... A FORUM TO STIMULATE DEBATE ... ... JUST ADD A COMMENT AT ANY ENTRY BELOW... ... FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN AND VALLEY ...

Friday 4 January 2019

Sidford business park > "Campaigners say that there are broader reasons why the plan should have been refused" beyond "highway safety", including flood risk, visual impact, impact upon listed buildings, impact on the area of outstanding natural beauty, light and noise pollution and questions over the need for the business park.

Only one reason was stated by the planning authority for rejecting plans for an industrial estate at Sidford
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Fords planning application >>> 18/1094/MOUT >>> REFUSED: but only on grounds of 'highway safety'

However, there were several other grounds on which it could  have been rejected: 

... that it should never have been included in the Local Plan the first place:
Futures Forum: Take the business park land at Sidford out of the Local Plan

... and that there are other, undeveloped sites for employment land:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Other sites are available

The latest news from the campaign against the plans is that preparations are being made for a possible appeal - and that the case against will include more than 'highway safety':
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > approaching any potential planning appeal  

The local media has picked this up, including the Herald:
Campaign group vows to be ready if Sidford Business Park appeal is lodged | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald

And Devon Live, with further comment: 

Campaigners are fundraising in case Sidford business park refusal is appealed

East Devon District Council planners in October rejected plans to build industrial, storage and non-residential institutions on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road in Sidford


Daniel Clark Local Democracy Reporter
12:15, 3 JAN 2019



Campaigners have begun fundraising in preparation for any appeal against the refusal of controversial plans for a new business park on the edge of Sidford.

East Devon District Council planners in October rejected plans to build industrial, storage and non-residential institutions on agricultural land to the east of Two Bridges Road in Sidford on the grounds of harm to highway safety, relating to increased heavy goods vehicle usage of the area’s narrow roads.

It was the second time that application has been refused by officers prior to even reaching the planning committee after a similar, but larger, scheme was rejected in 2016.

The applicants, Fords of Sidmouth, have until April 18 to lodge any appeal against the refusal, and the Say NO To Sidford Business Park Campaign have announced that if an appeal was submitted and it went to an inquiry, they would want to fully participate as a ‘Rule 6’ party as part of the process.


Campaigners are delighted that EDDC has said NO to Sidford Business Park (Image: Daniel Clark)

A spokesman said: “We have had to assume that without any evidence to the contrary, the applicants will at some point submit an appeal. We are therefore preparing ourselves should an appeal happen.”

As East Devon District Council refused the scheme solely on highways grounds, the extent of their defence is restricted to the highway not being suitable for the anticipated size and volume of traffic that the Business Park could be expected to generate.

But the Say NO To Sidford Business Park Campaigners say that there are broader reasons why the plan should have been refused, including flood risk, visual impact, impact upon listed buildings, impact on the area of outstanding natural beauty, light and noise pollution and questions over the need for the business park.


The narrow School Street in Sidford that HGVs would have to travel on to access the Sidford Business Park(Image: Daniel Clark)

The spokesman added: “We would want to become a formally registered party which could fully participate at an appeal. We believe that the District Council was wrong to only rely upon highways arguments for its refusal, hence the reason why we feel the need to be a party to any appeal hearing.”

They added that to do this effectively, they will need to employ a planning professional to make the arguments and to cross examine the applicants’ representatives and witnesses, and have begun identifying someone to do that and how much they would cost.

“We are having to assume that we will need to be professionally represented at an appeal if one is held,” they added. “That means that we have to think about how we might raise many thousands of pounds. One way will be to seek pledges of funds from our supporters.”


The current agricultural land that would have become Sidford Business Park (Image: Daniel Clark)

A fundraising ceilidh will be held at Sidford Hall on Saturday, February 23, with tickets costing £5, and the campaign added.

The applicants have not commented publically since the plans were refused by the council in October.

READ MORE
Planners refuse controversial Sidford Business Park scheme over 'potentially lethal' highways issues


When plans were submitted, they said that 250 new jobs would be created as part of the scheme and that the site’s development will secure a cycleway to the employment site.

A petition of 1,398 residents of the Sidford area and over 200 signatures from the wider area against the plans was collected.


Signs sprung up all around Sidford that were opposed to the Sidford Business Park plans (Image: Daniel Clark)

East Devon District Council when refusing the scheme said: “The site is allocated in the adopted East Devon Local Plan and is acceptable in principle, but the allocation is primarily for light industrial uses. The applicants included a significant amount of warehouse space in their application, which would be reliant on HGVs to deliver goods to the site and then distribute them from there.

“The numbers of HGVs combined with the narrow roads, both in the vicinity of the site and through Sidbury, would lead to conflict between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to the detriment of highway safety, and it was on this basis that the application was turned down.”




No comments: