Land East of Garden Close

I have now written to the council with my response to the outline planning application for up to 53 houses east of Garden Close (17/01445/OUM):

I oppose this development on a number of grounds. The site of this proposed application is not the preferred site of the parish council, nor of local residents.  In general, it is accepted by residents of Sutton that any necessary development in the village should take place to the north, and not to the wetter south of the village where it slopes down to the fen.

Part of the site is included within the current draft of the district council’s Local Plan, with an indicative allocation of up to 25 dwellings.  The application for up to 53 dwellings, on a site that is extended to the north, south, and south-east of the site in the draft Local Plan, is excessive and inappropriate.

The late landowner had envisaged up to 25 environmentally sustainable bungalow homes on the site.  The applicants are proposing a scheme consisting almost totally of two-storey dwellings or above, which would negatively impact on the view and setting of the 14th century church, and would be out of keeping with the surrounding context, which consists almost entirely of bungalows.

The extension of the site to the south and south east involves building on very wet land, where residents in surrounding properties describe ongoing problems with water management.  Drainage is an ongoing issue in this part of the village.  The site sits on the same level as the part of Red Lion Lane where the water from the springs that run along the high street meets the Kimmeridge clay that lies under the topsoil.  Recent building at this level on Red Lion Lane appears to have exacerbated the persistent surface water problems at this location.  It is not clear that the applicants’ proposal adequately deals with known water management and drainage issues.

Meanwhile, the extension of the site to the north creates significant problems for the owner of 10 Oates Lane, who has already responded to this application.  The owner of this site was recently granted consent (17/00765) for the construction of a ‘lifetime home’ on that site, to meet the very special needs of the family which he describes in his submission.  The owner of this site, unlike residents in Garden Close, has not been consulted by the applicant, nor offered the same ‘buffer zone’ between the proposed site and his property as residents in Garden Close have been: indeed, due to an error in the drawing of the boundary, the built edge of the applicants’ proposal sits right on the boundary of his property, with no separation at all.  The owner of 10 Oates Lane has already made a very cogent submission about the problems relating to inaccurate drawing of boundaries, root protection areas for his trees, and the need to avoid overlooking of his family in the very particular circumstances he describes.

The effect on the local wildlife, and on the historic surrounding properties in the village’s conservation area, is also of great significance, as are the traffic issues which this application will exacerbate on the high street in both directions, on the top of Oates Lane, and on Church Lane and Station Road.

I support the view of the parish council that this application should come to the Planning Committee to determine, and that they should refuse it.

2 thoughts on “Land East of Garden Close

  1. Jane Wicks says:

    A very sound and appropriate response.
    It is overdevelopment of a site which is moving down to the flood plain area. There are specific issues regarding wildlife down there and is an inappropriate site for development.

  2. Krys says:

    I agree that water is an issue around lower Lawn Lane, Garden Close. Can I also submit that using land NORTH of Sutton with its access/exit purely by a long-closed old Mepal Road is a disaster waiting to happen. Apparently we ignore the fact that Sutton amenities i.e. good, realistic food retail shops etc sites have been dramatically reduced over last three decades and that school and surgery are under pressure, makes this unsustainable. THINK! It is NOT just about housing, regardless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.