Village Development Plan Approved by EDDC Strategic Planning Committee

The long-suffering residents of Farringdon and Woodbury Salterton are now one step closer from being a little more confidant with their fears of further growth from the Industrial Business Parks on their doorsteps from Hill Barton and Greendale Business Parks.

These 2 business parks have been growing at a considerable rate over the last 20 years which has provided important business opportunities and employment. However, it has been felt that further growth would be inappropriate in the open countryside some distance away from any major towns.

East Devon Local Plan proposals in the Local Plan approved in 2016 supported planned commercial growth would be at Cranbrook and areas close to Exeter together with other major towns in the district.

However there has been a number of challenges made to these policies with a number of Planning Inspectors hearings and High Court cases to these particular policies.

It was always known that the Local Plan would be challenged for development at these Business Parks and some villages. Therefore, the Local Authority proposed an additional planning document known as the “Villages Development Plan” which is an additional planning document drawn up by the Strategic Planning Department at East Devon which will provide further guidance and clarity to the largest villages in the district and the two business parks.

Finally, after 3 years of deliberation and public consultations, East Devon`s Strategic Planning Committee meeting this week, agreed to recommend to the East Devon`s Full Council meeting on the 25th of July that the “Villages Plan” be adopted.

The Villages Plan has been through several rounds of public consultation and the plan text has been refined to reflect the comments made.

Then followed a Planning Inspectors hearing plus an examination and recently returned by the Planning Inspector with an agreed approval following further changes and amendments.

The result of the Strategic Planning Committees approval and recommendation to the next Full Council meeting to adopt the new policy document will provide clarity and guidance on planning matters to the Villages and to the two Business Parks.

In the case of the Business Parks new planning policies are to be adopted.

Policy VP04 and VP05 which include a map that shows the extent of authorised uses at the Business Parks. Beyond the “Employment Area” shown on the map, any further planning applications will be considered to be in the “open countryside” and will be subject to stringent countryside protection policies.

It is therefore hoped by the rural villages of Farringdon and Woodbury Salterton that this endorsement of restricting further expansion at these Business Parks will provide clarity and certainty for the community for many years.

Air pollution: move children and other vulnerable people out of Sidford?

Owl says:

Can you imagine the damage to the health of vulnerable people (including children) on current and future levels if roadside pollution if Sidford and in the AONB if Business Park goes ahead?

“Air pollution harms one in three children

One in three children in Britain is growing up with air pollution damaging their health, a study has found. About 4.5 million children, including 1.6 million aged five and under, live in areas with levels of particulate matter above what the World Health Organisation considers safe, according to the charity Unicef UK. Separate research has found that children are exposed to 30 per cent more pollution than adults when walking on busy roads because they are shorter than adults and nearer the exhaust pipes of vehicles, the environmental charity Global Action Plan, which commissioned the study, said.”

Source: Times p7, Sky News Online, Independent Online, Mail p34, Mirror p21, Guardian p22, Telegraph p7

Sidford Business Park: “Nothing has changed’ highways outlines objection to business park proposals”

Owl says:

A test of whether EDDC develops or plans on the cards here. New Leader new times or new leader, old times?

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/06/18/sidford-business-park-a-grubby-history/

“Highway bosses have submitted fresh opposition to a new proposed business park at Sidford as ‘nothing has changed since the last time’.

Councillor Stuart Hughes, head of highways for Devon County Council, spoke exclusively to the Herald saying the department specifically objected to the distribution element of the application.

A change of use is being sought for the agricultural site, in Two Bridges Road, to provide 8,445sqm of employment floorspace.

The plan has received 102 letters of objection ahead of the deadline today (June 15) for comments.

Councillor Hughes posted on Facebook that the council would be submitting its objections and said the news would be welcomed by residents in Sidford and Sidbury.

He said: “Nothing has changed from the last time. The distribution element was a concern last time because it would bring big lorries through narrow streets in Sidford and Sidbury.

“They are very narrow and just aren’t big enough for this sort of traffic. It is the wrong site for a business park, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

Resident Jackie Green said highway’s focus on the distribution element could ‘play straight into the developers hands’.

She said: “Any down-playing of the impact of the rest of the plan, two thirds of the development, risks making it easier for the application to be approved. Worse, if the B8 [class for distribution] is deleted, it would leave a space for even more B1 buildings (office and light industrial), which require more dedicated parking spaces than B8.

“This emphasis in the Highways objection will not ‘be welcomed by all local Sidford and Sidbury residents’, as Stuart Hughes claims, nor by any other users of the Sidford-Sidbury road. The plan as a whole is wrong, not just bits of it.”

