District Council votes to allow habitat of 11 species of bat in East Budleigh to be demolished

We need to get real about protecting biodiversity:
Futures Forum: Countering mass extinction: we need a Green New Deal plus action on biodiversity

Indeed, local councillors have been keen to help wildlife in our own backyard:
Futures Forum: East Budleigh objects to application to demolish habitat of 11 species of bat
Futures Forum: District Council defers decision on application to demolish habitat of 11 species of bat >

However, last week, the planning committee of the District Council decided to allow the demolition of the bat habitat in East Budleigh:
Agenda for Development Management Committee on Tuesday, 30th April, 2019, 10.00 am - East Devon

The BBC reports: 

Barn to be knocked down despite bat concerns

Posted at 14:35 1 May14:35 1 May

Daniel Clark
Local Democracy Reporting Service

A "licence to kill" has been granted, it was claimed, after plans to knock down a barn known to be home to rare and protected bats were approved.

Councillors voted by eight votes to five on Tuesday morning to give the go-ahead to demolish a barn in East Budleigh, known as The Pound, and for it to be replaced with a house.

A new bat barn will be built in the garden as mitigation and Clinton Devon Estates have said the new building will provide conditions "more suitable" for bats, including a dedicated loft area and ground floor with free flight access for the animals.

But concerns have been raised by ecological campaigners about the risk it would pose to the rare bats, saying the demolition of the barn could see them lose their homes and die.

BBC Devon & Cornwall Live: 1 May - BBC News
Bats in East Budleigh: “licence to kill” say ecological campaigners | East Devon Watch

A local resident has written to “Thérèse Coffey, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - as reported in the East Devon Watch blog: 

EAST DEVON RESIDENT CALLS OUT TORY GOVERNMENT ON ENVIRONMENT AND BATS

2 MAY 2019

...

The document “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment” contains enough positive ideology to satisfy most environmental campaigners. The document is elegantly designed and its content has been carefully thought out. It covers a huge range of subjects that I feel very strongly about: sustainable land use, enhancing the beauty and environmental worth of landscapes, and protection of wildlife.

The issue is the document is a vision and not legislation. It a collection of really good ideas but it is not law. When there is a conflict between potential industrial development, the provision of housing, and the environment, the ideals will get thrown into the river like toxic waste. If there is a chance for profit to be made councils will always find ways to get around even the most stringent protections. Sadly the “Green Future” is not seen as a moral compass for development it is just viewed as a bit of a nuisance. The proposed development on the pound in East Budleigh is a classic example. It clearly goes against the ideals expressed in the 25 year plan and the protection afforded to endangered species by The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as Amended)

The proposed development ( 18/1464/FUL. ) involves demolition of a barn (dating back to the 17th century) containing 11 species of bats (Including Grey Long eared bats, and Greater Horseshoe bats), Dormouse habitat destruction, and a Badger set relocation. It has caused a local outcry, the involvement of Sir David Attenborough, Devon Wildlife Trust, features on Radio Devon and BBC Spotlight.

When the development was put to the EDDC Development Management Committee the council chamber was packed with objectors. The plans were still passed paving the way for the a new entrance to be put through a well loved and iconic local amenity space and the destruction of habitat for several endangered species. Councillors were not only out of step with the electorate but also showed a total disregard for Michael Gove’s twenty five year Environmental Plan and environmental protection legislation. The whole community as well a host of endangered species in East Budleigh will lose out just so that one house can be developed. Yet another totally unbalanced decision that will only benefit a local wealthy landowner by the Conservative lead East Devon District Council.

If you would like to see the site in order to draw your own conclusions I would love to be your host. If you need more background information do not hesitate to contact me.

East Devon resident calls out Tory government on environment and bats | East Devon Watch
.
.
.

Pressures to expand the Greendale Business Park > yet another retrospective planning application approved

We need lots of industrial estates in the District:
Futures Forum: Pressures to expand business parks in East Devon >>> Greendale part two

And to help this along, one simply builds something first and then asks for planning permission after:
Futures Forum: Pressures to expand the Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks > two retrospective planning applications approved

Because, once it's up, it's very difficult to say 'No' - as the District Council's planning committee warily decided last week:

Greendale Business Park extension approved

Saturday, May 4th, 2019 8:20am

By Daniel Clark

It's been given retrospective planning permission.

A storage compound that supports 38 jobs on land just outside Greendale Business Park has been granted retrospective planning permission.

Councillors narrowly voted in favour of allowing land at Compound East 6, at Hogsbrook Farm, to be used to storage and distribution, despite it being outside the authorised boundary of Greendale Business Park.

East Devon District Council’s development management committee agreed by six votes to five to allow the retrospective use of the land after agreeing that despite their concerns, an inspector would almost certainly allow any appeal against refusal.

But they also said they were fed up of yet another retrospective planning application for the site coming before them, with Cllr Susie Bond saying it was ‘disrespectful’ and Cllr Brian Bailey saying they had a track record that was ‘not to be admired’.

Tim Smith, speaking on behalf of applicants F W S Carter & Son, said that he fully endorsed the view by the council’s economic officer that the plans should be approved and pointed to the lack of objections. He added: “We have a high level of demand for our site that cannot be provided elsewhere in the district.”

Chris Rose, the council’s development manager, said that the area of land which is part of Hogsbrook Farm, adjacent to the Greendale Business Park. The land is currently used for B8 purposes, although without planning permission, and is bounded by a fence, with a hedge adjacent to the fence on the western boundary of the sites.

He added: “The application site lies within the open countryside, where development would not normally be permitted. Therefore, the proposals represent departures from the Local Plan and do not benefit from any local plan policy support. But there are however considered to be a number of other material considerations that weigh heavily in favour of the proposals and that justify the grant of planning permissions despite the lack of planning policy support.”

Mr Rose said that one of the sites benefits from consent for its hardstanding and fencing, there are economic benefits from retaining the businesses and jobs on the sites, the sites are the most logical area for the extension of Greendale given that it is almost at capacity and the limited visual impact from the proposals.

He added: “Given the lack of any technical objections to the applications, and subject to conditions to control the height of any storage on the site, noise, lighting and deliveries, it is considered that, on balance, both proposals are acceptable.”

But Simon Andrews, speaking on behalf of the Woodbury Salterton residents association said that permission should be refused as it is against the Villages Plan and Local Plan policy.

Anthony Arnold added that if this was approved, it would going back to the dark days of the uncontrolled expansion into the countryside. He said: “The area outside the boundary should remain open countryside. What is the point of having a Villages Plan and a Local Plan if you just ignore them? Allow this and you open the floodgates.”

Cllr Geoff Jung, who represents the Raleigh ward, said that he could not support this planning application as it is outside the current approved employment area. He added: “Authorising this will drive a bus through the Local Plan. It allows anyone to get a compound, put a tenant in, and then call for the same permission to be granted.” He said that the council were successful on defending an appeal on the eastern area of the site and that this should be refused as it doesn’t comply with the Local Plan nor the Villages Plan and is not compatible with the setting.

Cllr Ben Ingham added that it may be providing jobs, but as it is in the wrong area, it is not sustainable and allow the sites to be ‘joined up’ is against policy.

Cllr Mike Allen said that this was a difficult decision for the committee. He said it is already a brownfield site it has hard standing and is fenced, and asked people to think about what an inspector may say. He added: “I think if we refused this, it would probably be approved on appeal, but I cannot think of a reason why this should be approved.” He also said that he was continuing to explain to the Greendale Business Park on why they need to get planning permission for their developments before they start building them and that he hoped they had finally got the message.

But Cllr Helen Parr said that she felt the committee had to be realistic, adding: “Regardless of whether we want this and what is in the policy, it is developed land and all the considerations to me say that on appeal, it is allowable.”

Cllr Bailey added that Greendale’s track record with planning applications was ‘not to be admired’, but added: “I fail to see any advantages in demolishing a low level piece of hard standing with a bit of fencing.”

