A Dartmouth man is objecting to a development of eight flats by behind his property at King’s Quay. He has put together a comprehensive set of objections along with photographs.

The developer London & Western Holdings PLC in the design and access statement said: “The aim of this application is to provide eight new high quality homes in the centre of Dartmouth, one of the ‘main towns’ in the South Hams. The proposed apartment block will be attractive, functional and of good design that offers a contemporary interpretation of some of the features that make Dartmouth’s built environment so distinctive. In particular, the town centre is characterised by buildings of ‘vertical’ orientation with a variety of shapes and sizes sitting next to each other, resulting in varied elevations and rooflines that reflect the town’s long history. Secondly, the steeply sloping hillsides that Dartmouth has been built upon over the years result in a ‘layering’ of buildings when viewed from below. Rooftops and sections of buildings are openly visible as being above one another. Finally, materials throughout the town are also very varied, including slate tile, painted render and stone, brickwork and natural stone. The design of the proposed building reflects these three distinctive aspects of its location. The front façade is made up of ‘vertical’ forms of different materials. The top floor is set back from the boundary and features a variety of roof forms that reflect the Dartmouth hillsides.”

John Sparks said of the plans for the development next to Mayors Avenue: “It is clearly stated in the South Hams planning document that developments should not result in a significant loss of daylight or sunlight to habitable rooms of neighbouring properties, such as kitchens, living rooms or bedrooms. Loss of outlook also needs to be taken into consideration for properties surrounding the site. The development will have an unduly oppressive effect on the living environment for the properties around the site as they are already virtually surrounded by previous planning follies. Allowing this development will completely envelop from view some of the original cottages that have occupied the site for 150 years.

In a number of e-mails he objected to a loss of sunlight, a “general dominating effect” by the new development. He also flagged up problems with the pumping station itself.

He highlighted that the development would be on reclaimed land, half of which was the original Dartmouth quay wall which could raise some archaeological interest during the construction process.

Mr Sparks said: “The ancient sewage system in the area will need to be investigated in respect to being able to cope with the additional load of eight apartments. Currently SWW are being called out to deal with sewage problems in the area on a regular basis as the flow into the main line in Mayors Avenue is not coping. This problem is very evident when the town’s population is increased during holiday periods. This was evidenced during the Christmas and New Year period just passed as two callouts were attended to in Kings Quay and Mayors Avenue.”

He went on to say: “It is common knowledge that the ground will have been heavily contaminated in previous times during the production of town gas. The proposal has a survey based on old reports and an extensive survey will be required to gain a clean bill of health. TRANSCO have apparently investigated the site prior to its sale in 2016, although the results have not been made public it would seem they are reflected in the sale price of £250,000.”

There is concern that during excavation the disturbance of the contaminated ground may release toxic materials and gases into the air that could a serious hazard to local residents.”

The asbestos roof on the existing structure will require environmentally safe removal.

We are extremely concerned that this proposal will appear out of harmony with this part of historic Dartmouth. It is too high and will result in loss of light and privacy on nearby existing properties.

The drainage and environmental issues represent significant problems that will need careful consideration as to appropriate resolution.

In the architects design statement the proposal omits to mention any early history of the site prior to it being a gasworks,

Mr Sparks added: “The existing gas governor is being replaced. The whole site where this work is going on has been declared as contaminated land due to the existence of a coal to gas plant which was positioned on the site previously There should have been a contaminated land assessment before the gas governor was replaced.”

A number of other objections to the development have been received.

Cllr Hilary Bastone, Executive Member for Development Management for South Hams District Council, said: “The application in question at the property in Dartmouth (Ref: 4488/21/FUL) is still currently under consideration. Therefore, we cannot comment at this time, so we do not predetermine the outcome of the decision.

“However, the process of altering utility connections is not a matter for the Council; it is between the developer and the utility managers. Our only involvement is determining the outcome of the planning application.”