Futures Forum: District Council - Submission of the new Local Plan........... deadline Monday 7th October........... letter from VGS Futures Forum
this has been sent in as part of the latest consultation on the Local Plan
from the chair of the Vision Group's Futures Forum:
October 7, 2013
Proposed changes to East Devon Local Development Plan
The amendments to the plan are predominantly thoughtful and
sensitive improvements. The officer commentary and explanations throughout the
document is extremely helpful.
With
specific reference to Sidmouth:
Chapters
65-66:
The Vision for Sidmouth met no serious opposition initially and
the minor corrections are welcome, particularly the commitment to improving
existing employment sites. Characterising the town as “Regency grandeur” on the
basis of a small number of attractive buildings in the southwest may be good
branding for the tourist trade but is unhelpfully reductive in evaluating the
town’s diverse qualities and rich history for planning and development purposes.
Chapter
67:
Point 2 –
It is regrettable that the plan has not been amended to make it
compatible with the vision above particularly in relation to the preservation
of the AONB.
Persisting with proposals for 5 hectare employment land
provision at Sidford seems wilfully perverse in view of the evidence produced
during consultation that the site had been proposed without any proper
democratic oversight, that it is in a flood zone that had been incorrectly
categorised, that the DCC transport department finds it unacceptable for
vehicular access, and that there has been massive and unprecedented public
opposition both to the proposal and to the process that led to the proposal.
No justification has been given for this proposal. Indeed,
evidence has been ignored that Sidmouth, uniquely in the region, has more workers
commuting in than out, suggesting the priority is for affordable housing for
keyworkers rather than for new employment land. In this connection, amendments
to Strategy 34 in paragraph 76 appear particularly welcome, if only as a
realistic aspiration. The amended plan seems to add to its inappropriateness by
suggesting the possibility of retail activity on the site, which would threaten
further damage to the infrastructure, environment, and balanced economic life
of the town.
Point 5 –
Deletion of “park and ride” provision seems unjustified. “Park
and walk” is also needed. In the absence of a long awaited traffic survey we
have to rely on the substantial anecdotal evidence that the town centre is
congested with vehicles that are predominantly on short journeys. Although “Park
and ride” facilities near the A3052 may be a regional and county transport
strategy requirement this will not answer the needs of Sidmouth residents,
increasing numbers of whom are frail and elderly. Provision should be “both/and”rather
than “either/or”.
Ch. 68
An apostrophe is needed after “communities” – “supporting communities’ social
well being” or “supporting the
community’s social well being.
Ch. 98
Stratgey 48 on Open Space Provision is one example among many of the welcome
introduction of a balanced and sensitive approach in the amended local plan.
Robert
Crick
Resident
of Sidmouth Eastern Town
Chair
of the Futures Forum of the Vision Group for Sidmouth
..
.
No comments:
Post a Comment