Councillors have approved plans for more than 300 homes in Metheringham but deferred another 60 in Washingborough after councillors said they’re “dull” and “lazy”.
At North Kesteven District Council’s planning committee meeting on Tuesday, councillors examined JCO Developments’ proposals for land east of Sleaford Road and west of Dunston Road and HICHSS Homes’ Plans for land off Canterbury Drive.
Officers said the principle of both developments was “acceptable”.
The Metheringham development included 329 homes as well as new access points from both roads, new internal streets and new sustainable drainage infrastructure.
More than 60 residents have written to the council in response to the plans, including 52 letters of objection and seven in support.
Those objecting to the plans said there had been a lack of consultation, that number of new homes is more than what was proposed in the area’s local plan and that there would be a large increase in traffic.
Officers said the council had undertaken “proportionate and reasonable” consultation, especially prior to the pandemic. They added the location was a “logical place” to meet housing need.
James Wrigley, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said the proposal would be a “real asset” to the village.
“This is not just a standard housing scheme, considerable care and attention has been spent in looking at what this site can bring to the village and the type of place we want to create,” he said.
A statement from objector John Walker, however, said more was needed to be done regarding local flooding and drainage, saying the build would only “exacerbate” the problem.
The Washingborough Site already had outline permission as part of a wider 185-home plan for the area, however, councillors were not impressed by the designs.
The proposals would see 15 Canterbury Drive demolished in order to create access from the road.
15 of the homes would be classed as affordable and the plans include 0.19 hectares of public open space, including a play area.
The council had received 28 letters of objection to the plans, with concerns including the density and scale of the development, the loss of privacy, the impact on flooding and drainage and the impact on the local road network.
Ward councillor Ian Carrington said the plans were “dull” and “lazy”. “It’s not rooted,” he said.
“It could have been ambitious, it could have been locally distinctive, but what we’ve got is an anywhere suburb.”
Councillor Mary Green said the homes were reminiscent of the 30s/40s and said it was a “great shame when an opportunity had presented itself to make a mark worthy of presenting itself for the 21st century”.
Other objectors raised concerns over the safety of Canterbury Drive saying the road was a narrow, blind bend used by busses, HGVs and other heavy vehicles.
Agent Lewis Smith, speaking on behalf of the applicant said: “We have carefully considered the impact on existing trees, hedges and ecology.
“The proposed means of access is acceptable.”
He said the proposals would “serve to present a distinctive design to the character of the area”.
“The proposal before the committee is policy compliant in all respects and there are no constraints on the site preventing the development from coming forward.”
Councillors hoped the applicants would work with them to improve the designs.