Category Archives: Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

13 Sep 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Fords of Sidmouth, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

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.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

12 Sep 2016

Posted under

AONB, EDDC, National Planning Policy Framework, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

“Sidford business park: call to ‘fight the details’ “

Just the sort of thing our constituency MP shoyld be fighting for …

“A raft of fresh objections have been lodged by residents and civic leaders against plans for a 9.3-acre business park – with warnings a single building could ‘dwarf everything’ in the Sid Valley.

Town councillors were told they have to ‘fight the details’ as they debated Fords of Sidmouth’s amended plans for the site between Sidford and Sidbury.

Members will urge district chiefs to impose restrictions on the scale of the buildings and call for a cycle path linking Sidbury and Sidford to be built before any other construction work goes ahead.

Planning committee chairman Cllr Ian Barlow told Wednesday’s packed meeting in Sidford: “I’m not defeatist – I’m a realist. We’ve fought this for years and years and years but now it’s in the Local Plan. Now we need to fight the details. If we have to have it, we don’t want buildings more than seven metres high, and we don’t want any bigger than 500 squares metres – we don’t need a huge distribution centre.”

He urged objectors to get their partners and children to write in, too, and send letters to East Devon District Council (EDDC), Fords and landowner Sir John Cave. There are already 153 objections online.

The town council originally opposed the application due to the impact on roads, flooding and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the lack of demand for the 300 jobs forecast to be created by the business park.

Fords’ amendments include relocating the proposed cycle path further from the A375, and redesigning the flood attenuation ponds to better fit in the environment. It also submitted ‘design codes’ – revealing that buildings would have a maximum height of 15 metres, and no one building would cover more than a quarter of the 5.8-acre southern field or the 3.5-acre northern site.

Critics at Wednesday’s meeting said such a building would ‘dwarf everything’ in the Sid Valley.

Cllr Michael Earthey said: “I said before, it will be a carbuncle on the landscape. Now we know the scale of it.”

Resident Ian Scott, who worked as an architect for 30 years, suggested hope was not lost. He said: “The Department for Transport can overrule the fact it’s in the Local Plan.

“I don’t think we should give up and say it’s inevitable.”

Town clerk Christopher Holland said if councillors did not object to specific details at this stage, the developer was being handed a ‘blank sheet’.

“This is your chance to put some red lines down on what you wish to see and what you wish not to see,” he added.

Members agreed to write to EDDC saying, if the business park does go ahead, the following conditions should be imposed:

● The maximum ridge height of the properties should be seven metres and the eaves should be no higher than five metres. There should also be no flat roofs.

● The cycle track should be built before any development goes ahead.

● The bat habitat should not be disturbed; specifically an ‘ancient’ hedgerow in Laundry Lane.

● Light and noise pollution should be restricted.

● There should be no retail under any circumstances on the site.

● A new traffic management report should be drawn up, and a traffic assessment will be requested.

● No one building should be more than 500 square metres in area.

For advice on commenting on the application, contact the town council on 01395 512424.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidford_business_park_call_to_fight_the_details_1_4689850

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Sep 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

‘Say NO to Sidford Business Park’, PUBLIC MEETING on Monday 12th Sept September 10, 2016

“A public meeting organised by Sidford & Sidbury residents, with the support of East Devon Alliance, will be held at Sidford Social Hall, Byes Lane, on Monday 12 September. Doors open at 6.30 pm for 7.15pm start. Coffee and teas available on arrival. Information displays to browse.

Sidmouth Town Council have already expressed serious objections to the height of buildings ‘up to 15 metres tall’ in Fords’ planning application.

image

Imagine a London bus of equivalent height, to get some idea of the scale.
There’s more information on http://www.facebook.com/saynotosidfordbusinesspark

‘Say NO to Sidford Business Park’, PUBLIC MEETING on Monday 12th Sept

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

6 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Art and Culture, Austerity cuts, EDBF, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Thelma Hulbert Gallery

EDDC Cabinet Meeting – 14 September 2016: highlights

Agenda here:

Click to access combined-cab-agenda140916final.pdf

Highlights:

Forward plans: discussion on public toilets at Cabinet in November 2016. Closing them or charging for them?

