Seven alternative options to develop Sidford's AONB

The District Council has declared that it wants to see the fields north of Sidford developed:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT >>> REFUSED: but "countryside will still be developed"
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT >>> REFUSED: but "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"

These fields must become 'employment land' - as stipulated in the Local Plan:

Jobs - provision of up to 5 hectares of additional employment land, with a particular onus on B1 space (with any retail “ancillary to primary use of each unit”.). 
Land is allocated north of Sidford (Site 041A / 041B). 
This will be developed in 2 phases, the first of 3 hectares in the Southern part of the site (041B), and the second phase of 2 hectares in the Northern part of the site (041A) after the 5 year review of the Local Plan. 
The second phase will not be allowed to go ahead until after the 5 year review and only if the Southern part of the site has been fully developed and at least 90% occupied for employment uses first. 
If the first phase has not been developed by the first plan review, then the employment allocation for Sidmouth should be re-examined. 
Furthermore, the employment site must be subject to the highest design and landscaping standards with extensive planting and wide buffers around existing homes to minimise any amenity impacts. 

local-plan-final-adopted-plan-2016.pdf

Here is a list of options which might be considered as alternatives to the rejected planning application - with arguments for and against each option:


OPTION 1: WHEAT FIELDS:

FOR: keeping top quality agricultural land, which is Policy EN13 in the Local Plan: URGENT! Sidford Business Park Planning Application now in. “The more people who write in, the better”. DEADLINE for comments, WEDS 8th JUNE. | Save Our Sidmouth

BUT: the District Council doesn't seem to know how much Grade 1 and 2 farming land it has: Cloud Cuckoo Land? Super inquiry, day 7 | Susie Bond

AGAINST: it wants more 'B1 space', which translates as offices: Planning use classes in England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ALTHOUGH: this could well mean warehousing and lots of retail: Argos store at Honiton for example; and 00044RGHBU000 | Heathpark Industrial Estate Devonshire Road Heathpark Industrial Estate Honiton for almost everything else

AND: the rejected applicant had promised shed-loads (literally) of jobs: New business park plan could create 300 jobs for Sidford and Sidmouth | Exeter Express and Echo

ALTHOUGH: most of these would be on minimum wage: Warehouse Worker Salary (United Kingdom)


OPTION 2: PADDY FIELDS:

FOR: regular flooding: Floods in Sidbury/Sidford – bad luck if you have a 40 ton lorry going to an industrial site! | Save Our Sidmouth and Flood warning for River Sid | West Country - ITV News

AGAINST: the EA can't make up its mind: Environment Agency - Flood Warning Area Detail and Environment Agency defends ‘incomprehensible’ support of Sidford business park plans - Sidmouth Herald  and Sidford: Environment Agency “not using new flooding figures to save developer money” | East Devon Watch 


OPTION 3: KAYAK SCHOOL:

FOR: a nice bit of whitish water: River Sid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AGAINST: it's not going to employ 300, even on minimum wage: Kayak Instructor Jobs Profile from WatersportStaff.co.uk


OPTION 4: BIOFUEL STATION OR COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PLANT:

FOR: turn the pumping station on the River Sid into a CHP plant: Sewage waste energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Combined heat and power for sewage gas applications

AGAINST: not really that smelly in fact: FAQs | Anaerobic Digestion and, for example, Sewage is smell of success for 200 homes (From Oxford Mail)





OPTION 5: WILLOW WEAVING FARM:

FOR: a very Devon thing: Devon Association of Smallholders Training

AND: with lots of successful businesses: Windrush Willow and Trill Farm - Organic Farm, Education Centre, Bed & Breakfast & Farm Shop 

AND: ideal for wet ground: Willow, A New Old Crop | Cornell Small Farms Program

AGAINST: if you don't think willow makes an excellent sustainable resource: The Crucial Roles of Willows in Sustainable River Management | Flood Creek Non-Nativist Landcare and crafts for a sustainable future - what we do


OPTION 6: SCIENCE PARK:

FOR: lots of prestigious jobs: 10 well paid jobs of the future - Telegraph

AGAINST: the District Council already has one in the eastern part of its territory - and is selling its 'Science Park' to more warehousing: Lidl to create 500 jobs with new Devon hub | Insider Media Ltd and Plans for Ikea store in Exeter approved | Exeter Express and Echo



OPTION 7: AN INFORMAL BIT OF EMPLOYMENT LAND

FOR: local small businesses and start-ups get to build micro-workshops on an ad-hoc, as-needed basis: Why we need to rethink how we help micro-businesses grow and The importance of Small and Medium Sized Businesses | International Green Awards

AGAINST: not much political kudos: Politicians love talking about small business. Here's what they are getting all wrong. | Lucas Puente | LinkedIn and The new age of crony capitalism | The Economist

See also:
Futures Forum: Crony capitalism and lemon socialism in East Devon........ The costs of "substantial growth and expanding business"
Futures Forum: "Regeneration and economic development" in East Devon >>> looking beyond the conventional, the ideological and the heavyhanded
Futures Forum: Redeveloping East Devon >>> the alternatives to a heavy-handed approach

And:
Futures Forum: Sidford Business Park and the East Devon Business Forum
.
.
.

Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT >>> REFUSED: but "countryside will still be developed"

The planning application at Sidford has failed - but the District Council would still like the area to be developed:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT >>> REFUSED: but "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"

The front page of today's Herald made that perfectly clear:

With the full article here:

Sidford business park refused - but ‘countryside will still be developed’

15:17 29 September 2016

Stephen Sumner

How Fords' business park could look

The refusal of controversial plans for a 9.3-acre Sid Valley business park has been hailed as ‘a victory for common sense’ – but the land is still set to be developed.

Campaigners reacted with jubilation to the decision of East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) planning bosses on Tuesday.

However, the authority has said it is ‘still committed’ to seeing the earmarked site - in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) at Sidford - used for ‘employment purposes’.

Contentious proposals submitted by Fords and Sons were deemed unacceptable as the development would harm the AONB, depend on ‘unsuitable’ roads and impact on neighbours without adequate mitigation. The applicant has six months to appeal the decision.

The 12-acre site has a strategic allocation as employment land in EDDC’s Local Plan.

Councillor Marianne Rixson said ‘common sense’ had prevailed with the refusal of planning permission, adding: “It’s such a relief that we have had this result after such a long haul. I would like to thank everyone who helped me and supported me in this fight. The reasons for rejection again question why this site was put into the Local Plan in the first place.”

The Sid Vale Association’s Richard Thurlow said people will have to ‘wait and see’ if an appeal is lodged, adding: “Meanwhile, congratulations to all whose efforts have contributed to this decision for refusal. It shows what we can do if we all work together.”

A petition to ‘say no’ to the business park attracted more than 1,100 signatures and 384 objections were lodged with EDDC. There were two letters of support.

Sidmouth’s district and county representatives all objected, as did Sidmouth Town Council, Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce, Natural England and the county highways authority.

The decision to refuse the application was made at EDDC’s weekly planning chairman’s meeting. In accordance with the authority’s constitution, as both Cllr 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.

Cllr Barratt, who spoke at the meeting, was ‘very pleased’ with the decision, adding: “I based much of what I said on the research done by others into the application.”

He praised the work of planning officers.

An EDDC spokeswoman said the application had failed to demonstrate the high standards of design and landscaping required in the AONB, or prove that the traffic likely to be generated would not be harmful to highway safety. She said members were not satisfied that any noise impact would be acceptable, and they were concerned that the application did not show how a cycle route would be put in place, how the Sidford Cross junction could be improved, or how the site would be landscaped to reduce its impact on the surrounding area.

The spokeswoman added: “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.”

Tim Ford declined to comment.

Sidford business park refused - but ‘countryside will still be developed’ - News - Sidmouth Herald
.
.
.

Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Scoping Report and Project Brief >>> 26 questions

There are still uncertainties around the anticipated project to regenerate Port Royal: for example:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Scoping Report and Project Brief >>> questions

Nevertheless, reassurances have been given that any such questions will be addressed once the 'Reference Group' meets - a group charged with 'advising' and 'managing' the Scoping exercise.

