Plans to build 103 homes on a South London green belt site have sparked a wave of objections, with one resident branding the proposal 'simply foolish' and another describing it as a 'land grab'. Despite promises of more than 50 affordable homes, residents and local campaigners argue the proposals would place further strain on an already congested area and have a 'devastating and irreversible effect' on local biodiversity.
Proposal Details
The outline planning application would see the homes built on the current Wallington Nurseries site on Woodmansterne Lane at Sutton's border with Purley in neighbouring Croydon. The site sits within Sutton Council's designated green belt land, intended to prevent urban sprawl from Greater London. The plans, submitted to Sutton Council by land promoter Lansdown, propose demolishing part of the existing nursery buildings to make way for up to 103 homes, with all details reserved for later approval apart from vehicular and pedestrian access. The development includes 52 affordable homes: 45 for affordable rent and seven for shared ownership.
Developer's Justification
In its application, Lansdown argues that the site qualifies as previously developed 'grey belt' land, pointing to the existing nursery on the site. It says that redeveloping the land for housing would represent a more efficient use, helping to ease Sutton's ongoing housing shortage, with nearly 3,000 households currently on the borough's waiting list. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted with the application concludes that the development would result in only moderate, highly localised harm to the green belt. It also notes that 43% of the site is already developed or covered by hardstanding on the nursery site, and that the proposals would increase the built footprint area by just 4%. Despite introducing potentially hundreds of new residents to the area, Lansdown also claims the proposals would reduce daily vehicle trips compared with the site's current commercial use.
Resident Concerns
Local residents argue that these conclusions fail to reflect the existing congestion in the area. In her formal objection letter, Sutton resident Sarah Hornshaw warned the narrow road leading to the site was already struggling to cope with traffic. 'That area of Sutton already struggles with minimal public transport provision, forcing many to drive or walk along narrow country lanes,' she said. 'Additional housing development will inevitably lead to a significant increase in vehicles using the lane, creating further congestion and increasing the risk of accidents, particularly near local schools where children's safety is already a major concern.' Anna Jazdziewska feared this increased traffic along Woodmansterne Lane would 'inevitably create long periods of noise, dust, dirt, and heavy construction traffic'. She also raised concerns about the strain on local infrastructure, arguing there are already insufficient GP appointments and school places in the vicinity. 'Adding over 100 new homes without corresponding investment in healthcare, education, and community facilities will place unacceptable pressure on existing residents and services,' she said.
Environmental Impact
Fellow objector Duncan Woodhead agreed, saying: 'Local amenities are failing in this area. The creation of more impervious run-off in place of field and garden, when the problem with localised flooding and the wider climate crisis means we're at a tipping point, is simply foolish.' Eliot Carroll, a Green Party member in Wallington South, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) how he believed the application represented a 'green belt land grab'. While acknowledging the scale of Sutton's housing crisis, he added: 'There are plenty of brownfield sites that can be used and we should sustainably revitalise these sites and deliver genuinely affordable housing options, not speculative permission opening up more green belt land to be built on.'
Next Steps
Residents are encouraged to submit their comments to the planning application by May 29. The application can be found on Sutton's website, and will then be decided by Sutton's planning committee later in the year. Lansdown were approached for comment.