Next relocation update: 21 December 2016 Cabinet meeting
in line with burying bad news at the start of a long holiday.

Business Support and Thelma Hulbert Gallery reviews – no dates set.
Obviously a new grouping to take the place of the East Devon Business Forum and giving the Gallery longer to lose its (subsidised by us) money. Perhaps it will be relocated to the new HQ (wonder how much costs are increasing on that?)

Agenda Item 12 – Port Royal, Sidmouth – Scoping Study and Project Brief.
Whose scope, whose project?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

5 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Sustainability, Transport (local)

Sidmouth Town Council – change of venue for Sidfotd Business Park discussion on Wednesday 8 September 2016

“Sidmouth Town Council is set to consider Fords of Sidmouth’s revised application, which it submitted to offer ‘additional reassurance’.

More than 100 people attended the last meeting on the plans, when concerns included the impact on the roads, flooding and a lack of demand locally for employment land.

Wednesday’s meeting will be held in St Peter’s Church Hall from 6.30pm.

Fords’ revised documents have triggered a second consultation, so it means residents can have their say on the proposals until Friday, September 16, by visiting the district council website.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/second_meeting_to_discuss_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4680606

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Sep 2016

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Sustainability, Transparency

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’


“This letter, copied with the author’s permission, was published in today’s Sidmouth Herald:

Dear Sir,

I was delighted to read, on page 4 of last week’s Herald, that residents have got a second opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed business park between Sidbury and Sidford.

Then on page 10, I read that the County Council have withdrawn it’s proposal for a path between Sidbury and Sidford, because Ford’s have offered to pay for it, should they get permission for the business park.

The proposed path is now part of a section 106 agreement between the District Council (as the planning authority) and Fords. Such an agreement is described as a ‘ a DEAL to mitigate the impact of development’. I wonder if the use of the word ‘deal’ indicates what is really happening here- that the offer to fund the path is being used as a “bargaining chip”, to quote Stuart Hughes. As the business park has yet to receive the go ahead and another period of public consultation is in progress, I wonder how the council can justify their decision?

I have written to them to ask for an explanation and I suggest others do likewise. Meantime, may I urge readers with concerns about the proposed business park, to write or email the District Council. The reference number to quote in correspondence is: 16/0669/MOUT. The deadline for comments is 16 September and not 2 September, as is given in the EDDC website.”

Yours sincerely
Alison Kerruish,
Sidford

Resident raises concerns about possible business park ‘deal’

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

30 Aug 2016

Posted under

Health and Social Care (local), Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Comments

2 Comments

NHS Property Services stitches up Dr Sytch’s Sidmouth surgery

“Plans to completely redevelop Sidmouth’s Blackmore Health Centre – adding new flats and a pharmacy – have left GPs fearing for its future.

Sid Valley Practice partners have been denied the chance to buy their town-centre building – taken over in 2013 – and say owner NHS Property Services (NHSPS) seems to be on a ‘commercial drive’ to squeeze profit from the site.

GPs say they are struggling to work in the rapidly deteriorating premises – branded ‘non-fit for purpose’ by the Care Quality Commission in July 2015. They have spoken of concerns that current proposals do not future-proof the site or leave any room to expand as the population grows.

The GPs remain ‘absolutely committed’ to retaining the town-centre surgery and are appealing for support from the community.

Doctors say the company responsible for managing NHS property has hiked up charges to the practice by around 50 per cent, despite so far failing to make the six-figure investment needed in the building.

An NHSPS spokesperson said the company is ‘committed to delivering improvements’ and recognises the concerns raised by GPs.

Dr Joe Stych, one of the practice partners, told the Herald: “The plan at the moment includes 10 residential flats on the squashed site. The implications of this will be quite large.

