Sidmouth meeting on NHS bed and services cuts – 9 December 2016 7.30 pm

OUR FUTURE CARE!

Sid Valley patients and carers invite all residents to a public meeting in the Parish Church, Sidmouth Church Street,
on Friday 9th December at 7.30 pm

The Consultation (ending 6th Jan)
“YOUR FUTURE CARE”
proposes closing 600 hospital beds all over Devon, including at Honiton, Okehampton, Seaton, Exmouth, Barnstaple, Exeter and Sidmouth.

Beds have already gone from Axminster, Ottery St Mary, Budleigh Salterton and Torrington – without consultation

Let us talk about this urgently with friends, family, clubs, churches, WI groups, etc. and bring ideas from all in our valley to the meeting on 9th December

For more information call 01395 519292

Feedback from bed cuts meetings: Sidmouth and Exmouth

SIDMOUTH (Robert Crick):

The evening session in Sidmouth saw a chastened CCG and a more confident community pushing back relentlessly.

“CCG abandoned their Powerpoint sequence halfway through and never even put their Options forward for discussion or vote; but acknowledged that the NHS is in chaos and that the Health and Social Care Act had fragmented the system but added that the community care provision had been outdated and broken for a good 20 years. All agreed this needs urgent attention.

“Much scepticism about the way forward and anger about NHS Property Company stripping community assets entrusted to the Secretary of State in 1948, whose successor in 2012 kept the property but dropped the responsibility for delivering the care.

“Sterling work by James and Momentum Barnstaple with some support – in words – from Conservative Councillors, although the lead was taken by the Independent East Devon Alliance in the meeting. Many efforts made by the ‘facilitators’ to rule any ‘political’ questions out of order. Claims about the success of the ‘Sick Regime’ in North Devon were dropped and instead we were told that Plymouth has a good integrated health and social care package. Any evidence available?

“How do you provide care at home for those who are homeless or visiting or living in poverty? And many other trenchant questions. Much food for thought for the unfortunate CCG. Local GP challenged the 80 wise clinicians who had reached the absurd conclusions in the proposal. Much embarrassment.

“Please let Exmouth and other towns know that it was not a victory for Sidmouth Hospital but a successful push by Sidmouth community to rejectall proposed cuts until and unless the alternative is in place and tried and tested, which will require investment in staff recruitment, training and retention, morale restoration with full review of pay differential between managers and clinicians.

“Analogy: we are burning too much fossil fuel – so we will close down all the power stations next year while we consider how to invest in massive insulation and renewable energy programmes.”

EXMOUTH (Louise McAlister)

Had to leave early but lots of critical questioning from participants.

Much anger (from me anyway) when we were told we have a rep from the CCG at our table to ‘help us frame our questions’. I immediately told her that we don’t require that. Instead we bombarded her with our own questions and then helped her consolidate them.

The CCG would be hard pressed to make claims for any support from the event.

Dr Mezjner (who I have met before as he is responsible for the non-existent Budleigh health hub) did a long speech basically demonising hospitals. Lots of claims, no evidence.”

Sidford employment land victim of “electioneering”

District council chiefs who voted to remove Sidford’s controversial 12-acre employment site from a strategic plan were in fact powerless to enforce the decision, a campaigner has been told.

Councillor Marianne Rixson last week questioned why – after the decision was made unanimously in March 2015 – officers were never instructed to submit a ‘flood of new evidence’ to put it into action. Despite the last-ditch vote to have it removed, a Government planning inspector later ruled the allocation must remain in East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Local Plan.

The answer to Cllr Rixson’s question, given at last Wednesday’s full EDDC meeting, confirmed the instruction was never given to remove the allocation from the plan – because a public inquiry was already under way.

Members heard that officer advice would have been to allow the planning inspector, who led the inquiry, to ‘reach his own conclusions’.

Last week’s meeting heard: “Members’ resolution to remove the allocation from the plan was, and could only ever have been, a suggestion to the inspector as, following its submission for examination, the council no longer had the power to make changes to it.

“There was, therefore, no opportunity to submit evidence to support this change, however, even if there had been, the evidence produced up to that point had supported its allocation and it is likely that any future evidence would have reached the same conclusion.”

