Plans for 80 homes off Mitford Close rejected by council

On Wednesday, Ipswich Borough Council's planning committee discussed proposals from Blakeney Estates Ltd for 80 new homes on land off Mitford Close.

Of the 80 homes, 30% would be affordable houses, as well as create a new "20-minute" neighbourhood.

The application would have seen up to 80 new homes in north Ipswich.  (Image: Google Earth) However, the proposals were met with strong opposition from residents with 119 representations made to the council, including four petitions with 216 signatories.

On Wednesday, 30 people attended the meeting to make their opinions heard. 

The plans were refused 11 to one, on the grounds of access and amenity, as well as its effect on the countryside, neighbours, school, and drainage. 

Agent for the development Steven Coskey told the meeting that the area has no protected trees or grassland vegetation, and suggested that the development with their 20-minute neighbourhood plan is largely positive. 

He added that the developers also  going beyond the statutory requirement of 15% affordable homes to 30% affordable homes.  

This was even after council officers had recommended the plans for approval on balance, with chief planning officer James Mann stating that this would help the council reach their housing targets. 

Mr Larse, who represented the residents, told the meeting: "They will not give a hoot about the countryside edge if this ill-thought-out proposal is approved.

"The effect on Mitford Close people will be huge."

Cllr Foster spoke on behalf of the residents of Witton. (Image: Ipswich Labour) Ward councillor for the area, Gary Forster said the recent u-turn on the NHS surgery on Tooks Road has already put pressure on the area, and this development would add further problems. 

He added: “This is a relatively small piece of green land generally housing two horses and a llama, and completely unsuitable for a development like this.”

Cllr Murray voted against the development plans.  (Image: Newsquest) Cllr Sam Murray said she was against the plans over vehicle access through Mitford Close. 

"With the single point of access I don't think residents will be able to drive out of their homes in the morning," she said.

"I am shocked that these plans have been recommended for approval by the officers, even if on balance."

The single access point was a major debate with Cllr Carole Jones, Cllr George Lankester, Cllr Stephen Connelly and Cllr Colin Kreidewolf agreeing with Cllr Murray. 

Cllr Jones said the current plans would leave the development landlocked.  (Image: Archant) Cllr Jones suggested the lack of access would effectively leave the area "landlocked". 

"Are they expecting everyone to travel by electric bikes, because on then will people be able to use this road," she added.

"It is such a small road that they are suggesting," she added. 

The chief planning officer said that Suffolk Highways had not objected to the access point and that it would be hard for the borough council to win a legal battle if the developers decide to appeal the refusal. 

As a result chair of the committee, Cllr Peter Gardiner suggested deferring the with Mr Mann suggesting an independent highways review be carried out. 

The only member to support this decision was Cllr Oliver Holmes.

Cllr Kreidewolf suggested Suffolk Highways had not completed their work properly.  (Image: Newsquest) Cllr Kriedwolf said: "I am absolutely disappointed in Suffolk County Council and I think they have not done their job well in looking at the situation."

Other councillors added that other than roads there are other policy grounds to recommend refusal of the application, such as lack of housing, doctors, school spaces, and the chances of flooding.

There were cries of relief from members of the public when the decision was refused.

Terri Jones, a resident said: "I am so happy I cannot put it in words.

"You do not expect that there will be major development behind you when you live in a close."

However, another resident added that this is only the first step and now they expect to keep fighting the development if the applicant appeals it.