Access criticised as council rejects quarry site proposal

Latest news from the Suffolk Free Press, suffolkfreepress.co.uk, @sfpsudbury on Twitter
Latest news from the Suffolk Free Press, suffolkfreepress.co.uk, @sfpsudbury on Twitter

Plans for a family home to be built on a former quarry site in Sudbury have been rejected by councillors over access and amenity fears.

Babergh District Council planning officer John Davies had recommended the proposal for a detached one-and-a-half storey house with cartlodge, on land south of Deepside in Queens Close, Sudbury, should be accepted.

But yesterday, only one member voted against a proposal by Sudbury ward councillor Adrian Osborne to reject the application.

The Bridge Terrace Residents’ Association praised the decision.

“It’s excellent news,” said resident Peter Hall. “All we want is the access to be from Queen’s Close.

“We are not objecting to the property. As long as the access doesn’t go under the bridge, that’s all we are concerned about.”

Access along the narrow track of Bridge Terrace was one of the key reasons for it being thrown out.

Other grounds included over-development of the site to the detriment of the character of the locality and loss of amenity for the residents of Bridge Terrace.

The plot sits in a former quarry, with plans already accepted for a home directly above the proposed site and another neighbouring application expected.

The main issue raised by councillors and members of public who spoke at the meeting was over the use of a narrow track to get from the house to East Street.

Residents and Sudbury Town Council both expressed fears that using this access would prevent residents from Bridge Terrace from using the track, and could prevent the route being used by emergency vehicles.

The local highways authority had criticised use of the narrow track and the safety of the junction with East Street.

Mr Davies had said this access was “on balance” a better route than from Queen’s Close due to the steep gradient.

But councillor Jack Owen questioned how members could accept plans in the face of such strong opposition from the local highways authority.