Village homes plan rejected

By Contributor in Planning

Plans to build up to nine homes on the site of a garden nursery on the outskirts of Stoke Gabriel have been rejected by councillors.

The proposals for the site at Four Cross on the Paignton Road were condemned for being outside the village’s development boundary and too far away from the village itself.

Stoke Gabriel’s parish councillors rejected the proposals on road safety grounds, pointing out there had been four serious accidents in a single month last year on that stretch of Paignton Road.

And planning officers warned district councillors: “With respect to the social dimension, the proposal cannot guarantee safe and suitable access into the village of Stoke Gabriel and notwithstanding this officers are concerned that the walking distances to necessary services and facilities go beyond what could be considered reasonable.”

The planning application was turned down by South Hams District Council’s development management committee after it was told the site was not identified in the local plan for development and was within an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Planning officers said the site was so far away from the village a new footpath would be needed to link the two up – and there was no guarantees it would be built.

The report to councillors said: “Without any guarantee that the footway on the neighbouring site will come forward, officers do not consider that the development will provide safe and suitable access to the village of Stoke Gabriel, rendering the proposal, as a consequence, unsustainable.”

The parish council also pointed out that Stoke Gabriel had already recently had a 43 new homes built at Rowes Meadow, with another site in Paignton Road recently approved for 53 new houses with a further application for 10 homes in Coombe Shute also given the go ahead.

The parish council said: “As the recent Stoke Gabriel parish housing needs survey shows, there is a need for low-cost/affordable housing which this application would not meet as it would not be affordable in perpetuity.”

Add Comment

Add Your Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment

By posting your comment you agree to our T & C