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

Permission required commencement within three years, compliance with approved drawings, and approval of retaining-wall and step heights before construction.

“Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved. Prior to the construction of the retaining walls and steps shown on the hereby approved block plan, full details of the proposed heights of each section of retaining walls relative to adjacent ground levels shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The retaining walls and steps shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.”

Minutes