Residents of a west Suffolk village are celebrating after the council refused a retrospective planning application following a row over the height of new homes.
Villagers in Bures, near Sudbury, have been protesting the controversial six-home development on Cuckoo Hill after claims that houses are being built taller than originally specified.
Residents – who turned up en masse to the meeting of Babergh District Council’s planning committee – feel that not enough enforcement action has been taken over the homes at the former slaughterhouse site.
An independent survey, commissioned by villagers, found a height difference of 2.6 meters (8.5ft) from the original plans.
The developer then submitted a new planning application to vary the height of the development, but that application was unanimously refused by the’s council’s planning committee yesterday.
Claire and James Frewin, whose Grade II-listed house is overlooked by the development, say the homes dominate their property.
Following the decision, Mr Frewin said: “We’re very happy with the decision from the council, it’s been a long time coming, there’s been a lot of background work and a lot of people involved.
“It’s just good to see that Babergh is actually supporting the people who live within their parishes.”
Mrs Frewin said: “The planning permission was put in there for a reason and it’s important that it’s followed - and that’s what people’s concern in Bures has been.”
Barrister Kevin Leigh, of No.5 Barristers Chambers, who is representing the developer - The Stemar Group, called for a deferral or a split decision to allow four of the homes in the development.
But councillors voted against a deferral after it was proposed during the two and a half hour meeting.
Mr Leigh claims council officers have made a mistake with measurements on the plans, and will now be forced to appeal the decision.
He said: “The developer is saddened that the local authority turned down an opportunity to have a sensible discussion whether it’s for a month or so, it’s only at my client’s cost.
“It’s very clear the officer has made a fundamental mistake in the measuring of drawings.
“My client isn’t here to offend people. Permission was granted in 2015 and we’ve built according to it. They {Babergh} didn’t attach any relevant conditions.
“We’re now going to have to rapidly run ahead towards an appeal.”
Peter Beer, chairman of Babergh District Council’s planning committee, said: “This wasn’t a decision made lightly, and the committee spent over two hours considering the application.
“After long discussion the committee unanimously agreed to refuse permission – the changes being requested were too great a departure from the original permission in 2015, and the work done already too great a breach of that permission.
“The matter will now be passed to our planning enforcement team, who will consider which enforcement powers would be most appropriate in Bures.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here