No sooner had the Inspector rejected the appeal for development in Badger Close than another developer has tossed his hat into the ring (application 14/1303/FUL for Downs Close).
This application involves a site opposite Badger Close, outside the built up area boundary of the village, inside the AONB and even closer to the Pebblebed Heaths. As explained in previous blogs EDDC has a legal duty to protect this European designated site of environmental significance from the impact of future development. In fact the site lies only 100 metres outside the 400 metre total exclusion zone that surrounds the heaths.
Not only that but it involves the destruction of an old mature orchard. This Orchard because of its importance is recognised and recorded via a survey on the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species website. http://www.ptes.org.
The planning inspector rejected the Badger Close appeal largely on the grounds of its impact on the AONB and on sustainability grounds. He concluded that the appeal site did NOT represent a sustainable location for the proposed development. The crunch argument turned on access to the village centre. The Inspector noted that the poor quality of the pedestrian linkages between the appeal site and the village’s main services and facilities represented a serious failing.
The Parish Council and EDDC ward Councillor, Ken Potter, have both made submissions saying they cannot support this application and there are many very eloquent objections from the public. At least one of these is illustrated with site images and EDDC has ensured that these can be viewed online. The question is just how much weight will be given to these objections.
We all know the priority given within the NPPF to favouring sustainable development and the lack of clarity surrounding just what is meant by this woolly term. In this application great emphasis is placed on its sustainable credentials by the incorporation of low flush toilet cisterns, plastic plumbing requiring no solvent based adhesives or solder, low energy light bulbs throughout, high levels of insulation, and locally sourced materials etc.
East Devon Watch 
1. As far as I can tell from the above post, EDDC rejected the application for Badger Close, the developer appealed it, and presumably EDDC then fought the appeal in order to maintain the rejection. Now we have an appeal for the Downs Close application, which presumably EDDC rejected, so it seems to me to be likely that EDDC will fight this appeal in the same way. That doesn’t mean that we (I mean local citizens rather than EDA) shouldn’t keep the pressure on EDDC, however I want to be fair minded about EDDC.
(Note: Just to put this in perspective, I am absolutely livid with EDDC about something local to me, so this is not me toadying to them.)
2. As we should know by now “sustainability” is a catch all for a LOT of factors, all of which should be sustainable for an application to succeed. The LEAST important sustainability criteria are those mentioned in the post above i.e. low flush toilet cisterns. Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:
Schools places (both local primary and not quite so local secondary / 6th form)
Doctors places
NHS Dentists places
Hospital beds
Road capacity (both for building traffic, and for peak commute / school periods) and safety at e.g. busy junctions
Site access (for both building and ongoing)
Water supply capacity
Sewerage capacity
Rain water drainage
Electricity supply capacity
Gas supply capacity
Phone line capacity
Local shops / post office
Parking (both locally and at nearest town centre)
Public transport
Affordable homes for young people and those on low incomes
Loss of good quality agricultural land
Childrens / youth’s recreation facilities
Community event hall for use by clubs, societies etc.
We should check that the local councils (both EDDC and DCC) have got their assessments of all the above correct – we know that in Feniton insufficient regard was given to sewerage, rain water and road capacity, and Susie Bond has recently reported poor assessments on road capacity and safety for a site in Honiton.
If any of the above are not sustainable, then the application should be rejected unless the developers pay for, or at least pay for the majority of, the upgrades needed – which could make the site unprofitable. e.g. if another doctor is needed, they should provide a doctor’s surgery as part of the site. Ditto for local shops etc.
LikeLike