Tuesday, 19 January 2016

East Devon Local Plan >>> the Inspector decides >>> >>> the immediate response

The Inspector's 'modifications' are out:
Futures Forum: East Devon Local Plan >>> Sidford business park to remain

 There has already been considerable reaction on-line:
Inspector includes Sidford business park in Local Plan - News - Sidmouth Herald

 And serious questions are being asked:
Will Sidmouth, and East Devon, remain ‘an outstanding place’, with EDDC’s Local Plan? | Save Our Sidmouth

 With the EDW blog asking several more:
Another push-me pull-you situation: Sidford Fields Industrial Estate | East Devon Watch
What is ” countryside”? What is “sustainability”. | East Devon Watch
BREAKING NEWS: Diviani says Local Plan sound – BUT Inspector rewrites it with nearly 200 major changes! | East Devon Watch

 There has been a lot of traffic on the Streetlife pages:

Local Plan - Sidmouth Housing

hibou  in Sidford
I see that the Inspector has allocated 125 new dwellings for Sidmouth through to end of 2031. As Pegasus want to build 126 dwellings on Knowle we won't need the allocation of 20 for Manstone site and more importantly the 30 for Eastern Town. Also the proposed 50 bed care home provision for Knowle is either unneccesary or can be offset against the houses - so a care home and 76 dwellings at Knowle and Sidmouth is set for 16 years.
Oh - despite Stuart Hughes's pronouncement, the Sidford Business park is still in the plan!
    Maggie
    The Sidmouth Herald needs to do a full report on this plan and needs to make sure any detail given by councillors or the council is correct.
    Stuart H
    As I said the Sidmouth Herald informed me that the Business Park hadn't been put back into the plan for which I was delighted to hear....... The Inspector has decided to put it back in the plan which I believe is a huge kick in the teeth for the Sid Valley.
    Real Sidmouthian
    Well that's hardly a surprise. Trying to take something out at the last minute after the local histrionics was never going to impress an inspector.
    Truly Scrumptious
    I agree with Stuart Hughes. The road down to Sidmouth is hazardous enough sometimes, I.e. The tight bends on leaving Honiton, the various areas around Sidbury without the additional commercial traffic from a business park. More importantly, it will spoil the beautiful vista as one drives the final distance from the hill after the Hare and Hounds. Additionally, children from Sidbury and those walking to and from Sidbury/Sidmouth will be put at more risk with the additional traffic.
    Business parks should be put in areas of land that offer nothing special yet on a regular bus route for people to commute to rather than rely on cars to get them there, on route to Exeter in our case.Additionally, in these times of economic restrictions imposed by the government, is this the right time to think about building a business park which may have empty rental spaces for years to come. Yes, this will be joy to builders, electricians, plumbers etc who will earn significant sums in building it but then to have thiseyesore on our doorstep that is half empty, and in an area prone to flooding,will not. It will probably increase the risk of flooding to Sidford by having a huge swath of land on a hillside covered with concrete just before it.
    I suggest that the land on the opposite and near to the Bowd is a more appropriate place to put it, one of two places I am thinking of is where the man during the summer makes his wooden sculptures. It is en route to Exeter and has a regular bus service and traffic lights could be put in to allow a safer flow of traffic to the site and other areas. A pedestrian aspect within the traffic lights could be incorporated so that people could go to the pub for their business lunches maybe.
    Polarising Plebeian
    Does an inspector put things back into a plan because he thinks it's the right thing for Sidmouth? Or does he put it in because some hell bent council requests this, knowing that the inspector would not (anymore) object?

    The plan is not written by the inspector, it is checked and approved etc
    Am I right?
    Real Sidmouthian
    He puts in back in because as far as he's concerned there is no proper planning argument to remove it. Frustrating though that is, he's not turned out to be the 'saviour' that some in the valley were hoping. Whatever your views the CEO of EDDC was right when he said it was too late to take it out of the plan at the 11th hour. Though of course he won't get any credit for that.........
    Real Sidmouthian
    Reading the actual report  it's important to note that the 20 dwellings at Manstone and 30 at Port Royal ARE still included and very much specifically allocated. It's an interesting read.
    hibou
    PP the plan was originally written by EDDC but the Inspector has changed it greatly because a lot of it was out of date and inaccurate and too vague. In effect the Inspector's input was so great that it was close to a rewrite.
    RS the Manstone and Port Royal allocations are indeed still there as is the 50 allocation for Knowle - what we need to know from EDDC is what happens to Manstone and PR if the proposed 126 at Knowle are built - surely once we reach our total allocation then no more are needed? Or can the council exceed it?


    Streetlife | Local Plan - Sidmouth Housing
    .
    .
    .
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment