Neighbourhood Plan > interim report on Port Royal >>> >>> "A focus on community space" >>> >>> >>> >>> "Repeated narrative comments supported this approach as opposed to a development which is weighted towards commercial and housing purposes, stressing the importance of community and visitor use."

The Neighbourhood Plan process has produced a very solid piece of evidence based on the responses of over 1,800 - and so far the section on Port Royal has been analysed and has been presented to the consultants working on the Scoping Study:
Futures Forum: Neighbourhood Plan > interim report on Port Royal to be fed into Scoping Study process: "It is important that the views and opinions about Port Royal from the 1863 households who completed the survey should be fed into the public consultation."

Of course it is a matter of 'interpretation' - but looking at the details of the report:
Report_on_Q2__Port_Royal_Questions_Final.pdf

Starting from the first question in the Questionnaire - with graphics illustrating the responses:

18. The Local Plan includes a mixed use development. Please indicate your support for each of the following: 

Supported by narrative comments to other questions, this data helps to define the community vision for the area with a focus on community space combined with activity and facilities for residents and visitors as important to prioritise. Repeated narrative comments supported this approach as opposed to a development which is weighted towards commercial and housing purposes, stressing the importance of community and visitor use. 

The narrative vision which emerges from the collective responses is the high value attached to the identity of the area, its coastal connections and the availability of green and community spaces which are valuable assets both for the community and as a visitor attraction. 

19. Is there anything that you think would be an unacceptable development on the seafront, if so what?

Amusement arcades, high rise buildings over the current height of existing buildings, flats and housing, multi storey car parks, hotels, stalls and traders on the sea front and commercial chain stores were the commonest examples given. These were supported by a strong desire to retain and reflect the unique identity of the area and its relationship to the sea for the enjoyment of the community and as an asset to attract visitors. Similarly many comments reiterated that the loss of the existing facilities including the Lifeboat Station, the Gig and Sailing Club and the Ham open space area, would constitute unacceptable development. 

Many narrative comments urge caution against overdevelopment, state the need to value what exists and to resist development that could result in the loss of a unique sense of Sidmouth being a cherished place valued for its natural beauty, the character of the architecture and sense of it being unspoilt. The consensus view is that overdevelopment which leads to a loss of these characteristics through commercialisation, would also constitute ‘unacceptable development’

20. Do you agree that sea based activity is an important key feature of the area which should be reflected in any development? 

Unequivocal support 92% was given to the importance of sea based activity being a key feature to reflect in the development of Port Royal. This point was also made by many of the narrative comments in response to question 18 as to what would be seen as unacceptable development where respondents listed the existing sea based activity facilities as unacceptable to lose in the course of the development. 

21. Do you agree that our fishing heritage is an important aspect of the area which should be reflected in any development

Unequivocal support 89% was given to the importance of our fishing heritage being a key feature to reflect in the development of Port Royal. This point was also made by many of the narrative comments in response to question 22 as to what should be retained in the area where repeated mention of the Fish Shop, Sailing Club, Angling Club, Lifeboat and Boat Park and launch area was made. These comments reflected the added value that these community aspects bring to the area through strengthening the special identity as a vibrant coastal town, one which values its history as a fishing village and the impact its heritage has had on the community past and present and how that shapes the growing identity today. 

22. What else should be retained in the area? Please list 

There was a range of examples given in response to this question. A summary of them is represented here by a word cloud – where the more times an example of what respondents thought should be retained in the area was mentioned, the greater the size the word appears. Only examples mentioned 49 times or more were included. All answers to this question are contained in the Full Data set found in Appendix 3 as an attached document. 

Echoes of responses to question 19 were heard in the responses to this question where respondents named what should be retained in the area as those things which if lost would represent in their view unacceptable development. The repeat theme of the need to preserve the character and identity of the area was strongly shared in the narrative responses to this question. Repeated mention of the need to retain The Ham, toilets, the Lifeboat Station, the boat park and launch area, the fish shop, the Drill Hall, the Gig Club facilities, the Sailing Club and the play park. 

The value in providing community space and the importance of the local distinctiveness of Port Royal as an important coastal town area is clear in responses to this question and strengthened through the connection to previous surveys. The social and community value as well as the economic and tourism value of the area is highly prized and recognized. Narrative comments focussed on the range of sea based activities as well as the green and community spaces and facilities for leisure and tourism. 

23. Currently the EDDC Local Plan allocates 30 homes for Port Royal. Would you support an increase in this number? 

Unequivocal response to this question with 88% of respondents against any increase in the numbers of homes allocated in the Local Plan. It is worth noting that amongst narrative comments about unacceptable development against question 19, any housing, luxury flats, the flood risk in the area and second homes collectively are repeatedly mentioned – denoting a strong sense that alternative solutions to financing the development other than through a housing development should be considered. 

24. If sympathetically designed, should the development be allowed to be taller than the adjoining Trinity Court flats? 

Unequivocal response to this question with 89% against any development being taller than Trinity Court flats at 4 storeys. This was reiterated elsewhere in the survey responses in an earlier question (Q10) about the protection of views where there was good support for the protection of views to the sea front and to the cliffs at the eastern end of the esplanade (though the final data for this question is not yet available). This question is both user related and related to urban design in that building height/spatial concerns interconnect with designation of use.

25 > 32 to be found at:

Report_on_Q2__Port_Royal_Questions_Final.pdf
.
.
.