Two-bedroom dwelling at 17 Market Place, Southwold

Previous works and site history

The applicant’s agent described a succession of approvals and works intended to secure the former bank building’s future, with this application as the final one.

“The applicant’s agent told the Committee that the Planning and Listed Building Consent applications were for the conversion and extension of part of the former bank building in the centre of Southwold. There had been a succession of approvals, with lots of work done by the applicant, all to a high standard. This was the last application. The heritage and parking factors were well balanced by Officers.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the design acceptable and found no significant harm to the listed building or conservation area.

“The elevations into the courtyard, where they will be read in conjunction with the existing building, have a rather utilitarian character which, in a sense, is a reflection of the functional origins of these service elements. In conclusion the overall design is not obviously domestic in character and the approach is acceptable. 81”

“8.15.On balance, therefore, officers consider that these applications will not give rise to any adverse impacts or effects on the significance of the designated heritage assets that are No.17 Market Place and the Southwold Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A Southwold Town Councillor opposed the proposal, while the applicant’s agent supported it as a well-balanced, conditioned scheme for a permanent residence.

What members debated

Most members considered the design unattractive and harmful to the street scene, while one member considered supporting it because of the officer assessment.

“Councillor Pitchers realised that design was subjective; he noted that Southwold Town Council referred to it as a shipping container, he said it looked like a Nissen hut. He added it was rare that he disliked an application on the grounds of design. He could see no problems with parking or replacing or altering the building, but he felt the design was dreadful and spoilt the area, he would take a lot of convincing to change his mind.”

“Councillor Beavan agreed with Councillor Pitchers, he said it was harmful to the street scene.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the design and materials were out of keeping, harmed designated heritage assets and provided insufficient public benefit.

“The Planning Manager summarised the Members discussion to date, the refusal reason being that design was judged to be out of keeping with the street scene, the materials proposed were unacceptable and poorly related to the context. They wouldn’t be sympathetic to the context and would cause harm to designated heritage asset (conservation area and setting of the listed building).”

“Design out of keeping with street scene contrary to SWD6 and WLP8.29 •Materials are unacceptable and poorly related to the context •WLP8.37 not sympathetic and harms the conservation area and setting of LBS •Harm arising contrary to NPPF paragraph 213 & 215 and not outweighed by the public benefits. 8”

Minutes