A proposal to reject the scheme was lost by six votes to five. Councillors then voted by six votes to five to approve the retrospective plans.

Greendale Business Park extension approved - Radio Exe
.
.
.

Climate change: and whole-life carbon in new-build

The construction/building/architects industries are getting serious about what they do:
Futures Forum: Climate change: and the built environment: "Why clients and law-makers need to wake up to climate emergency... and why they should ask architects what to do."
Futures Forum: What can be done to mitigate the huge impact of construction on climate change?
Futures Forum: Climate change > and getting buildings to 'net zero'

And one area is the 'whole-life carbon' impact of what they do:
Whole-life carbon: RIBA and RICS guidance | Features | Building
A bigger picture | Sustainability: whole life carbon | isurv

It can get quite technical:
Whole life carbon – a building case study

It's connected to the idea of 'embodied carbon':

Embodied Energy and Carbon | Institution of Civil Engineers

And 'net zero' buildings:

Advancing Net Zero - UKGBC - UK Green Building Council

Targeting Zero, Delivering a low carbon future

Here's an example: 

A whole life carbon approach identifies the overall best combined opportunities for reducing lifetime emissions, and also helps to avoid any unintended consequences of focusing on operational emissions alone, e.g. the embodied carbon burden of changing double glazing to triple can be greater than the operational benefit resulting from the additional pane. Therefore, whole life carbon needs to be effectively integrated in the sustainability agenda to achieve a lower carbon future. 

WLC_implementation_in_the_built_environment_PDF.pdf

The Architects' Journal looks at where we are now: 

The AJ asked experts in sustainable design why whole-life carbon is important for architects to think about in their day-to-day work

VIDEO: WHY DOES WHOLE-LIFE CARBON MATTER FOR ARCHITECTS?
Video: Why does whole-life carbon matter for architects? | News | Architects Journal

Featuring:
Duncan Baker-Brown, BBM Sustainable Design and senior lecturer, University of Brighton
Hero Bennett, sustainability consultant, Max Fordham
Michael Pawlyn, director, Exploration Architecture
Mina Hasman, SOM associate and member of RIBA commission on Ethics and Sustainable Development
Anthony Thistleton, founder and director, Waugh Thistleton Architects

Film by Edward Bishop of Stephenson/Bishop

VIDEO: WHY DOES WHOLE-LIFE CARBON MATTER FOR ARCHITECTS?

Video: What power do architects have to reduce whole-life carbon?

Video: What practical steps can architects take today to reduce whole-life carbon?


Video: Why does whole-life carbon matter for architects? | News | Architects Journal
.
.
.

Knowle relocation project: parkland transfer to Town Council > latest

Earlier this month, there was an announcement that there would be a transfer of Knowle parkland to the Town Council this autumn:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: parkland transfer to Town Council

At the Town Council meeting on 8th April, the issue was brought up again: 

SIDMOUTH TOWN COUNCIL 

Minutes of the Meeting of Sidmouth Town Council held at the Council Chamber, Woolcombe House, Sidmouth, on Monday 8 April 2019 at 6.30pm 

• District Councillor Rixson asked whether Pegasus Life had been approached to contribute to the management costs of the Knowle Parkland. The Town Clerk replied that in early discussions, Pegasus Life had indicated a willingness to make a contribution to the management costs as their residents would benefit from the open parkland adjoining the proposed development.

Transfer of Knowle Parkland 

The Town Clerk reported that Pegasus Life now had a revised phased timescale for the construction of their development at the Knowle. This meant that the Knowle Parkland would likely be offered for transfer to the Town Council in the autumn/winter of 2019 instead of in three years’ time as previously advised. Refurbishment work had also been carried out on the railings and brickwork along the Knowle boundary to Station Road as requested by the Town Council.

