A golf club near Hadleigh has failed in a bid to build five houses near its course after a casting vote was used to refuse the application.

Hintlesham Golf Club had wanted to demolish a greenskeepers building and erect a new one and also build five new houses, but Babergh planning committee today rejected the application.

The vote was split five for and five against, so chairman Stephen Plumb used his casting vote to turn to support the officer's recommendation to refuse.

Ward member Dave Busby had supported the golf clubs application, but Hintlesham parish council objected, along with the neighbouring Hintlesham Hall hotel.

Alan Connell, the owner of the golf club told planning committee members today that they took over the club 16 years ago when it had less than 200 members and virtually no public facilities.

He described how the cub was now a viable and inclusive facility available to all, with villagers enjoying free social membership, and boasting 600 golf members and 300 social members.

"We are more than just a golf club," said Mr Connell. "We cater for all types of leisure occasions and we are an integral part of Hintlesham.

"Our range of facilities match any gold club in Suffolk, many of which are privately owned member clubs that impose restriction of access by the general public, which is not the case at Hintlesham."

Mt Connell went on to say that while profitable, due to the economic conditions the cub had not been able to build sufficient capital over the past five years to maintain the required level of expenditure

He added: "Despite spending nearly £1m over the past 15 years by reinvesting profits and borrowing, we currently have a backlog in required capital expenditure, the most significant being replacing the gamekeeper and storage building which is falling down.

"We need a lump sum to clear the backlog, hence the reason for this enabling application.

"We took pre-application advice but we are however, shocked at lack of understanding and empathy shown to us in this process and the comments in the paper."

He argued the application was worthy and would not harm any heritage aspects and added: "We need to embrace the future and not live in the past."

The club agreed it would provide land for a tree nursery to plant 100,000 trees and help look after the wood but not take responsibility for it.

A spokesman for Hintlesham Hall argued while the funding from the sale of and for housing would benefit the maintainance and improvements of the gold club it and added: "The applicant has failed to demonstrate ,, which is on undeveloped land in the countryside."

Although the full application of the erection of a greenkeeper's building was considered acceptable and it is well located and designed to harmonise with the surroundings, the housing element was not deemed to be accord with Babergh's policies and the national guidance.

Councillors were told the site has poor pedestrian access to the limited services in the village. In addition, the scheme is harmful to heritage assets as already detailed.

The applicant put forward an "enabling" argument to justify that element of the scheme, including a small area of footpath at the access to the Hall, a considerable distance from the site, and the planting of trees.

The officer's recommendation pointed out that not only does the proposal cause harm in regard to sustainability being a countryside location, but it also causes a moderate level of less than substantial harm to the adjacent heritage assets, which include the Grade I Hintlesham Hall, Grade II* stables, former coach house and brewhouse, as well as the undesignated parkland, which the site is located in.

The public benefits of the scheme were not considered to outweigh the overriding harm caused to the heritage assets.