Planning Comments submitted 14 August 2015


B/15/00948/FHA  7 Reynolds Way  conversion of garage into living accommodation

We are aware that this a typical move by houseowners needing more living space, and that garages tend not be used for cars, but where the owners have more than one car the implications are more on – street parking and/or loss of front garden space to hardstanding. This can damage the environmental and urban qualities of front gardens and unless hardstanding is detailed correctly can lead to flash flooding. Should Babergh have a policy on this to guide houseowners?

B/15/00954/LBC   B/15/00968/ADV   The Royal Oak   external advertising

We are pleased to see the revitalisation of these premises. However the Society which is committed to good design in public spaces regrets that yet again the possibility of good design, of lighting and hanging signs in this case, is lost in favour of bland pseudo traditional solutions.

B/15/00977/FHA   rear extension to 39 Cross Street

We feel that the roof pitch should as far as practicable be steeper than the banal 30 degrees shown and more in keeping with the existing building. Rain water disposal looks unresolved and we think there might be problems with rights of way and a new opening in a historic garden wall.

B/15/00962/LBC   101 Cross Street insertion of new external door

We have no objection to this provided the oak frame and door remain unpainted.

New house on land south of Deepside, Queens Close

We felt when viewing the original application that the two in line parking provision would lead to more on – street parking and it seemed rather mean with a substantial new house. On this second viewing we wondered whether the long term strategy was to negotiate a right of way  past Bridge Terrace to East  Street. What restrictions would be placed on such a development in the planning conditions?


We noted that only one layout had been modified since the public consultation and we feel that our objections and comments submitted in response to the latter remain valid. Is it the intention to confirm publicly the current timescale for realisation of this development?


We do not feel there is a need to fix this to wall brackets and that in case an application for listed building consent should be made.