Bungalow conversion at Oak Hill Halesworth Road Wenhaston With Mells Hamlet, Halesworth

What was proposed

The application sought to convert part of a former B2 maggot-farm building into a self-build bungalow, with partial demolition, parking, a garage and garden space.

“1.Summary 1.1.This application seeks planning permission for the change of use and conversion of an existing B2 outbuilding into a new residential dwelling at Oak Hill, Halesworth Road in Wenhaston with Mells Hamlet. The application site is located outside any established settlement boundaries and as such is located in the countryside for planning purposes.”

“3.Proposal 3.1.Planning permission is sought for the change of use, part demolition and part conversion of one of the existing former maggot farm buildings in the northern part of the site. The central section of this structure would be demolished, separating the northern part from the southern part of the structure.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property lies outside settlement boundaries in the countryside, approximately two kilometres from Halesworth, with industrial structures beside an existing dwelling and railway.

“The application was called in on the 18 th August 2025 by Councillor Geoffrey Wakeling and will therefore be presented to the Planning Committee. 2.Site Description 2.1.The application property is a detached one and a half storey dwelling single-storey detached dwelling located approximately 2km south of Halesworth town centre, nestled between the A144/Bramfield Road and the Halesworth-Darsham railway.”

Officer report

Why officers advised refusal

Officers considered the building made a negative landscape contribution, the design was poor, the location was unsustainable and the proposal conflicted with development-plan policies.

“Applications for residential conversion will be refused if the proposal is not capable of making a positive contribution to the landscape relative to the negative impact the existing building has and the neutral impact that the absence of the building would have on the landscape.”

Officer report

Public representations

No third-party comments were received.

“In the absence of such information, it cannot be concluded that the proposed development will not result in an adverse impact on such species, and therefore the application should be refused. ConsulteeDate consultedDate reply received SCC Highways Department17 June 20258 July 2025 Summary of comments: No objection - conditions recommended.”

“6.Publicity None. 7.Site notices Site Notice TypeDate PostedExpiry dateReason General Site Notice24 June 202515 July 2025General Site Notice 8.Planning policy SCLP10.1 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity (East Suffolk Council - Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, Adopted September 2020) SCLP10.3 - Environmental Quality (East Suffolk Council - Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, Adopted September 2020) SCLP10.4 - Landscape Character (East Suffolk Council - Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, Adopted…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent told members that the revised bungalow was a self-build for young key workers and would prevent the site becoming derelict.

The decision and reasons

The committee refused because the site was outside settlement limits, the design and employment-use conversion conflicted with policy, and ecology, RAMS and contamination requirements were unresolved.

“That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out below: 1.The application site lies outside of any established settlement boundaries, as defined on the Policies Map, and is therefore defined as Countryside. Residential development in the countryside is restricted as there are generally no or very few services and facilities, and is therefore not considered a suitable location as a focus for new development.”

“It is also not located within the physical limits boundary of Wenhaston village, and thereby is contrary to WwM P1 as defined in the Wenhaston with Mells Neighbourhood Plan. 2.The proposed design, while maintaining the basic form of the existing structure, would result in a new residential dwelling of poor architectural quality, appearing bulky and deep with proportions more akin to industrial structures.”

Minutes