Home barbers and extension at 62 Holyrood Close, Ipswich

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey front extension and a mixed residential and appointment-only barbers use.

“1.Proposal 1.1Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single-storey flat roof front extension to the dwelling, and change of use from single use as a dwelling (Use Class C3) to mixed use of a dwelling (Use Class C3) and barbers (Use Class E(c)). 1.2The extension would be built using matching buff facing brickwork, and would measure approx. 3 metres in depth from the front elevation, by 8.3 metres in width. The extension would be approx. 2.7 metres in height.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a semi-detached bungalow in a cul-de-sac, with front parking, a garage and unrestricted street parking.

“The surrounding properties are neatly laid out, fronting the snaking highway through the close with dwellings comprising a mix of link-detached chalet bungalows and conventional bungalows. These are set back from the highway by varying distances with some longer front gardens, as on the application site, and some less long. All properties have off-road parking and garages resulting in what is a relatively low density of development.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The dwelling formed part of a 1960s bungalow development, and no previous applications to extend or alter it had been received.

“The application site is a link-detached chalet bungalow dating from the mid 1960’s, part of a development of over one-hundred bungalows and semi-bungalows (67/00564/FUL). No applications for planning permission to extend or alter the existing dwelling have previously been received. The applicant runs an existing barber’s shop at 194 Ranelagh Road and has recently moved home to Holyrood Close where he wishes to continue his one-man business from his home address.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle, with limited effects on design, residential amenity, parking and highway safety.

“The majority of the public representations received object to a perceived unacceptable increase in traffic in Holyrood Close as a result of customers for the hairdressing salon arriving by car.Holyrood Close has a winding single lane carriage way running through it, but because it is a cul-de-sac, albeit a large one, there is no through traffic. Throughout Holyrood Close there are pedestrian footways on both sides of the road.”

“In this case the proposal is considered by Officers to be acceptable, in regard to both the extension and partial change of use. The proposal is not considered to harm the visual amenity of the site and its surroundings, nor the amenity of the neighbours or the occupants. The proposal is also not considered to adversely affect highway safety.”

Officer report

Objections and responses

Residents objected to traffic, footfall, safety, appearance, business activity, covenants, disruption and future uses.

“11.E Godbold, 58 Holyrood Close, Ipswich received 23/04/2025 12.Mr & [the resident], 9 Holyrood Close, Ipswich received 24/04/2025 13.Lee & Christine Miles, 9 Holyrood Close, Ipswich received 25/04/2025 14Lee & Christine Miles, 9 Holyrood Close, Ipswich received 25/04/2025 15S Bloom, 13 Holyrood Close, Ipswich received 25/04/2025 16On behalf of Neighbourhood Watch, 8 Holyrood Close, Ipswich received 27/04/2025 17Williams, 17 Holyrood Close, Ipswich, received 28/04/2025 18M…”

“The appearance of the proposed extension. • The proposal would compromise the peace of the close and its many retired residents. • The close is designed for residential traffic not commercial. 3.4The following representation has been received with comments:- 1.J Gynn, 62 Grantham Crescent, Ipswich received 15/05/2025 (existing client of applicant).”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three residents spoke against the proposal, raising concerns about location, traffic, safety, disruption, covenants and the residential character.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed traffic, appointment limits, policy, design, the existing frontage, personal permission and the scale of the business.

“Councillor Connelly noted the concerns raised by residents regarding traffic movement; however, no objections had been raised by the Highways Authority. The proposed business was limited and would operate on an appointment only basis limited to one customer at a time, and therefore, it was unlikely that this would result in significant disruption or volume of traffic.”

“The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that there was no policy with regards to applications for business use within a residential property or residential area. Policy DM18 (amenity) was the primary policy used to assess such applications which considered issues such as noise, vibration, privacy and other potential disturbances.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission with conditions controlling hours, parking, cycle storage, appointments, records and operation by the applicant.

“Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions (briefly):”

“Development approved as per submitted drawings. The approved use shall not be operated nor take appointments outside of the following hours: Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 18:00. Saturday, 09:00 to 12:00 (midday) Sunday and Bank Holidays - No working hours 3.”

Minutes