“A concern is that if the site is developed into flats and sold off, this facility would lose future expansion space available to the NHS as the town grows. Practice partners have been desperately trying to buy the building to protect it long-term, but have been turned down. Since NHSPS took ownership, costs passed on to the NHS and GPs for running this facility have increased to a level it may not be financially viable for the surgery to continue to practice there long-term.

“One of the big concerns for us is future-proofing the practice. The plans that are there do not future-proof the practice for the town in the short-term, let alone the long-term. “

The practice partners personally shouldered a £2.1million loan to build the new Beacon Medical Centre off Stowford Rise – and say they are ‘absolutely committed’ to retaining a town-centre surgery.

Dr Stych added that doctors do not feel their concerns are being listened to, so they have resorted to appealing for public support in efforts to safeguard the future of the Blackmore Drive surgery.

Chairman of the Sid Valley Patient Participation Group, Di Fuller, called for the community to get behind a campaign to save their surgery. She says the NHSPS is making it increasingly difficult for the practice, adding: “From a patient perspective, we already know there is a lot of anxiety in the town about the security of the Blackmore Surgery. Our anxiety is that, once it’s redeveloped, it will be great, but the rent they will demand will possibly make it unsustainable.

“At the moment, I understand that they are not planning to make the accommodation large enough for expansion, which is really cause for concern. They are trying to maximise profit and income from the property.

“We are a patient group that works hard to bridge the gap on behalf of patients, but we need the community to get behind us on this.”

East Devon’s MP Hugo Swire agreed it would it be ‘wholly inappropriate’ for people in Sidmouth to experience a reduction in healthcare provision. He said he will seek a meeting with relevant parties to discuss the future of Blackmore Health Centre.

A spokesperson for NHSPS said: “We are committed to delivering improvements to this surgery, including draft proposals for a scheme which could provide homes and a brand new surgery on the site.

“The GPs raised concerns about the car parking and we have revised the proposal, but discussions are continuing on this, or the option to refurbish.

“We clearly want to ensure the best possible outcome for the practice and local patients. We are listening to the GPs and fully recognise their concerns. We will continue to work with them to address these, including queries about their billing.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sid_valley_doctors_issue_sos_save_our_surgery_1_4671922

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

29 Aug 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Further consultation on new documents submitted by Sidford Business Park developer

New documents to “provide further reassurance”. Er, further implies there was reassurance in the first place! More than a touch of spin speak PR there!

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/new_consultation_on_sidford_business_park_plans_1_4673518

Consultation extended to 16 September 2016.

Owl wonders who told Ford’s “further reassurance” would be a good move …

Such a fraught and confusing road so far …

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

24 Aug 2016

Posted under

EDDC, Neighbourhood Plans, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Comments

1 Comment

What locals like least about the Sid Valley

“… In total, 88 people said the thing they liked least about the town was transport, which included parking, cars, traffic and speeding.

The second most-disliked response was East Devon District Council, said some 45 residents. This included topics such as planning, the Local Plan and Knowle.

Housing and inflated prices due to wealthy retirees, along with elderly residents and too much emphasis on their needs, were next on the list with 25 votes each.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/questionnaire_results_reveal_your_likes_and_gripes_about_sid_valley_1_4669051

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

22 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Coastal erosion, EDDC, Knowle/Honiton/Exmouth relocation, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Independent councillor saves the day (again) in Sidmouth

The way of the EDDC world – don’t choose the best long-term option – choose the cheapest short-term option – except when it comes to their own offices,

District chiefs have backed down in the face of united opposition from Sidmouth representatives on a project to shore up the seafront.

East Devon District Council (EDDC) looked set to choose the least expensive scheme, Option 1, but beach management plan (BMP) steering group members said this was putting economics ahead of finding a solution that could protect the town for 100 years.

The authority has agreed to look again to see if £11million can be secured for the ‘technically preferred’ Option 4B, to install breakwaters along the seafront. Option 1, to install one or two groynes at East Beach, would need £2.3million in partnership funding.

EDDC will also sound out key stakeholders on whether they would give their blessing to works that will dramatically change the seafront.

