Planning appeal decision
Land North of Barking Road, Needham Market, IP6 8EZ
Planning appeal 3308189 at Land North of Barking Road, Needham Market, IP6 8EZ (Mid Suffolk District Council) was dismissed on 31 March 2023 by Inspector Jordan A, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether the proposal is in an appropriate location having regard to the impacts of flood risk and whether future occupiers would be safe from the impacts of flooding.
Outline planning application for the erection of up to 279 no. dwellings (both private & affordable) with associated access, onsite parking provision and open space
- Authority
- Mid Suffolk District Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Jordan A
- Postcode
- IP6 8EZ
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal is in an appropriate location having regard to the impacts of flood risk and whether future occupiers would be safe from the impacts of flooding
- Whether the proposal would have an acceptable impact on highway safety
- Whether occupants of the proposed development would have reasonable access to local employment, shops and services and whether the proposal makes appropriate provision for travel by sustainable transport modes
- Whether future residents would enjoy acceptable levels of residential amenity, having regard to the proximity of Needham Market Football Club
- The effects of the proposal on landscape character and the appearance of the surrounding area
What decided it
The proposal's failure to pass the flood risk Sequential Test (and by extension the Exception Test), given the site access lay within Flood Zone 3 with no flood modelling undertaken, was determinative on its own.
Moderate weight in favour from housing delivery, affordable housing, economic and ecological benefits, and limited weight from mitigation-related benefits (CIL, open space, education), did not outweigh harms from failed flood risk tests, highway safety, residential amenity impacts, landscape/character harm and agricultural land loss, so the proposal conflicted with the development plan as a whole and was dismissed.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy H7Policy CS5Policy NM7Policy CL2Policy GP1Policy CS4Policy NM2Policy CS6Policy NM6Policy T10Policy T11Policy T12Policy RT12Policy CL11Policy CL8Policy H17Policy MP10Policy CS1Policy CS2
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 130Paragraph 174
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Mid Suffolk District Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023
- Dismissed8 September 20266010228Land East of 52 Exeter Road, Claydon, Ipswich, IP6 0BP
- Allowed5 August 20266007731Hall Cottage, Stowmarket Road, Ringshall, IP14 2HZ
- Dismissed16 June 20266006315Orchard House, Cocks Road, Eye, IP23 7NT
- Dismissed12 June 20266004520Land at Flordon Road, Creeting St Mary, IP6 8NJ
- Notice upheld12 March 20263357418Vale Farm The Common, Metfield, Harleston, IP20 0LP
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®