New petition launched as villagers’ fight against new homes continues
- Credit: Archant
A new petition has been launched as a community continues its two-year fight against controversial homes.
Villagers in Bures, near Sudbury, have been fighting the six-house development on Cuckoo Hill since October 2017 after a row over the height of the new homes.
Nearly 350 people have signed a petition opposing retrospective planning permission at the former slaughter house site in the Suffolk village after a long-running battle with developer The Stemar Group.
MORE: Residents ‘hugely concerned’ over retrospective planning applications for controversial village homes Construction on the site first began in March 2017 and the development faced fierce criticism from residents when an independent survey, which was commissioned by villagers, found a height difference of 2.6 metres (8.5ft) from the original plans.Babergh District Council upheld complaints regarding the height and the developer then submitted a retrospective planning application for the whole site.This application was unanimously refused by Babergh’s planning committee in July last year and officers at that time refused to split the decision into two separate plots.The developer’s appeal for the whole site is currently with the Planning Inspectorate.Three further retrospective planning applications, for plots one to four of the development, will go before the council’s committee this summer.MORE: Concerns over height of new Bures homes raised in parliament by South Suffolk MP James CartlidgeClare Frewin, whose Grade II-listed house is overlooked by the development, started the petition against the retrospective applications and already 338 people have signed it.
The online petition reads: “In July 2018, an application for retrospective planning permission was refused by the planning committee.
“Now three new applications for retrospective planning permission for plots one to four have been submitted.
You may also want to watch:
“The new properties dominate the skyline and overshadow original houses and gardens intruding on residents’ privacy.
“We ask Babergh District Council planning committee to stick to the decision made in 2018 and refuse retrospective planning permission for the site.”
- 1 Matchday Recap: Plenty of positives despite Palace defeat
- 2 How bride paid £1 for vintage wedding dress
- 3 Eagle-eyed plane spotter saves pilot's life
- 4 Machinery to be sold following the loss of 'passionate' farmer
- 5 5 places to avoid the crowds in Suffolk this summer
- 6 How the Ipswich Town players performed in their friendly clash with Crystal Palace
- 7 Ipswich Town 0 Crystal Palace 1: Zaha makes Town pay the penalty
- 8 Leisure centre closes after travellers park up on site
- 9 7 pretty villages in Suffolk
- 10 Town coach on Palace display, fans' return, transfer business and Evans' absence
Speaking at the beginning of the month, a spokesman for Babergh said: “The applications will go through the formal planning process, including public consultation, before being taken to members of our planning committee to be judged on their merits.”