A controversial plan for five new homes in a Sudbury garden have been refused amid overdevelopment concerns. 

The terraced homes were planned for part of the land associated with 12 Clarence Road, which sits on the corner of Stanley Road. 

In documents submitted to Babergh District Council in February, the developer said each home would have three floors with one bedroom and a bathroom on the second floor, a lounge and study on the first floor and a kitchen/diner on the ground floor. 

Each home would also have a parking space as well as grass and patio space to the back.

The plans were met with criticism, with 30 public comments of objection lodged on the council website, many of which were from neighbours.

Residents described the plan as "overcrowding" while some raised concerns over noise and overlooking. 

One said: "The proposed development will significantly alter the character of the neighbourhood, crowding the area and obstructing views to the water meadows, which are cherished by residents.

"The plan does not adequately address the significant and multifaceted implications for our community and the local ecosystem." 

Another wrote: "The existing road system surrounding the proposed site is already hazardous and congested, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times.

"Vehicles, including buses, are often forced onto pavements due to insufficient road space, posing a severe risk to pedestrians, especially children.

"The addition of five more dwellings will exacerbate this congestion, increasing the likelihood of accidents and endangering lives." 

A planning document read: "The proposed houses are located set back from the existing house to limit overlooking to/from the existing house and the neighbouring house along Clarence Road."

On Wednesday, Babergh District Council refused the plan stating that the application failed to demonstrate that five homes could be accommodated without appearing "cramped and overdeveloped". 

The council said the plan would cause "unacceptable detriment to the character and appearance of the area" and raised issues with loss of privacy and "adverse visual bulk effects".