Plans for nine homes in Crowland have been refused, but only after councillors were split on the decision.
Seagate Homes wants to build nine ‘executive’ homes off Postland Road, but officers recommended South Holland District Council’s Planning Committee refuse the application on the basis it was outside the boundary of the town and on a flood risk site.
David Laidler of Seagate Homes claimed that 400 homes outside of Crowland on similar flood planes had been passed: “The settlement boundary runs along the western edge of the site,” he told the committee. “It’s bounded by existing development.
“It doesn’t extend into countryside and functions more as an in fill site.
“The proposal represents a modest and well contained development.”
Several councillors agreed with the developer, Coun Jack Tyrrell proposing it be approved and arguing the land would be built on eventually but with more homes.
Coun Andrew Tennant argued that the seven four bedroom and two five bedroom properties were of quality that hadn’t recently been built in Crowland.
“It’s important for a town to have a variety of homes,” he said. “Whenever this red line was drawn, things change and when you look at the map, it’s hard to believe it’s outside the developments as its surrounded by developments.”
Others disagreed with Coun Allan Beal saying: “If we were to permit this we’d be pushing the boundary and one could see other sites coming up quickly for development and it would weaken our appeal on any development that the red line is sacrosanct.”
“If we are to grant this we’re setting a precedent,” added Coun Chris Brewis. “The boundary is there for a reason.
“We’d be in the most dangerous position if we make up things and alter the boundaries in this committee which we’ve set before.
“The fact this is such a flood risk is really important.”
Those who proposed it be accepted were then asked to come up with ‘robust reasons’ to accept the application by the chair James Avery, but after around 20 minutes of discussions he felt they were unable to provide substantial enough reasons.
He proposed refusal again with the vote being split 3-3 with three abstentions, which gave the chair the casting vote.
“I like the design and I like the variety this application offers but I fully support the officer’s recommendation to refuse,” he said. “If we overrule the integrity we’re driving a coach and horses through our local policy and plan.”