The plans state the applicants aim to create 250 jobs and have addressed concerns raised when a scheme for a larger business park were submitted in 2016.

District council ward member David Barrett said he must remain impartial as he is a member of EDDC’s development management committee, which may be involved in making a final decision about the application.

EDDC will make the final decision about the plans.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/nothing-has-changed-devon-county-council-submits-opposition-against-sidford-business-park-1-5570042

Sidford Business Park – a grubby history

Tim Ford, once a much-respected plumbing and electrical contactor in Sidmouth, is renewing his controversial application to build a business park in the AONB at Sidford. (18/1094/MOUT)

Incredulous locals wonder how it was possible for a council to allocate an ‘employment site’ in its local development plan that is on a flood plain, is a rich wildlife habitat, and whose main access would be a narrow street where two lorries can’t pass without mounting the pavement!

For the dominant Tory group on East Devon District Council it was easy!

First, they let landowners and developers decide where to build. In 2007 they asked East Devon Business Forum how much employment land the district would need over the next 25 years. EDBF was a lobby group which included the Carters of Greendale, the Stuarts of Hill Barton and Tim Ford of Sidmouth. Their answer was predictable: lots and lots!

Second, they put Chair of EDBF, Cllr Graham (‘I ain’t doin’ it for peanuts!’) Brown:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/12/17/the-disgraced-ex-eddc-tory-councillor-graham-brown-if-i-cant-get-planning-nobody-will-scandal-refuses-to-die/

in charge of quietly asking landowners where they would like to build. Apparently, the proposal for a Sidford business park was first mooted at one of these confidential meetings in July 2010.

Third, in 2011 they elected Paul Diviani, founder member of EDBF, as leader. Under him the District Council became what many saw as a ‘Development Corporation’, the planning system became less about protecting the environment and more about encouraging building.

Fourth, they didn’t listen to the public or community groups whom they ignored or misrepresented. Sidmouth Chamber of commerce said the business park would be catastrophic for local businesses, Council minutes recorded the Chamber as supporting it!

Fifth, they whipped their large political majority to vote through the Sidford allocation. When hostile public reaction worried them just before the 2015 council elections they voted to ‘remove it’ from the Local Plan. Universal Rejoicing! But in 2016 the Inspector kept it in the Plan. Why? Because East Devon’s chief planning officer had not been instructed to give the Inspector reasons for the council’s change of mind!

Former EDDC Leader Diviani is now EDDC’s representative on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan. In its confidential meetings he is helping to oversee a gigantic overspill project along the A3052 in the west end of the District where hundreds of acres of land are being earmarked for a massive expansion of business parks and thousands of new houses.

Indeed one such expansion was announced only this weekend near Cranbrook, where the developer is quoted as saying:

“The first, ‘Scenario 1’ is a response to existing market demand with the provision of a single large unit of around one million square feet (92,9000 sq.m.).

‘Scenario 2’ would see the site offer a multi-unit option, providing a range of sizes and configurations informed by ongoing market need.”

http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/huge-distribution-centre-near-cranbrook-is-given-the-nod-by-planners-1-5564832

Which all makes the wretched Sidford application even less necessary!

Would you choose immediate A-road and motorway access to Exeter and the M5 or access down a country road where two medium-size vehicles cannot pass?

No to Sidford Business Park update 2

From:
nosidfordbusinesspark@yahoo.co.uk

Campaign update no. 2

We are now able to provide the link to Marianne Rixson’s powerpoint presentation – .

http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.com/2018/06/sidford-business-park-how-to-comment-on.html

At the public meeting we raffled an unframed painting of the proposed business park site, showing how it is today. Thank you to everyone who bought raffle tickets. It helped raise much needed funds for the campaign. The winning raffle ticket number was 61. If that ticket was yours then please contact us and we will arrange for you to receive the painting.

So many of you who attended the meeting were generous and we were able to raise the magnificent sum of £523.17 towards the campaign’s costs! Whilst this is very helpful, it may be that we have to ask for further donations, particularly if we need to undertake a professional traffic survey to submit to East Devon District Council as part of its consideration of the planning application.

A number of you offered to get involved with the Steering Group. Unfortunately, we won’t be able to contact you until early next week. It’s not because we don’t want your help; but rather there just isn’t enough time to do this over the weekend!

Someone at the public meeting left behind a pair of black framed spectacles! If they are yours then contact us and we will reunite you with them!

Please show your opposition to the planning application by displaying a poster in your window. We have attached two versions of a poster. One is in colour and one is black and white. Please print one (or more) and display it. If you can, please also print one (or more) and offer it to a friend or neighbour.

