Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan 2025 Online Version and Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 275

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

Proposing 445 new dwellings plus the current 192 overwhelms this rural village. It doesn't meet NPPF Criteria for Sustainable Development:
#8.a– not the right place. Potential flood risk
#8.b/#109– Unsafe walking/cycling routes to hub facilities/schools. Inadequate public transport.
#8.c/#187#192 – protected species: Cirl Buntings, Greater & Lesser Horseshoe Bats, valued landscape
#11.a – lack of infrastructure: no mains drainage
#11.b7– irreplaceable habitats. Farmland becomes unviable
#77– lack of infrastructure and ‘green’ transport modes
#77.d/#127 – land owners not willing to develop or sell, so non deliverable.
#109– all dwellings require cars
#116– adverse impact on highway safety
#170- Flood risk

Object

Representation ID: 276

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The shop at Maidencombe Cross closed in 1995 through lack of viability. The property owner is not open to providing a shop.
It would be unsafe for residents walking or cycling along Teignmouth Road to access the facility.
The Stokeinteignhead Village shop closed and became a Community Shop; its viability is a challenge.

Object

Representation ID: 1030

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The proposed development is opposed because it would increase flood risk to Stokeinteignhead, provide unsafe walking and cycling routes, lack adequate public transport, generate heavy traffic on narrow lanes and threaten the viability of existing farmland.

Object

Representation ID: 1031

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The 120‑dwelling scheme at Sladnor Park is objected to due to added impermeable surface causing flood risk, its location within protected coastal and bird‑habitat zones, unsafe traffic conditions, lack of a second emergency access route and non‑compliance with the net‑zero waste‑water policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1032

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The 150‑dwelling proposal north of Sladnor Park is opposed because of flood risk, unsafe walking and cycling connections, traffic on narrow lanes and the potential loss of farm viability.

Support

Representation ID: 1033

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The conversion of Brunel Manor and the addition of ten extra dwellings are supported, noting that the existing 35‑dwelling application has already been approved.

Comment

Representation ID: 1034

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

It is recommended that the Great Hill development be limited to 30 homes rather than 130, citing the narrow Claddon Lane, possible flood risk and insufficient drainage infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 1035

Received: 20/01/2026

Respondent: Maidencombe Residents' Association (Statutory / General Consultation Body)

The proposed neighbourhood centre at Maidencombe Cross is opposed because the shop closed in 1995 due to lack of viability, the owner is unwilling to provide a shop, and access would be unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists.