Small dwelling conversion at 17 Market Place, Southwold

What was proposed

The application sought listed building consent to convert and extend part of a Grade II* listed building into a small dwelling.

“DC/25/0567/LBC - 17 Market Place, Southwold The Committee received report ES/2579 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/0567/LBC. The application sought listed building consent for the conversion and extension of part of a Grade II* listed building into a new small dwelling. The application was referred to the Planning Committee by the referral panel.”

Minutes

What consultees said

Historic England opposed the design unless it was redesigned or replaced, while the council’s design officer supported it and other consultees raised no objections.

“Recommendation Historic England has serious concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds, particularly the inappropriate design of the proposed extension which would result in harm to significance of the conservation area in terms of the NPPF, paragraphs 213 and 215.”

“East Suffolk Design And Heritage20 February 202528 February 2025 Summary of comments: I have no objections to this application. The garage/store is a structure of low significance that does not contribute particularly importantly to the significance of No.17 Market Place and nor to the streetscene - from which it somewhat detracts.”

Officer report

What people said

Southwold Town Council objected over design, materials, overdevelopment, parking, cycles and neighbour impacts, while one representation queried the first-floor materials.

“DC/25/0567/LBC to be determined at the same time. 4.Third Party Representations 4.1.One representation neither objecting to nor supporting the proposal raising the following material planning considerations: • Materials - Could the first floor be built out of brick to match surrounding buildings 60”

“5.Consultation Responses ConsulteeDate consultedDate reply received Southwold Town Council20 February 202524 March 2025 Summary of comments: • STC endorsed and supported the comments contained within the response of Historic England. • Mill Lane is of historic character – see Rosemary Cottage which is a Grade II listed building.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent asked the committee to make a procedurally sound decision after the related full application had been refused.

What members debated

Members discussed the separate considerations for listed building consent and whether approving it after refusing the wider scheme would create a risk.

“The Chair asked for clarity on which parts of the application needed to be looked at when considering listed building consent. The Planning Manager confirmed that a listed building consent only dealt with physical works or alterations. He drew the committee’s attention to the final paragraph from Historic England in the report. The key focus was the significance of the building as a designated heritage asset and whether the scheme fitted with it.”

“Councillor Gee asked as the previous application had been refused, was it not superfluous to discuss the listed building consent as there wasn’t a project to apply it to. The Planning Manager said it was an application that had been submitted, it had different considerations and different conditions, there could be a situation where you could grant listed building consent when the wider scheme was not acceptable.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused listed building consent because the design would harm the listed building’s significance and was contrary to national policy and statutory duties.

“That the Listed Building Consent application be REFUSED For the following reasons:”

“As a result of the design approach there would be harm to the significance of the listed building, contrary to the NPPF, paragraphs 212, 213, and 215 and section 66 of the Planning, Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990. 9”

Minutes