Controversial guest house plans in Huntingfield, near Southwold, dubbed ‘monster’ by residents is given go-ahead by East Suffolk Council

Controversial plans to turn former agricultural buildings into a guest house have been approved despite being dubbed a 'monster' by residents.

East Suffolk councillors considered Wilderness Reserve Suffolk's bid to turn four former agricultural buildings at Valley Farm, in Laundry Lane, Huntingfield, into an 18-bedroom single guest house during Tuesday's planning committee meeting.

The plans were initially discussed by councillors in early April, when they decided to defer a decision for a site visit, after 109 objections were received from residents.

This time around, however, many of the same issues were once again raised by local representatives, with warnings of the potential impacts of using the new building as a hotel as well as leisure and recreation for a maximum of 270 people, including weddings and corporate events.

David Blackmore, chairman of Huntingfield Parish Council, said the application was a monster and criticised the applicant's 'total lack of respect and concern'.

He said: "We want Wilderness to run a successful business here, we're not anti-development, we're just anti the wrong development — a huge wedding venue and party space has no place in our small village."

The plans, which were partly retrospective, were considered alongside two separate bids to expand the car park and construct a building to house management services.

Objectors criticised the submission of separate bids as a way to hide the full impact the plans would have on amenity when combined.

Similar fears were shared by Cllrs Jenny Feeny and Joel Pike, of Heveningham PC and Ubbeston PC, respectively.

Addressing the concerns, Matt Bostock, the applicant, said the company had a track record of operating comparable properties without complaints.

He stressed the development would have significant benefits, including local employment.

He said: "We're not leaving anywhere, we're intending to be operating for the foreseeable future, and therefore we want to be part of this community and live with them."

When it came to debating, councillors were split, with two motions, one to refuse and another to approve, both turned down when voting.

Cllr Andree Gee questioned the council's ability to enforce a new condition imposed by planning officers restricting, and received a big cheer from the audience members.

The new condition would limit the number of people to 270, as well as the number of events of over 180 people to eight per year.

Cllr Gee said: "It would appear that things are being done behind your back already — I don't have much trust in what we are asked to believe for the future."

"It's in a rural area, and we can't have officers going out every five minutes."

Cllr Katie Graham said the proposals would place too much of a burden on the local community and questioned the potential benefits of the project.

She said: "Despite considerable efforts at mitigations, which I recognise the reserve has really tried to do, there's going to be an undeniable impact on a village of this size and rural nature."

"I think it should be a community before a business, and I don't interpret that Huntingfield is an appropriate site for this enterprise."

Some councillors, on the other hand, believed the proposed conditions would help mitigate the potential impacts.

Cllr Paul Ashdown said: "I think they have done everything they can — after all, it is a business, businesses are there to produce income to sustain [themselves]."

After discussing the plans for more than five hours, councillors decided to approve the plans with four votes for, three against and one abstention.

The approval included an extra condition requiring the developer to only use the marquees within the courtyard of the site, rather than outside the buildings, in order to mitigate noise impacts.