Decision to develop 33 homes in field deferred
- Credit: Google Maps
A decision to develop 33 homes in a field near Beccles has been deferred because of concerns the whole field is not being used.
The plans, put forward to East Suffolk District Council, include building 33 new homes, open space and a visitor car park in a field opposite Ringsfield Primary School in Ringsfield, Suffolk.
A meeting of the council's planning committee held on Monday heard how planning officer Rachel Lambert put forward a recommendation to approve the plans.
"The development includes 1.86 hectares of land with 0.7 hectares still available to the north," she said.
"The density of the proposed site equates to 18 dwellings per hectare, this is below the requirement of 20 dwellings per hectare.
You may also want to watch:
"The lead flood authority has also recommended approval based on the conditions of implementing an adequate drainage scheme."
But Louise Rees from Ringsfield and Weston Parish Council said she feared the impact the development would have on the village.
- 1 Official unveiling for new nature reserve boardwalk in Lowestoft
- 2 Woman, 18, victim of possible sexual assault in Lowestoft
- 3 Drivers warned of disruption as work carried out on Bascule Bridge
- 4 Weather warning as more thunderstorms set to hit parts of the region
- 5 Plot of land near Beccles sells at auction for five times guide price
- 6 'A golden medal from your hometown': Amazing support for Olympian
- 7 Popular laser lights display set for welcome return to pier
- 8 Devoted doctor, 93, to embark on dancing busk-athon in Lowestoft
- 9 Delays 'possible' warning ahead of footway works in Lowestoft
- 10 Woman in 30s suffers head injuries in violent attack by two girls
"The site is not suitable for development. It usually floods and does not enhance the character of the village whatsoever," she said.
"Planning officers say that the 20 dwellings per hectare is a suitable number but I am afraid it is not.
"15 dwellings per hectare would be more suitable so the density of housing in the area is a concern.
"The current proposal would mean that Ringsfield Corner's housing numbers would increase by 50 per cent, increasing traffic on an already very busy minor road."
Councillors shared concerns that the whole field was not being used for the development of the houses, only two thirds of it.
When questioned what the other two thirds of the field would be used for, applicant Beccy Rejzek said: "Probably a horse, or pony will graze on there."
Graham Elliot, councillor for Beccles and Worlingham, said: "Whilst I recognise this is an approved site for development I have concerns over 33 houses on only two thirds of the site, why can't we have 30 houses on the whole site for example?"
Andree Gee, councillor for Oulton Broad, echoed this: "This proposal doubles the size of Ringsfield creating an urbanised situation which the parish council have picked up upon."
All councillors voted for referral on the decision and the applicant will now consider whether to use the full amount of land.