The campaign now has a Twitter account – SayNOtoSidfordBusiness Park. If you are on Twitter please follow this and retweet its tweets. This is another way that we can reach the widest possible audience.

We understand that not everyone uses email, Facebook or Twitter and so one of the early discussions that the Steering Group will need to have is how best to engage with people locally who use none of these mediums. Already one suggestion has been to get up a petition and to go directly door to door obtaining signatures. Watch this space!

If you want to look at the full details of the planning application for the business park this link will take you directly to it – https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage

“Say NO to Sidford Business Park” campaign gets off toflying start

From:
nosidfordbusinesspark@yahoo.co.uk

Campaign update no. 1

“Welcome to emails from the Say NO to Sidford Business Park campaign. If you don’t wish to receive these emails then please respond saying so and your details will be deleted from the mailing list.

Thank you to the 150 concerned people who attended the campaign’s public meeting on Tuesday evening. Now we have updated the campaign mailing list you will now receive information about the campaign, its activities and what is happening with the planning application.

If you are on Facebook please go to the campaign’s page – Say NO to Sidford Business Park – which you can find by typing that into the search bar in your Facebook page. Please follow the campaign page, like the page, invite your Facebook friends to like the page and share the postings that are on the page. You might even decide to post your own thoughts and to share photos and videos of the traffic difficulties in and around Sidford and Sidbury. Those photos can also be sent to this email account.

For those of you on Twitter; watch out as the campaign’s new Twitter account is about to hit social media! We will let you have its details shortly.

It was pleasing to see that today’s Sidmouth Herald, which had a reporter at the meeting on Tuesday evening, has placed its report of the meeting on page 5, and there is also a related letter on page 18. This link takes you to the Herald’s story as posted on Twitter today:

The campaign needs to maintain public interest and so please consider drafting a letter about your concerns about the business park and sending them to the Herald. Ideally, any letters seeking publication should be sent by the Tuesday of the week of publication. The Herald’s letter’s page email address is sidmouth.letters@archant.co.uk or they can be posted to Sidmouth Herald, Newbery House, Fair Oak Close, Exeter Business Park, Exeter EX5 2UL.

If you would like a copy of Marianne Rixson’s illuminating powerpoint presentation that she gave at the meeting let us know and it will be emailed to you. We would point out that it is a large document, but you are most welcome to receive it nonetheless.

A reminder that your objections to the business park planning application have to be received by next Friday, 15 June. The key information regarding that is –

WRITE TO: Planning Central, East Devon District Council, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL or
email: PlanningCentral@eastdevon.gov.uk

QUOTE PLANNING REFERENCE: 18/1094/MOUT: Outline Application for the development of Employment Facilities on Land Adjacent to Two Bridges, Two Bridges Road Sidford

Please do not copy/paste comments from others, as identical responses do not count! If you have a personal story, or photos to back up what you say, then please include them.

ENSURE THAT YOU INCLUDE THESE MAIN AREAS OF CONCERN which are:

● Traffic size/volume and its consequences
● Flood mitigation and overflow
● Visibility from surrounding area
● Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
● Light & noise pollution
● Unsupported need

Best wishes

Campaign Team”

Sidford residents say resounding no to new industrial zone in village

“Residents and representatives blasted fresh plans for a business park between Sidford and Sidbury this week.

The reduced outline application failed to win over civic leaders and members of the public as it was unanimously opposed by Sidmouth Town Council’s planning committee on Wednesday.

Access, inadequate roads and flooding risk were among the reasons.

More than 150 residents, as well as town, district and county council representatives packed into Sidford Social Hall.

A change of use is being sought for the agricultural site, in Two Bridges Road, to provide 8,445sqm of employment floorspace.

District councillor Marianne Rixson said there was ‘zero requirement’ for the development and that the A375 was not wide enough to cope with traffic. She claimed the ‘only beneficiaries’ from the scheme would be the applicants, not ‘the people of the Sid Valley, nor the local economy’.

“It’s all about greed, not need,” added Cllr Rixson.

John Loudoun, of Sidbury, said it was ‘laudable’ for the applicants to promote alternative transport to the site, but the details were vague.

He added: “This is the wrong development in the wrong place. I support the need for local infrastructure – but not there. It will not be good for Sidford and I can assure you it will not be good for Sidbury.”

David Addis backed the application and said: “The Sid Valley needs to have a future supporting our families and the families that come after us. It should not just be a place for retired people or a holiday destination – we need a diverse economy.”

Joseph Marchant, agent for the applicant, said concerns from the previous proposals, submitted in 2016, had been listened to, adding: “It is quite substantially different, there is a huge reduction in volume. It represents 37 per cent of what was previously submitted. The volume of buildings would provide for 250 jobs and that is important in terms of providing the need identified in your allocated Local Plan as a district.”