PART ‘B’ 
Transfer of Knowle Parkland 

– Financial Consideration The Town Clerk reported that following negotiations between the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council and District Council representatives, the Knowle Parkland had been offered to the Town Council along with a sum of money representing 2 years’ worth of maintenance costs. Members were asked to consider this offer and advise the basis for further negotiations. 

RESOLVED: that: 
1. The Town Council accept the transfer of Knowle Parkland with the sum of money offered for 2 years’ worth of maintenance costs. 
2. In addition to (1), the District Council must supply evidence of recent tree surveys and management and any remedial tree works carried out prior to transfer of the land. 
3. Pegasus Life be asked to make an annual contribution to grounds maintenance costs as this work will directly benefit their residents. 


Mins-STC-080419.pdf
.
.
.

Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> further details

A week ago, we learnt that the appeal over the rejected plans for an industrial estate at Sidford will be heard as a public inquiry:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"

The campaign against the industrial estate provided more information:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > Inquiry to start 16th July

And now Devon Live has more:

Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry

East Devon District Council planners in October rejected plans to build industrial, storage and non-residential institutions on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road in Sidford.

Daniel Clark

Local Democracy Reporter
14:33, 20 APR 2019

.

CLICK TO PLAY

SIDFORD BUSINESS PARK PLANNED SITE

A date has been set for a planning inquiry into controversial plans to build a new business park on the edge of Sidford.

East Devon District Council planners in October rejected plans to build industrial, storage and non-residential institutions on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road in Sidford.

The scheme, which could create up for 250 full-time jobs, was refused on the grounds of harm to highway safety, relating to increased heavy goods vehicle usage of the area’s narrow roads

Applicants Fords of Sidmouth have appealed the decision, and it has been confirmed that a planning inquiry in front of an inspector will be held to determine the decision.

It will begin on Tuesday, July 16, at 10am, at East Devon District Council’s HQ at Blackdown House in Honiton and is scheduled to last for three days.

Luke Fleming has been appointed as the inspector and anyone wishing to submit comments or evidence, either for or against the proposals, must do so by May 17.

The outline application is for a change of use of land from agricultural use to employment use. It aims to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and foot paths, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure.

The plans have proven controversial in the village with over 250 submitted letters of objection, 1,400 residents signing the Say NO To Sidford Business Park Campaign petition objecting to the proposed Business Park, and signs and placards against the development all over the village, although not everyone was against the scheme

The site is allocated in the Local Plan, but primarily for light industrial uses. When refusing the plans, and East Devon District Council spokesman had said: “The applicants included a significant amount of warehouse space in their application, which would be reliant on HGVs to deliver goods to the site and then distribute them from there. Devon County Council, as Highway Authority, objected to the application based on the number of HGVs likely to be generated by the proposal, which significantly exceeds the figure envisaged when the site was allocated.

“East Devon District Council has agreed that the numbers of HGVs combined with the narrow roads, both in the vicinity of the site and through Sidbury, would lead to conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to the detriment of highway safety, and it was on this basis that the application was turned down.”

When plans were submitted, the applicants said that 250 new jobs would be created as part of the scheme and that the site’s development will secure a cycleway to the employment site.

It was the second time the application had been refused – a similar, but larger, scheme was rejected in 2016 as the application failed to demonstrate how the developers would achieve the high standards of design and landscaping.

Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry - Devon Live
.
.
.

Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > Inquiry to start 16th July

The campaign against the proposed development at Sidford has sent out a reminder that further points can be made to the Inspector:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April

Meanwhile, we have learnt that there will be a public enquiry on the appeal over the planning permission for an industrial estate at Sidford:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"

And the campaign has issued a further posting on the issue:

Campaign Update 27

We have now been advised by the District Council that the Planning Inspector has determined that instead of holding a Hearing into the planning appeal as we previously had been told, the Inspector has now decided to hold an Inquiry which could last up to three days. The first of these days is due to start on 16 July.  We are assuming that the Inspector will therefore have penciled in the Inquiry to be held on 16, 17 and 18 July. The Inquiry will be held in public and will be held locally. If you have any interest in attending then put these dates in your diary now!

