A documented drainage history
French Furze drainage concerns have appeared in parish records for several years. Records from 2019 discuss runoff and the adequacy of the drainage. The November 2025 Beacon’s account of the 13 October parish meeting describes proposed drainage measures for farmland runoff above the estate and the open drain and area below. These records support examining the whole system and its downstream effects. 2019 parish record; November 2025 record, page 11.
Devon’s investigation of the October 2021 floods records four internally flooded Blackawton properties and identifies surface water as the source. It does not establish that French Furze caused those incidents or verify reports of sewage backing up into homes. Those are separate questions requiring incident-specific evidence. Devon’s flood investigation.
Nick’s meeting account · 7 October 2026
Nick reports that the remedy excludes future development of the uphill field.
A resident involved in the ongoing French Furze and Vistry discussions states that Vistry’s remedial design does not account for future development of the uphill field.
Nick reports that the French Furze remedial works are still awaiting planning approval under Section 73. This reported status has not yet been checked against the official planning register.
According to Nick’s meeting account, Vistry gave June 2027 as its best-case timing for the drainage works and stressed that this was a best-case scenario. It is not a firm commitment, and whether this means starting or completing the works has not been clarified.
The resident reports that Vistry showed a specialist report at the 7 October meeting, described as approximately 130 pages and prepared by Aegaea. The report has not been supplied to or reviewed by this project, and no public copy has been identified in this review.
We are recording the resident’s account. We are not presenting these statements as findings we have read in the report, or suggesting that the remedy excludes existing farmland runoff.
Assess the extra demand, not just the connection.
Residents already follow up the existing remediation through their quarterly meetings with Vistry at the village hall. The questions here are for Acorn and the planning authority: what assessment, additional works and development controls are needed for the proposed new homes?
Existing farmland runoff, water from new roofs and roads, and wastewater from additional households are different demands. The proposed development needs an assessment that distinguishes foul sewage and surface water, identifies their routes and examines any interaction during heavy rain. Devon’s drainage guidance provides the basis for checking surface-water design, rainfall assumptions and maintenance. Devon drainage guidance.
The useful comparison is between three clearly defined situations: the present system; Vistry’s completed remedy without development of the uphill field; and the remedy with the proposed homes and other committed growth. That comparison should quantify additional flows, remaining capacity and the effect on the estate and downstream village.
A proposed connection point answers where a pipe would join the network. Residents also need evidence that the receiving network can accommodate the additional demand. The responsible bodies have different roles; surface-water scrutiny does not replace the sewerage undertaker’s assessment of foul-water infrastructure. Devon’s explanation of flood-risk responsibilities.
What Acorn’s proposal needs to demonstrate
- A transparent baseline. Identify the remedial design Acorn’s assessment relies on and provide the supporting evidence, catchment boundaries and flow assumptions. Show whether the proposed homes’ additional load has been assessed alongside the remedy reported to be awaiting Section 73 approval, and what separate modelling or works the new development requires.
- Capacity through the receiving network. Show the foul-water route, relevant pipes, pumping assets and treatment works. Provide South West Water’s assessment, connection rights and required consents alongside the additional development calculations.
- Performance in difficult conditions. Explain climate allowances, storm durations, groundwater, blockage and overflow routes. Show how the design protects downstream properties when conditions exceed normal operation.
- A workable sequence for the new development. Assess Acorn’s construction phases, connections and occupation against the remedy’s reported pending approval and best-case timing. Explain how each phase would remain acceptable if the remedy is delayed or unfinished, including temporary drainage. Identify the works and verification required before additional loads are introduced, and how the planning authority would secure those controls. Background: Nick’s 7 October meeting account.
- Responsibility for additional infrastructure. Identify ownership, adoption, inspection, maintenance funding and failure response for the assets or upgrades needed to serve Acorn’s proposal.
These are requests for evidence, not a finding that the eventual design cannot work. They follow the published history, the reported remedial scope and the matters addressed in Devon’s drainage guidance.
What residents can help establish
Dated observations, rainfall context, photographs and incident references can help distinguish separate events and identify questions for the specialists. An account should say what was seen, where in general terms and when. It should distinguish observations from assumptions about the cause. Personal details and private correspondence do not need to appear on a public evidence page.
See the questions for the developer · Explore the source documents