PROTESTERS armed with placards gathered outside West Devon Borough Council offices in Tavistock on Tuesday, in a last-ditch attempt to thwart controversial plans for more than 100 homes on a greenfield site on the edge of town. The application from Trand UK to build 110 residential units — 58 of which would be dedicated to affordable housing — with associated access, servicing, parking, open space, allotments, allotment building, play space and associated infrastructure at Butcher Park Hill was supported by Tavistock Town Council — but called before the borough council's planning committee by borough and town councillor Mandy Ewings because she felt the public had a right to have their say. The site already has planning permission for 52 holiday chalets and associated infrastructure, granted in 2010. At the meeting, Maggie Stokes spoke on behalf of the objectors. She stressed their concerns that the development would be on a greenfield site, it would increase traffic congestion in the town and to approve it would set a precedent. She said: 'For the previous application for the chalets, the planning inspector stated that dwellings would not be appropriate here. 'Other plans will provide sufficient affordable housing, the sewerage is already inadequate in this area, there is no adequate ecological assessment and we are concerned about the proposed pavement width — two adults cannot pass on that width — how are people going to cope with mobility scooters and pushchairs?' She added that the proposed crossing was 'alarming', the visibility for traffic was poor, the scheme would destroy the dark sky on top of the hill for miles and she highlighted that the development would significantly intensify the volume of traffic through Bedford Square. The agent for the applicants, Mark Scoot, addressed some of the concerns raised. He said there was only a two percent difference in the width of the footpath from the footpath agreed in the chalet application and that the proposal did not go any closer to the trees than the former application. He added that without the rail contribution, the applicants had agreed to all other contributions and said there was 'no doubt that there is a chronic need for affordable housing in Tavistock and West Devon'. Cllr Jeff Moody, ward member for Tavistock North, said: 'I received many emails from concerned residents about his application. I recall the site had two previous applications for holiday units which were both refused by West Devon Borough Council and it was only after the appeal showed a need for the tourism industry that it was allowed. 'At the time, the council leader Philip Sanders was quoted to say that it would be a desecration of the gateway to the World Heritage Site — so what's changed? It is still a greenfield site that is unacceptable for capital development.' The meeting heard that when the application was put before Tavistock Town Council's planning committee, only three committee members were present to make the decision at the time. Cllr Terry Pearce said: 'There are so many aspects to go against approving this. I am very disturbed and shocked that only three town councillors approved this to represent the council as a whole. 'The representation we got from the town council was that they fully supported it, but from today, it seems that wasn't the case. 'The big thing about this application is that it is against every policy we have got. 'The town council has gone against policy to approve it and we are supposed to be working together. This is blowing a hole in everything.' Cllr Pearce said he had concerns about highway safety, the reduction in footpath width and the increased traffic. 'I think we have no option but to refuse it', he added. 'I see the need for favouring affordable housing but we cannot let this override our policies. This should not have even come to this committee in the first place.' Planning officers recommended the application be refused, due to the development being considered contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the WDBC Core Strategy and the borough's Local Plan. The report stated it would have been an isolated development within the rural landscape failing to 'harmonise' with the existing patterns of development near to its location. The site was identified as possessing the potentially suitable habitats for protected species, and there was an absence of a section 106 or similar agreement to secure the provision of contribution towards drainage works, open space, education, provision of a bus service and contribution towards the provision of a rail extension. A fifth reason for refusal was added at the start of the meeting, that no up-to-date tree survey had been carried out and so the effect the development would have in time on the mature trees in the site was unknown. The application received 86 letters of representation, all of which were objections. The application was unanimously refused by the councillors.