One self-build dwelling at 12 Bishops Hill, Ipswich

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for one self-build dwelling, access and landscaping, with only access decided at this stage.

“Unless demonstrated not feasible or not viable, the development shall achieve as a minimum 19% improvement in the reduction of CO2 emissions above the Target Emission Rate, water efficiency standards of 110 litres/person/day. Before first occupation details of compliance to be submitted. Before commencement demolition and construction management shall be submitted and approved. Before commencement pedestrian visibility splays shall be submitted and approved. 4.”

“The application is described as an outline planning application for development of 1 No. Self-Build Dwelling, Access, and Landscaping (all matters reserved except access). Therefore, only access is to be determined at this stage, with all other matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved matters.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies beside homes, within a green corridor, near wildlife corridors, and opposite an employment area across a busy Class A road.

“The application site is located within the Parks Character Area of Ipswich and within 800 metres of the Duke Street District Centre. The site is not designated for development and sits adjacent to residential dwellings on the southern side of Bishops Hill with dwellings within Myrtle Road to the west.”

“The site is within a Green Corridor and in proximity to an identified wildlife corridor between the County Wildlife Site at Holywell Park to the south and Local Wildlife Site at Mitre Way to the north.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A conditional vehicular access permission was granted in 1970, with no other relevant planning decisions.

“A vehicular access was granted a conditional planning permission in 1970 (IP/70/00362/FUL). Otherwise, there are no relevant planning decisions.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the proposal sustainable and acceptable in principle, with reserved matters, conditions and RAMS mitigation addressing its potential impacts.

“The development is for a single self build or custom build dwelling on previously developed land within an urban area where medium density development is expected. The development would be in a sustainable location, would make an efficient use of land and through reserved matters it can be ensured that development would be well designed, including the provision of a high standard of amenity for existing and proposed residents.”

“Subject to conditions and reserved matters, aswell as mitigation or undertaking with regard to RAMs, a single detached self build or custom build dwelling represents an appropriate use of land on the site, having regard to policies CS1, CS2, CS7, DM1, DM3, DM4, DM7, DM8, DM9, DM12, DM13, DM14, DM18, DM21, DM22 and DM23, and would represent sustainable development having regard to the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health, Parks and Highways raised no objections subject to conditions, while Urban Design objected to the concept design.

“IBC Environmental Health – No objections. Private Sector Housing: No comments. Air Quality: No comment. Contaminated Land: No comment. Noise: Prior to development starting on site, details of a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from external [traffic/railway/aircraft] noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.”

“IBC Urban Design – Object. The outline proposal is a poor concept design; the accommodation of car parking appears to be its organising principle.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Residents objected over trees, biodiversity, character, neighbouring effects, loss of light, noise, privacy, construction disturbance and boundary changes.

“The following representations have been received against the proposal:-”

“- Inadequate information regarding mature trees and shrubs on boundary with 5 Myrtle Road. - Inadequate consideration with regard to biodiversity and geology, including with regard to neighbouring property. - Concern regarding impact upon Sycamore Tree within rear garden of 13 Myrtle Road. - Development would be inappropriate and out of character. - Proposal would significantly impose upon neighbouring properties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supported the proposal, describing it as sustainable, policy-compliant regeneration of previously developed land and explaining that detailed design would follow.

Members’ debate

Members focused on the future design, neighbouring relationships, residential amenity, hedges and landscaping, including whether reserved matters should return to committee.

“Councillor Rae commented that it was difficult to assess the impact without the detailed design and, given the objections already received, suggested that the reserved matters application should be brought to the Committee for consideration.”

“Councillor Jones highlighted that the key issues for consideration at the reserved matters stage would be the design of the development, the relationship of the proposed building with existing properties at numbers 5-13 Myrtle Road, and the impact on residential amenity in line with Policy DM12.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted outline permission subject to RAMS mitigation, reserved matters and conditions, with refusal authorised if mitigation was not provided.

“A. That development be granted outline planning permission subject to the receipt of mitigation or undertaking to provide mitigation in relation to the Suffolk Coast Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).”

“B. That development be granted outline permission subject to standard conditions requiring reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale) and the following conditions (briefly):”

Minutes