A traveller plot, comprising a mobile home, tourer, stable block, and day room, has been approved for a village field – despite the plan raising a number of ‘red flags’.
South Holland District Council’s planning committee granted formal approval for the plot on the second field south of The Stables on Baulkin’s Drove, Sutton St James, at a meeting last Wednesday (Jan 8), writes Local Democracy Reporter James Turner.
Officers highlighted that a previous application for a nearby field had been declined due to flood risk concerns. However, the Planning Inspectorate overturned the decision on appeal, finding no significant risk.
The newly-approved site is also situated in Flood Zone 3, a high-risk area with a one in 100 or greater annual chance of flooding from rivers. Despite this, officers maintained that the actual hazard in this location was minimal.
A letter from agent Alexandra Patrick, read out during the meeting, emphasised that there were several traveller sites within the village. It also highlighted that an immediate family member of the applicant resides nearby, enabling them to live as a family unit.
Coun Chris Brewis criticised the site, describing it as “one of the most unsustainable locations in the district”. He added: “I’m most certainly minded to vote against it.”
Coun Andrew Woolf echoed these concerns, pointing out “red flags going right the way through” the application, including objections from the Environment Agency and the ward councillor.
“The only reason this is here is because this could then go to appeal and get passed. If it does, it’s out of our hands,” he said.
Similarly, Coun Jack Tyrell raised concerns about the proposed use of a septic tank, arguing that the main sewer is too far from the site to allow for a connection.
“Putting a septic tank in just won’t work,” he added.
Despite the objections, Coun Henry Bingham proposed approving the plans, subject to conditions, including that the site can only be occupied by gypsies or travellers.
The motion was seconded by Coun Paul Redgate. The vote was carried, with ten councillors in favour and four against.
