Resubmitted village housing scheme passed in face of resident backlash

Concerns about proposals for 31 homes in an East Devon village haven’t been enough to prevent the scheme being approved by planners.

Concerns about proposals for 31 homes in an East Devon village haven’t been enough to prevent the scheme being approved by planners.
Residents and local councillors criticised the plans for including too many homes, and also raised fears about flooding.
East Devon District Council’s planning committee had deferred a decision on an earlier version of the scheme last year, stating there were too many properties proposed.
While the developer, Strongvox, has reduced the number of homes from 34 to 31, objectors felt this insufficient.
However, for a meeting this week, the council’s planning officers recommended the application be approved, with some conditions.
Resident Patricia Donnithorne said she was “disappointed” to be back at the council to object to the “slightly revised” scheme.
“A reduction of just three houses has been made, which I feel suggests the developer has not taken into account the spirit of the main recommendation [from the previous deferral] and has also not taken the opportunity to include a children’s play area,” she said.
Ms Donnithorne suggested the average density of neighbouring and nearby developments was, on average, 10.6 dwellings per hectare (dph), but that this scheme on land south of Windmill Lane was 23 dph.
“That’s a considerable difference,” she added.
“Thirty-one houses is quite out of proportion with the bordering green field and open countryside in the village.”
Elaine Cook, another resident, said she and many others were concerned that Windmill Lane is not suitable for the development.
She said that while some photographs in the application made the access look acceptable, the “true reflection is that there is a blind bend and total inadequacy of the lane to take the additional traffic”.
Ms Cook urged the council to ensure a construction management plan is agreed before planning permission be given, and requested it deal with issues such how noise, dust and waste would be managed, and where workers would park.
Worries about flooding were aired by several objectors, with some stating that heavy rain had led to some trees adjacent to the site being damaged and even falling.
Cllr Jess Bailey (Independent, West Hill and Aylesbeare), whose ward includes West Hill, said while the developer had made suggestions about how it would deal with surface water, one of these was the installation of a 220-metre sewage pipe.
“There is no information on this and it isn’t clear if it is even deliverable,” Cllr Bailey said.
“East Devon District Council cannot say that this is the responsibility of another authority, we cannot close our eyes to the fact this sewer is not deliverable and just accept what the applicant says.
Planning officer Gareth Stephenson acknowledged the pipe would have to go into a neighbouring field, which is set to be developed by another company. He said there would likely need to be collaboration between the two firms, but the fact the pipe went beyond the boundary of the development “shouldn’t represent an issue”.
Resident Guy Peters raised issues with the waste water treatment plant at nearby Fluxton, which he felt had been “historically oversupplied”.
“It cannot cope with extra properties and it will only increase raw sewage into the River Otter and then the sea,” he said.
He added that any so-called Grampian conditions, which oblige upgrade works before homes are either completed or occupied, should “ensure South West Water will upgrade Fluxton before planning is given”.
Max Rafferty-White, the agent for the applicant, said the design team at his firm had “completely revisited the proposals and made significant changes” since the application was deferred last year.
“We have reduced the overall number of dwellings from 34 down to 31, and kept the 35 per cent of on-site affordable homes and the additional 15 per cent off-site contribution,” he said.
“Also, the average square foot of the dwellings has been reduced from 1,520 sq ft to 1,440 sq ft, and we have reduced the amount of adoptable road by 105 metres, and increased garden sizes for the properties.”
Mr Rafferty-White added that bird and bat boxes would be added to all homes, and that they would all have “some form” of solar panels.
Objectors noted the pressure the council was under to meet government housing targets, and acknowledged this site should be developed, but felt the number of homes proposed is still too many.
The planning committee voted overwhelmingly to support the scheme, with just one member voting against it.