Plan for 32 homes in East Suffolk to be decided amid fears of overdevelopment
There are also calls for more affordable housing
An application for 32 homes in a Suffolk village will be decided next week amid allegations of overdevelopment and calls for more affordable houses.
An East Suffolk Council planning committee will decide whether to follow officers’ guidance and approve an application for 32 homes in Witnesham next Tuesday.
The 1.98-hectare site is on an agricultural field at the eastern edge of Witnesham. It is to the east of Mow Hill Road and north of the Barley Mow pub’s car park.
The design and access statement by applicant Denbury Homes explains: “The proposed development represents an excellent response to the need for further housing.
“It would maximise the positive aspects of the site’s location, and fully integrate and actively enhance the character and appearance of its surroundings.”
The site is allocated in the Suffolk Coastal local plan for the development of 30 homes. The local plan was adopted in 2020 and intended to provide a “vision” for the areas of the former Suffolk Coastal region of East Suffolk until 2036.
A statement by Witnesham Parish Council reads: “The council objects in principle to this proposed development as being too large, and out of character and scale for the village.
“The development is contrary to the local plan policy that housing developments in small villages should be ‘a small group of dwellings, of a scale appropriate to the size, location and character of the village’.
“There is no justified need for this development in the village as there are already substantial allocations or permissions for dwellings here.
“Over 500 dwellings are proposed in Ipswich Garden Suburb, only three miles away. Consideration is also being given to the application for 20 dwellings at nearby Street Farm.
“The prospect of this and the Street Farm development going ahead, potentially at the same time in close proximity, is alarming for the village.”
“There is a lack of local services, particularly space at the local school. The development is on ‘greenfield’ agricultural land, when an alternative nearby vacant brownfield site is more appropriate.”
The council also asked that 11 affordable homes rather than the proposed ten be required if the application is approved, explaining: “Witnesham is in real need of affordable housing; only two affordable units have been provided out of 28 dwellings in new developments over the last five years.”
The Suffolk Coastal local plan states that developments with capacity for ten homes or more should ensure one in three are affordable.
One in three would equal 10.66 in this development but the plans are for just ten . The money that would be spent on building part of a home will therefore be provided by the applicant as part of a section 106 agreement – money given by applicants to be put towards amenities in the areas of their developments.
Of the affordable homes, five would be for rent – two one-beds and three two-beds. Five would be shared ownership – three two-beds and two three-beds.
The council’s housing enabling team assessed the proposed mix and location of the affordable houses and decided it was acceptable.
East Suffolk Cllr Colin Hedgley, ward member for the area, cited similar concerns to the parish – believing the development would be a “large estate in a small village” and reiterating the point that many houses are planned nearby in Ipswich.
A consultation with residents returned 22 objections and nine supporting statements. Many reasons were given for these points of views, including the idea of overdevelopment and the belief that the houses will be too expensive.
The officers’ report gives weight to the point that the principle of 30 homes on this site is laid out in its local plan.
The development would be near three listed buildings – grade II listed Wood House, grade II* listed Red House Farm and a grade II barn.
A representative for East Suffolk Design and Conservation stated: “I consider that the application will preserve the setting and significance of Red House Farm and its barns.
“I consider that the application will give rise to a low level of less-than-substantial harm to the significance of Wood House.
“Wood House’s significance and the level of harm must be taken into account by the decision maker when weighing them against the public benefits of the proposal.”
Responding to these points, the officers’ report reads: “It is considered that the public benefits of the scheme will outweigh the harm identified.”
The reasons given are the provision of affordable homes, employment opportunities throughout the construction phase and the local businesses and services bolstered by trade with the future residents.