Councillor Ian McKenzie-Edwards, who represents Sidford, said: “We know how busy that road gets. Putting this employment site where it is projected is going to exacerbate traffic. It’s going to lower the quality of life. The village of Sidbury; the traffic there is horrendous sometimes.”

Cllr Ian Barlow recommended that the council did not support the plans over the same concerns expressed about the 2016 application.

He said: “It is in the Local Plan, we know it is, and we fought to keep it out. Mistakes were made and we have seen it already. The Local Plan is a massive document and no council, however good or bad, can get it all right. If it is wrong, change it and have the guts to admit the mistake was made. It is a stupid place to put it. It’s expensive to build, it’s not required, certainly not the size of it – there has been no demand proved.”

A public meeting over the plans is due to be held in Sidford Social Hall on Tuesday, at 6.30pm.

The fate of the application will be decided by the district council.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/resounding-no-for-sidford-business-park-proposal-1-5542075

Sidford Industrial park: planning meeting 30 May, 6.30 pm, Sidford Social Hall

It will be interesting to see which side Councillor Hughes backs …

Press release:

“While many of us were hoping it wouldn’t happen, it’s not a huge surprise that Tim and Mike Ford have submitted a new application to build a business park in Sidford. If you haven’t already heard about it you can read this article from last Friday’s Herald:

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new-business-park-plan-is-unveiled-1-5522422

The council is holding a public planning meeting on

Wednesday 30 May 2018
at 6.30pm
at Sidford Social Hall
in Byes Lane

Please come along and have your say. And please tell your friends about it.

If you want to keep up with the campaign as it develops please like the Say NO Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/sayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark/

Sidford: industrial site resubmitted to planning

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new-plan-for-employment-site-at-sidford-is-submitted-1-5517102

DCC Hustings: Sidford tonight 7 pm

From Save our Sidmouth website:

Who do you want to represent us? Quiz Devon County Council candidates at hustings TONIGHT, 7pm, Sidford Social Hall

All six candidates have been invited to answer the public’s questions at tonight’s hustings, organised by the Sidford-Sidbury Residents’ Group. Don’t miss this chance to assess who will be your best choice.

Jeannie Alderdice (Green)
Ray Davison (Labour)
Stuart Hughes (Conservative)
Lewis Ragbourn (Liberal Democrats)
Marianne Rixson (Independent East Devon Alliance)
Richard Wright (UKIP)

Whatever happens at national level, your vote at the local Devon County (DCC) elections on 4th May will affect your daily life. Sid Valley has experience of this, having being let down by a flawed County Highways report, which initially supported a proposed Business Park site at Sidford. The report was only re-assessed, and the proposal rejected, after massive public pressure inspired by meticulous research from our newly elected District Councillors and the Sid Vale Association (a founder-member of the Save Our Sidmouth, SOS, campaign).

As reported in the Sidmouth Herald (14 April 2017), the date limit for an appeal on the Business Park refusal expired on 27th March 2017. Richard Thurlow, Chair of the Sid Vale Association (SVA) Conservation and Planning Committee , is quoted as saying, “We were all delighted when the application was refused in September last year, but there was always the chance that the decision might be appealed. We can now feel relieved that this ‘Sword of Damocles’ has been lifted. However, the site still exists in the Local Plan as an ’employment site’ and we must still be aware that other proposals might come forward–and we must be prepared to fight them if they do.”
Meanwhile, South West Water began drilling boreholes on the ’employment site’ in January this year. Results of their testing for water quality, apparently relating to a possible new supply for a rapidly expanding Sidmouth, are awaited.

Who do you want to represent us? Quiz Devon County Council candidates at hustings TONIGHT, 7pm, Sidford Social Hall

Sidford Fields industrial estate: no appeal by developers … but

… stay on guard! It probably simply mean that they are formulating a new planning application to overcome objections. And they have very, very influential backers and allies.

And DO remember that it has been DCC candidate Marianne Rixson (Independent East Devon Alliance) that saw off this application – not ex-Monster Raving Loony Party member and current Conservative candidate for DCC Sturat Hughes.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) said it is now up to the landowner to consider future options for the site off Two Bridges Road.

However, the wider 12-acre plot has a strategic allocation as employment land in the authority’s Local Plan, so EDDC expects the site will be developed by 2031, according to a spokeswoman.

EDDC refused plans for the major development in September.

Councillors said the proposed development would harm the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, depend on ‘unsuitable’ roads and impact on neighbours without adequate mitigation.

A petition to ‘say no’ to the business park attracted more than 1,100 signatures and 384 objections were lodged with EDDC.

The applicants had until last Monday, March 27, to appeal the refusal.

The Sid Vale Association was among the opponents.

Richard Thurlow, its conservation and planning committee chairman, said: “We were all delighted when the application was refused in September last year, but there was always the chance that the decision might be appealed.

“We can now feel relieved that this ‘Sword of Damocles’ has been lifted.

“However, the site still exists in the Local Plan as an ‘employment site’ and we must still be aware that other proposals might come forward – and we must be prepared to fight them if they do.”

The landowner and applicant were approached for comment.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/no-appeal-against-refusal-of-9-3-acre-business-park-outside-sidford-1-4975241

(Greater) Exeter area rainfall expected to increase by 73% say researchers

“The trend of paving over gardens is putting Exeter homes at risk of flooding as the city is set to see a 73 per cent increase in rain, and paved gardens could see the city’s drains overwhelmed. …”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exeter-rainfall-to-increase-by-73-per-cent-and-your-paved-garden-will-make-the-city-flood/story-30073383-detail/story.html

One can presume that this includes the East Devon area. Cranbrook is already a concrete jungle and those close to rivers or on flood plains will be particularly hard hit.

And just imagine the effect on properties around it of building on and paving over the proposed Sidford Industrial estate, not to mention its effect on the River Sid!

Proposed Sidford Industrial estate – flooding issues

Being planned on older flooding regulations because the application went in before they changed.

Today’s newspaper:

“The A375 between Sidford and Sidbury road is partially flooded and difficult driving conditions are reported on the A375 Sidbury Hill in both directions. Cotford and Woolbrook Road are also flooded.”

The Environment Agency is already in trouble for not spending money it was allocated for natural flood prevention schemes.

What about unnatural flood increase schemes?

If you had a child car seat that you bought a while ago that was declared unsafe for children under new regulations, would you continue to use it?

Why are developers allowed to ignore new regulations if their planning applications went in before changes which are designed to keep people and property safer?

UPDATE 5 pm: “The A375 is closed at Sidbury due to flooding and a landslip.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/here-s-how-you-ll-get-home-tonight-in-exeter-mid-and-east-devon/story-29921797-detail/story.html

EDDC hints at return of Sidford Business Park planning application in future

Owl NEVER knew that delegated decisions could be made this way! And so quickly!

The latest press release sounds like a hint that if the applicant can put in lots of trees to largely camouflage it, hide it and baffle some noise, dig into their pockets for a little bit of traffic management and change the use of some of the buildings to generate slightly less traffic, they will be able to push it through.

Bet their agent is finishing off plan B as Owl writes. Keep those barricades up, Sidford – you may need them sooner than you thought yesterday!

East Devon District Council (EDDC) has this morning shed light on why it refused an outline planning application for a 9.3-acre business park in Sidford.

The decision was made yesterday (Tuesday) at the authority’s weekly planning chairman’s meeting.

In accordance with EDDC’s constitution, as both Councillor David Barratt, the ward member for Sidmouth Rural, and Sidmouth Town Council were opposed to the proposal – and the officer recommendation was also for refusal – the application did not need to be determined by the development management committee (DMC).

“The application was therefore presented by officers at the DMC chairman’s delegation meeting, where the decision was made in consultation with the ward member and DMC vice-chairman Councillor Mike Howe (standing in for the Cllr David Key), an EDDC spokeswoman told the Herald.

“The reasons for the refusal were that the application failed to demonstrate how the developers would achieve the high standards of design and landscaping, which are a requirement for all developments taking place in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal also did not sufficiently prove that traffic likely to be generated from the proposed mix of uses at the site would not be harmful to highway safety.

“Members attending the delegated session were also not satisfied that any noise impact would be acceptable and were concerned that the application did not show how a cycle route would be put in place. The proposal also failed to include possible junction improvements and did not show how the site would be landscaped to reduce its impact on the surrounding area.

“The applicant has a right to appeal the decision to the Planning Inspectorate within six months, or they may wish to attempt to address the reasons for refusal through the submission of a new planning application.

“It is important to note that the council remains committed to seeing the Sidford Two Bridges site developed for employment purposes – its allocation remains in place and is supported by the Local Plan. All future applications for the site’s development must fulfil the requirements of the Local Plan and should include specific details that justify the extent and mix of proposed employment uses.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_sidford_business_park_plan_was_unacceptable_1_4714620

The full refusal for Sidford Business Park

[Has Owl said Hip Hip Hurrah, Councillor Marianne Rixson? What the heck, here is another one for her!]

EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL
Council Offices, Knowle
Sidmouth, Devon EX10 8HL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION

Applicant: Fords And Sons Application No: 16/0669/MOUT
Address: (Mr T Ford)
Alexandria Industrial Estate
Sidmouth
EX10 9HA
Date of Registration:
22 March 2016

Agent: Context Logic Ltd Date of Decision: 27 September 2016
Address: (Mr J Marchant)
Threshers Stone
Church Road
Colaton Raleigh
Sidmouth
EX10 0LH

Proposal: Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with all matters reserved except access) for the development of up to 22,800sqm of floor space for use classes B1 (Office Light Industry), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) with details of, and associated strategic landscaping for, the access, linking cycleway and footway, and flood improvements/attenuation.

Location: Land Adjacent To Two Bridges
Two Bridges Road
Sidford

The Council hereby refuses permission to carry out the development described in the application and the plans attached thereto for the following reasons:

1. The application has failed to demonstrate how the quantum and mix of development and the parameters for its scale and massing could be incorporated into this rural location whilst reflecting both the local vernacular styles and reinforcing the existing landscape.

Without robust landscape mitigation and an associated design code with adequate detail, the development would:
o result in harm to the landscape;
o make inadequate provision for green infrastructure; and
o fails to work sensitively with local habitats resulting in an over engineered appearance to the regraded stream and proposed flood attenuation ponds.

It is considered that the proposal therefore fails to meet the requirement for the highest design and landscaping standards set out within the policy which allocates the site for employment development and fails to adequately respect the landscape which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and which should therefore be afforded the highest level of landscape protection. As such the proposal is considered contrary to national guidance and to Strategies 5 (Environment), 26 (Development at Sidmouth), 46 (Landscape Conservation), 48 (Local Distinctiveness in the Built Environment) and Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) D2 (Landscape Requirements) EN5 (Wildlife Habitats and Natural features), of the adopted East Devon
Local Plan 2013-2031.

2. The proposed development would use access routes that by reason of their inadequate road width (with unsuitable footway provision) and a potentially unsatisfactory junction, are unsuitable to accommodate the increase in traffic likely to be generated by the currently proposed quantum and split of employment uses. In addition the directional split of traffic generation has also not been justified. As such the proposed development is therefore considered contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning
Policy Framework and Strategies 26 (Development at Sidmouth), and Policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
2013 – 2031.

3. Insufficient information has been submitted to justify the noise assessment and its findings that are contained within the Environmental Statement. As such it is not
considered possible to accurately understand or assess the likely amenity impact that the development would have on near neighbours or secure appropriate mitigation. As
such the proposal is currently considered contrary to Policies D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) and EN14 (Control of Pollution) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan
2013 – 2031.

4. No mechanism has been submitted to secure necessary contributions towards or the management and maintenance of both the hedgerow bounding the proposed cycle route and the surface water attenuation and drainage scheme proposed. In addition there is no mechanism to secure the necessary junction assessment in respect of Sidford Cross which is likely to require an improved signal system and which falls
outside of the identified strategic infrastructure list associated with the adopted CIL charging scheme. As such the proposed development is therefore currently considered
contrary to Strategy 50 (Infrastructure Delivery) and Policies TC7 (Adequacy of Road network and site access), EN22 (Surface run off implications of new development) and
D2 (Landscape requirements) of the adopted East Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031.

NOTE FOR APPLICANT
Informative:
In accordance with the requirements of Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 in determining this application, East Devon District Council has worked proactively and positively with the applicant to attempt to resolve the planning concerns the Council has with the application.
However, the applicant was unable to satisfy the key policy tests in the submission and as such the application has been refused.

The plans relating to this application are listed below:
CONTEXT LOGIC General
Correspondence
11.08.16
PETER BRETT General Correspondence
11.08.16

LANDSCAPE/VISUAL IMPACT STMT
General Correspondence
11.08.16
G416B Proposed Combined Plans
11.08.16
G417C Landscaping 11.08.16
H100K Other Plans 11.08.16
G415D Sections 11.08.16
H102A Proposed Site Plan 11.08.16
H103 REV P1 Location Plan 11.08.16
Other Plans 12.08.16
058-001A Landscaping 11.08.16
CIL Form – Additional Information
19.08.16
H101B Other Plans 31.05.16
General Correspondence
31.05.16
Arboriculturist Report 05.05.16
Design and Access Statement
05.05.16
LIGHTING STRATEGY
Additional Information 06.05.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT
AL STM
Additional Information 22.03.16
ENVIRONMENT Additional Information 22.03.16

Fords of Sidmouth sell business “to concentrate on property business interests”

“Fords of Sidmouth directors Tim and Mike Ford ‘will support the transition of their business into the Clearvac Group and will then focus on their property business interests’.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/home/sidmouth_man_david_seals_deal_for_clearvac_to_take_over_fords_services_1_4707882

One might think they already believe their business park planning application is in the bag.