Speaking after Wednesday’s steering group meeting, district councillor Cathy Gardner said: “There was so much opposition in the room to EDDC’s attempts to railroad through Option 1. The BMP is about finding a solution to protect the seafront for the next 100 years, but it’s become about making it affordable. There are so many unknowns. If we find out in a couple of years [the chosen scheme] doesn’t work, we haven’t really achieved anything.”

A report to steering group members from EDDC’s consultants, CH2M, said Option 4B would be the most effective – but it had the ‘worst economic case’, so recommended Option 1.

An EDDC spokeswoman said the authority has done some initial work to look at external funding sources, but securing £11million for Option 4B is ‘unlikely’. To provide ‘further confidence’ in the level of availability, EDDC has formed a sub-group to look specifically at funding over the next six months – while the BMP progresses.

Unless partnership funding can be secured, an Environment Agency (EA) grant of between £5million and £6.75million towards the chosen BMP scheme will not be made available.

Sidmouth Town Council chairman Jeff Turner said: “We’re getting the message that the scheme everybody favours and seems would be most effective is extremely expensive. Funding Option 4B would need such a huge council tax increase across East Devon there would need to be a referendum. The chances of the rest of East Devon supporting that are pretty remote.

“We still back 4B – we haven’t given up on it yet.”

Steering group chairman Cllr Andrew Moulding said: “It is vital that we maintain momentum with this crucial project.

“We are delighted that the local community has committed to working with EDDC and the EA to look at funding, which is crucial to ensure the ongoing protection of Sidmouth.”

He said the BMP is due to be completed this autumn and EDDC is having ongoing discussions with various statutory bodies to ensure the chosen scheme ultimately gains the relevant permissions.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/eddc_to_look_again_at_funding_for_11million_sidmouth_seafront_option_1_4662917

Well, they could always cancel their plans for their plush offices which will coincidentally cost about £11 million!

And perhaps a joined-up plan for the whole coastline might be a good idea in case there are unintended consequences to other coastal communities?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Aug 2016

Posted under

Beer, Budleigh Salterton, Exmouth, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

“The changing image of seaside towns”

A 2011 publication, but many relevant points:

“… Older resorts have suffered a lack of investment and political will, with a steadily decaying and inadequate infrastructure, whilst new arrivals are vulnerable to poor quality development.We see too many examples where design quality is sacrificed in a desperate bid to secure investment, reducing the chance of long-term success. …”

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/shifting-sands.pdff

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Aug 2016

Posted under

Coastal erosion, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Sidmouth Beach Management Plan – crucial meeting this Wednesday (17 August)

“As Sidmouth’s long-drawn-out Beach Management Plan (BMP) reaches a critical stage, all eyes will be on the Steering Group Meeting this week, with EDDC Deputy Leader, Andrew Moulding, in the Chair.

Vision Group for Sidmouth (VgS), one of the founder groups of Save Our Sidmouth, will be represented by Robert Crick, who has followed every stage of the long and fraught evolution of the BMP, and has a sound knowledge of researched solutions. He was a close colleague of Jo Frith, who died earlier this year. Jo had been the VgS representative on the BMP Steering Group for many years, strongly arguing a ‘best solution’ case, with solid suggestions for funding.

For the issues and controversies, see:
https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/news/2016/august/beach-management-plan-minutes-from-ff-vgs-meeting-of-8th-august.aspx
https://www.visionforsidmouth.org/news/2016/august/beach-management-plan-local-stakeholders-welcome-project-consultants-report.aspx
and http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/d_day_looms_on_option_to_protect_85m_of_sidmouth_property_1_4653525

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Aug 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, NHS (local), Ottery St Mary, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Can the NHS add up? Not in Sidmouth and Ottery

“Health bosses have been warned that a lack of trust and transparency continues to hang over the future of hospitals in Sidmouth and Ottery St Mary.

The NHS Success Regime – tasked with determining the model of care provision – has been called to account in the wake of cancelled public meetings and discrepancies in published figures over hospital beds.

Representatives from the region’s health and care forums (HCF) have said better community engagement is needed. They have also questioned how decisions are being reached after one document stated the daily cost of a community bed in East Devon was £750, and another at £313. The correct figure for the average cost of an occupied community hospital bed in East Devon is £289.

Chief executive of the Success Regime Angela Pedder has apologised for the error, but reiterated that the status quo does not ensure the best outcomes for patients.

In letters sent to Ms Pedder on behalf of the region’s HCF, Ottery town councillor Elli Pang said: “A lack of trust and transparency continues. We can agree with you that our objectives are also to maximise best outcomes for patients. We would, however, challenge that your actions will achieve that in the short-term if you follow rigidly the idea of community bed removal.”

Speaking at an Ottery Town Council meeting on Monday, she revealed that an event on the future of the town’s hospital had been cancelled and expressed fears that the outcome of a future consultation has been predetermined. …”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/sidmouth_and_ottery_st_mary_representatives_claim_there_is_a_lack_of_trust_in_wake_of_hospital_beds_cost_discrepancy_1_4645063

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

2 Aug 2016

Posted under

Post-Brexit Adjustments, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Construction shrinks enormously – particularly for industrial units

Sidford Industrial Park makes even less sense.

“The sharpest decline came in commercial activity, which fell for a second month running and at the fastest pace since December 2009 as investment in offices, industrial units and retail space slumped.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-construction-shrinks-at-fastest-pace-since-2009-after-brexit-vote-a7167681.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Aug 2016

Posted under

Coastal erosion, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Public being misled by Sidmouth beach management plan say two councillors

“‘Public being misled over Sidmouth’s beach management plan’ – claim

Sidmouth representatives claim they have had to fight for information on a project to shore up the seafront.

Councillors Matt Booth and Cathy Gardner say they have tried to co-operate with East Devon District Council (EDDC) on the town’s beach management plan (BMP) – but are speaking out because they feel the public is being ‘misled’.

Their allegations have been slammed as ‘unfair and unfounded’ by Cllr Andrew Moulding, the BMP steering group chairman, who accused his colleagues of ‘scaremongering’.

In a joint statement, Cllrs Booth and Gardner said: “While we try at all times to work with EDDC, we have a duty to the electorate to raise issues where we believe we see them. It is very difficult to do so if we are not consulted on issues in our ward. We were voted in with a large mandate last May, to a large extent because of the lack of transparency of EDDC and the key issues that were due. The representation of the situation around the process of the BMP to date needs to be questioned and we consider it to be misleading.”

The steering group is a ‘critical friend’ in the BMP process. It is made up of statutory bodies, such as the Environment Agency, and community groups like the Sid Vale Association. Cllrs Booth and Gardner are not members.

The two councillors said EDDC approved the shortlist of options for seafront protection options independently, but presented them as if they had the support of the steering group. Cllrs Booth and Gardner said EDDC only added one particular option – 4B – once the consultation was under way, following pressure from the steering group’s Sidmouth members. The ward members said this option – to install submerged reefs they argue would improve seafront amenities – was not given ‘equal opportunity’ and that the images released to the public were misleading.

Cllrs Booth and Gardner added: “It is of great concern that this is being set up as a cost-saving exercise and only one option will be tank tested. There is a real danger that it will not produce a result that will be approved by the Environment Agency or Defra and will not attract the partner funding that will be essential to deliver it.”

The BMP could cost £20million to implement and up to £15million will be needed in partnership funding. The cheapest option is £11million.

EDDC is yet to decide which option will be tank tested.

Ed Harrison, who chairs a Sidmouth sub-group of the BMP steering group, told the Herald: “What we’re worried about is that EDDC has already made up its mind. They’ve already said they cannot afford anything but the cheapest option.”

He said the majority of sub-group members hope options 4 and 4B can both be tank tested to assess their effectiveness.