The following questions have been sent to the Town Clerk - the pivotal officer in the process - by the Vision Group - who will be on the Reference Group, together with: 
> the Chairs of the following organisations: Sidmouth Town Council, Neighbourhood Plan Group, Sid Vale Association, Chamber of Commerce 
> x2 Sidmouth Town Councillors, x2 Sidmouth District Councillors, County Councillor 
> Officers of the two Councils 

Terms of ReferenceJoint Working Arrangements for the Port Royal Scoping Exercise ProjectSidmouth Town Council and East Devon District Council 

QUESTIONS: SCOPING STUDY

28th September 2016

There further points arising, now that more information is available:

STC [Agenda incl TOR and Project Brief http://www.sidmouth.gov.uk/images/Agenda_STC-050916.pdf ]

[Minutes: 5th September: http://www.sidmouth.gov.uk/images/Mins-STC-050916.pdf]

EDDC Cabinet [Agenda paper: 14th September: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1845110/combined-cab-agenda140916final.pdf]

[Minutes: 14th September: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1856707/140916-cabinet-mins.pdf]

Reports in the press

[the Herald: 9th September: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/plans-for-port-royal-anticipating_18.html]

[the Herald: 16th September: http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/home/scoping_study_given_green_light_by_district_1_4699248]

[the View from Sidmouth: 20th September: http://www.viewnews.co.uk/port-royal-set-regeneration/]

SCOPING STUDY

1) To what extent is the Study simply concerned with gathering quantitative evidence (“fact-finding”); and to what extent will it also be covering qualitative research (“public consultations”)?

2) To what extent will the Study determine the ‘scope’ of the overall Port Royal Regeneration Project – that is, over the entire life of the Project?

3) Will the end of the Study mark Gateway One? In which case, as outlined by Officer Alison Hayward at her presentations to the STC and NPSG, will it be impossible to revisit any of the elements of the Study, either quantitatively (“fact”) or qualitatively (“opinion”) – or to reconsider the scope of the Project once Gateway One has been passed?

4) With reference to the Herald article of 9th September, what exactly is meant by ‘proposals’ – are the Project/Reference Groups and both Councils expected to come up with ‘proposals’ to determine the direction, scope and nature of the overall Port Royal Regeneration Project; or are the ‘proposals’ limited to how the information will be presented only in the Study?

CONSULTANT

5) How will the selection of the consultant be decided and will this process be made transparent to all stakeholders?

6) Who will the consultant be employed by and where will s/he have office space?

7) Who will s/he report to?

8) Will it be the responsibility of the Reference Group or of the Project Group to determine the nature and scope of the support from Officers and external consultants? And what exactly is meant by ‘support’ from officers and external expertise – who exactly and which Group will be providing direction for such support? (See STC Minutes of 5th September)

9) To what extent will the Study and larger report be ‘set out’, led and determined by the Consultant(s)? (See the View form Sidmouth  of 20th September: “the two councils will be commissioning the Scoping Study so that experts can set out the key issues and way forward towards a detailed plan for the future potential for Port Royal”)

10) Is it probable that the consultant(s) employed to contribute to the Study will be kept on for the entirety of the Project, should their contribution prove satisfactory to all parties?

REFERENCE/PROJECT GROUPS

11) When and how will the Town Council be selecting its own two representatives to the Reference Group; and will one of these be the same representative who will sit on the Project Group?

12) What powers will the Reference Group have with regard to the Scoping Exercise and how will these differ from those of the Project Group?

13) What will be the working relationship between the two Groups?

14) Who will chair each Group?

15) Which Group will report to which other body?

16) When will each Group convene for the first time?

17) How will it be determined how often each Group will meet?

18) Will each Group provide Minutes – to be made available to members of both Groups (ie, not initially publicly available), but providing an accurate record of discussions had and decisions made?

19) With reference to the STC Chair’s comments that the Study will be determined by the elected representatives, will the Members sitting on the Project/Reference Groups have the final say on any decisions or recommendations to be made by these Groups, above those of officers, consultants and stakeholders?

20) Who will “manage the delivery of the Project Plan” – the officers, consultants, the Project Group or the Reference Group? (See STC TOR Point 2.4, 5th September)

CONSULTATIONS

21) How will the results from the NPSG’s ongoing (as of 28th September) Business and Special Interest Group Questionnaire be incorporated into the Study?

22) If the NPSG’s Second Residents’ Questionnaire fails to be completed and analysed before the Study is complete, how will the public’s opinions on Port Royal be incorporated? (See Cabinet Paper of 14th September: “The NPSG is keen to contribute to the consultation work of the Scoping Study and it is hoped that the timing of its next questionnaire will be able to include a question regarding people’s ideas about what they would like to see in a renewal plan for Port Royal.”)

23) Which Group will determine and manage the other public consultation exercises for the Study, as specified in the TOR and Project Brief?

