Plans for homes behind historic The Six Bells pub, in Church Road, Felsham, refused for eighth time

Plans for homes behind a historic village pub have been refused for the eighth time.

Applicant Lexden Homes (Colchester) Ltd was seeking permission for two bungalows, cart lodges, parking, and landscaping on land to the rear of The Six Bells pub, in Church Road, Felsham.

On Wednesday, the application was up for scrutiny from members of Mid Suffolk’s planning committee.

The plans were part of a long string of applications dating back to 2010 which saw six applications being refused, one withdrawn, and two appeals dismissed by the planning inspectorate.

This time around, the bid received 35 resident objections, with some of the key issues including its impact on the Felsham Conservation Area (CA), biodiversity, and highway safety.

One of these objections came from Nicholas Panayi who, speaking at the meeting, stressed any positive contribution to the village would be outweighed by its negative impacts.

The ward representative, Cllr Nicky Willshere, also submitted a statement to be read out in which she highlighted these issues.

The statement read: “The residents enjoy this plot of land not just through many different events that are held on it, but peaceful use for recreational space for all ages, promoting health and wellbeing.

“There would significant impact on the safety of the local residents with the increase in traffic and movements, especially during construction — any additional congestion would be hazardous.”

She also suggested the applicants were only looking to ‘maximise profit’.

“We have seen so many public houses close over recent times and the impact that this has on the local community, reducing employment, increasing social isolation, and leaving dormant settlements with no community hub,” Cllr Willshere added.

“The wellbeing and sustainability of the local community is not their concern but it is ours.”

Neither the applicant nor the agent spoke during the meeting.

A design and access statement argued a ‘fresh approach’ had been taken to the site, which sought to compliment the listed pub and its context within the CA, although this was rejected by committee members.

It also stated the proposals included a ‘vast improvement’ in terms of highway access and safety and, although not part of the committee’s refusal reasons, councillors still challenged this.

In the end, the plans were turned down on the grounds of their impact on the conservation area and undeveloped land, as well as insufficient information on their impact on protected species and biodiversity net gain.

The decision to refuse was unanimous.