The Voice of Spalding and South Holland
A proposed development of 86 homes was recommended to be built 1.5 metres above the existing ground level to counter the risk of them flooding.
And South Holland District Council’s planning committee has been told to expect many more similar recommendations by the Environment Agency in the future.
At a meeting on August 31, some members had reservations about the eventual look of the proposed homes between Long Sutton and Gedney. The outline plan, which was rejected following an hour-long discussion, was submitted by R Wilkinson and relates to land close to the junction of Gedney Road and Dockings Holt.
Coun Peter Coupland (Fleet) said: “Eighty-six homes on the the edge of a small town five feet in the air. I think you’ve got to put that in your mind and think exactly what that’s going to look like.
“This is one of the highest to come before us.”
He queried whether the EA recommendation had to be followed. Officers replied that whilst approval by the council at a lower height was possible, it would be a risk to go against the statutory body’s advice.
Legal advisor to the committee, Angela Simmonds, added: “This is quite a new situation. I think it is one you are going to be faced with in the future simply because of the changes the Environment Agency are making.
“You are going to have more and more applications coming forward at 1.5, maybe, two metres.
“The problem you are going to have as a committee is that, if you refused on these grounds, then a planning inspector is going to say that the Environment Agency has offered a solution, by raising the floor levels, which the developer can carry out.”
Gedney would have seen an increase of more than nine per cent in its housing stock if the plan had gone ahead. The parish council did not object to the plan but did not welcome the loss of prime agricultural land and wanted stipulations from outside agencies “rigorously adhered to”.
District council planning committee chairman Coun Roger Gambba-Jones said: “The truth of it is that, properly done, why couldn’t you make this site acceptable? There are plenty of locations where you see an area of development or a village which appears to sit on a little hill.
“If they choose to put that on a block with a load of walled abutment around it because that’s the cheapest way they do it and make it look as ugly as possible then, well, we’ve got no choice on that but I think we’d be fairly brave to say ‘no, Environment Agency, we don’t think you know what you’re talking about’.”
He added: “We’re not against development and we’re not against seeing more houses but we think there are better places. And it’s very likely, given all the challenges on this site, that [a detailed application] will come forward, in my opinion.”
Members voted in favour of refusing the application on the grounds that, on a sequential test, there were more suitable locations in the vicinity and that it would harm the character of the surrounding area.