In our last Update we asked you to consider submitting additional evidence to the Planning Inspector and we know that a number have done so, and thank you to those who have.

The District Council's latest communication advises that the Inspector has put back the date by which additional submissions can be made. The new deadline by which any additional comments have to be received by the Inspector is now 17 May. 

We again would encourage as many of you as possible who wish to, to submit comments even at this late stage. As the District Council refused planning permission solely on grounds related to highways matters you should only submit highways related comments. In doing so you might want to address matters that include - 

• Evidence or statements regarding the effect of noise, vibration, damage and pollution on your properties (and vehicles) due to HGV or other traffic
• Effect on the health of residents attributable to air quality 
• Effect of pollution on children walking to school and in the playground of the primary school
• Road safety issues - lack of pavements or narrow pavements, plus no lollipop lady, crossing nor traffic lights to help you cross safely with your children 
• Traffic delays due to congestion at the various pinch points on the A375 in both Sidford and Sidbury
• Evidence of vehicles mounting and/or diving on pavements

Where possible your comments should be supported by photographic evidence. We believe that it is important for as many photographs and/or videos are submitted to the Planning Inspector showing images of traffic congestion/difficulties along the A375 at any point between Sidford and Cotford in Sidbury. 

Attached, once again, is a brief guide as to how to present any submission that you make.

Best wishes

Campaign Team

NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) on Twitter
Say NO to Sidford Business Park - Home | Facebook
.
.
.

Knowle relocation project: parkland transfer to Town Council

It had been feared that the parkland at Knowle would be out of bounds for some time:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: District Council "have not yet agreed anything" about developers using the public car park and meadow for 'storage space'
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: How have PegasusLife been allowed to use the public car park and meadow for 'storage space' and what exactly does the promise of a 'bigger and better car park' once work is finished mean?

It seems, though, that the remaining parkland would be open 
- although, as the Herald notes, "the developer has decided to build its 113-home retirement community in phases, rather than one go, meaning it will be able to contain its construction materials without using the public car park" 
- meaning, according to the East Devon Watch, that it "won’t be much fun for those in Phase 1 (or their neighbours) to live on or near a building site until other phases (how many?) are completed":
PegasusLife ‘to build in phases’ at Knowle | East Devon Watch

Here's a report from the Herald: 

3.5hectares of parkland could be open to public from autumn

PUBLISHED: 06:55 15 April 2019 | UPDATED: 12:57 15 April 2019

Clarissa Place

The parkland at The Knowle. Ref shs 15 19TI 2187. Picture: Terry Ife

‘Significant’ parkland which would not be available for three years could belong to the town as soon as autumn.

The parkland at The Knowle. Ref shs 15 19TI 2185. Picture: Terry Ife

Sidmouth Town Council revealed on Monday night 3.5hectres of land at Knowle could be transferred sooner than expected after members were told the land and car park would not be available until the completion of PegasusLife's 113-home retirement community.

Town clerk Christopher Holland told the meeting the developer has decided to build its 113-home retirement community in phases, rather than one go, meaning it will be able to contain its construction materials without using the public car park.

In November, the Herald revealed the developer had been allowed the use of the lower car park and meadow as storage space for the duration of the works.

The council is in discussion with East Devon District Land about the land and the lower car park, which it hopes can be extended at a later date.

The parkland at The Knowle. Ref shs 15 19TI 2177. Picture: Terry Ife

Mr Holland told councillors: “It's good news at the end of the day, when we were discussing a three year deadline a number of you expressed some disappointment that it was going to be so long, so this is bringing things forward quite a bit but very dependent on Pegasus themselves.

“With trees come responsibility, if you want to have public parkland open to the public to view, it's the same as The Byes, you have to manage your trees carefully. All we are trying to do in our negotiations is get enough finance with the park to be able to look after it in the first few years without it being an additional burden on the Sidmouth tax payer.”

The parkland, which contains an arena space, was once a site for performers during Sidmouth's annual folk festival, and could be used for public events.

