Plans for 42 new homes in Lympstone,  including some affordable housing, has been rejected by planners.

Concerns about additional traffic on roads serving the new houses – Strawberry Hill and Meeting Lane – were a key concerns of East Devon District Council’s planning committee’s reluctance to approve the development.

Plans for 42 new homes in Lympstone,  including some affordable housing, has been rejected by planners.
The scheme by 3 West, based in nearby Woodbury,  would have been split into two areas, with five larger homes accessed from one point and the other 37 from another.
Concerns about additional traffic on roads serving the new houses – Strawberry Hill and Meeting Lane – were a key concerns of East Devon District Council’s planning committee’s reluctance to approve the development.
Some councillors believed that separating the larger, more expensive homes from the others meant richer home buyers would essentially be segregated.
Some objectors stated that the scheme would only offer 14 affordable homes – 35 per cent of the total – even though planning policy dictates that half of such a site should be deemed affordable.
However, the developer had pledged to contribute nearly £300,000 to help pay for affordable housing elsewhere in the district, thus bringing its notional contribution up to half of its Lympstone scheme.
Opponents who attended the meeting raised fears about flooding, the capability of the sewage system to take on more waste, and that the site is outside the specified boundary for development in Lympstone.
“Using the sustainability argument for the site is disingenuous as most people commute by car,” resident Jane Moffat told the committee.
“We did a survey recently and it showed the train in the village didn’t go to the destinations people needed it too, and that it was too expensive, with bus travel being viewed in the same way.”
Ms Moffat added that the plan was for a coastal preservation area, and that the community did not have the infrastructure to accept 42 more new homes – “including a functioning sewerage system”.
Resident John Brewer, a civil engineer, said he was part of the Lympstone flood resilience group and that blocked gullies and drains on Meeting Lane were a constant issue.
“We categorise the road as a hotspot in terms of this issue, and this proposal will direct surface water to the drainage point on Meeting Lane,” he said.
“The pipe is already susceptible to blockages and the lane prone to flooding.”
Another resident of the nearby Gulliford Close, on the southern boundary of the proposed site, feared a loss of privacy.
“It was clear the developer was doing a survey of the land in 2022, but first approached the community in early 2023 with a development plan, and that hasn’t changed in spite of condemnation of it by residents surrounding its layout and the entrances,” the resident said.
Lympstone parish councillor Susan Francis said while the scheme “might tick a few of East Devon’s boxes, it doesn’t ours. It should be refused as it fails to respect the character of the village,” she said, adding that the proposed Strawberry Hill entranced would be “dangerous and unnecessary”.
“Two Meeting Lane entrances would be better, and designing it as two closes would be more cohesive, as this one creates clear areas of difference.”
David Matthews, 3 West’s director of operations, said his firm would look to deliver the houses “in haste” if it was approved, thanking the council’s officers for their support with the plans.
“We have agreed with officers that 35 per cent affordable housing on-site is acceptable, with a mix of rental properties and shared ownership,” he said.
“That has been endorsed by the affordable housing officer, as we will provide £292,000 for more affordable housing in the locality and district.
“Fourteen on-site units is notable and should not be overlooked as the council has been suffering from under delivery; building these would help it reduce its housing waiting list.”
He added the scheme would bring roughly £800,000 in community infrastructure levy payments, a quarter of which is paid to the parish council, while he expected it to create 120 permanent and temporary local jobs across his firm and local sub-contractors.
After a lengthy debate about the most robust policies by which they scheme should be refused, the committee settled on a range encompassing the scheme’s design, location and layout, as well as a lack of pedestrian access, concerns about the impact on mature trees on the site and the lack of social cohesion.
Nine members voted to reject the scheme, with two councillors in favour and one abstaining.