Home   Sudbury   News   Article

Subscribe Now

Pair of housing applications in Whatfield refused planning permission




Two separate housing proposals in Whatfield have been rejected over fears they would lead to a high level of car dependency from those living there.

Babergh District Council’s planning committee voted to refuse planning permission for 25 homes on land south east of Wheatfields and 15 homes on land south of Naughton Road on Wednesday.

The first application, brought by Mrs V and Mr R Riddleston, was for 23 two-storey homes and two bungalows, including eight affordable homes, on the southern fringe of the village.

Babergh District Council, Endeavour House (18084616)
Babergh District Council, Endeavour House (18084616)

A previous application at the same site, for 15 homes, was refused by the council in July 2015, on the grounds the scale of the development would be disproportionate to the growth of the village.

Whatfield Parish Council objected to the new planning application, saying it included more homes than the previously refused proposal and that no change in policy had been made since then.

Planning officers added the positive impact the homes would have in terms of increasing housing supply in the area now carried less weight than in 2015, because Babergh can now demonstrate it has a five-year housing supply (enough deliverable sites to provide housing over the next five years).

The second proposal for 15 homes, including six for social housing, was submitted by Notcutts Limited.

These also faced objections from the parish council, which argued there is a lack of justification for housing demand, that the site’s proposed access from Naughton Road would cause road safety issues and that public transport is not viable and sustainable in the area.

In both cases, the committee followed the recommendations of planning officers, who said the developments would “result in a high level of car dependency for future occupants”, and concluded that they would both cause “demonstrable environmental harm” to the village.



Comments | 0