Campaigning residents have been victorious in their battle to prevent a new housing development from causing a “detrimental impact” to their lives.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Outline proposals to build 38 homes in Needham Market were unanimously rejected by Mid Suffolk district councillors in a meeting on Wednesday.

Farmer Peter Haylock made the housing bid for a 3.7 acre (five hectares) area of his land west of Anderson Close.

But when residents found out dozens attended a town council meeting in February to object; with an opposition Facebook group attracting more than 300 members.

Wendy Marchant, district councillor for the town, said: “I strongly support the planning officer’s recommendation of refusal, it’s against Mid Suffolk’s local policy and is in a special landscape area, outside the settlement boundary.

“Needham Market Town Council, the Needham Market Society and residents are all against this development. We already have the Maltings development of almost 100 homes and the chalk pits for nearly 300, which is sufficient for a town the size of Needham Market.”

Phil Cobbold, Mr Haylock’s planning agent, defended the proposal.

He said: “The core strategy (an important planning document) may state that there’s no need for greenfield development in the next few years but that assumes that brownfield sites will be developed – there is no guarantee of that.”

Documents indicated that 50% of the homes would be for “affordable” use – a figure Mr Cobbold said was significant.

“There will be 320 homes at the brownfield site in 
the chalk quarry, but just 14% will be for affordable housing – 38 units instead of the policy requirement of 105.

“Although it is in a special landscape area it does not mean it cannot be developed – it’s an arable field,” he said.

In their conclusion councillors also highlighted concerns over parking issues, flooding and how protected species could be affected.

Antony Spilman, who was speaking on behalf of residents, said: “It’s our conclusion that any benefits of the development with this being on a controversial site would be outweighed by its detrimental impact.”

0 comments

Comments

Welcome , please leave your message below.

Optional - JPG files only
Optional - MP3 files only
Optional - 3GP, AVI, MOV, MPG or WMV files
Comments

Please log in to leave a comment and share your views with other East Anglian Daily Times visitors.

We enable people to post comments with the aim of encouraging open debate.

Only people who register and sign up to our terms and conditions can post comments. These terms and conditions explain our house rules and legal guidelines.

Comments are not edited by East Anglian Daily Times staff prior to publication but may be automatically filtered.

If you have a complaint about a comment please contact us by clicking on the Report This Comment button next to the comment.

Forgotten your password?

Not a member yet?

Register to create your own unique East Anglian Daily Times account for free.

Signing up is free, quick and easy and offers you the chance to add comments, personalise the site with local information picked just for you, and more.

Sign up now

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT