Crashed lorry ‘holding up’ Breamore cottage:
Crashed lorry ‘holding up’ Breamore cottage:
“Sidbury Traffic Action Group (STAG) is hosting a meeting in which the results of a traffic survey will be announced.
The survey focused on electronic speed and traffic movement and was part of ongoing concerns over drivers not sticking to the enforced speed limits.
Also at the meeting, the group will discuss the establishment of a speed watch group that will work in conjunction with the police.
There will be information about the group’s recent discussions with Devon County Council.
Finally, the group will reveal where it will go next in their pursuit for 20mph flashing signs.
The group launched a campaign in April urging people to ‘kill their speed and not villagers’.
Members of the group have concerns with cars breaking the speed limits in the town.
The meeting will take place in Sidbury Village Hall on November 21 at 2 and 7pm.”
Owl says: Interestingly Hughes does not explain why the site was added at the very last minute and why officers and Tory councillors did not attempt to remove it BEFORE it went to the inspector when its inclusion had been highlighted by local people in time for remedial action ….. especially as Hughes is the area’s DCC councillor with responsibility for highways.
“Cllr Hughes said: “If the decision is appealed by the applicant then it will be considered by a planning inspector.
“It would however also allow representations to be made to the inspector on other elements such as flooding, AONB etc.”
Calls to change the Local Plan:
“Suggesting the land at Sidford should be taken out of the Local Plan is unrealistic, given the plan is already in place.
“A Local Plan inspector is not going to review a decision for an already ‘made plan’ that has been in effect for some time.
“By the time any refresh of the East Devon Local Plan is completed this matter will have most likely been decided and there should not be any false hope or expectation put forward that this will be any different.
“The simple truth is that the land allocation at Sidford should never have been included in the Local Plan.
“It came in as a late addition without full consideration of its suitability, particularly as other far more appropriate sites which were ‘brownfield’ should have been considered and were put forward at the early stages of the process of making the Local Plan.
“My personal suggested site would have been adjacent to the Garden Centre on the A3052. …”
“Pollution from diesel vehicles is stunting the growth of children’s lungs, leaving them damaged for life, a major study has found.
The research, conducted with more than 2,000 school children in London, is the first such study in a city where diesel pollution is a significant factor, and has implications for cities around the world. It also showed that charges to deter polluting trucks from entering the city did reduce air pollution a little but did not reduce the harm to children’s lungs. …”
“Campaigners have called for land earmarked for a multi-million pound Sidford business park to be taken out of the Local Plan.
t follows East Devon District Council’s decision to throw out an application to build 8,445sqm of employment floor space on an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
The proposed development for the Two Bridges site received 255 comments of objection and 111 in support. A campaign group also submitted a petition to the council with 1,400 signatures opposing the plans.
Now campaigners are calling on council bosses to look at removing the area, earmarked for development, out the Local Plan, claiming it should have never been there in their first place.
The Herald understands the application could once again go to appeal following a response from East Devon District Council saying it would not be appropriate to respond to the campaigners’ comments.
An EDDC spokeswoman said: “As we understand that this matter is now going to appeal, it would not be appropriate to make any comments about the status of the Local Plan.
“The campaigners can make their points direct to the Planning Inspector in support of the council’s decision to refuse.”
Councillor Marianne Rixson has spoken out on the reasons why the town should join her rallying call to pressure the authority to look at taking the site out of the Local Plan at the earliest opportunity.
The Local Plan
“When a Government inspector was examining the suitability of the site in 2014, county Highways failed to point out that the roads would not be able to cope with the traffic an industrial estate would bring. Highways only admitted their error in September 2016.
“After the draft Local Plan had been sent to the Inspector for final approval in 2015, district councillors realised they’d made a mistake and voted almost unanimously to try to remove it from the plan but no effort was made to explain to the Inspector the reasons why the site was unsuitable – consequently he had no option but to rule that the site should remain, subject to planning.”
“It is on a floodplain and flooding will inevitably get worse with climate change.
“The Two Bridges site is in zones 3A and two flood risk zones – yet another reason why this site is unsuitable.”
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB):
“England has 34 AONB all of which are supposed to have the highest rate of protection in law and Government policy.
“We should only build on AONB if there is an overwhelming need for a development. The owners’ plans for a business park were market driven so there isn’t any hard proof. Surely we need to know for sure that there is an overwhelming need for employment space in the Sid Valley before we destroy this AONB?
“I would advocate for the district and town councils to work together to look seriously at how we can attract good quality, well paid jobs into the valley and how we can most effectively locate them without encroaching into the AONB and where there is good transport infrastructure.
“We need to attract good quality, well paid jobs into the area. Surely we can do this without encroaching into the AONB and where there are better road links? Regrettably by mid November Sidmouth will have lost three banks and building societies. Far better to turn these buildings into offices, which would help to keep our town vibrant, rather than build new offices on the outskirts.
“Traffic cannot cope on this narrow road as it is due to the bottlenecks and number of HGVs already using the A375 – it will not be able to cope with more.
“Highways now agree this is not suitable for HGVs. “For two lorries to pass you need 6.5 metres. The main access for business park would be School Street which has a pinch point of 4.77 metres. There are several points through Sidbury too where the road is less than 5.5m, including Sidbury Mill and Cotford Bridge.
“Surely there should be a weight restriction on this road?
“According to an FOI submitted by the Say No Sidford Business Park campaigners some 30,000 cars travelled along the road in one off-peak week in April.
“I’d like to call for a weigh restriction on these struggling roads.
Endangered Bats and Japanese knotweed:
“The Two Bridges site is an important wildlife site for species that are protected such as horseshoe bats, otters and dormice.
“Knotweed exterminators have been seen on the site – it takes several years to get rid of.
“The Norman Lockyer Observatory is both historical and the home to an active amateur astronomical society.
It also has plans to build a £70,000 extension so more experiments can take place than ever before.
“The light from any business park there will have an impact on the night sky, which currently has semi rural dark skies status at Sidford.”
* How odd – Sidmouth doesn’t have enough employment land and Exmouth has too much – maybe Exmouth could take the companies that want to occupy the Sidford Business Park!
“The planning inspectorate has now set a date of February 5, 2019, to hear arguments for and against a 59-apartment retirement community on land near Tesco, in Salterton Road originally refused by East Devon District Council as the land has been earmarked for commercial use.
In its appeal statement, developer YourLife Management Services – a joint venture between Somerset Care and McCarthy and Stone – argues that the employment allocation is ‘surplus to requirements’ and not a ‘viable’ proposition ‘now or in the near future’.
Ian Cann, vice chairman of the emerging neighbourhood plan – currently being assessed by independent examiners ahead of a public referendum – has urged the planning inspectorate to consider the need for employment land in Exmouth.
He said: “One of the focuses of the neighbourhood plan is for Exmouth to be ‘demographically balanced’ and at the moment it’s out of sync and we need to retain our younger people in the town.
“It’s all well and good giving them a house but they need to have job.
“If you want to retain this people in the town you need to create as many jobs as possible. To do that, we have to identify as much commercial land as possible.
“We have to defend against other uses of land identified for commercial use – we have to defend that to the hilt.”
If the planning inspector agrees with developers, the application, which includes self-contained flats for those over 70 years old, would be approved.
Exmouth Town Council’s planning committee has twice opposed the application, despite the developer putting its case forward.
All previous representations made about the proposal have been forwarded to the planning inspectorate and people have an opportunity to either change or add their comments by Monday, November 12.
If the Sidford Business Park was turned down because of
“the potentially lethal combination of narrow roads and increased heavy goods vehicle usage” …
why was it hurriedly and grubbily added to the Local Plan at the last minute?
“Planners have said NO to Sidford Business Park and turned down the controversial plans over a potentially lethal combination of narrow roads and increased heavy goods vehicle usage.
East Devon District Council planners rejected plans to build industrial, storage and non-residential institutions on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road in Sidford.
They were refused on the grounds of harm to highway safety, relating to increased heavy goods vehicle usage of the area’s narrow roads and the decision was made by officers with the Chairman of Development Management Committee, Cllr Mike Howe, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. …”