Controversial plans for over 200 new homes near Bury St Edmunds go to appeal
Mid Suffolk Council has rejected a plan to develop land in Thurston
A contentious 210-home planned development has been refused and is set to go to appeal.
The application for land east of Ixworth Road in Thurston, just outside Bury St Edmunds, was deferred twice before being approved in 2020.
An appeal against this decision by the village’s parish council was lost in 2022.
Mid Suffolk Council’s referrals committee reconsidered the application yesterday because changes to the circumstances since 2020 caused officers to think the council might not reach the same decision now.
These changes include an increase to the area’s housing stock and a realisation this will cover many years without this development, alongside the designation of the site as countryside.
Despite recommending approval in 2020, officers recommended refusal this time round – a decision that was approved unanimously by the committee.
Cllr Harry Richardson, who represents Thurston, said: “There has been a significant amount of development in Thurston since the first application was approved and people have already seen the cumulative impact of that.
“It is rather disappointing that the applicants themselves are absent. Engagement both with and from Gladman has been minimal to say the least.”
Gladman is the applicant, which notified the council before yesterday’s meeting of its plans to appeal against the council’s failure to decide the application.
The decision to refuse gives the council its position for this appeal. It will need to defend refusal at the hearing.
Cllr Austin Davies, the other ward member for Thurston, said: “I thank the officers for all the work they’ve done in looking again at the housing supply and recommending refusal, which I enthusiastically support.”
The number of years the housing supply is expected to be sufficient in Thurston has increased to 10.9 – from 5.7 in September 2017.
The housing supply information the committee had when they approved the application in 2020 was from 2017.
The committee also expected the joint local plan, which was in progress at the time of the 2020 decision, would include the application site as an area for development – but the final plan did not allocate this site, meaning it is designated as countryside.
Julian West, a Thurston Parish Council councillor, said: “Thurston is undergoing an unprecedented level of development.
“Should this application be approved, Thurston will end up with another massive development nobody wants, is no longer required to meet development targets and the area does not have the necessary infrastructure to support.
“Mitigation for these homes currently extends to just the primary school extension and some minimal highways and junction improvements.
“No solution has been provided to solve the safety issue on the railway crossing. The application proposes nothing in addition in terms of mitigation for the increased volume of traffic and pressure on the road network created by proposed new homes.”
The issue with the railway station is that passengers cross the tracks to access the westbound platform. The population growth will increase the passenger numbers and the risks.
Network Rail has acknowledged the need to find a solution and £100,000 has been allocated to this from developers, as part of community infrastructure levy (CIL) funding.
If the application had been supported by the committee, it would have joined the ‘Thurston Five’ approved housing developments.
These add up to around 818 houses very close to each other in north Thurston – 129 in Barton Road, 250 off Ixworth Road, 175 off Norton Road, 64 on Meadow Road and up to 200 to the north of Norton Road.
Outline planning permission has also been given for 210 homes on Beyton Road and full permission has been given for 54 affordable care homes south of Heath Road – both in Thurston.
Cllr John Matthissen, a member of the planning referrals committee and Green Party councillor, said after the meeting: “Green councillors are pleased the lack of housing need allowed us to respect the neighbourhood plan.
“I think the committee to reached a more common sense decision this time, based on the fact that neither the local housing need nor the district housing need justified any more building in Thurston for quite a few years.”
Gladman has been approached for comment.