Revised plans with a reduced number of houses have been submitted for a controversial site where a housing project was approved and then later kicked out.

The change of heart came after legal experts said the plan for Victoria Mill Road, Framlingham, should not have been approved because it was in conflict with the town's Neighbourhood Plan.

East Suffolk Council though said it had decided to reconsider the proposals - which were then refused - not because of the legal letter but because part of the site had been declared an Asset of Community Value (ACV).

The land is included for development in the Neighbourhood Plan but the document says it is suitable for about 30 homes.

Developer Leaper Land Promotion had applied for 49 self-build homes – 16 of which would be affordable – on the 2.6-hectare site, which generated hundreds of objections.

Now the company has submitted new plans for 35 custom or self-build homes on the land, which give the homeowner control over the design, with 12 being in the ‘affordable home’ bracket.

The project will also include public open space that will include an equipped play and multi-use games area.

Rural Solutions, on behalf of the Leaper Land, said the reduction from 49 to 35 homes was in response to East Suffolk Council's reason for refusal and to address issues in the Framlingham Neighbourhood Plan.

The company said: "The proposed figure of 35 clearly aligns with the policy requirements of being 'approximately 30 dwellings' and there can no longer be a question as to whether the development meets the provisions of policy."

The new plans also include proposals to straighten part of Victoria Mill Road to make it safer for access to and from the new development.

Residents had expressed concerns about the "grossly unsafe" winding road, which they said was narrow with right-angle bends and pavements that were not wide enough for wheelchairs.

Lawyers had claimed the council should have taken into account the Neighbourhood Plan before the previous planning permission had been approved for the land and said the planning authority had ‘erred’ by failing to consider the plan.

The solicitors said the plan should have had ‘statutory primacy’ but had not been given sufficient weight during deliberations on the plans.