Councillor Ian McKenzie-Edwards said: “My person feeling here is this is a very significant and valuable piece of land within Sidmouth. I will feel a lot happier when it's in our bank and its secured. I can see in the future great economic and social benefit from the use of this land.”

Councillors raised questions about carrying out a tree survey and maintenance works had been carried out following the last sit visit three years ago.

Mr Holland confirmed the majority of the work had been carried out including large section of railings completely replaced or rewelded, and the brickwork around the buttresses of the trees where they were pushing out have been done.

Cllr Marc Kilsbie added: “I have the same observation and mindfulness that there are no restrictions and caveats put in there preventing what can and cannot take place on the parkland. Otherwise if there are huge restrictions on how it can be used it's a white elephant not an asset.”

Knowle parkland in Sidmouth could transfer to council by autumn | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald
.
.
.

Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"

The Planning Inspector will be hearing an appeal over planning permission for an industrial estate north of Sidford:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > BREAKING NEWS: Applicants submit appeal against decision to reject planning application

A correspondent has notified this blog that the Inspector will be conducting a public inquiry, rather than a hearing. 

There are concerns that the letter sent out by the District Council is rather 'vague': and yet it is clear that this will be a PUBLIC Inquiry, similar to that held for the Knowle appeal sessions:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: BREAKING NEWS >>> PegasusLife appeal allowed > further reports 

As the correspondent notes: "Local folk need to be made aware of this, especially with local elections approaching".

Here is the letter sent out by the District Council:

18/1094/MOUT | Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with scale and appearance reserved) for the change of use of agricultural land to employment land (B1, B8 and D1 uses) to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and footway, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure. | Land East Of Two Bridges Two Bridges Road Sidford
.
.
.

Proposals for sheltered housing for the elderly in Sidford > Inspector tells developers to pay full affordable housing contribution

At the beginning of the year, a controversial planning application was approved:
Futures Forum: Proposals for sheltered housing for the elderly in Sidford > third planning application approved, despite development 'potentially' generating increase in traffic

Now the Inspector has made clear what contributions the developer must make: 

Developers must pay full affordable housing contribution as demolition of former care home begins

An inspector rejected plans to reduce the off-site contribution

Daniel ClarkLocal Democracy Reporter
18:14, 8 APR 2019

.

CLICK TO PLAY

FORMER GREEN CLOSE CARE HOME

Demolition work has begun on converting a former care home into retirement apartments – but their bid to reduce the affordable housing contribution has been rejected.

Churchill Retirement Living’s plans to revamp the closed 23-bed former Green Close care home in Drakes Avenue in Sidford were finally given the go-ahead by East Devon District Council planners in December last year, after twice rejecting similar schemes.

The sheltered apartment plans would see the care home demolished and replaced with 40 apartments, with a guest suite, owners’ lounge, lift, office also be included, as would be 24 car parking spaces.

A financial contribution of £677,434 to the council towards the provision of affordable housing within the district is a condition of the application, which Churchill have agreed is acceptable.

The developers had appealed against a previous refusal by planners in May for a 39 one and two-bedroom apartments scheme as those plans only included an off-site contribution of £423,576, but no provision for on-site affordable housing. Councillors had voted by seven votes to five that this affordable housing offer was not policy compliant.

Planning inspector Rory Cridland has since upheld that decision, meaning that the council will receive the full affordable housing contribution of £677,434, which councillors at Tuesday’s development management committee meeting said was good news, when planning appeal statistics were discussed.

Mr Cridland’s report said: “The main issue is whether or not the proposed development would make adequate provision for affordable housing. The parties agree on the percentage of affordable housing required, that onsite provision is not appropriate and that a financial contribution towards off site provision is justified. They do not, however, agree on the amount or the means by which it should be calculated.”

The applicants had used a capitalisation rate at four per cent, considerably lower than the six per cent applied by the council.

