187 homes and primary school at Land Off Crown Lane, Crown Lane, Ixworth

What was proposed

The hybrid application sought 187 homes, open space and infrastructure, plus outline permission for a 2.2-hectare primary school site.

“Ward: Ixworth Proposal: Hybrid planning application - a. Full planning application - provision of 187 dwellings with access, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure, b. Outline planning application (means of access to the school site from the A1088 only to be considered) provision of 2.2 hectare site for primary school…”

“Proposal: The hybrid application, as amended, seeks full planning permission for up to 187 dwellings, open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage and associated infrastructure and outline planning permission (means of access to be considered) for a primary school within a 2.2 hectare area. The primary school will accommodate 420 places and once built will replace the existing 210 place primary school in the village.”

Officer report

The site

The site is arable land north of the village, bordered by roads, hedgerows, woodland, schools, housing and the cemetery.

“Site details: The site lies to the north of Ixworth village, with the A1088 running along the northern boundary and the A143 along the eastern boundary. The site is currently in arable use and gently rises towards its centre. It is enclosed on all sides by hedgerows, with an established tree belt along its eastern edge. SET Ixworth School and existing residential development lie to the south and west.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier applications covered an A1088 junction and residential access, including permission for an access road serving 77 homes.

“DC/15/0873/FUL Planning Application - Introduction of a right turn ghost island junction on the A1088 to provide vehicular access Refused – appeal allowed 01 October 2015 DC/17/0333/FUL Planning Application - 77no. dwellings with associated access road, emergency access, car parking and landscaping. Application Withdrawn 24 July 2020”

“DC/22/0089/CLE Application for lawful development certificate for existing development - access road to serve residential development comprising 77 no dwellings as per approved planning permission referenced DC/19/1146/FUL Application Withdrawn 14 February 2022 DC/22/0394/CLE Application for lawful development certificate for existing development - right hand turn junction as per approved planning permission reference DC/15/0873/FUL Application Granted 18 August 2022”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the allocated site met most policy requirements, despite the higher housing number, absent masterplan and some residential amenity effects.

“The application is acceptable in principle as the site is allocated for housing in the West Suffolk Local Plan. As set out within the report, the proposals demonstrates compliance with most of the requirements listed within the allocation policy AP30; • a safe and suitable access is proposed off A1088 • sustainable travel provision is achieved through new footpath and cycle links • land to accommodate a primary school and early years setting • provision of informal and…”

“The lack of an adopted comprehensive masterplan does weigh against the scheme in the balance, but this weight is more limited noting that the development is otherwise largely policy compliant in all other respects as set out above. In relation to noise, the sub-optimal level of residential amenity for those affected properties must be noted and also weighs against the scheme in the balance of considerations.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, ecology, landscape, drainage and other consultees generally supported the scheme subject to conditions, while the parish council objected.

“WS Ecology and Landscape Officer (supersedes Places Services) 10.06.2026 No objection subject to conditions to secure the following: • All ecological mitigation carried out • Construction environmental management plans for biodiversity • Protection of breeding birds during construction • Wildlife sensitive lighting design scheme • Biodiversity enhancement strategy • Biodiversity Gain Plan • Habitat management and monitoring plan (HMMP) • Biodiversity net gain monitoring •…”

“WS Landscape Officer (supersedes Places Services) 09.06.2026 No objection subject to conditions to secure the following: - Arboricultural method statement - Tree protection measures - Details of levels and service trenches - Amenity open space provision including landscaping - Soft landscaping - Details of play areas and implementation - Hard landscaping - Landscape and environmental management plan - Woodland management plan…”

Officer report

Objections raised

Objections concerned traffic and safety, infrastructure, flooding, environmental effects, village character, the cemetery, the masterplan and the A143 crossing.

“18.06.2026 Object for the following summarised reasons: • Overdevelopment relative to allocation • No masterplan adopted • Failure to properly reflect the Ixworth neighbourhood plan • Failure to address A143 footbridge requirement • Disproportionate reduction in infrastructure contributions • Cemetery land should extend to the high school boundary and underground infrastructure re-located.”

“09.06.2025 Object for the following summarised reasons: • No masterplan adopted • Overdevelopment relative to allocation • Proposed access arrangements will not operate safely or efficiently • Traffic will be diverted through the village to avoid congestion • Space required for future expansion of the cemetery • Concern that school proposal is only in outline and potential for it to become housing if the school is not built.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Speakers included a community representative, a parish council chair, two councillors speaking against the application, and the applicant’s agent speaking in support.

What members debated

Members debated the housing number, missing masterplan, A143 footbridge and crossing, drainage safety, emergency access and other conditions.

“Considerable debate took place on the application with a number of Members voicing primary concerns in respect of the number of dwellings exceeding the Local Plan allocation for the site. Reservations were also voiced in respect of a comprehensive masterplan not having been agreed for the site as a whole; meaning the proposal did not fully comply with Policy AP30.”

“However, the lack of a masterplan was weighed against the development in the planning balance. Furthermore, Officers had to give regard to other factors such as appeal decisions when reaching a recommendation on applications. Members were reminded of the Queensbury Lodge and Bury West planning appeals where a Planning Inspector ruled in their favour without a masterplan being in place for either.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to approve, including amendments to condition 26, passed with eight votes for and six against.

“Councillor Ian Houlder spoke in support of the application and stated that a deferral would be of no tangible benefit, accordingly he proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer recommendations, inclusive of the identified amendments to the conditions and the additional condition in respect of emergency access arrangements. This was duly seconded by Councillor Roger Dicker.”

“The Chair then sought approval from Councillors Ian Houlder and Roger Dicker, as proposer and seconder of the substantive motion, to include the amendment to condition No 26, which they were content to do.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was approved subject to a Section 106 agreement securing infrastructure contributions and the stated planning conditions.

“Planning permission be APPROVED for the residential development, subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement to secure the Heads of Terms set out below, noting that the Section 106 contribution figures may be subject to change, however, any adjustments would ensure that the contributions remained proportionate and sufficient to deliver the required infrastructure in accordance with policy and statutory tests:”

“Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than three years from the date of this permission. Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and documents, unless otherwise stated.”

Minutes