Victory for Elmswell residents over plans for care village

Residents have won a victory against a developer who planned to create a care village in Elmswell.

It comes following an inquiry at the Blackbourne Community Centre back in September into the scheme by Christchurch Land & Estates (Elmswell South) Ltd who initially had their plans for the project turned down by Mid Suffolk District Council.

However, they appealed against the ruling by the council prompting the hearing which was led by Hayley Butcher, the inspector appointed by the Secretary of State.

They wanted to build the care village (pictured above) which featured 66 homes along with a further 36 bungalows and four almshouses on a large swathe of land to the north and west of School Road butting up against the railway line and the new development off Parnell Road and School Road reaching as far south as St John’s Church.

It would have also featured a management office, club house, community growing area, an orchard and community bee hives.

But the inspector said the appeal by Christchurch was “dismissed” after the hearing which was attended by a number of villagers opposed to the development.

She said that the development would have led to “less than substantial harm” to the setting of the iconic and designated heritage assets; the three Grade II listed church of St John, the almshouses and Elmswell Hall.

“The views of the church can most readily be appreciated from the northern corner of School Road, Parnell Lane which is a tree lined lane that leads to Elmswell Hall, and the footpath along the northern edge of the appeal site,” she said.

“The development of the site would sit in the foreground of these views and would obscure, impede, distract and/or diminish the landmark quality of the church as seen from here.

“It would also result in a significant loss of the agricultural setting of the church, almshouses, and Elmswell Hall.

“The development’s siting in between Elmswell Hall, and the church and almshouses, would, furthermore, impede the clear intervisibility which currently exists between these three heritage assets, in spite of the fact that the development would sit at a lower level in the landscape.

“Overall, therefore, the development would markedly reduce the ability to appreciate the architectural and historic significance of these three designated heritage assets as experienced through their setting.”

And she added: “I have found that the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of three designated heritage assets through harm to their setting, and that this harm is not outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

“This provides a strong reason for refusing the development.”