Futures Forum: Sidford business park >>> campaign group's fourth update >>> deadline for comment on planning application = Friday 15th June
Here is the submission from the Vision Group, just sent into PlanningCentral@eastdevon.gov.uk:
VGS comment on Fords planning application 18/1094/MOUT
The Vision Group for Sidmouth objects to this application
on the grounds that there is no proven need for this particular business park.
We would like to refer to pages 4 to 24 of the VGS submission
to the draft Local Plan of 14th January 2013 which still provide
context and arguments for rejecting this application: http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning-libraries/representation-library/chapter2.0/720-mrjwoodwardvisiongroupforsidmouth.pdf
In particular:
> The Tym’s Report and several entries in the draft
Local Plan warn against undermining the viability of town centres. Indeed,
vacating the Alexandria Road site would enable a large national retailer to
establish itself: http://www.devon24.co.uk/news/morrisons_store_rumours_surface_in_sidmouth_1_1210416
and http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/news/morrisons_eyes_up_sidmouth_estate_1_1402454
> The potential of the Alexandria Road site is
unrealised, as highlighted by the Sid Vale Association:
“4.4. The current Local Plan identifies employment land
at the Alexandria Industrial site. In the past a company, Devon Conversions,
employed more than 200 people on the Alexandria Road site, which is a good
indication of the extent of employment numbers that might be achieved now. We
believe that the site is now underutilised.”
And indeed, the largest business on this site has shown
its frustration at the lack of progress in improving access:
“Mr Mike Ford (ID: 499312) , Ford Property Ltd; and
“Mr Tim Ford (ID: 499310) , Fords of Sidmouth
“I write with reference to the above report in relation
to Sidmouth and specifically the Alexandria Industrial Estate. The main
Alexandria Road Industrial Site is considered to have bad access and there are
conflicts with nearby housing. I would like to make the point that firstly, we
are here at the moment and whilst the access may well be substandard, we are
prevented from improving it by the ransom strip; otherwise a satisfactory
solution could be reached.”
> The Tym’s Report affirms that there is a substantial
amount of employment land available on the market in Sidmouth: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/plg_lp_edhousingstudy.pdf
> The submission from the Sidmouth Chamber of Commerce
of 28th January 2013 stated that not only is there almost no demand in the Sid
Valley for B1 use, and that “Tyms concluded that capacity at Alexandria, even
taking into account the access difficulties, was sufficient for the duration of
the Plan period.”
> And that: “We have no rail or motorway connections,
no corporate infrastructure and no existing capacity, and we do not qualify for
any subsidy. We must point out that Sidmouth’s only major employer, EDDC, is
currently seeking to relocate, citing as one of its reasons, the unsuitability
of Sidmouth as a location on access grounds.”
> Unemployment is historically very low in Sidmouth: http://www.rsnonline.org.uk/performance‐profiling/east‐devon (2011 census)
> It is not clear, therefore, where the figures for
‘need’ for more employment land have been derived. The Chamber of Commerce
stated in its submission: “Occupancy levels are expected to continue their long
term decline. The percentage of Sidmouth’s population of working age is
predicted to decline quite dramatically over the Plan period. EDDC’s own
figures confirm this. They show an expected 8.8% fall over the Plan period in
the percentage of Sidmouth’s population who will be of working age.
“The number of working people in Sidmouth is therefore
set to FALL quite significantly over the next fifteen years. So we conclude
that there will be no demand arising from population changes and house building
over the Plan period. Indeed, demand may well decline.
“Nor is there much slack in the labour market that needs
to be taken up. Unemployment levels in Sidmouth and the surrounding area are
historically very low, and remain so despite the recession.”
> Sidmouth is the only settlement (besides Axminster)
in East Devon which has more people commuting into town for work: the Chamber
carried out detailed analysis of the figures, concluding that “taking into
account very low unemployment, and a declining population of working people…
the majority [of the workforce] will undoubtedly be sucked in from outside the
town, thus INCREASING commuting.”
> The applicant was part of a committee set up by the
now-disbanded East Devon Business Forum to push for a larger allocation of
employment land in the draft Local Plan. The influence of the EDBF on proposals
for employment land in the draft Local Plan should be considered. In January
2007, a Sub-Committee was established by the Forum to consider ‘amending the
Atkins report’; this included the Sidmouth business now seeking to develop the
proposed site at Sidford: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/250107.pdf
It appears that a group of business people comprising
this Forum reviewed the publicly-funded Atkins Report and then determined that
the employment land provisions were insufficient; they subsequently proceeded
to derive their own projections, which the District Council then adopted as
"evidence" for the increased employment land figure which ensued: http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/310108edbf.pdf
A member of this group which lobbied successfully for
more employment land will now benefit directly from the considerable inflation
of employment land which was then accepted in the Local Plan – should this
planning application 18/1094/MOUT be granted.