Cllr Rixson, a long-time campaigner against the allocation who was elected last May, said the Conservative-majority council only took the vote because it felt threatened by her and her East Devon Alliance colleagues.

She said: “The final comment [above] confirms our suspicions that EDDC never changed its mind about the Sidford site being in the Local Plan.

“Voting to ‘remove it’ was purely an electioneering stunt just before the district council elections in 2015.”

An application to develop the employment site into a 9.3-acre business park was refused in September, although EDDC bosses said they remain committed to its development.

Cllr Rixson added: “The recent refusal of the application to develop the site exposed significant planning policies that should have been considered when the Local Plan was being drawn up.

“The outstanding question is why they did not come to the fore when they could have made an impact on the Local Plan?”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/vote_to_remove_sidford_employment_site_electioneering_1_4761216

Black holes and green fields

Comment reproduced from post below:

The leaderships approach to finances over the last decade or more has been driven by a single-minded dogma to avoid any rise in council tax, even to match inflation. They have achieved this by relying not only on the government’s normal grant, but also on the government’s New Homes Bribe (ooops, Bonus – which gives payments for 6 years for each house built) which in turn has driven the mind-boggling growth numbers in the East Devon Local Plan which could easily see overall growth of more than 35% – YES THAT IS NOT A TYPO, I DO MEAN GROWTH OF HOMES OF MORE THAN A THIRD – over the period of the current Local Plan.

(Imagine all the buildings in East Devon – in Exmouth, Budleigh, Sidmouth, Seaton, Axminster, Honiton, etc. etc. – all lumped together – that’s a lot of land built on. Now take a third of that huge area, and imagine all the green fields in East Devon that will need to be built upon to make that happen, a lot of which will be in our AONBs. That is the EDDC Conservative vision for East Devon.)

Anyway, back to the finances. So EDDC’s future financial plans were predicated on large income from the New Homes Bonus. But George Osborne introduced an austerity regime which decided to abolish not only the normal grant but also the New Homes Bonus, so now the EDDC’s finances have a huge hole in them (made worse of course by the vanity projects they are undertaking like the no-longer-cost-neutral move from the Knowle).

And that is why we have seen a 4% increase in Council tax this year, and likely to see further increases in council tax way above inflation in the next few years.

Fortunately (????!!!!!), the government has thrown EDDC a lifeline by deciding to allow councils to keep all the local business rates as revenue – so we are now seeing EDDC allowing dubious business developments approved (like the recent Greendale application – submitted by a generous donor to the local Conservatives) and we should expect this to ramp up as the cash flow from the New Homes Bonus runs down.

Now back to the mental picture of 1/3 growth in homes – take the amount of land you have pictured for new homes, and add to it a significant growth in industrial buildings (like Sidford and Greendale). Terrifying isn’t it.

Of course, if you take have been watching EDDC’s actions, you will know that they have already rationalised this by joining (without any consultation with the public or indeed councillors) with Exeter City Council and Teignbridge District Council to form so called Greater Exeter. Think of Greater London and Greater Manchester and you will get the picture – huge sprawling joined up conurbations, with extensive suburbs to feed the businesses in the city centre. We are already seeing assaults on the green wedges that separate our towns and villages – so this is not as far from reality as you might think.

So there you have it. A double whammy – huge increases in Council Tax whilst rampant developments start to cover our beautiful countryside and Exeter grows exponentially in order to meet the huge Local Plan targets for new homes.

Don’ breathe in if you live near an industrial estate or on a busy road

“The government’s plan for tackling the UK’s air pollution crisis has been judged illegally poor at the high court, marking the second time in 18 months that ministers have lost in court on the issue.

The defeat is a humiliation for ministers who by law must cut the illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide suffered by dozens of towns and cities in the “shortest possible time”.

Legal NGO ClientEarth, which brought the case, argued that current plans ignore many measures that could help achieve this, placing too much weight on costs. On Wednesday Mr Justice Garnham agreed. He also said ministers knew that over-optimistic pollution modelling was being used, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road.

The government said it would not appeal against the decision and agreed in court to discuss with ClientEarth a new timetable for more realistic pollution modelling and the steps needed to bring pollution levels down to legal levels. The parties will return to court in a week but if agreement cannot be reached, the judge could impose a timetable upon the government.

Air pollution causes 50,000 early deaths and £27.5bn in costs every year, according to the government’s own estimates, and was called a “public health emergency” by MPs in April.

James Thornton, CEO of ClientEarth, said: “The time for legal action is over. I challenge Theresa May to take immediate action now to deal with illegal levels of pollution and prevent tens of thousands of additional early deaths in the UK. The high court has ruled that more urgent action must be taken. Britain is watching and waiting, prime minister.”

He said the increased action required would very likely include bigger and tougher clean air zones in more cities and other measure such as scrappage schemes for the dirtiest vehicles: “The government will have to be tougher on diesel.”…

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/02/high-court-rules-uk-government-plans-to-tackle-air-pollution-are-illegal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Make millions, pay peanuts … EDDC says that’s fine

“Town councillors have reiterated their opposition to Churchill Retirement Living’s plans to demolish Green Close, in Drakes Avenue, and build 36 sheltered housing apartments for the elderly.

They said the housing stock for older people cannot keep growing without also creating homes for nurses and carers to look after them – and argued the developer could cut into its 30 per cent operating profit margin to pay for it.

Planning committee members suggested Churchill should pay at least £360,000.

Councillor Ian Barlow, committee chairman, told the Herald: “Churchill’s profit margin is the one of the highest in the industry.

“They say they can’t pay more than £41,000 or it won’t be profitable – but those 36 homes are probably going to be worth £6-7million.

“Churchill is making a profit and taking it out of the town. They’re bringing in older people who will use the facilities, but they’re barely putting anything into the pot.”

The £41,000 referred to is a ‘section 106’ payment – cash that is meant to mitigate the impact of developments and fund improvements such as ‘affordable’ housing. The contribution depends on factors such as the size and number of dwellings being built.

Churchill is proposing to build 36 apartments in place of the 23-bed Green Close care home, which was run by Devon County Council until cutbacks brought about its closure in 2014.

The planning committee, which met last week, ruled: “Members noted that a contribution of £41,208 had been offered by the applicant towards affordable housing. Members expressed the view that this was an insult to the community of Sidmouth and urged the local planning authority not to accept the offer.”

Cllr Barlow compared the Green Close proposal with the Sanditon development, on the plot of the former Fortfield Hotel.

The developer there built 29 apartments and made a £1.5million ‘section 106’ payment – 36 times what Churchill is offering.

Cllr Barlow said the firm can avoid a larger payment because it is creating sheltered housing, adding: “We’re concerned that a lot of places are being provided for the elderly, but there’s nowhere being built for younger people.

“If there’s no provision at the same time for a nurse or a carer to live, who is going to look after them?”

Churchill’s planning director, Andrew Burgess, told the Herald: “We are disappointed by Sidmouth Town Council’s decision, since we have been consulting the community and working with the planning authorities for several months to develop plans for an attractive and sustainable new retirement community that will bring benefits to local people and the local economy.”

He said the proposed affordable housing contribution is based on a detailed viability assessment, industry best practice and factors such as the market value of the site.

Mr Burgess added: “We will continue to work with the council and the local community to ensure we can deliver the high-quality specialist retirement accommodation that is urgently needed by older people in Sidmouth.”

The application has been recommended for approval by EDDC’s planning officers, who noted the ‘comparatively modest’ financial contribution.

The authority’s development management committee will decide its fate on Tuesday (November 1).”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/home/developer_s_offer_slammed_as_insult_to_sidmouth_1_4756271

Sidmouth seafront: how to say nothing much in several hundred words

” Seafront project is a ‘golden opportunity’ for Sidmouth
“Landowners Sidmouth Town Council (STC) and East Devon District Council (EDDC) are together conducting a scoping study and will be commissioning experts to appraise the area.

The authorities have pulled together valley organisations and Devon County Council to form a reference group that will ‘act as a bridge’ between the expert consultants, the stakeholders and the wider public.

The Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan Group, the Sid Vale Association, Vision Group for Sidmouth and Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce are all represented.

