Scheme for new homes in Seaton are thrown out by district planners
- Credit: Archant
Applicant Duncan Rawlings proposed the build of two homes, extended shared access, and parking on a site located within the grounds of Pembroke House, in Beer Road.
An application to build new homes in Seaton has been refused by district planners.
Applicant Duncan Rawlings proposed the build of two homes on a site located within the grounds of Pembroke House, in Beer Road.
The plans also proposed an extended shared access and new parking areas.
The application said: “The dwellings will be set into the landscape so as to minimise their visual impact weithin the context of Seaton and surrounding area.
You may also want to watch:
“A good quality contemporary design will ensure that the character of the local environment is not adversely affected whilst a series of srood terraces and balconies will offer residents fantastic views over the coastline from both inside and out.”
However, district planners have refused the plans on the basis that the development would have an adverse impact on the ‘undeveloped character and appearance’ of the site.
- 1 Sad passing of Seaton Bowling Club President
- 2 Honiton's new town clerk 'will try to make a difference'
- 3 'It’s amazing how much you take for granted and how much we have to be grateful for'
- 4 'Follow the spirit of the lockdown restrictions'
- 5 Hospiscare charity will hold virtual recruitment fair
- 6 £40,000 to support local groups hit hard by Covid-19 crisis
- 7 Westpoint one of two news venues to be used for vaccine roll out
- 8 Runners take on 1,000km challenge in memory of Evelyn Tratt
- 9 Holocaust Memorial Day to be marked in virtual ceremony
- 10 Quite a year for a Honiton auctioneers Chilcotts
A notice outlining the council’s reason for refusal said: “The application site falls outside the built up area boundary for Seaton and is therefore within the open countryside where residential development is strictly controlled, unless explicitly permitted by another Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy.
“There is no such policy support and as such, the proposal would result in sprawling development outside of the built up area boundary adversely impacting on the undeveloped character and appearance of the site... it is not considered that there are material circumstances to outweight the adverse impacts of residential development in this location.”
The notice also said ‘inadequate information’ was submitted to demonstrate that trees of ‘amenity value’ on the site would not be ‘adversely impacted or adequately protected’ from the development.
It added: “It is not possible to conclude that the proposal would not result in harm both to the trees them,sevles and by extension to the character and appearance of the wiser area.”
The application is the second to be submitted to build on the site in the last two years - proposals submitted in October 2015 to build three homes were also thrown out by district planners.