Controversial housing development in Tuddenham St. Martin, near Ipswich, deferred over parking and safety concerns
A controversial housing development in a village near Ipswich has been deferred due to parking and safety concerns.
The development, put forward by Bennett Homes, a local housebuilder, would see 25 new homes, eight of which would be affordable, being built on a 1.54ha plot of land at the tail end of Keightley Way, on the edge of Tuddenham St. Martin.
Yesterday afternoon, members of East Suffolk’s planning committee, decided to defer the decision until they could have a site visit.
Cllr Mike Deacon said: “Before making such a decision which is going to impact on the lives of a whole village, we have to be very sure about how we feel and, currently, I don’t.”
A total of 75 objection letters were submitted since the plans were first submitted, with the main concerns, the council heard, being the lack of parking provision and road safety already troubling the village.
Although a holding objection was initially submitted by the county council’s highways department, this was later withdrawn, with a recommendation for a £100,000 contribution for pedestrian facilities from the site to local amenities.
Cllr Colin Hedgley, who represents Carlford and Fynn Valley, said residents already struggled to access shops and bus stops, with the development worsening the problem, and criticised the highways department for withdrawing its initial representation.
He added: “My main concern is the obvious ignorance of the highways department when it comes to parking and pedestrians walking on the road.
“In this council, we push cycling and walking and you can’t, on occasions, walk on that road, it is absolutely dangerous.”
However, Adam Bell, development director at the company, said the current plans took into account the objections raised by providing more parking places than required.
He added: “I do have concerns, but I don’t think we are adding to the existing difficulties that the village has.”
Cllr Mark Packard, who was against the site visit, said: “There are opinions for and against, as always — I think it does no harm to go and visit the site, but those same dilemmas will be here when we come back. We have to make decisions based on planning regulations.”