Appeal 3307288

The appeal is allowed and condition No 2 is deleted from planning permission [name]/22/00140/FUL dated 8 August 2022.

The main issue is whether the condition is necessary to safeguard the future character or appearance of the Wet Dock Conservation Area (CA).

[site address] is the trading name of the public restaurant operating from the vessel [name]. Amunda which is moored at [site address] . The vessel, which dates from 1899, was moored in Ipswich dock in 1990 and has been used as a floating restaurant ever since. The first permission for its mooring and use was granted in 1990 for a three-year period and a series of temporary permissions have been granted ever since. The latest would expire in August 2027.

The vessel has a flat roofed two-storey superstructure which somewhat blocks quayside views and increases the sense of enclosure and amount of shade under the oversailing part of [address]. However, the ship has become a recognised part of the Ipswich waterfront for many years, does not detract from the historic buildings that line the northern quay and adds an attractive dining facility to the other restaurants, bars and hotels which are an essential component of the regeneration of the historic dockside.

The Council have no objection to the continued mooring of the vessel but argue that a further temporary permission is necessary as the position may change, in particular that the condition of the vessel may deteriorate or bin storage or other arrangements may become unsatisfactory. However, as the officer report notes, the use and the vessel are subject to various other legislative controls and it would appear an annual, renewable licence is required from [name], the owner of the [name]. Whilst the last permission was subject to a condition requiring redecoration, indicating concern regarding the appearance of the vessel, no such condition has been imposed this time, and it is in the owner’s interests to keep the ship in good repair. There is thus no substantive evidence that the condition is necessary to safeguard the future character or appearance of the [name].

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 56 states that conditions should only be imposed when reasonable and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 21a-[phone] states that second temporary conditions are rarely justifiable, further permissions can normally be granted permanently. In this instance, continuing to grant only temporary permissions after 30 years is unreasonable and likely to inhibit investment in the business. The situation is not analogous to a classroom where the need itself is temporary.

The owners of [address] raise a series of non-planning concerns about the vessel which are a private matter between the parties.

For these reasons condition No 2 is not necessary to safeguard the future character or appearance of the [name] and conflicts with the guidance in paragraphs 56 of the NPPF and 21a-[phone] of the PPG. The condition should therefore be deleted. The appeal is allowed accordingly.