Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Town Council planning committee AGAIN unanimously rejects Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 16/0669/MOUT >>> >>> public information meeting: Monday 12th September >>> the campaign
There have already been reports coming out of the Town Council planning committee this week:
FORDS’ BUSINESS PARK PLAN SLATED BY SIDMOUTH TOWN COUNCIL AND PUBLIC. | Save Our Sidmouth
Breaking news & sport in Sidmouth | Sidmouth Herald
Here are the minutes from the meeting:
FORDS AND SONS
LAND ADJACENT TO TWO BRIDGES, TWO BRIDGES ROAD, SIDFORD.
Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with all matters reserved except access) for the development of up to 22,800sqm of floor space for use classes B1 (Office Light Industry), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) with details of, and associated strategic landscaping for, the access, linking cycleway and footway, and flood improvements/attenuation.
Amended plans for consultation. The amendments relate to additional information to accompany previously submitted Environmental Statement. Details in respect of site layout and positioning of footway/cycle route, drainage, landscaping, design codes and ecology.
Members were unable to support the application for the following reasons: The amendments to the proposal were not considered sufficient enough to alter the Committee’s previous views:
- The proposed development did not comply with Strategy 26 of the Local Plan in that the applicant was proposing two highway access points. Were the application to be granted Members were of the view that only one access point at the Southern part of the site should be allowed.
- The proposed development would exacerbate flooding in an already regularly flooded area.
- The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of residents with an increase in traffic in the vicinity of the site and through the villages of Sidford and Sidbury resulting in additional air pollution, congestion and adversely impacting on the residents of surrounding properties.
- The proposed development would create a significant and detrimental visual impact in the countryside within the important Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with an associated detrimental impact on the vital local Tourism industry.
- The proposed development could adversely affect the economic viability of Sidmouth’s Town Centre.
- The need for the development had not been proven with the existing employment site at Alexandria Road still having capacity
Members were unable to support the amended application for the following additional reasons:
- Members objected to the loss of wildlife habitat and the detrimental effect this would have on wildlife including the bats identified on the site. Members objected to the removal of the hedgerow in Laundry Lane.
- The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of residents with an increase in traffic in the vicinity of the site and through the villages of Sidford and Sidbury resulting in additional noise pollution.
- The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of residents with an increase in light pollution. Members were concerned about the effect of light pollution on the nearby Norman Lockyer Observatory.
- Members were of the view that no large scale retail units should be allowed on the site.
- Members were of the view that the Transport Assessment provided by the applicant is inadequate and that a further independent and more detailed Transport Assessment should be carried out.
- Were the application to be granted, the ridge height of any building should not exceed 7metres with a maximum eaves height of 5metres. Members would not wish to see any flat roofs on any of the buildings.
- Were the application to be granted, no building should exceed 500 sqm in size.
- Were the application to be granted, the proposed cycleway and footway should be constructed prior to any development of the site.
(12 letters of objection had been received by the Town Council)
(At the time of the meeting 149 letters of objection and 2 letters of support had been received by the District Council)