A controversial plan to build a house in a >>> part of Hadleigh has again been knocked back.

A + A Properties failed in their appeal against the decision by Babergh to refuse permission to build a house on land next to 13 Meadow's Way in the town.

Secretary of State planning inspector Hayley Butcher visited the site last month and came to the conclusion that Babergh were right to refuse planning permission.

Ms Butcher addressed the main issues which included:a

• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Hadleigh Conservation Area, and the effect on the settings of nearby listed buildings;
• The effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of 13 Meadows Way having particular regard to matters of light;
• The effect of the development on parking and highway safety, and;
• The effect of the development on the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA & Ramsar site.

Objectors, included residents in Meadow Way including the owners of number 13 that run a successful beauty salon, Hadleigh Society, and Hadleigh Town Council and the chair of Visit Hadleigh.

S&A Properties argued the the new house would not have a detrimental effect on the area, would be good use of brownfield site and the benefits would outweigh any harm.

Agent Steve de Lara-Bell said in a letter to the inspector: "This is a modest proposal which would integrate comfortably with the site and immediate locality, with clear benefits which outweigh the harms which (notwithstanding the robust reasoning underpinning the appellants statement of case) are unsubstantiated, academic and flawed."

The inspector concluded she found no harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the Hadleigh Conservation Area or the settings of nearby listed buildings, or any in respect of living conditions of occupiers of 13 Meadows Way or highway safety.

But she refused the appeal on other grounds and said: "I am unable to satisfy myself that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar site. For this reason alone, the appeal must be dismissed."