We need lots of industrial estates in the District:
Futures Forum: Pressures to expand business parks in East Devon >>> Greendale part two
And to help this along, one simply builds something first and then asks for planning permission after:
Futures Forum: Pressures to expand the Greendale and Hill Barton Business Parks > two retrospective planning applications approved
Because, once it's up, it's very difficult to say 'No' - as the District Council's planning committee warily decided last week:
Greendale Business Park extension approved
Saturday, May 4th, 2019 8:20am
By Daniel Clark
It's been given retrospective planning permission.
A storage compound that supports 38 jobs on land just outside Greendale Business Park has been granted retrospective planning permission.
Councillors narrowly voted in favour of allowing land at Compound East 6, at Hogsbrook Farm, to be used to storage and distribution, despite it being outside the authorised boundary of Greendale Business Park.
East Devon District Council’s development management committee agreed by six votes to five to allow the retrospective use of the land after agreeing that despite their concerns, an inspector would almost certainly allow any appeal against refusal.
But they also said they were fed up of yet another retrospective planning application for the site coming before them, with Cllr Susie Bond saying it was ‘disrespectful’ and Cllr Brian Bailey saying they had a track record that was ‘not to be admired’.
Tim Smith, speaking on behalf of applicants F W S Carter & Son, said that he fully endorsed the view by the council’s economic officer that the plans should be approved and pointed to the lack of objections. He added: “We have a high level of demand for our site that cannot be provided elsewhere in the district.”
Chris Rose, the council’s development manager, said that the area of land which is part of Hogsbrook Farm, adjacent to the Greendale Business Park. The land is currently used for B8 purposes, although without planning permission, and is bounded by a fence, with a hedge adjacent to the fence on the western boundary of the sites.
He added: “The application site lies within the open countryside, where development would not normally be permitted. Therefore, the proposals represent departures from the Local Plan and do not benefit from any local plan policy support. But there are however considered to be a number of other material considerations that weigh heavily in favour of the proposals and that justify the grant of planning permissions despite the lack of planning policy support.”
Mr Rose said that one of the sites benefits from consent for its hardstanding and fencing, there are economic benefits from retaining the businesses and jobs on the sites, the sites are the most logical area for the extension of Greendale given that it is almost at capacity and the limited visual impact from the proposals.
He added: “Given the lack of any technical objections to the applications, and subject to conditions to control the height of any storage on the site, noise, lighting and deliveries, it is considered that, on balance, both proposals are acceptable.”
But Simon Andrews, speaking on behalf of the Woodbury Salterton residents association said that permission should be refused as it is against the Villages Plan and Local Plan policy.
Anthony Arnold added that if this was approved, it would going back to the dark days of the uncontrolled expansion into the countryside. He said: “The area outside the boundary should remain open countryside. What is the point of having a Villages Plan and a Local Plan if you just ignore them? Allow this and you open the floodgates.”
Cllr Geoff Jung, who represents the Raleigh ward, said that he could not support this planning application as it is outside the current approved employment area. He added: “Authorising this will drive a bus through the Local Plan. It allows anyone to get a compound, put a tenant in, and then call for the same permission to be granted.” He said that the council were successful on defending an appeal on the eastern area of the site and that this should be refused as it doesn’t comply with the Local Plan nor the Villages Plan and is not compatible with the setting.
Cllr Ben Ingham added that it may be providing jobs, but as it is in the wrong area, it is not sustainable and allow the sites to be ‘joined up’ is against policy.
Cllr Mike Allen said that this was a difficult decision for the committee. He said it is already a brownfield site it has hard standing and is fenced, and asked people to think about what an inspector may say. He added: “I think if we refused this, it would probably be approved on appeal, but I cannot think of a reason why this should be approved.” He also said that he was continuing to explain to the Greendale Business Park on why they need to get planning permission for their developments before they start building them and that he hoped they had finally got the message.
But Cllr Helen Parr said that she felt the committee had to be realistic, adding: “Regardless of whether we want this and what is in the policy, it is developed land and all the considerations to me say that on appeal, it is allowable.”
Cllr Bailey added that Greendale’s track record with planning applications was ‘not to be admired’, but added: “I fail to see any advantages in demolishing a low level piece of hard standing with a bit of fencing.”
A proposal to reject the scheme was lost by six votes to five. Councillors then voted by six votes to five to approve the retrospective plans.
Greendale Business Park extension approved - Radio Exe
.
.
.
... A FORUM TO STIMULATE DEBATE ... ... JUST ADD A COMMENT AT ANY ENTRY BELOW... ... FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN AND VALLEY ...
Showing posts with label employment land. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment land. Show all posts
Monday, 6 May 2019
Sunday, 21 April 2019
Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> further details
A week ago, we learnt that the appeal over the rejected plans for an industrial estate at Sidford will be heard as a public inquiry:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"
The campaign against the industrial estate provided more information:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > Inquiry to start 16th July
And now Devon Live has more:
Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry
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
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"
The campaign against the industrial estate provided more information:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > Inquiry to start 16th July
And now Devon Live has more:
Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry
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
14:33, 20 APR 2019
14:33, 20 APR 2019
.
CLICK TO PLAY
SIDFORD BUSINESS PARK PLANNED SITE
A date has been set for a planning inquiry into controversial plans to build 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.
The scheme, which could create up for 250 full-time jobs, was refused on the grounds of harm to highway safety, relating to increased heavy goods vehicle usage of the area’s narrow roads
Applicants Fords of Sidmouth have appealed the decision, and it has been confirmed that a planning inquiry in front of an inspector will be held to determine the decision.
It will begin on Tuesday, July 16, at 10am, at East Devon District Council’s HQ at Blackdown House in Honiton and is scheduled to last for three days.
Luke Fleming has been appointed as the inspector and anyone wishing to submit comments or evidence, either for or against the proposals, must do so by May 17.
The outline application is for a change of use of land from agricultural use to employment use. It aims to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and foot paths, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure.
The plans have proven controversial in the village with over 250 submitted letters of objection, 1,400 residents signing the Say NO To Sidford Business Park Campaign petition objecting to the proposed Business Park, and signs and placards against the development all over the village, although not everyone was against the scheme
The site is allocated in the Local Plan, but primarily for light industrial uses. When refusing the plans, and East Devon District Council spokesman had said: “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. Devon County Council, as Highway Authority, objected to the application based on the number of HGVs likely to be generated by the proposal, which significantly exceeds the figure envisaged when the site was allocated.
“East Devon District Council has agreed that 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.”
When plans were submitted, the applicants 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.
It was the second time the application had been refused – a similar, but larger, scheme was rejected in 2016 as the application failed to demonstrate how the developers would achieve the high standards of design and landscaping.
Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry - Devon Live
.
.
.
A date has been set for a planning inquiry into controversial plans to build 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.
The scheme, which could create up for 250 full-time jobs, was refused on the grounds of harm to highway safety, relating to increased heavy goods vehicle usage of the area’s narrow roads
Applicants Fords of Sidmouth have appealed the decision, and it has been confirmed that a planning inquiry in front of an inspector will be held to determine the decision.
It will begin on Tuesday, July 16, at 10am, at East Devon District Council’s HQ at Blackdown House in Honiton and is scheduled to last for three days.
Luke Fleming has been appointed as the inspector and anyone wishing to submit comments or evidence, either for or against the proposals, must do so by May 17.
The outline application is for a change of use of land from agricultural use to employment use. It aims to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and foot paths, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure.
The plans have proven controversial in the village with over 250 submitted letters of objection, 1,400 residents signing the Say NO To Sidford Business Park Campaign petition objecting to the proposed Business Park, and signs and placards against the development all over the village, although not everyone was against the scheme
The site is allocated in the Local Plan, but primarily for light industrial uses. When refusing the plans, and East Devon District Council spokesman had said: “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. Devon County Council, as Highway Authority, objected to the application based on the number of HGVs likely to be generated by the proposal, which significantly exceeds the figure envisaged when the site was allocated.