24) Will there be further substantive consultations carried out beyond the Study as part of the Port Royal Regeneration Project?

EXMOUTH REGENERATION

25) How will the position of an eventual Port Royal Regeneration Project be affected by the recommendation from the District Council’s Scrutiny Cttee? (See Cabinet Minutes of 14th September: “45 Minutes of the Scrutiny Committee held on 7 July 2016: Minute 10 – Scoping specific examples of public engagement and consultation identified by the committee:

“2. that consideration be given, for the purposes of greater transparency, to the Exmouth Regeneration Board being constituted in a similar format to the current Asset Management Forum, whereby the Board meetings are held in public with a private session for dealing with confidential/commercially sensitive information as required; and that new Regeneration Boards be constituted in the same format.”)

26) How do how the Councils intend to be ‘more open and inclusive’ and in what ways have the Councils ‘leant lessons’ from the Exmouth regeneration project? (See the Herald of 16th September: on the District Council’s Cabinet meeting, quoting a senior District Councillor: “Councillor Phil Twiss said: ‘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.’)

Vision Group for Sidmouth - Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Scoping Report and Project Brief >>> 26 questions
.
.
.

Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Scoping Report and Project Brief >>> more questions

There have been questions raised about the process of regenerating Port Royal:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Scoping Report and Project Brief >>> questions

Here are further questions from District Councillors, as reported by the East Devon Watch blog:


CONSERVATIVE WHIP CHOOSES COUNCILLORS FOR PORT ROYAL PROJECT

26 SEP 2016

“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 council project.

“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!


Conservative whip chooses councillors for Port Royal project | East Devon Watch

With the complete text here:
Cabinet stitch-up on Port Royal representation « East Devon Alliance
.
.
.

Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Scoping Report and Project Brief >>> questions

The process for putting together a Scoping Report for Port Royal has been OKed:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Councils approve project brief for ‘Scoping Report for the eastern end of Sidmouth’ >>> press release
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> Town Council approve project brief for ‘Scoping Report for the eastern end of Sidmouth’ >>> further reports
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >>> District Council approve project brief for ‘Scoping Report for the eastern end of Sidmouth’ >>> 'We weren’t perfect in Exmouth and we have all learnt lessons from that'

And it is indeed all about 'regeneration':
Port Royal set for regeneration - View News

However, questions still remain about the process, with a letter to the Herald from Mary Walden-Till of the Drill Hall:

Sir,

Having read the documents about the Port Royal redevelopment from the council meeting of 26/8/2016, http://www.sidmouth.gov.uk/images/Agenda_STC-050916.pdf, I was dismayed to see they have now been approved by Sidmouth Town Council.

 

The Project Brief leaves some major aspects of the project unaddressed and one document referred to in the brief is missing. How can approval have been given when full information is absent?

 

Port Royal is described as ‘extending from the seafront backwards bordered on the east by the Sid river’: this is a very vague and possibly inaccurate description because the Ham land runs all the way down the west boundary of the river until it reaches the shore. There is an official copy of the original Conveyance map from the Land Registry on my website 

http://drillhall.m-t.me.uk/eastern-town/the-ham/land-registry-documents 

 

The top end of the Ham, image 4 on page 24, is shown as a part of the area being considered for redevelopment yet a sensory garden has just been created there; this seems to be an anomaly.

 

The missing piece of information is the map mentioned on page 26, 3.1 c) Estates (i)  ‘An initial and optional boundary map (see below). This is not final and nor should it be regarded as a ‘red line’ development boundary’. Why are our Councillors, and we, not allowed to see this map?

 

As the Project Brief says there is no ‘red line development boundary’ to the Port Royal redevelopment, the map has not been made public, and the photograph of part of the Ham is used in the brief, it would appear that the Port Royal development project may include the attempted replacement of the Ham with another area of land elsewhere, under Charity Commission rules.

 

This impression is increased by the fact that in the Introduction to the Project Brief it states that ‘East Devon and Sidmouth Councils are both significant landowners in the area’. Given that EDDC owns the land on which stand the Lifeboat Station, the Sailing Club, the Drill Hall, the toilets, the swimming pool and the Ham car parks this leaves only the Ham to be a Sidmouth Town Council land contribution to the redevelopment.

 

To effect such a ‘swap’ Sidmouth Town Council as Trustees would have to show that the replacement land would be able to fulfil the same function for residents and visitors as that stated in the Conveyance which is the Governing Document of the Charity ( Ham Playing Field, No 300967 ). I would contend that moving the charitable land away from the tourist area of Sidmouth would mean it could not be, as the Charity Commission requires, ‘an equally suitable property’.

 

If we want to make sure the Ham isn’t included we need to make our views very clear now, so that any proposed disposal has to be referred to the Charity Commission rather than just happening on the Council’s say so.

 

Mary Walden-Till

The Sidmouth Drill Hall research site - Friend of Sidmouth Drill Hall
Breaking news & sport in Sidmouth | Sidmouth Herald
.
.
.

Brexit: and farming experiencing a ‘Brexit Boost’

British farming exports are doing very well out of a weak currency:
Futures Forum: Brexit: and farming benefitting from a weaker pound >>> and looking after a £108bn industry

Agricultural consultants Anderson's have given regular briefings on Brexit - both before and after: 
Futures Forum: Brexit/Bremain: "The majority of farmers are keen to leave the Union and all the baggage that comes with it."

This is their latest comment:

Anderson’s AgriBrief – September 2016: Brexit latest 

Summary 

Since the historic vote to leave the European Union in June, aside from the weakening of Sterling and a heightened sense of uncertainty as to what might happen long-term, there have been few concrete developments. Indeed, with commodity prices rising as a result of the fall in Sterling and the improved competitiveness of UK exports, farming is currently experiencing a ‘Brexit Boost’ which looks set to continue for the foreseeable future. 

The contents of this paper have been selected from this month’s Anderson’s Agribrief Bulletin. The full Bulletin covers more ground than this and contains more detail on the subjects summarised here. The contents list for this month’s edition is given at the end of this paper. You can subscribe to Andersons Bulletins via their Professional Update service: www.andersons.co.uk/research.htm 

The official position of the EU is that Exit negotiations cannot formally begin until Article 50 is triggered, but behind the scenes conversations are likely to have taken place between the Prime Minister and other European leaders at the recent G20 Summit. In addition, it has also been announced that Michel Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt will be leading the negotiations on behalf of the European Commission and European Parliament respectively. Both are perceived as being tough negotiators but are also seen by some as being pragmatists. However, whilst the European Parliament will have a vote on the eventual Exit deal, it is the European Commission and the European Council that are the most influential. Therefore, whilst Mr Verhofstadt, who previously served as Belgian Prime Minister, is seen as being intransigent with respect to the ‘four freedoms’ (goods, services, capital and people), Brussels commentators state that the Parliament’s role should not be overstated. Mr Barnier, the former Internal Market Commissioner, has clashed with George Osborne in the past over financial services regulation and there is concern in the Treasury and the City regarding his role. 

On the British side, there seems to have been limited visible activity. Indeed, David Davis’s statement to the House of Commons earlier this month revealed minimal detail on the type of relationship that the UK is seeking to have with the EU post-Brexit. Based on Government statements, it appears that it is going to seek a tailored solution that represents the “best deal for Britain” rather than an “off-the-shelf solution” similar to the Norwegian or Swiss models. This is barely news as most people expected this anyway. 

It is understandable that the Government does not want to reveal its strategy ahead of the negotiations officially starting. That said, it will be important for the government to set-out its vision when it triggers Article 50 to address concerns amongst investors and the business community. The Japanese government has been particularly vocal regarding the future relationship that Japanese investors would like to see between the UK and the EU post-Brexit and is pushing for as little change as possible. The extent to which that can be achieved is questionable, especially in the light of the desire amongst the UK electorate to control freedom of movement from the EU. During the negotiations, there is going to be a major trade-off between Single Market access on the one hand and sovereignty issues on the other. These encompass freedom of movement, EU budget contributions, the extent to which EU regulations would apply to the UK and the ability of the UK to set its own trade policy with non-EU countries. The EU has already stated that it will not permit the UK to have an “a la carte” arrangement with the EU and the British government will need to proceed with caution to balance the needs of business and investors with the desires of the UK electorate. 

Overall, until Article 50 is triggered which we believe will take place in early 2017, it is unlikely that there will be significant public announcements from the UK or the EU. However, activities behind the scenes will be gathering momentum in preparation for the mammoth negotiating task that lies ahead.


2482_Andersons.pdf
RuSource
.
.
.

Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT >>> REFUSED: but "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"

The controversial plan for an industrial estate between Sidford and Sidbury has been turned down:
Futures Forum: BREAKING NEWS >>> Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT >>> REFUSED

Planning officers could not accept the application on several grounds:
EDDC: ‘Sidford business park plan was unacceptable’ - News - Sidmouth Herald

Nevertheless, it seems that the political leadership at East Devon will still insist that an industrial estate gets built on the site - because it's in the Local Plan.

The East Devon Watch blog quotes from the Herald report:

EDDC HINTS AT RETURN OF SIDFORD BUSINESS PARK PLANNING APPLICATION IN FUTURE

28 September 2016

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.”

EDDC hints at return of Sidford Business Park planning application in future | East Devon Watch

Here is the full press release from the District Council:

East Devon as local planning authority refuses Sidford employment land planning application

28 September 2016

Council committed to development of Sidford employment site, but found details of application unacceptable

A decision was made yesterday (27 September 2016) at East Devon District Council’s weekly planning chairman’s meeting to refuse an outline planning application for the development of the Sidford employment site at Two Bridges Road (reference 16/0669/MOUT).

In accordance with the Constitution, as both Councillor David Barratt, the ward member for Sidmouth Rural, and Sidmouth Town Council were opposed to the development proposal, and the officer recommendation was 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 Chairman Councillor David Key).

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.

28 September 2016 - East Devon as local planning authority refuses Sidford employment land planning application - East Devon
.
.
.

Hygge >>> "It's part of the paradigm shift away from measuring profits in terms of GDP, but more measuring success in society through quality of life, or happiness and wellbeing."

During the US presidential elections, much has been made of the 'Danish model':
Futures Forum: Economic freedom and political equality at the local level >>> or, the triumph of corporatism

With arguments from all sides:
Bernie Sanders' American Dream is in Denmark - CNNPolitics.com
Take It from a Dane - Why Bernie Sanders Is Right to Push to Make America More Like Denmark | Alternet
The Welfare State Has Slowly but Surely Eroded Nordic Character | Foundation for Economic Education
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism | Foundation for Economic Education

Meanwhile, things are happening in the state of Denmark:
Danish election hastens demise of Scandinavia’s social democracy — FT.com
What is Dexit? Will Denmark leave the EU next?  | Politics | News | Daily Express

Apart from the hard politics, though, there are interesting things coming out of the region:
Futures Forum: Aero Island in Denmark: Behind the times or way ahead?
Futures Forum: District heating systems run on waste... from Scandanavia
Futures Forum: Climate change: and taxing meat

It does seem a 'happy place' to live in:
Futures Forum: Sweden, Denmark and Norway have been voted the happiest countries in the world...

And Denmark comes out again as the 'happiest country in the world':
2016 World Happiness Report finds Denmark is the world's happiest country | Daily Mail Online
UN World Happiness Report: Denmark is the happiest country in the world | WIRED UK

So, how do they do it?

A special ingredient seems to be 'hygge':

 - although the British press is already getting fairly fed up with the concept:
Hygge – why the craze for Danish cosiness is based on a myth | World news | The Guardian
The Book of Hygge review – can the Danes really teach us how to live? | Books | The Guardian
Forget hygge - Brits should be embracing 'brygge' - Telegraph

But some commentators are less jaded:
7 reasons Denmark is the happiest country in the world | The Independent
Hygge: the secret of Danish happiness - New Statesman

Including this overview from the i newspaper this week:

Say hello to Hygge

16 September 2016

It's not long since the Danes transformed our TV habits, Scandi style has been steering our fashion choices and honing our home decor for the best part of a decade, not to mention the Copenhagen foodie weekends and Northern Lights trips now topping our dream holiday wish-lists.

Now, another Danish export is emerging - and this time it's our approach to wellbeing that's being given the Nordic treatment.

Hygge - pronounced 'Hoo-guh', if you're wondering (don't worry, nobody's really sure how to pronounce it) - is already all over the blogosphere. Expect to see hygge-themed books taking pride of place in bookshop displays this autumn, and you may already have caught Meik Wiking on Channel 4's Sunday Brunch earlier this month chatting about it.

So what exactly does it mean? As Wiking explains in The Little Book of Hygge: The Danish Way To Live Well, the English language does not have a direct translation for 'hygge'.

Chances are, though, most of us are already well acquainted with the concept - we just didn't know the Danes had a name for it.

