A decision on a 44-home development stretching into Elmswell’s countryside will be made by Mid Suffolk District Council on Wednesday.

The council’s planning committee will consider potential economic benefits of the development on the land east of Warren Lane against concerns such as risk to residents’ safety when walking to nearby services and the impact on the countryside.

The planning statement on behalf of applicants JD and RJ Baker Farms Ltd states: “Elmswell is a highly sustainable location, with an array of amenities and services.

“New residents of the proposed development will benefit from high quality, sustainable transport provision, providing them with access to a range of job opportunities as well as facilities.”

It also refers to the fact the site gained planning permission for 38 homes in 2018.

However, the officers’ report into the application explains this permission has expired. Unlike the previous application, the new, larger 2.9-hectare proposal extends into the countryside and closer to a quarry.

A statement by Elmswell Parish Council reads: “The village has enough houses to satisfy all reasonably anticipated demand – 738 and counting.

“For an extra six houses we are asked to allow the development boundary that was maintained in the 2018 application to be breached, clearly opening the door to further expansion to the east.

“If members decide that the benefits to Elmswell outweigh the incursion into our countryside, then we have to ask them to explain: where will the loss of our countryside stop?”

The 18 online comments on the planning application are all objections, with increases to traffic and the lack of housing need cited across many of them.

The housing land supply in the village is enough to meet expected need for more than 10 years, without developing the proposed site.

Another issue concerns residents accessing a nearby takeaway and café at the south of the development, as the route is not considered safe for pedestrians.

Although the county council’s highways department considers this not to be grounds for refusal because there are “alternative and more significant” facilities to the north of the site, the report shows more concern.

Officers state: “The employment opportunities and services available to future residents would be within walking distance and the power of their attraction is likely to lead to residents attempting to make those journeys by foot.

“Members are entitled to consider that to be an unacceptable situation contrary to local and national planning policy.

“The applicant has been made aware of these concerns but no proposal has been put forward to deal with them.”

The economic benefits to the area during construction and from trade with residents is mentioned in the report, alongside the money developers will provide for local facilities.

The developers’ commitments through the community infrastructure levy (CIL) would be £82,032 for new early years provision, £42,175 for secondary school transport and £37,400 towards a new path between Elmswell and Woolpit.

Affordable homes and bungalows would be included in the development. The exact numbers of different housing types would be included in a later application.