OKEHAMPTON residents have been successful in their campaign to save two large conifer trees due to be felled to make way for a housing development. The Macrocarpia trees grow on a piece of open land between North Street and Northfield Road. Planning permission had been sought to build 32 dwellings on the site. In the planning report for the project, it was claimed the trees were 'not visible from public vantage points' in the town. But a group of residents living in the area contested this — and Northfield Road resident Jim White took a series of photographs from vantage points around Okehampton to demonstrate the trees were prominent features of the town. The residents also launched a postcard campaign in which cards asserting 'I can see the trees and I still want to!' were sent to West Devon planners. A total of 83 postcards were sent to the committee in the course of just one week, along with five emails. Campaign organiser Mr White said it had been 'a fantastic response, bearing in mind the short space of time in which the campaign was mobilised'. On April 3, the planning committee refused permission for the development, on the grounds of a flood risk, inadequate visibility at the entrance to the site, and the importance of the trees to the Okehampton landscape. Ruth White, who was also involved in the campaign, said: 'We were really, really pleased. The fact that they mentioned the trees as one of the reasons to refuse the application really made us feel like we'd made a difference.' Mr White thanked everybody who had taken the time to send a postcard or email the planning committee. But the residents fear the development may yet go ahead, as they have heard that the builders are to appeal against the decision. In the meantime, the residents of Northfield Road and North Street have established a residents' association, holding their first meeting last week. The planning officer dealing with the case, Adrian Noon, said: 'At the committee meeting, the builders implied that they would appeal if the application was refused.' He added that the company had asked for the case to be deferred to allow it to deal with the flooding and access objections — but that it had been decided that even if those technical problems were addressed, the third issue, of the trees, was one where a compromise could not have been reached.