Councillor Claire Wright’s objection to Sidford Business Park

“12 acre industrial site proposed for Sidford – my objection

A planning application for a 12 acre business park in an area of outstanding natural beauty in Sidford has caused huge controversy.

The proposal first emerged when I was a local plan panel member in 2012. It suddenly appeared in the papers for our final meeting in the March. The proposal caused such uproar that it spawned the birth of Save Our Sidmouth, which ploughed much funding into fighting the allocation of this land in EDDC’s Local Plan.

Things looked up for a while after a full council meeting last year saw Stuart Hughes and Graham Troman manage to overturn the decision to allocate this land.

However, the planning inspector had other ideas and late last year, reinserted the contested piece of land back into the Local Plan.A planning application was submitted by Fords earlier this year.

Last Monday evening (12 September) I attended a public meeting at Sidford Village Hall where the application was discussed. The hall was absolutely packed with angry residents who wanted the plans thrown out. There was talk of a boycott of Fords to express the deep unhappiness with a local business who wants to build an industrial estate in sensitive countryside adjacent to houses. The meeting concluded that residents would fight the application tooth and nail.

I am familiar with the proposal as a former Local Plan panel member, however, it was a very useful meeting where I heard first hand from residents exactly how the application might have an impact on their communities.

I have now submitted an objection, which is below.

Highways The road through Sidbury is narrow, congested with parked cars and already experiences very high levels of traffic.

As Sidbury’s Devon County Councillor I have tried to address many complaints about the road, its narrowness, twistiness and the increasing level of traffic and heavy goods vehicles travelling through to the A30 at Honiton. Sidbury Primary School has a very difficult parking situation, with many parents having to park on the opposite side of the road and dash across with their children.

There are inadequate pavements around the school and any increase in traffic and HGVs could make things even more hazardous for parents and young children travelling to and from school. A school governor at the public meeting at Sidford Village Hall on 12 September, expressed huge concern about the increase in traffic and the impact it will have on parents and children at school pick up and drop off times.

I question the assumption in the developer’s highways report that only 20 per cent of traffic generated by the business park would travel through Sidbury, with the remaining 80 per cent opting to go via Sidford crossroads. I would have thought it was far more likely that a bigger percentage of the traffic would choose to travel to the nearest fast road – in this instance the A30 – via Sidbury. Much quicker than travelling to Exeter along the A3052.

I believe that the developers are vastly underestimating the impact of the traffic on Sidbury. There are many old listed properties which line the roads in Sidbury, which could be damaged by the increase in HGVs along this road. The NPPF states that a highways objection can be sustained if the traffic impact is severe. I agree with many Sidbury residents and local councillors, who believe that it would be. The application should be refused on highways grounds alone.

Landscape impacts

I agree with the AONB team and Natural England both of which assert that the proposed development would have a significant adverse affect on the setting of the AONB. The team also states that the current building plans, despite being in outline do not comply with NPPF policies relating to development in AONBs. It has the potential to set a precedent and so must be planned extremely carefully, which it is not. The landscape architect also believes that the scheme would have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding sensitive countryside, with information on design missing from the application. The landscape architect concludes that the application is unacceptable on landscape grounds.

Natural England recommends “substantial revision” on the grounds of visual intrusion. I believe that the application should be refused on landscape grounds and poor design within an AONB.

The cycleway from Sidbury to Sidford

As the Devon County councillor for Sidbury this cycleway is a significant project that I am anxious to finalise. Progress has been slow mainly due to matters outside Devon County Council’s control. I note the AONB team’s comments relating to the proposed cycleway as being disjointed, fully exposed to the road with the rural character of the route being removed.

The AONB team observe: “If approved, it would be completely at odds with the principle of providing an integrated and well connected and accessible development not to include a fully linked route at the outset of the development. Without this, at present, the proposal will not fully “deliver cycle and footway improvements which should aid sustainable travel in the area, not just the business park”; furthermore it could not be regarded as a “highly permeable and appealing walking and cycling environment”.

The application should be refused on the grounds of not providing an acceptable cycle route.

Flooding

The Environment Agency advises that new more stringent guidelines as set out in climate change documentation should be used as a material planning consideration for this application.

