Plans for 56 homes in Long Sutton rejected

Plans to build 56 new homes in Long Sutton have been rejected by South Holland District Council’s Planning Committee, who raised concerns about overdevelopment.

The proposal by developer Strinder Homes (SPV2) Ltd for a housing complex on land at the northern edge of Long Sutton was turned down on Wednesday.
Strinder Homes argued that the site was well-connected to the town, with the school, medical centre, and shops within a short walking distance. They claimed that the development would provide quality housing and contribute to the district’s five-year housing land supply.
However, councillors disagreed, considering the plans to be “overdeveloped.” They expressed worries about increased traffic on nearby roads and the impact on sewage systems.
Despite the initial recommendation for approval by officers, the vote was lost, leading to the refusal based on deviation from the South and East Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Councillor Andrew Woolf said: “Whilst the local plan states 34 houses, the figure of 56 demonstrably exceeds the flexibility given.”
“There’s flexibility and then there’s taking the proverbial and I think it’s worthwhile testing the water.”
Councillor David Ashby also criticised the developers, saying: “They’ve already doubled the first phase, were they to double the second phase our residents wouldn’t suffer it.”
The rejected housing project would have been adjacent to a site recently approved for 70 new dwellings and a residential development off Magpie Close.
Local residents and officials, including MP Sir John Hayes, objected to the application, citing concerns about overdevelopment and potential strain on infrastructure such as schools and healthcare facilities.
MP Sir John Hayes suggested that the proposed development could strain local infrastructure, stating, “We need to ensure that farming land remains in production to keep food prices affordable.”
Following the vote, officers were granted permission to prepare an official reason for refusal, which will be reviewed at a later stage.

Leave a Reply