Plans for 75 new homes in Rendlesham rejected for second time
- Credit: Archant
Plans to build 75 new homes in the north of Rendlesham have been rejected by planning chiefs.
The development would have sat to the north of existing properties on Gardenia Close and Garden Square.
It is the second time that plans have been submitted for the site with an application previously made in June 2018 before it was refused three months later.
Developers said that they had worked through issues from their previous application with council officials and were happy with their latest submission.
The latest application included a number of changes, including an increase in the number of affordable homes which the developers were proposing.
You may also want to watch:
Developers noted that they had "denied themselves perfectly legitimate profit margins in order to satisfy planning requirements".
Among the issues identified by East Suffolk Council this time was part of the site's location close to the Anglian Water Treatment Works.
- 1 Flooding leaves main route through town 'impassable'
- 2 Suffolk to miss worst of thunderstorms - but heavy downpours still expected
- 3 Five cars and a horsebox involved in crash near RAF base
- 4 Teenager who lost driving licence receives surprise in post
- 5 A14 reopens after serious crash leaves road closed for several hours
- 6 Stu says: Five observations following Ipswich's 1-0 win at Lincoln
- 7 See inside stunning £2m Woodbridge home with 'fantastic leisure complex'
- 8 'It was a clear foul' - Imps boss Appleton angry after Town defeat
- 9 Two cars set alight in two different streets
- 10 600 protesters form 'human wall' to oppose Sizewell C sea defences
The report notes: "The application provides insufficient assessment information regarding the potential impacts of odour from the sewage plant and the effect that may have on the proposed layout and open spaces."
Council planners also raised concerns about the affordable housing on the site.
They said: "No information within the application as to which units are proposed as affordable units and therefore it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would provide an appropriate mix of size, tenure and distribution across the site."
It also reiterated a number of concerns from the first planning application including the number of properties proposed for the site with the council preferring a smaller site of around 50 houses.
ESC was also concerned about the proximity of some of the properties to each other and the lack of privacy provided.
"The layout and window arrangement, would also result in overlooking of existing adjacent dwellings and their private amenity areas," said the report.
"Plot 15 is also proposed to be entirely visible from public vantage points, and therefore would not benefit from any private amenity space."
A spokesman for Parker Planning Services, who resubmitted the plans, said: "Our clients are naturally disappointed with the decision and are taking advice on the matter."