Cllr Moulding said: “Healthy challenge is welcome, but we do need to respect the advice being provided by experts who have repeatedly addressed the issues raised. However, we cannot and will not request that expert advice is altered because some stakeholders are not getting the answers they wish to hear. Our officers’ and consultants’ time is being taken up, further delaying delivery of a scheme for Sidmouth, while adding to costs with no added benefit. I would question how this best serves the public interest.”

He said it would be ‘prohibitively expensive’ to tank test several options and it ‘could add millions of pounds’ to the overall scheme costs. Cllr Moulding argued that the BMP process had been conducted in a ‘completely open and clear-cut manner’ and that ward members had received email correspondence throughout.

Cllrs Booth and Gardner have invited residents to discuss the issue via mbooth@eastdevon.gov.uk or cgardner@eastdevon.gov.uk.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/public_being_misled_over_sidmouth_s_beach_management_plan_claim_1_4635586

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Jul 2016

Posted under

Axminster, Cranbrook, EDDC, Exmouth, Local Enterprise Partnership, Ottery St Mary, Regeneration, Richard Cohen, Seaton/ Colyford / Colyton, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Now Exmouth seafront is up for grabs again, what of Seaton Heights?

East Devon District Council really is having problems with regeneration in Exmouth and Seaton.

In Exmouth, the relationship with preferred developer Moirai Capital Investments (see many East Devon Watch posts) has spectacularly bitten the dust. And what of the development at the old motel site in Seaton – grandly marketed as Seaton Heights:

http://lymebayleisure.co.uk/

which continues to deteriorate badly, despite promises made (many times) to either finish or start construction in June 2016 (it varies a lot depending just which press release you read) having been broken (though the company website STILL touts the off-plan £1,000 deposits it has been marketing for years).

EDDC Deputy CEO Richard Cohen was brought in specially for his regeneration expertise in London but, alas, he seems to have spent the vast majority of his time spearheading the relocation of council offices to Honiton and mopping up development issues in Cranbrook.

Now we have no less than THREE of our major towns with regeneration committees, as Axminster has joined Exmouth and Seaton as being in need of major new investment. Perhaps to be followed by Sidmouth when it is deserted by EDDC and has its replacement influx of more pensioners and Ottery as it struggles with more housing without accompanying infrastructure.

Not really a very good track record, is it?

Still, perhaps our LocalEnterprise Partnership will pump funds into these deprived areas.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Jul 2016

Posted under

Developers/ Development, EDDC, Local Plan, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Judge quashes out-of-town planning permission for discount store

Wonder how this applies to out-of-town industrial developments?

Mr Justice Ouseley has quashed planning permission for an Aldi store in Mansfield after finding a series of errors in the way in which the planning authority processed the application.

Mansfield District Council had given permission to developer Regal Sherwood Oaks for a food store of 1,925 square metres at Sherwood Oaks Business Park, for which the intended occupier was Aldi.

Developer Aldergate Properties challenged this citing an adverse impact on its development in the town centre contrary to the sequential test in planning policy designed to protect town centre retailing from out-of-town rivals.

Aldergate argued that the council erred in its approach to the sequential test, imposed a condition personal to Aldi without considering relevant planning policy objections to this and failed to consider whether the proposal accorded with the development plan.

In his judgment, Ouseley J said Mansfield had misinterpreted the National Planing Policy Framework as the necessary sequential test has not been carried out and a material factor has not been taken into account.

He also did not accept that the planning committee would have been aware of guidance on personal conditions “in the absence of specific evidence to that effect.

“This is not just because this is not a very common point, but also because the evidence produced by the district council did not show that their training had covered this particular aspect of conditions, and nothing more was forthcoming despite requests.”

He also found the council had misinterpreted its development plan.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27743%3Ajudge-quashes-planning-permission-over-interpretation-errors-&catid=63&Itemid=31

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, NHS (local), Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Sidmouth residents to keep their eyes on their community hospital

“Community link to Sidmouth Victoria Hospital ‘must be maintained’

10:10 11 July 2016 Stephen Sumner
Sidmouth Victoria Hospital Ref shs 3264-50-14AW. Picture: Alex Walton.
Sidmouth Victoria Hospital Ref shs 3264-50-14AW. Picture: Alex Walton.
Sidmouth Victoria Hospital fundraisers are determined to hold NHS bosses to account as the community-funded premises are transferred to new owners – who will charge rent at the market rate.