Councillor Jeff Turner, who chairs the reference group and the town council, said: “We have a good representation of the major bodies from the town on this group who have shown historic leadership and a keen interest in the future of Port Royal.

“With the help of our experts, the study will provide us with information on the constraints and opportunities for the area with options and how viable they are.

“This will help us move forward toward a detailed vision for the area.

“Sidmouth is one of the best coastal towns in England and, with land being in public ownership, this is a golden opportunity to look at ways of renewing the eastern gateway to the town, ensuring that it is both enhanced and protected.”

Cllr Turner stressed that no decisions have been made about the future of the area.

“The scoping study is the start of a process that will involve detailed visioning for the area that will inform decisions in the future,” he said.

“The study is likely to take three to four months to complete and during this time consultants will carry out consultation both with tenants and members of various clubs as well as our residents and businesses.

“Wherever possible, we will work together with Sidmouth’s organisations to ensure that consultation is carried out in a coordinated way.”

The reference group decided it will involve existing work already carried out on Port Royal, and send out communication to tenants to update them after every meeting.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/seafront_project_is_a_golden_opportunity_for_sidmouth_1_4750184

Blots on the landscape …

Another BBC Devon Live post:

“An application to redevelop a former hotel site near Ilfracombe was refused by North Devon Council because of concerns about the impact on the local area, the authority has confirmed.

Developers had applied to demolish the former Lee Bay Hotel and build 20 homes, a cafe and toilet block, and create an open space.

Members of the planning committee voted last Wednesday against recommendations for approval. The council said it was because the “benefits of redeveloping the site did not outweigh the impact of the proposed new development on the character of the area and landscape”.

Just imagine, instead of a hotel you had Sidford Fields industrial estate, Ilfracombe!

Landowners know best what’s good for the community

Sidford Fields: landowner says is should be built in the AONB because it will be good for the community.

Sidford cycle route by the river or inland in the AONB: landowner seems reluctant to engage with the community in talks.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/riverside_route_could_be_revisited_for_sidford_sidbury_link_1_4726831

NHS bed closure ” consultation” to begin

“Consultation” – Owl really doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry!

This afternoon NHS Northern, Eastern and Western (NEW) Devon Clinical Commissioning Group’s (CCG) governing body gathered for an extraordinary meeting at Exeter’s County Hall, following the announcement to close 72 community hospital beds in its eastern locality.

Details of the proposed consultation were discussed which will reduce the number of community bed units from seven to three.

The Your Future Consultation was approved by the governors signalling the start on the consultation on Friday, October 7.

It will run for 12 weeks and ultimately it will be NEW Devon CCG who decide which beds to close.

The four options being proposed in the consultation are…

A) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Exmouth.

B) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Sidmouth and 16 beds in Exmouth.

C) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 beds in Seaton and 16 beds in Whipton.

D) 32 beds in Tiverton, 24 in Sidmouth and 16 beds in Whipton.

In the options Tiverton hospital will definitely remain open. Honiton and Okehampton have not been included in the options so will close.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/devon-community-hospital-bed-closure-consultation-is-given-go-ahead/story-29760710-detail/story.html

YOUR COMMENT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN FAVOUR OF ONE OF THE ABOVE – IT CAN POINT OUT POOR OR MISSING OR MISLEADING INFORMATION AND/OR PUT FORWARD OTHER SUGGESTIONS.

The NHS is not overspent, it is underfunded!

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

SIDFORD INDUSTRIAL SITE REFUSED PLANNING PERMISSION

Full report to follow.

But for now, thank Councillor Marianne Rixson for this.

Make no mistake this is NOT sensible or responsible Tories, or even sensible and responsible planning officers (though they HAVE done the right thing). Our Tory councillors should NEVER have been allowed to sneak in to the Local Plan through the back door.

It is definitely NOT thanks to Councillor Stuart Hughes, who watched it walk through that back door and did nothing.

It is totally NOT thanks to Hugo Swire who did – you guessed it – nothing.

The war is NOT won, this is just the first battle of almost certainly many more, with a powerful landowner. But no doubt Councillor Rixon will carry on her fight.