That internal glow you get when you turn the big light off, light a candle and snuggle up to watch an old movie with a steaming mug of hot chocolate? Hygge. The way stripping off those constricting work clothes and pulling on some super-soft joggers and bed-socks somehow soothes your soul as well as your knot-filled limbs? Nice bit of hygge right there. And the ultimate hygge? Curling up with a cheese board and your favourite red wine in a cosy, sheepskin-filled cabin, crackling fire, snowing outdoors...

It's all about harnessing that feel-good factor, not only through mindset but through our approach to everyday behaviours and rituals, and creating ambience and comfort in our surroundings.

There have been a few attempts to define hygge, including, as Wiking notes, 'cosiness of the soul', 'the art of creating intimacy', 'cosy togetherness' - but how would he best sum it up?

"I think the essence of it is the pursuit of everyday happiness," says Wiking. "Trying to build a little pleasure and gratitude into your daily routine. That's my favourite definition of hygge."

As CEO of Copenhagen's Happiness Research Institute, this is a subject he's studied extensively, as well as something he practices.

He says he's not surprised hygge's in the spotlight, though the rate at which the trend's booming is "overwhelming".

"Right now, not just from the UK but globally, there's a large interest in Scandinavia, Denmark in particular. I think [the interest in hygge] is intertwined with an understanding that some of the ambitions and goals we've had for development and society are not necessarily the best ones, or adequate," Wiking explains. "It's part of the paradigm shift away from measuring profits in terms of GDP, but more measuring success in society through quality of life, or happiness and wellbeing."

In the four years the United Nation's annual World Happiness Reports have been running, Denmark has famously been ranked number one three times.

It's easy to dismiss this as quirky headline fodder, but it's far more important than that - especially as it's increasingly acknowledged that our happiness, health and productivity (which equates, on a very base level, to how much we 'cost' our businesses and governments) are closely linked.

Wiking and his colleagues are frequently approached by the media about what it is that makes the Danes so happy, and he says they're visited by a lot of global delegates, keen to discover the happy Danish way and export it back to their own nations.

"People are starting to acknowledge the gap between wealth and wellbeing and starting to look elsewhere to try to achieve wellbeing. Scandinavia can maybe achieve some answers in that area," he adds.

He doesn't think the concept is uniquely Danish, however. Some other languages also have their own similar words for it - Dutch has 'gezelligheid', Norwegian has 'koselig' - but it's only in the Danish language that it exists as both an adjective and a verb.

This might help explain how it's become a mainstay of Danish conversation and, Wiking points out, something the Danes can confidently claim a monopoly over is how much they talk about it.

"It's ingrained in conversation: I will invite you over for Friday evening and then during the week we'll talk about how 'hyggeligt' Friday is going to be, and on Friday we'll be very explicit and verbal about how 'hyggelig' this is, and then on Monday we'll talk about how 'hyggelig' Friday was."

We Brits arguably already have a fair few 'hyggelig' traditions. Chatting over a long Sunday roast with loved ones, cosying up in a country pub on a cold day, and everybody appreciates the mood-soothing simplicity of a candlelit dinner.

In fact, in his book, Wiking reveals that if hygge was a person, he'd pick our very own Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. "With a casual, rustic and slow approach to life, he embodies many of the key elements of hygge," he writes, "and he also seems to understand the value of good, hearty food in the company of good people."

But the lack of an official word for all this does make a difference. Sometimes, naming something can make it more meaningful, more valid (consider how we name our pets, they become part of the family, loved, and this is acknowledged not just in our own hearts but by wider society).

Wiking agrees, and thinks the effect of labelling a wellbeing philosophy goes even further.

"It's also a testimony to the way that language shapes our behaviour. If we have words for something that will also influence the way we behave," he says, "we have a word for it and it's something we pursue on an everyday basis."

Indeed, Danes don't just create hygge at home, they seek it out in restaurants and coffee shops, and even, for some, the way they design their office spaces.

It isn't just a lovely idea that they might get round to, or give themselves permission to 'indulge' in on holiday. It's a legitimate part of everyday life.

There may not be an English word for 'hygge', but thankfully, in the spirit of cosy togetherness, the Danes are happy to share: "We should have a name for it, right?" says Wiking. "You are more than welcome to use ours."

Hygge it is then.

The Little Book Of Hygge: The Danish Way To Live Well by Meik Wiking.

Say hello to Hygge (From Herald Scotland)
.
.
.