D-DAY is looming for a decision which could shape the future de - velopment and growth of Chard, ending a 13-month wait.

Residents say they have been on “tenterhooks” waiting for a final decision on whether two developments can go ahead, re - sulting in a 460-home extension to the north of the town.

Developer Mactaggart and Mickel wants to build a floodlit, full-sized football pitch, unlit full-sized training and mini- pitches, multi use clubhouse, spectator facilities and parking alongside 350 homes on land east of Mount Hindrance Farm.

David Wilson Homes wants to add up to 110 homes on adjoin - ing land east of Crimchard.

The plans were refused by South Somerset District Council in 2013. However, the decision was appealed against and a pub - lic inquiry was launched.

A detailed four-day inquiry was held in the Guildhall last May, but a decision has been de - layed, resulting in a lengthy wait for concerned residents.

The proposed developments fall outside of the desired area of growth for Chard, as outlined by the Local Plan, which was cemented in place after the in - quiry had taken place.

While the Local Plan and its associated five-year housing land supply should work against the developers’ desires, local res - idents still remain wary of the impact the decision could have.

The News understands that the Planning Inspectorate is due to issue a decision on or before June 3 - and not before time ac - cording to Alan Quantrell, who set up the Mount Hindrance Ac - tion Group to combat the hous - ing plans.

Mr Quantrell said: “We have been on tenterhooks, it’s been quite horrible, and we have been given no reason as to why it has been put back and put back.

“I wouldn’t say we are confi - dent in any way, but I would like to think that given that South Somerset District Council has a fully fledged Local Plan with a five year housing land sup - ply which has been endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate, that could be in our favour.

“Even at the time of the plan - ning appeal there was no rub - ber-stamped local plan, but now it has been and it should secure the future of Chard and the de - velopment in the right area.

“If approved, it would have a serious negative effect on the town. It would divert resources away from the planned growth area to the east, with none of the benefits that the proposed de - velopers are offering and could jeopardise the Chard East devel - opment.”

Mactaggart & Mickel says that the proposal compliments and supports the delivery of Chard’s regeneration. The development, it says, will “quickly release Chard from an extended period of development stagnation”