He added: “The council’s six per cent figure is reasonably robust, and it is unlikely to be significantly out of kilter with prevailing market rates. In contrast, the evidence provided by the appellant to justify the four per cent rate is limited. Consequently, I favour the council’s evidence and conclude that the proposed contribution of £430,678 is insufficient to provide an off-site affordable housing contribution of equivalent value to on-site provision. As such, it would fail to make adequate provision for affordable housing and would, therefore, conflict with the requirements of the Local Plan.”

He dismissed the appeal, meaning the full £677,434 to the council towards the provision of affordable housing must be paid.

The Green Close care home was built in 1971 but closed in 2014 after Devon County Council cutbacks.

Developers must pay full affordable housing contribution as demolition of former care home begins - Devon Live
.
.
.

Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April

The applicants who failed to get planning permission for an industrial estate north of Sidford have appealed - and the campaign against this have swung into action:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > BREAKING NEWS: Applicants submit appeal against decision to reject planning application

The campaign is giving advice on how to submit further comments to the Inspector: 

Campaign Update 26

Apologies for the delay in providing an update but over recent weeks we have been trying to clarify what is required in the lead up to, and at, a planning appeal hearing. We now believe that we are much clearer in how we need to progress.

As those of you who had submitted objections to the planning proposal will now be aware from the District Council that the process associated with the planning appeal has commenced.

Before we address that a belated thank you to all who took part in our fundraiser Ceilidh which made a profit of £530. This brings our funds to just under £1,500.

We had been anticipating having to put a plea out to raise significantly more funds in order to fund legal representation at the appeal hearing. At this stage however we do not think this is necessary as we believe we have sufficient funds to support the work that is required over the next few crucial weeks. Thank you however to those who have in recent weeks made offers of further donations, but at this stage we think it would not be right just to take money from you without having a clear idea of what we would spend it on. 

We have discussed how to approach the appeal with several people, including a solicitor, all of whom have planning experience. It is now our considered opinion that we can between us manage the next set of activities and fund these out of our existing funds. We may however possibly need to consider raising additional funds in a few months time should we decide to seek a professional representative to take the lead on our behalf at the appeal hearing.

As the recent letter from the District Council, a copy of which we attach, makes clear there is now a further opportunity for anyone to make comments about the planning proposal which can be submitted to the Planning Inspector. As you will see there is a short deadline by which any additional comments have to be received by the Inspector - by no later than 22 April.

We would encourage as many of you as possible who wish to, to submit comments even at this late stage. As the District Council refused planning permission solely on grounds related to highways matters you should only submit highways related comments. In doing so you might want to address matters that include - 

• Evidence or statements regarding the effect of noise, vibration, damage and pollution on your properties (and vehicles) due to HGV or other traffic
• Effect on the health of residents attributable to air quality 
• Effect of pollution on children walking to school and in the playground of the primary school
• Road safety issues - lack of pavements or narrow pavements, plus no lollipop lady, crossing nor traffic lights to help you cross safely with your children 
• Traffic delays due to congestion at the various pinch points on the A375 in both Sidford and Sidbury
• Evidence of vehicles mounting and/or diving on pavements

Where possible your comments should be supported by photographic evidence. We believe that it is important for as many photographs and/or videos are submitted to the Planning Inspector showing images of traffic congestion/difficulties along the A375 at any point between Sidford and Cotford in Sidbury. 

Attached is a brief guide as to how to present any submission that you make.

In the meantime we are working with a number of residents in order to obtain evidence from them about how the traffic detrimentally affects them and their properties so that this too can be submitted to the Planning Inspector.

Best wishes 

Campaign Team

NO Sidford Business Park Campaign

Guidance on submitting additional evidence to the Planning Inspector

All comments and evidence must –

• be received by the Planning Inspector by no later than 22 April 2019. Anything received after this date will not be considered by the Inspector.
• quote the planning appeal reference for in order for it to be considered by the Inspector. The reference is – APP/U1105/W/19/3221978.
• quote the address of the appeal site i.e. the Business Park. The address to be quoted is – Land East of Two Bridges, Two Bridges Road, Sidford.
• your name and address
• state “I am against the appeal proposals” and explain whether it is for the same reasons as given by the District Council or, if not, explain your own reasons

The reasons given by the District Council in refusing the planning application were –

"1. The proposed development, by virtue of the proposed B8 uses, would result in an increase of HGV traffic on the surrounding road network, both in the vicinity of the site and through Sidbury which both suffer from inadequate road widths and a lack of footways. As such increased HGV movements within this area will result in conflicts between vehicles, and between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, to the detriment of highway safety. 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."

