Plans for 17 Newton Pop homes rejected
- Credit: Archant
PLANS to build 17 homes in Newton Poppleford have been rejected after it was deemed some new occupiers would be at risk of flooding.
Proposals to demolish existing buildings at Waterleat House and Milestone, in High Street, were also turned down over the proposed layout of dwellings, the effect the development would have on neighbours and a lack of ‘affordable’ units.
Applicant Mr Julian Henchley had submitted blueprints for a mix of three and four-bedroom houses and parking for 26 cars at the site.
Seven members of the public objected to the scheme – expressing flooding, traffic and access fears.
They also voiced worries that such a development would put a strain on resources at nearby primary schools and Sidmouth College.
You may also want to watch:
The project also failed to win the support of Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council and district council ward members.
The site, which is comprised of two adjacent properties, and sits in the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
- 1 How Devon are you? Take our quiz
- 2 Thousands of washed up fish provide easy pickings for fishermen and gulls
- 3 Concerns expressed over latest plans for Sidford Business Park
- 4 Dan's retail vision provides timely food for thought
- 5 Storms and stormy weather... past, present, and future
- 6 Sidmouth woman's legal hearing over Covid deaths in care homes adjourned
- 7 'Going out on a high' - food festival chairman hands over the reins after this year's successful event
- 8 'Dream team' shed more light on plans for Connaught's Christmas illuminations
- 9 New owner sought for prominent Sidmouth seafront businesses
- 10 Supermarket chain planning four new stores in East Devon
Proposals were refused planning permission by East Devon District Council (EDDC) officers under delegated powers.
In a report justifying the decision, an officer says: “Although residential development of the site may be acceptable, this scheme fails to achieve an acceptable layout, would result in a loss of amenity of the neighbours, would fail to provide sufficient affordable housing and would place occupiers of some of the dwellings at risk of flooding.”