Objections voiced to plans for 150 homes in Suffolk village
PUBLISHED: 05:30 11 September 2019
Plans for 150 new homes in a Suffolk village have prompted calls for a slow down in development in rural areas.
The plans for the site in Brantham, near Manningtree, would see a former farm converted into housing by developer Gladman Development Ltd.
Proposals for the new properties, which would be located off Brantham Hill, have been met with anger by some residents who are objecting to the number of homes being built in the area.
The plans, if permitted, will be in addition to nearly 300 homes which are being built by Taylor Wimpey in the village, only half a mile away from the new site.
The 288 properties were given the final go ahead by Babergh District Council's planning committee in June. The houses will represent the first part of the development, before the old industrial estate will be revamped with commercial and retail properties.
Gladman Development Ltd say that the new homes, which will be accessed from Brantham Hill, will provide a "distinctive and high quality" housing estate inspired by the "best of the character and detail found within Brantham".
You may also want to watch:
However, some residents have complained that the increased population would affect transport links and public services.
One objector said: "Brantham is a small village and is unable to sustain the level of building works already planned with the Taylor Wimpey site.
"The A137 is a dangerously busy road and almost impossible to cross already.
"The school is not big enough to add extra facilities and we have only a small selection of amenities."
Another added: "The sheer amount of development being proposed in localised areas is too high taking into effect the lack of infrastructure in parts of Suffolk.
"School roads and key-line services including doctor's surgeries will be affected."
Advice submitted by acting area planning manager Mark Russell, warned that the development would have a "negative" effect on resources such as schools.
He also advised that the site was "not considered to deliver benefits which would make it acceptable or accord with the development plan" put forward by the district council.