Given that the fields are close to a major watercourse and the area is prone to regular flooding, I very much hope that EDDC will use these guidelines to assess the application. Devon County Council flood and coastal risk officer has also recommended refusal on the grounds of insufficient information relating to water run-off. The application should be refused on these grounds.

It is clear that the evidential comments from residents and key consultees can only leave EDDC with no option but to refuse the application. Pic. The area of outstanding natural beauty close to where the proposal is targeting.”

http://www.claire-wright.org/index.php/post/12_acre_industrial_site_proposed_for_sidford_my_objection

Fords Sidford Business Park: “massive unrest”

image

“There is massive unrest in Sid Valley over plans top build an industrial estate at Sidford

Fords of Sidmouth wants to build industrial, storage and distribution units totalling 22,800 square metres on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road.

The fourth generation business employs around 70 people, carrying out plumbing and electrical engineering work across the district.

However, various groups East Devon are strongly concerned about the project with regards to a possible risk of flooding, traffic congestion, pollution and the impact on a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.

Sidford Social Hall saw a massive gathering of objectors on Monday.

Among the speakers at the Public Meeting, organised by Sid Valley Residents and chaired by Cathy Debenham, was Alan Green, the Director of the Norman Lockyer Observatory

He said the light pollution from the development would be “a total disaster” for the observatory and will “destroy us after 104 years.”

Marianne Rixson, East Devon District Councillor for Sidmouth and Sidford, added that Exeter and Honiton currently have 1.6 million square feet of available employment units, and that meant the area “did not any more.”

Pam Ward, a governor of Sidbury School, said that the increased traffic, including HGV’s, would become a serious safety issue for local children.

As a result of the meeting many said they were likely to ‘boycott’ Fords, and even calls for an eventual public enquiry.

They will also urge planners to impose restrictions on how big the industrial units can be over worries they will dwarf their surroundings.

There are already over 150 objections filed on the council website.

A planning document submitted earlier this year by agents Context Logic, of Colaton Raleigh, said Fords & Sons plans to make a “substantial capital investment in delivering an employment site for Sidmouth.”

They added: “The proposal would generate jobs and opportunities for new and expanding businesses in Sidmouth. In total, the business park could create as many as 300 jobs over both phases throughout the local plan period.

“The park would offer business support facilities for the wider business community and it is hoped that the Business Support Centre would become a popular and well used asset.

“The future detailed applications will seek to create a business park with the highest regard given to design, energy efficiency, safety and security and will look to support a vibrant economy for Sidford and Sidmouth.”

The application will be decided in the coming weeks.

We have approached Fords of Sidmouth for comment.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/fury-at-sidford-business-park-plan-which-could-destroy-observatory/story-29719231-detail/story.html

 

38 Degrees petition: Say No to Sidford Business Park

“Please reject the application to build a three hectare Industrial Business Park on AONB land in the village of Sidford in East Devon.

Why is this important?

This is prime agricultural land in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, situated on a known flood risk plain, and home to much wild life, including several protected bat species.

The typically narrow Devon access roads to this area are woefully inadequate to cope with the existing traffic and more expected large vehicles, would add to this problem. The lack of pavements in Sidbury village already put school children at risk and there is still no cycle path to link the two villages.

The sheer size and height of the development would dominate the landscape, devalue adjacent existing properties and cause noise and light pollution (hugely affecting the nearby 100 year old Norman Lockyer Observatory).

Flooding of roads and properties occurred 4 times in 2012.

Finally there is far more suitable employment land available on existing Industrial sites, in Sidmouth, Honiton and Cranbrook to better serve those who are seeking employment. Please sign this petition to preserve the quality of life for many people and to stop this heartless, uncaring proposal going ahead.”

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/say-no-to-east-devon-business-park?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1473757444

Angry cries of “Boycott Fords” at Sidford meeting

BOYCOTT FORDS!’ CALL AT ANGRY SIDFORD MEETING

There was standing room only at Sidford Social Hall last night at a meeting called by local residents to “Say No to Sidford Business Park”.

Feelings ran high as speaker after speaker condemned this “monstrosity of a project” on road safety, environmental, and flooding grounds.

Notable comments included:

a plea from a Director of the Norman Lockyer Observatory “not to kill” astronomy in Sidmouth with the bright lights of a Business Park.

a warning from a governor of Sidbury primary school that increases in heavy vehicles would place schoolchildren in greater danger on the village’s narrow roads which often lacked pavements.

claims from an environmentalist that rare, protected horseshoe bats were likely to be present in larger numbers than estimated in the planning application.

Among many suggestions to mobilise opposition was a mass boycott of Fords of Sidmouth, the applicant.

This was enthusiastically supported, and will be actively considered by the organising committee.