Nearly 200 homes under consideration at trio of sites

Almost 200 homes could be approved in East Devon next week as planners debate a trio of sites.

The biggest application that East Devon District Council’s planning committee will consider at its next meeting (Tuesday 12 May) is in Ottery St Mary, where a scheme of up to 140 homes has been proposed.
Hundreds of comments have been submitted against the proposal on land adjacent to Gerway Nurseries, with a total of 588 officially lodged on the council’s website.
Beyond navigating that scheme, East Devon planners will be weighing up a plan for 35 homes on land west of Barn Lane in Budleigh Salterton and up to another 15 properties on land east of Burscombe Lane in Sidford.
Planning officers are recommending approval of all three proposals, each with their own set of conditions, including the need to sign a Section 106 agreement that helps secure funding for local infrastructure and facilities.
This positive stance is against either the ward member or local town or parish council for the respective areas, suggesting the debate over whether to approve the schemes could be fierce.
East Devon, like some other councils nationally, is lagging behind in terms of its five-year housing land supply. All councils need to be able to demonstrate that a certain number of homes can be delivered in their area within that timeframe, based on government metrics that assess housing need in the area.
Where councils cannot demonstrate this, then the so-called ‘tilted balance’ is activated, which essentially puts the onus on planning committees to approve schemes unless they can evidence that doing so would have negative consequences.
The bulk of opponents to the Ottery scheme, submitted by Landra Developments, focus on traffic, waste water capacity, the impact on the landscape and pressure on local services.
Some claim it is outside the area where development is allowed, and others suggest Ottery has already surpassed its housing target.
A report prepared for the planning committee states that some objectors believe the development is “unnecessary”.
“Ottery has already provided a larger number of new houses than required, with its original target of 497 new homes from 2010 already surpassed, with 594 having been built by 2023,” the report states in summing up some of the objections.
But, in spite of the apparent strength of local feeling, none of the so-called statutory consultees – official organisations that are asked about planning applications – have objected.
Those include South West Water, Devon County Council’s highways department, and the Environment Agency.
Councillor Vicky Johns (Independent, Ottery St Mary), the ward member for the town, said: “The land is Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land, which should be protected not built over, as once built over the land is lost for good.”
She added the proposed development could only be accessed via Sidmouth Road, which is an “unclassified route already subject to excessive traffic volumes, speeding, congestion, and highway safety issues, particularly at Tip Hill, Longdogs Lane and Winters Lane”.
Cllr Johns also highlighted fears about the capacity of local wastewater treatment works, which she dubbed as “already operating at or above capacity”.
With the 35 homes proposed in Budleigh, 34 objectors have commented on the plans, with one in support.
Again there are claims the development is in the open countryside and would affect good quality agricultural land.
Budleigh Salterton Town Council said while its members recognised “the urgent need for affordable housing in the local area” as well as the attention given to drainage, those aspects are “far outweighed” by the feeling the proposal does not chime with various plans that are supposed to manage development in the area.
“This site has been allocated for development under Strategic Policy SD08 of the East Devon Emerging Local Plan, which states that ‘site development will need to come forward with provision of safe footpath access to the Budleigh primary school’,” the town council said. 
“Members did not see evidence of this in the application and were concerned that this development does not include a viable, safe route for residents to walk into the town.
“The developer provides details of the town and its services in their design statement, outlining the distances from the development to various amenities. However, there has been no provision made for safe pedestrian access to the town.”
With the Sidford proposal, 40 objections have been received, and both Conservative members for the area have reservations.
“Access to this site via Burscombe Lane is extremely restricted as the lane is very narrow allowing only single car access with no continuous pavement for the numerous hikers who walk up to Core Hill woods,” Councillor Stuart Hughes said.
“Currently the lane has very little traffic and there are substantial stone walls belonging to private dwellings which does not allow for any widening of the road. There would therefore be insufficient access for machines and personnel for this development.”
His counterpart, Councillor Mike Goodman echoed the concerns, adding: “This [lane] is often used for pedestrians and could be deemed unsafe.
“Having reviewed the site it is unlikely that passing lanes can be installed or widening implemented, as stone walls will restrict changes,” he said.
“The junction at Burscombe Lane and Sidford High Street is a very busy county primary route of the A3052, which sees in excess of 20,000 traffic movements a day. The junction does not give good availability to traffic movements.”
East Devon’s planning committee is set to consider the three schemes on Tuesday 12 May.