PLANS to build 18 new homes on the edge of a village have been turned down following concerns.

Mixbrow Construction sought permission from Babergh District Council yesterday morning to build the homes, 12 of which would affordable, on land east of Capel Road, in Bentley, near Ipswich.

The bid was brought forward as a rural exception site, typically small developments for affordable housing for people with a local connection.

However, planning officers questioned whether those local people would be the ones to benefit from the scheme as no legal agreement had been reached ensure they did.

This was reflected in objections submitted by 14 residents as well as Bentley Parish Council, which raised further concerns over flooding, overdevelopment and road safety.

The site, a former commercial fruit farm, was subject to a bid for 24 homes in 2023 which was refused.

Benjamin Norton, a chartered town planner, probed the development's viability further in a representation to the council.

An assessment submitted by the applicant suggested the development would result in 1.16 of profit, far from the Government's guidelines of between 15 and 20 per cent.

Mr Norton said: "This weakens the weight to be attached to the claimed affordable housing benefit, as it casts doubt on deliverability."

The assessment also underestimated the financial contributions the developer would have to pay both the county and district councils by close to £100,00.

The money would be used to deliver education, school transport and library services.

Babergh councillors were split on how to handle the application with an initial vote to approve the plans, contrary to the officer's recommendation of refusal, falling with two votes for and six against.

A proposal to defer the plans to allow for extra viability information was voted down as well with three votes for and five against.

Ultimately, councillors decided to go with the officer's recommendation and refused the plans with six votes for and two against.

The refusal was on the grounds of a lack of evidence over local need and viability, a badly designed layout, lacking of mitigation to cover pressures on protected areas, and impacts to local services.