A major redevelopment plan that could reshape a prominent town centre site is edging closer to a decision, with councillors set to weigh up a scheme that has already sparked strong local opposition.
Plans have been submitted to redevelop the former Jewson site at Torbay Trading Estate, New Road, replacing the existing commercial building with a four to five storey block of flats.
The proposal, submitted by McCarthy Contracting & Development Ltd, would see the demolition of the current structure and the construction of 23 two-bedroom flats, alongside parking, access and landscaping works.
Planning officers have recommended the scheme for approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement, with a final decision expected to be made by Torbay Council’s planning committee.
The application was validated on Thursday, January 15, with a decision originally due by Thursday, April 16, before being extended to Friday, May 1.
The development would create a residential building reaching up to five storeys at its highest point, with 23 flats and 12 parking spaces.
The site currently houses a large industrial unit used as a car garage and is described as being in a relatively poor condition, having been altered over time from its original art deco design.
The scheme has attracted dozens of objections from residents, many focused on the height and scale of the proposed building.
Susan Furminger said the five-storey design would be “not in keeping with the local area” and described it as “overbearing” and an “overdevelopment”, adding it would lead to loss of light and privacy for neighbouring homes.
She also raised concerns about parking and traffic, saying additional vehicles would “compound parking problems” on nearby roads and increase risks for pedestrians on New Road.
Similar concerns were echoed by Michael Furminger, who said the building would be “too high, overbearing and out of character” and warned it could negatively impact views across the town, including towards All Saints Church.
Joan Arr said the extra storey compared to previously approved plans would “dominate nearby properties” and result in overshadowing and reduced privacy.
Jason Hill also objected, stating the development would “not fit with a picturesque fishing village” and could increase traffic, noise and pollution in the area.
Craig Flack described the scheme as an “unsightly monstrosity” that would tower over neighbouring homes, while Phillipa Sclater said the additional height could lead to a loss of light and privacy and potentially affect property values.
Several residents, including Joanne Sampson, raised concerns about balconies and windows overlooking nearby homes, while others questioned whether 12 parking spaces would be sufficient for 23 flats.
Wayne Saunders, who lives next to the site, said he was concerned about the impact on a boundary wall, potential noise, overlooking from balconies and increased pressure on drainage systems.
Concerns were also raised about road safety and pedestrian access along New Road.
Paul Barnett, in a neutral response, suggested that if approved, the development should include new pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures, funded by the developer.
He said crossing the road had become “dangerous” due to increased traffic and limited crossing points.
Some representations also questioned access arrangements via the neighbouring industrial estate and whether agreements were in place, as well as potential legal issues such as party wall agreements.
Planning officers note the site is allocated for housing in the local neighbourhood plan, although specifically for around 20 affordable homes rather than open market units.
Despite this, an independent viability assessment concluded the scheme cannot provide affordable housing due to financial constraints.
Council planners have highlighted a wider issue, pointing to a “very pressing need” for housing in Brixham and limited opportunities for expansion beyond constrained land.
Technical consultees have raised issues including flood risk, drainage and highway access, though no objections have been made subject to conditions.
A final decision will now rest with councillors at an upcoming planning committee meeting on April 27.
