Efford eco housing scheme thrown out

Bats and badgers relieved

Planners in Plymouth have put nature first and thrown out a controversial scheme for homes which they say would destroy one of the city’s wildlife habitats and limited green spaces.

Councillors rejected proposals for the eco, contemporary homes for land at Petersfield Close, Efford, which were supported by planning officers on the basis of an outline planning permission granted 64 years ago.

The four, three and four-storey homes include green roofs, sustainable drainage systems, renewable energy, solar panels and EV charging points on site, but Plymouth City Council’s planning committee wasn’t willing to accept the loss of this “oasis” among a heavily built-up area and had concerns over road safety.

Councillors were told that despite the passing of decades, the permission to develop homes at Petersfield Close was still relevant as work had already started with eight of the 34 homes built there some years ago.

If consent was denied now for the new greener homes, the ‘extant’ permission could still be used.

Cllr Dylan Tippetts (Lab, Compton) reminded the committee that the principle of developing the site was given at a time when England hadn’t even won the World Cup , biodiversity had not even been thought about and highways laws had changed.

“In the 1970s roads like the one at Petersfield Close, which is very steep, were no longer allowed to be built,” he said

He asked councillors to heed the objections that had been raised by the highways department because of the road layout and access,  as well as the concerns of the natural infrastructure team who said 80 per cent of the wildlife habitat would be lost, and the urban design team which didn’t like the height or layout, nor the domination of 13 car parking spaces.

“In the past two and half years, there have been seven planning applications related to this site. I think that speaks volumes of the impact on the local community that they have campaigned against all of these,” said Cllr Tippetts. “We know that these houses are not required in order for us to meet our five year housing target in the joint local plan. Let’s put biodiversity first.. and let’s vote down this application.”

A petition of 77 names and 50 letters of objection were submitted to the council and 56 letters in support.

Local resident Mrs Rowland said among the wildlife that visited the site were bats and badgers: “The absence of land management has resulted in the creation of a biodiverse, sensitive habitat which holds significant value to the community and creates a natural stepping stone in what is a heavily populated residential area,” she said.

“Over the years, our natural spaces have been infilled with development minimalising local green space. Of course much has been a much publicised outcry following the city centre tree loss [Armada Way] and we feel that little attention has been given to the disappearing green spaces within our local areas.”

But town planner Murray Ross, representing the applicant, Mr A Cottenham, said that more than 50 per cent of the letters to the council support the scheme. Those comments included the low carbon nature of the homes, low impact of the design, infill and good access to services.

He said the proposal was to retain woodland strips along the boundaries of the site and the homes had “a bespoke” design that was appropriate to the woodland setting and steepness of the site so they would not over-dominate.

“This is a valuable opportunity to provide an improved scheme over the 1960s’ design,” he said.

He said concerns over access had been addressed through a previous appeal about a neighbouring property, and no bat routes had been identified in the ecological report neither had a badger sett, which was in an adjacent area.

He said there would be a 45 per cent increase in biodiversity than that of the existing scheme and scrubland would be retained.

Cllr Rebecca Smith (Con, Plymstock Radford) liked the design and appreciated what the applicant had done to try and make it fit within the woodland setting.

Cllr Ian Tuffin (Lab, St Peter and the Waterfront) said he would refuse the application solely on safety grounds, as the junction with Eggbuckland Road was “so dangerous” and with up to 20 extra cars from the development “we would be failing in our duty to ignore the danger to the public,” he said.

Cllr Patrick Nicholson (Ind, Plympton St Mary) opposed the scheme, saying the committee should be “prepared to step up and fight for its communities”.

Chair of the planning committee Cllr Bill Stevens (Lab, Devonport) said: “I don’t like being a prisoner of history here, the applicants have had since 1964 to build this development. That’s an awfully long time, think what has happened in Plymouth since then. This ain’t going to happen. I am really concerned by having our hands tied by something that is not even a theorical possibility.”