Appeal submitted after Needham Market development refused
An appeal has been submitted against a Suffolk planning authority’s decision to refuse permission for nearly 40 homes in the county.
Outline proposals to build 38 homes in Needham Market were unanimously rejected by Mid Suffolk district councillors during a meeting last July.
Farmer Peter Haylock made the housing bid for a 3.7 acre (1.5 hectares) area of his land west of Anderson Close on Hill House Lane.
New Hall Properties (Eastern), which is making the appeal on behalf of Mr Haylock, has said in the statement of case that the appellant will “demonstrate that the appeal site broadly complies with development plan policies”.
It also states that the proposal will go towards meeting a requirement for 360 new homes in the town.
You may also want to watch:
The statement also lists the grounds to contest the five reasons the application was refused.
Included in the reasons for refusal were fears of flooding and an impact on protected species.
- 1 See inside abandoned hotel with swimming pool as it goes up for auction
- 2 A12 to close overnight in June with 18-mile diversion
- 3 Coronavirus cases rise in East Suffolk
- 4 Huge fire in scrapyard sees 11 fire engines descend on village
- 5 See inside a nuclear reactor - we take behind the scenes trip to Sizewell B
- 6 School year group and bus passengers told to isolate after Covid case
- 7 Suffolk hotel named as one of 'best places to eat by the sea'
- 8 North Stander: 'We will have to be realistic and we might well need patience'
- 9 See inside stunning barn conversion with music room, workshop and woodland
- 10 Have your say on bid for new shopping village with cinema and hotel
The Planning Inspectorate has confirmed that the appeal will be dealt with by way of a public inquiry
In the appeal form, New Hall Properties said the need for a public inquiry was because “the issues associated with the proposed development are complex and will need evidence to be given by expert witnesses”.
It added: “We will need to be represented by an advocate because material facts and or matters of expert opinion are in dispute.”
The inquiry is to be held later this year, with statements and interested party comments due by April 22.