Proposals for development of 80 homes in Boxford refused planning permission by five votes to four
Plans for 80 new homes in Boxford have been thrown out, after education bosses pointed out that the village primary school was already close to capacity.
The scheme – brought by Catesby Development Land Ltd – proposed a mix of two, three, four and five-bedroom homes on a 14-acre site east of Sand Hill.
Babergh District Council’s planning committee discussed the application at a meeting yesterday, with more than 140 people signing a petition in opposition.
Concerns centred on the negative impact the development will have on the existing infrastructure, specifically roads and pathways, and the lack of nearby primary school places.
In a planning report to members, officers said they could not guarantee all pupils from the development would be able to find places at Boxford Primary School.
The report read: “The forecast is for no surplus places at the catchment primary school based on a 95 per cent capacity.
“The consequence of approving this development is likely to mean that there will be no strategy for providing additional places in the future for growth in this area, other than the delivery of a new primary school, which would require 800 new homes to sustain it.
“Suffolk County Council cannot guarantee that all pupils from the development will be able to find a place at the primary school.”
“The county council will, therefore, require primary school transport for pupils living in the village, or from the development, that may get displaced in the short term.”
Planning permission was refused by five votes to four, despite the developer offering to contribute £134,000 towards school transport.
Committee chairman Peter Beer said: "This was a finely balanced application and the committee spent a long time considering the details.
"Ultimately, the committee concluded the proposals failed to meet our policies on various counts, including failing to demonstrate a community need to develop a site outside the settlement boundary and failing to show how the proposal would benefit the local economy."
