Ipswich and East Suffolk submit case over 660 homes refusal

Ipswich Borough Council and East Suffolk Council rejected an outline planning application for a site to the rear of Humber Doucy Lane and Tuddenham Lane by developers Barratt Redrow and Hopkins Homes in June. 

The applicants are appealing against their rejection of the planning application and have since provided more information on their proposals. 

However, the two councils believe the plans do not meet their objectives for such a large development and are standing firm in their opposition to the application. 

East Suffolk Council and Ipswich Borough Council believe the plans fail to meet their planning policies including preservation of heritage assets, insufficient green spaces and quality of development. 

They are also opposed to the number of homes proposed in the plans which, at 660, is more than the 599 they had designated for the area. They are also not satisfied the developers have shown how the extra homes will accommodated in the plans.

Sports England had objected to the plans over the impact on Rugby pitches (Image: Stock image of Ipswich Rugby Club/Newsquest) Objections have also been lodged by Sports England concerned about the loss of two rugby pitches used by Ipswich Rugby Club; Network Rail concerned about increased traffic on Westerfield Road; Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council and individual residents.

National Highways had also opposed the plans concerned about pressure on the A12 but has since withdrawn its objection.

In a joint statement, the councils say: "The councils do not consider that the benefits of the scheme, including the delivery of housing, would outweigh the harm that the proposed development would cause.

"This is a site which has been recognised by the councils, through their development plans, to be appropriate for residential-led mixed-use development.

"However, those allocations also recognised that any proposal would need to be carefully (master) planned and designed to appropriately address the context and sensitivity of the site, and in order to bring forward a high-quality form of development.

"Unfortunately, the current proposal fails to meet those policy requirements."