Case 3328088

2-4 , Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffok , IP1 2BE

Ipswich Borough Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
15 January 2024
Authority
Ipswich Borough Council
Inspector
Reed D
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Other
Development type
Other minor developments
Appellant
Ms Lina Haman (Dovetail Architects Ltd)
LPA reference
IP/23/00049/CON
ONS LPA code
E07000202
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
22 November 2023

Summary AI

The appeal against a refusal to grant consent for electric gates as part of a 100-bedroom hotel development was dismissed due to the gates' design being deemed unacceptable in the context of the building and its surroundings.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

2-4 , Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffok , IP1 2BE — Ipswich Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 December 2023 by David Reed BSc DipTP DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 January 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/R3515/W/23/3328088 2-4 Russell Road, Ipswich IP1 2BE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant consent, agreement or approval to details required by a condition of a planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ms Lina Haman, Dovetail Architects Ltd against the decision of Ipswich Borough Council. • The application Ref IP/23/00049/CON, dated 18 January 2023, sought approval of details pursuant to condition No 19 of a planning permission Ref IP/00384/FUL, granted on 23 September 2021. • The application was refused by notice dated 22 May 2023. • The development is the erection of a 100 bedroom hotel and associated parking. • The details for which approval is sought are: electric gates. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the design of the fence/electric gates is acceptable in the context of the building and its surroundings. Reasons 3.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

2-4 , Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffok , IP1 2BE — Ipswich Borough Council — Appeal Decision A 100-bedroom Travelodge has recently been constructed on the northern side of Russell Road with Endeavour House on one side, a vacant site on the other and Ipswich Town’s football stadium to the rear. The building comprises a five- storey rectangular block set back behind an area of car parking with a further area of car parking within an undercroft at ground floor level at the western end of the building, the hotel above supported by a series of pillars. 4. The Council’s statement explains the crime and community safety concerns with the undercroft area of the building which results in the need for electric gates to secure the undercroft when necessary. Condition No 19 requires the details of the parking areas including electric gates to be approved and carried out prior to first occupation, and whilst the parking details appear to have been agreed the details of the electric gates have not been approved. Despite this, a fence with gates has been erected on site and the hotel is open. 5. The fencing and electric gates run across the front of the undercroft from the boundary wall on one side to the hotel building on the other.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

2-4 , Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffok , IP1 2BE — Ipswich Borough Council — Appeal Decision Comprising blue plastic coated wire mesh panels about 2.4 m high with similar height sliding https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

2-4 , Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffok , IP1 2BE — Ipswich Borough Council — Appeal Decision Comprising blue plastic coated wire mesh panels about 2.4 m high with similar height sliding https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/R3515/W/23/3328088 gates, there is no suggestion from the Council that they fail to adequately meet the security objective of protecting the undercroft area from intruders. 6. However, the fence panels are unduly lightweight, a type frequently used for the perimeter fencing of an open site rather than an integral grille that forms part of a building. The fence leaves a visually awkward void between the top of the fencing and the roof of the undercroft, contrary to the approved elevation drawing 4120_PL07.1C which showed a full height grille or screen in front of the undercroft. In addition, the continuous fence/gates run across the front of the brick piers, setting the fence visually apart from the building and disrupting its otherwise vertical emphasis. 7. The result is that the fencing and gates as erected give the clear impression of a disjointed bolt-on afterthought, not an integral part of the building design despite the need for undercroft security being established during the initial design concept stage for the building. 8.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

2-4 , Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffok , IP1 2BE — Ipswich Borough Council — Appeal Decision The building does not lie in a conservation area nor are any adjacent buildings listed, but it does lie in a high prestige civic setting with the County Council’s Endeavour House next door, Ipswich Crown Court opposite and the Borough Council’s Grafton House across the road. In this company the building needs to reach a high design standard and the fencing/electric gates as erected do not achieve the necessary quality. Conclusion 9. For these reasons the design of the fence/electric gates does not meet the necessary standard in the context of the building and its surroundings contrary to Policy DM12 of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review 2022 which seeks to ensure good architectural design. 10. Having regard to the above the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 David Reed

2-4 , Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffok , IP1 2BE — Ipswich Borough Council — David Reed INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶6

The fence panels are unduly lightweight and visually awkward, disrupting the building's design. The approved elevation drawing showed a full height grille, but a lightweight, discontinuous fence was erected instead.

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶7

The fencing and gates give the impression of a disjointed bolt-on afterthought, rather than an integral part of the building design. This is particularly evident in a high prestige civic setting.

Character and appearance
Against appellant
¶9

The design of the fence/electric gates does not meet the necessary standard in the context of the building and its surroundings, contrary to Policy DM12 of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review 2022.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Policy DM12 of the Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review 2022
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 15 January 2024 under the Open Government Licence.