The Planning Inspector asks that any additional submissions are –

• in a font such as Arial or Verdana in a size of 11 point or larger
• use A4 paper wherever possible
• number the pages of the documents
• make sure photocopied and scanned documents are clear and legible
• use black and white for documents unless colour is essential
• put any photographs (both originals and photocopies should be in colour), maps, plans, etc, in a separate appendix and cross reference them within the main body of the document
• print documents on both sides of a page. You should use paper of good enough quality that something printed on one side of the page does not show through to the other side
• do not send original documents
• if possible, send 3 copies

You should send your written submission and/or photographs/videos –

By post to: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/C Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol BS1 6PN

By email to: west2@pins.gsi.gov.uk

Planning Portal: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

Remember all evidence must be received by the Planning Inspector by no later than 22 April 2019

NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) on Twitter
Say NO to Sidford Business Park - Home | Facebook
.
.
.

Knowle relocation project: buildings about to bite the dust

How 'green' is the District Council's new build  HQ in Honiton?
Futures Forum: Green buildings in East Devon

Not as green as the old build HQ in Sidmouth:
Futures Forum: "A truly green alternative to EDDC's proposal"
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: saving energy costs - and challenging the justification to move

How much in danger is the new HQ?
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: how vulnerable is Honiton HQ builder? >>> Interserve goes into administration

Not much, according to the District Council: 

Interserve collapse 'will have no impact' on new council HQ

Interserve Construction Ltd were the contractor that East Devon District Council had used to build their new HQ in Honiton

East Devon District Council say the collapse of Interserve should not impact on their new Blackdown House HQ.

Interserve - one of the UK's largest providers of public services – went into administration last week after shareholders rejected a rescue deal for the company, which has 45,000 UK staff, and 68,000 globally. Interserve Construction Ltd were the contractor that East Devon District Council had used to build their new HQ in Honiton, which opened last month, but they have not ‘gone under’.

A council spokesman said that as a result, their contractors remain on site to work through the list of remedial works that need to be carried out on the £8.7m new building.

An East Devon District Council spokesman added: “We have kept a close eye on Interserve’s fortunes and we were sorry to hear that Interserve PLC has gone into administration. However, Interserve Construction Ltd did not go under and therefore the contractor can continue.

“East Devon took possession of its new headquarters Blackdown House in January 2019 and the building is operating well and at capacity since staff moved over fully in February. As with most new buildings it is generally the case that there is a list of remedial works to carry out and Interserve’s contractors are on site and working through the list. The council is monitoring these works closely, but for the moment we are on track with Interserve to finish off the list and meanwhile our new HQ is working well and fully open for business.”

The new Honiton Blackdown House HQ replaced the council’s former HQ at The Knowle in Sidmouth, while one third of the council staff are to be based at Exmouth town hall.

Shareholders of Interserve Plc on Friday voted 59.38 per cent against a rescue plan to address their mounting debt pile. The plan would have seen their stake reduced to just five per cent with lenders being handed the lion's share of the business.

However following the plan being rejected, Interserve said that in the absence of any viable alternative rescue plan it would formally apply to the High Court to go into administration. Administrators EY have been appointed under a so-called pre-pack administration, an insolvency procedure in which a company arranges to move its assets to a another owner before administrators are officially appointed.

Interserve collapse 'will have no impact' on new council HQ - Devon Live

Next week should see the Knowle given over to PegasusLife - who will then begin demolition:
East Devon officially opens new council HQ as they hope to hand over Knowle to developers by end of March
.
.
.