We would also like to refer to the VGS comment on Fords
planning application 16/0669/MOUT of 16th September 2016, which is
of direct relevance to the current application: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.com/2016/09/vgs-comment-on-fords-planning.html
THE APPLICATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE
In a recent case it was made clear that any development on Green Belt would be deemed ‘inappropriate’ as it would impact ‘visual amenity and other harm i.e. nature conservation’.
In a recent case it was made clear that any development on Green Belt would be deemed ‘inappropriate’ as it would impact ‘visual amenity and other harm i.e. nature conservation’.
Whilst the ED AONB is not ‘green belt’, the status can be
regarded as conferring greater protection, on par with that of National Parks:
THE APPLICATION DOES NOT REPRESENT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Government guidelines emphasise the need to balance the “three dimensions to sustainable development”:
“These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.”
This Application fails in that:
> it has not been proven that it will ‘secure higher social and environmental standards’, as the higher traffic levels will clearly impact on such standards;
> the buildings are clearly not ‘well-designed’, as their visual impact will be felt well beyond the immediate area;
> the development will not ‘improve the lives of people and communities’ as local residents who are supposed to benefit directly have been clear in their opposition to these proposals;
As argued in the final VGS submission to the draft Local Plan, the introduction to that document omitted ‘the essentials for planning long term sustainability’ and this omission is clearly felt in this Application: ‘for example in relation to agricultural land for food security, integrating employment land with residential provision, preserving flood plains and wetlands, … mitigating the effects of climate change, retaining the economic and environmental assets that underpin the local tourist industry, providing opportunities for skills and training relevant to the local economy, or planning the infrastructure of the district in relation to flood control, drainage and sewage control, traffic management etc.’
THE APPLICATION IS OVERDEVELOPMENT
The increase in traffic resulting from this proposed development threatens to increase air pollution, a problem which is only slowly being considered by the authorities:
In the VGS submission to the draft Local Plan of January 2013, considerable evidence was provided to show that this proposed development is actually not necessary: ‘Sidmouth does not suffer from the problem of all other towns in East Devon (other than Axminster) which seek to ‘reduce out-commuting’; in which case, Sidmouth does not need to ‘create more local jobs’ on the large scale proposed in the Local Plan.’
Moreover, the Local Plan’s recommendations for “modest employment growth” for Sidmouth are contravened by this Application: ‘In the context of the Sidmouth economy this does not represent ‘modest employment growth’: rather, it amounts to substantial overdevelopment, as unemployment is historically particularly low in Sidmouth.’
REPRESENTATION TO LOCAL PLAN - final version - vision group for sidmouth - 14jan13
Finally, the applicant says "Sidmouth needs
new employment space as areas such as the Alexandria Estate were full."
New business park plan is unveiled | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald and Business park plans back on the table for Devon beauty spot - Devon Live
This was said five years ago to support the application then:
FORDS: ‘Our £5million Sidmouth jobs vision’ | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald
The Town Council does not agree: “The proposed development could adversely affect the economic viability of Sidmouth's town centre and the need for the development had not been proven with the existing employment site at Alexandria Road still having capacity.”
Unanimous town council objection against new Sidford business park plan - Devon Live
Indeed, a study by Graham Cooper from five years ago made the point very clearly and very comprehensively - and is still as relevant to the current application:
New business park plan is unveiled | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald and Business park plans back on the table for Devon beauty spot - Devon Live
This was said five years ago to support the application then:
FORDS: ‘Our £5million Sidmouth jobs vision’ | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald
The Town Council does not agree: “The proposed development could adversely affect the economic viability of Sidmouth's town centre and the need for the development had not been proven with the existing employment site at Alexandria Road still having capacity.”
Unanimous town council objection against new Sidford business park plan - Devon Live
Indeed, a study by Graham Cooper from five years ago made the point very clearly and very comprehensively - and is still as relevant to the current application:
submitted by Jeremy Woodward
on behalf of the Vision Group for Sidmouth: 14th
June 2018
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment