Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

RESOLVED:

that the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2025 be signed as a true record.

RESOLVED:

that the Order of Business be confirmed as printed on the Agenda.

Councillor Jones, being known to people who were speaking on applications, declared an interest in Items 1 & 2 (IP/25/00005/FUL & IP/25/00007/LBC) and Item 4 (IP/25/00054/VC), and left the room during the consideration of these items.

In considering the applications, the Committee took into account representations made where indicated by the word ‘REPS’ after the individual planning reference number.

The applications were considered in the following order:

Items 1 & 2 – IP/25/00005/FUL & IP/25/00007/LBC – Archway and various sites, Lloyds Avenue

Item 4 – IP/25/00054/VC – The Mulberry Tree Public House, 5 Woodbridge Road

Item 3 – IP/25/00097/FPI3 – Car Park, 15-21 Foundation Street

Archway and Various Sites, Lloyds Avenue

REPS

Ward:           ALEXANDRA

Proposal:     IP/25/00005/FUL:

Public realm improvement works to Lloyds Avenue consisting of resurfacing works including increasing the width of public footway and extended shared public space, installation of raised bed planters and landscaping, and existing cycle storage repositioned. Refurbishment of Lloyds Arch undercroft, including insertion of lights and cabling, digital screens/lightboxes, security cameras and radio equipment.

                     IP/25/00007/LBC:

Refurbishment of Lloyds Arch undercroft, including removal of service box, repositioning of plaques, insertion of lights and cabling, digital screens/lightboxes, security cameras and radio equipment, and general redecoration.

Address:      Archway and various sites, Lloyds Avenue

Applicant:    Ipswich Borough Council

Agent:          KLH Architects Ltd

The Development Management Team Leader reported that a late representation had been received at 8.45am on 2.4.2025 from Mr S Ali in reference to a previous email of 26.3.2025 and whether that was to be considered by the Committee. The late representation raised the following points:

-             A petition had been prepared regarding the consultation undertaken in relation to the application; it was not clear whether the petition had gone live or if anyone had signed up to the petition.

-             The email of 26.3.2025 referred to the public consultation being unfair; this was in relation to the consultation undertaken prior to the planning application being submitted, not the consultation undertaken as part of the planning application process.

The Planning Officer presented the report illustrated by drawings and photographs.

Mr Stuart Edgar, agent for the application, spoke in support of the proposals:

-             Consultation had taken place with disability groups to help inform the development of the design with regards to disability access.

-             Over a period of 14 months, there had been information shared and workshops held with representatives from 5 local disability groups: Progression Session Groups, Suffolk Sight, Suffolk Guide Dogs Forum, Ipswich Disabled Advice Bureau and Suffolk Coalition of Disabled People.

-             The first consultation on the proposals in May 2024 resulted in crossing points and dropped kerbs being added at the north end of Lloyds Avenue, horizontal to the top of the taxi rank.

-             Further discussions in May 2024 resulted in a second crossing with a raised table being added just before Electric House, opposite the Bingo Hall, to help slow traffic coming around the corner and act as a visual discouragement to general traffic; Lloyds Avenue would still to be open for deliveries and taxi use.

-             On 13 December 2024, the final designs were presented to the disability groups for sign off ahead of the submission of the planning application.

Ms Nina Cunningham, Head of Economic Development at Ipswich Borough Council, spoke in support of the proposals:

-             Proposals for Lloyds Archway aimed to provide illumination and an interactive art piece that residents and visitors could interact with, drive footfall into the town centre and add to the cultural offer to increase dwell time.

-             The art installation would involve workshops to gather input from students and families, and the proposed one-off installation would attract visitors from Ipswich and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Car Park, 15 - 21 Foundation Street

Ward:           ALEXANDRA

Proposal:     Continued use of land on a temporary basis as short-stay public car park (further to planning permission ref: IP/22/00065/FPI3).

Address:      Car Park, 15-21 Foundation Street

Applicant:    Ipswich Borough Council

Agent:          Mr Michael Newsham

The Planning Officer presented the report illustrated by drawings and photographs.

Councillor Rae asked how realistic the estimate was for a development coming forward in 2028/29.

The Head of Planning & Development commented that the dates in the adopted Local Plan reflected when the landowner estimated that a development would come forward.

Councillor Jones added that this site was one of three sites within a wider site allocation and that not all of these sites were owned by the Council.

RESOLVED:

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

1.       Use shall cease on or before 3rd April 2027.

2.       Short stay parking only (maximum 5 hours)

3.       Disability parking signage to be retained.

4.       Parking and manoeuvring areas to be maintained as per submitted plans for the duration of the development.

5.       Secure cycle and PTW parking to be retained.

The Mulberry Tree Public House, 5 Woodbridge Road

Ward:           ST MARGARETS

Proposal:     Variation of Condition 1 (list of approved plans) of planning permission IP/23/000346/FUL (Extensions to existing facility to provide enlarged prayer hall and classrooms).

Address:      The Mulberry Tree Public House, 5 Woodbridge Road

Applicant:    Mr Mohamad

Agent:          Mr Sherwan Mohammed

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report illustrated by drawings and photographs.

Mr Mojlum Khan, Bangladeshi Support Centre Multicultural Services, spoke in support of the proposals:

-             Had been approached by the applicant for support and advice on capacity building to accommodate emerging community groups.

-             The Nawracy Culture Centre was very busy, offering social, cultural and spiritual activities to communities, and space was needed to accommodate community groups from different backgrounds in Ipswich.

-             The proposed variation from the previous application was a matter of practicality as the original windows would diminish the size of usable space within the upstairs rooms as there were areas where it was not possible to stand upright.

-             There was a balance to be met between retaining the heritage character of the building and creating an extension that would be able to meet the growing need for local services; the proposed minimal adjustment would achieve both objectives.

Mr Mohammed Mainul Alam, Bangladeshi Support Centre Multicultural Services, spoke in support of the proposals:

-             The Centre supported many organisations and had been especially busy during Ramadan.

-             The proposed variation to the extension would make a big difference to the capacity of the building as currently nearly half of the space in the upstairs rooms was unusable because of the slope.

-             It was important to retain the heritage of the building, but there was also a need to accommodate all the people who accessed services.

Mr Gaffor Omer, NHS employee, spoke in support of the proposals:

-             The Centre had not only been used for vaccination sessions but also had an ongoing use for health assessments, providing public health services alongside the cultural activities.

Councillor Rae commented that he had visited the building, and the original conversion had improved its aspect within the street scene; however, the proposed change was unlikely to release much additional space, and it was necessary to respect this historic building.

Councillor Lankester understood the reason for wanting to replace the pitched roof with a flat roof but could see no reason for the proposed change in materials, especially as UPVC windows and fibreglass roof coverings would not be appropriate in this location.

Councillor Kreidewolf commented that the original change of use application had been successful in bringing a redundant building back into use, which was well used by the community; however, this was a locally listed building with a prominent frontage and due regard should be given to listed building responsibilities.

RESOLVED:

Refuse the variation of planning condition for the following reason (briefly):

The extension would not respect and promote the special character and local distinctiveness of Ipswich by protecting and enhancing significant views nor represent good architectural design. It would represent poor design that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

99.1.     Councillor Jones noted that the appeal in relation to 25 Civic Drive had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector as the Council’s Local Plan policies had been correctly applied and should not leave occupants in sub-standard accommodation.

RESOLVED:

that the information for Councillors be noted.