Ground-floor residential flat at 386 Woodbridge Road, Ipswich

“Proposal 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the change of use of ground floor from hot food takeaway (Sui Generis) to residential flat (C3) with associated replacement of shop front and internal alterations. The submitted proposed floor plans indicate the residential flat would feature 1 bedroom, study and bathroom, with combined kitchen/dining/living area accessing a rear garden area via new folding windows/doors.”

“Grant planning permission for the development subject to:”

“Development to be in accordance with approved plans. 2. Prior to those works being undertaken, details to be submitted regarding materials and colours of façade alterations. 3. Pre-occupation submission of details regarding improvements to sound insulation between dwellings. 4. Pre-occupation submission of details regarding secure cycle storage and refuse/recycling/storage facilities. 5. Removal of redundant extraction equipment and signage.”

“Planning Assessment Principle of Development 5.1. Policy DM30 states the Council will support the retention and provision of local shops and community facilities within defined District and Local Centres.”

“Local Centre are also vacant. To this end, the proposed conversion would address a dormant ground floor building frontage and bring vacant floor space within the area back into use. Surrounding commercial uses are considered to be sufficiently far away to prevent any reverse sensitivity effects on residential amenity. Officers consider that on balance, the absence of information to demonstrate efforts to market the premises does not amount to a reason for refusal.”

“Anonymous, Woodbridge Road, Ipswich (received 23 July 2026) 2. J. Brudenell, 32 Cherry Blossom Close, Pinewood, Ipswich (received 2 July 2026): Issues raised: - - Disruption of residential amenity of surrounding properties from construction - Poor amenity for occupiers due to main road location - Noise transference due to existing measures being designed for commercial rather than residential use - Overlooking and privacy - Risk of future intensification such as HMO…”

“Councillor Rae noted that no reference had been made to the upper floor of the building, which presumably was a flat accessed by the external staircase, and asked whether any consideration had been given to noise insulation between the two floors.”

“Councillor Smart noted the reference regarding whether the premises had been marketed for other uses and advised that the location was still publicly listed as a trading dessert shop.”