NHS Property Services, also known as PropCo, will take on the hospital on December 1. The company does not profit and reinvests proceeds, but it will dispose of properties it judges are no longer needed.

Sidmouth Victoria Hospital has undergone a massive revamp since 1989, with much of the £4.5million bill coming from residents – and comforts fund chairman Graham Vincent is determined to ensure the community continues to have a say.

“We have two options,” he told Monday’s town council meeting. “One is what happened 60 years ago when the regional hospital board owned the buildings.”

At the time, six or seven dignitaries worked with the board to keep an eye on the buildings to see what improvements may be needed.

“They were the link between the health board and the community,” said Mr Vincent. “By doing that we hold on to a local interest.

“The other option is to form a community interest company (CIC) to lease the hospital from PropCo. It’s always been our policy to work with whoever owns the hospital.

“If we lost that local interest, we might lose out on donations. That’s no good to the local community.”

Mr Vincent said that PropCo has sold off surplus properties worth £58million and warned it cannot later be brought back under public ownership – ‘it will have gone forever’.

But he insists the hospital is well placed for the future: “Other community hospitals have lost their inpatient beds, but we’ve gained inpatient beds, and still we’ve got a minor injuries unit. We’ve got a completely new hospital, rebuilt over the last 25 years with community money. Sidmouth Hospital is stronger than any other community hospital in Devon.”

As the Herald was going to press yesterday, Mr Vincent was due to meet members of the Devon County League of Friends about the CIC.

He had a separate meeting planned with PropCo representatives.

A letter to stakeholders from NHS Property Services said charging market rents will provide the money needed for the ‘ongoing renewal’ of the estate. It also helps the NHS understand the ‘true cost’ of occupation.

It said groups like the comforts fund have raised ‘vital’ funds but the buildings are owned by the NHS and the ‘donation does not in itself provide rights of ownership’.

The transfer was triggered by the change in provider from the Northern Devon NHS Healthcare Trust to the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital’s trust, scheduled for October 1.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/community_link_to_sidmouth_victoria_hospital_must_be_maintained_1_4611342

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

8 Jul 2016

Posted under

Accountability, Asset sweating, Consultation, Democracy, EDDC, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury

Sidmouth: EDDC reasserts its authority over Port Royal

Probably stung by the popularity (and speed) of local residents who were able to organise and display interesting designs for Port Royal, EDDC has now announced funding for a scoping study (i.e. a PRE-study study) for the area. Not everyone is happy about the prospect:

“EDDC deputy chief executive Richard Cohen added: “Good proposals, which are innovative as well as practically and financially possible, will be critical to the success of Port Royal’s development.

“Throughout the process, there will be a clear focus on consultation and collaboration with local people, businesses and organisations, to ensure that any future development is achieved with their understanding.

“The improvements that this scheme will bring about will help maintain Sidmouth as one of the UK’s premier seaside resorts.”

But concerns were voiced at Monday’s town council meeting.

Councillor Ian McKenzie-Edwards said: “A lot of funding in Seaton came from Tesco. OK, it funded Seaton Jurassic, but two of the businesses it replaced were in tourism. Seaton is at a pretty low ebb. Tesco is a hell of a way of getting funding.”

Cllr Louise Cole welcomed the opportunity to regenerate eastern town, but said: “There’s a massive issue of trust between EDDC and the community.

“People are very concerned their voices aren’t heard. The two latest developments [the Knowle redevelopment and plans for a business park in Sidford] have reaffirmed that. People are extremely angry.”

Cllr Turner countered that people had always been cynical and it was up to the councils to try to involve them in the process.”

Mr Cohen expects the £10,000 project to be completed by mid-November, with a decision on the next step before Christmas.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/councils_scoping_out_future_of_port_royal_1_4608377