THANK YOU COUNCILLOR RIXSON, EAST DEVON ALLIANCE.

Conservative whip chooses councillors for Port Royal project

“During Wednesday’s meeting the cabinet agreed two Sidmouth councillors – Cllr John Dyson and
Cllr David Barratt – would represent EDDC on the group.

Councillor Phil Twiss said: “We must not forget Sidmouth is more than just a town, we have Sidford, Sidbury and Sidford rural – they will be excluded if it is just seen as an EDDC town ward councilproject.

“We want to include as many people as we can, in every way we can – we weren’t perfect in Exmouth and we have all learnt lessons from that – we have to be more open and inclusive.

“This has gone on for far too long, it seems like it has been 40 or 50 years … It is a part of the
town that is let down badly. We need to help Sidmouth Town Council go ahead with this.”

Cllr Twiss proposed they had one town council ward member on the group – Cllr John Dyson along with Cllr David Barratt, so they could have a more wider and open representation.

Cllr Dawn Manley said: “I have every faith in Cllr Barratt and Cllr Dyson but I find it extraordinary [that] the Conservative whip has chosen who they want to go forward. It makes no sense to me that the town councillors, who were voted for because of these specific issues are being
sidelined.”

http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/cathy-gardner/20160925/cabinet-stitch-up-port-royal-representation/

Owl says: Councillor Twiss ALWAYS says he does not whip despite holding the post which would be redundant if he did not!

Now he can prove it by allowing Sidmouth councillors to choose their reps!

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

Letter to Sidmouth Herald edited – do you agree?

The writer of this letter had one crucial sentence (the last one, in bold) taken out by Sidmouth Herald where it was recently published:

In last Friday’s Sidmouth Herald a short letter I had submitted for the Opinion page was printed – but minus its final sentence, thus taking away its punch line.

The letter submitted said:- ”

The Chairman of the Sidmouth Town Council Planning Committee is reported as telling the Planning meeting considering the Sidford Business Park that “It’s in the Local Plan. We have to fight the details”.

It only remains in the Local Plan because the EDDC voted, on 26 March 2015, to remove it – but in apparent ignorance of the fact that, the plan having already been submitted to the Inspector, they needed to send him evidence to support their decision. None was sent!

It is now up to us to overcome this incompetence. We have to challenge not just the details but the whole principle of building a Business Park ( a fancy name for an Industrial Estate!) on this site and on this scale.”

THIS IS THE MISSING SENTENCE CUT BY SIDMOUTH HERALD:

The proposal is yet another toxic legacy of the late, but unlamented, East Devon Business Forum.

Do you agree with this censorship?

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

 

Sidmouth Blackmore Health Centre protest Monday 19 September 11.15 am

Press release from the Patient and Public Involvement Chair, Di Fuller:

“The public response to fears over the future of the Blackmore Health Centre have been very encouraging.

Increases in rent and other costs, as well as plans from NHS Property Services (NHSPS) to redevelop the Blackmore Health Centre with added flats and a pharmacy, would radically increase costs to the Practice and threaten the future viability of the Practice on that site.

Hugo Swire MP, is visiting the Blackmore Health Centre on Monday 19th September to discuss the issues in detail with Dr. Joe Stych, other Partners and patient representatives. NHS Property Services and EDDC planning department have also been invited.

We ask members of the public who are concerned about the future of the surgery and agree with our request to purchase the

Blackmore Health Centre

to demonstrate their support outside of the Centre from

11.15 a.m. on

Monday 19 September.

Joe Stych said, “The ideal solution here would be for NHSPS to sell Blackmore to the practice so we are in charge of its future.

We would like to ask patients to write to Hugo Swire and Jeremy Hunt to campaign for the building to be sold to the practice to protect it.

We need people to question NHSPS as to why an operational building cannot be sold to motivated health care providers who will make them more efficient and responsive to our communities needs for healthcare provision.”

Di Fuller, Chair of Sid Valley Patient Participation Group has asked that people turn up on Monday to show their support for the Practice. We also want them to sign a petition asking Jeremy Hunt to allow NHSPS to sell Blackmore to the Practice to protect its future and to write to Hugo Swire and Jeremy Hunt with the same request.”

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