Plans to build 123 new homes in Long Sutton have been rejected.
During a meeting on Wednesday evening (April 2), South Holland District Council’s planning committee rejected a proposal from Brownmoor Developments Ltd to build a residential development on the former butterfly and wildlife park off Little London, writes Local Democracy Reporter James Turner.
The scheme suggested a mix of 64 semi-detached properties, nine terraced homes in groups of three, and 50 detached properties, including 10 bungalows.
A previous plan for 87 homes on the site was approved in May 2012 but never materialised.
Speaking for the applicant, Daniel Sharp from Lincs Design Consultancy insisted the principle of housing on the site was “not up for question” due to the earlier approval.
He said: “This application seeks to develop 123 new homes, 57 of which will be affordable.
“The demand for new housing, particularly affordable housing, is well documented, and the adopted local plan highlights that Long Sutton should contribute 608 homes over the plan period. It is therefore essential that this site comes forward and delivers much-needed housing.”
Mr. Sharp also said the scheme would provide a “significant overdelivery” of affordable homes.
However, councillors criticised the design and density of the proposal. Coun Andrew Tennant (Independent) argued that the earlier plan was more sympathetic to the site’s former use as a wildlife area but still proved unpopular among residents.
“I remember the original application well. I think it’s fair to say it’s one of the most controversial applications I’ve ever dealt with,” he told the committee.
“There is no way this application would have been passed at the time. The only reason the original application for 87 houses was approved was because of the quality of the design.”
He added: “In simple terms, we were sold a thoroughbred racehorse ten years ago for Long Sutton, and now we’re being told a donkey is okay because times have changed.”
Coun Christopher Brewis (Independent) raised concerns about the lack of adequate footpaths, adding: “It strikes me as a completely atypical idea in an unsuitable location without any thought of the dangers so many residents might encounter without proper footpaths.”
Coun Gary Taylor (Conservative) also stressed the importance of pedestrian safety.
“This could have been a very attractive proposal. Of course, people expect this to be developed, but we need quality—quality development but also quality of life—for those living there and for the people who presently live in that area,” he said.
The application was ultimately refused, with 14 votes in favour of rejection and one abstention.