“East Devon District Council has agreed that 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.”
When plans were submitted, the applicants 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.
It was the second time the application had been refused – a similar, but larger, scheme was rejected in 2016 as the application failed to demonstrate how the developers would achieve the high standards of design and landscaping.
Date set for controversial Sidford business park planning inquiry - Devon Live
.
.
.
Tuesday, 16 April 2019
Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > Inquiry to start 16th July
The campaign against the proposed development at Sidford has sent out a reminder that further points can be made to the Inspector:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April
Meanwhile, we have learnt that there will be a public enquiry on the appeal over the planning permission for an industrial estate at Sidford:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"
And the campaign has issued a further posting on the issue:
NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) on Twitter
Say NO to Sidford Business Park - Home | Facebook
.
.
.
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April
Meanwhile, we have learnt that there will be a public enquiry on the appeal over the planning permission for an industrial estate at Sidford:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> A PUBLIC Inquiry to be held >> "The appeal will now proceed by means of an Inquiry and not a Hearing"
And the campaign has issued a further posting on the issue:
Campaign Update 27
We have now been advised by the
District Council that the Planning Inspector has determined that instead of
holding a Hearing into the planning appeal as we previously had been told, the
Inspector has now decided to hold an Inquiry which could last up to three days.
The first of these days is due to start on 16 July. We are assuming that
the Inspector will therefore have penciled in the Inquiry to be held on 16, 17
and 18 July. The Inquiry will be held in public and will be held locally. If
you have any interest in attending then put these dates in your diary now!
In our last Update we asked you to
consider submitting additional evidence to the Planning Inspector and we know
that a number have done so, and thank you to those who have.
The District Council's latest
communication advises that the Inspector has put back the date by which
additional submissions can be made. The new deadline
by which any additional comments have to be received by the Inspector is now 17
May.
We again would encourage as many of
you as possible who wish to, to submit comments even at this late stage. As the
District Council refused planning permission solely on grounds related to
highways matters you should only submit highways related comments. In doing so
you might want to address matters that include -
- Evidence or statements
regarding the effect of noise, vibration, damage and pollution on your
properties (and vehicles) due to HGV or other traffic
- Effect on the health of
residents attributable to air quality
- Effect of pollution on children
walking to school and in the playground of the primary school
- Road safety issues - lack of
pavements or narrow pavements, plus no lollipop lady, crossing nor traffic
lights to help you cross safely with your children
- Traffic delays due to
congestion at the various pinch points on the A375 in both Sidford and
Sidbury
- Evidence of vehicles mounting
and/or diving on pavements
Where possible your comments should be
supported by photographic evidence. We believe that it is important for as many
photographs and/or videos are submitted to the Planning Inspector showing
images of traffic congestion/difficulties along the A375 at any point between
Sidford and Cotford in Sidbury.
Attached, once again, is a brief
guide as to how to present any submission that you make.
Best wishes
Campaign Team
NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) on Twitter
Say NO to Sidford Business Park - Home | Facebook
.
.
.
Tuesday, 2 April 2019
Sidford traffic jam >16th March 2018
Some of you will remember this a year ago:
Sidford traffic jam 2 16mar18 - YouTube
This blog has just received a comment:
Nasty, what's it like this spring?
We shall have to see, but at the time this was posted:
We've got a problem with our roads in Sidford: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.de/20...
Sidford traffic jam 2 16mar18 - YouTube
This blog has just received a comment:
Nasty, what's it like this spring?
We shall have to see, but at the time this was posted:
We've got a problem with our roads in Sidford: http://futuresforumvgs.blogspot.de/20...
The clear implication being that if you plonk a large industrial estate just around the corner from these narrow Medieval streets, you're going to get a few more blockages.
And now the applicants are appealing - but the Inspector is accepting new comments. But they have to be about traffic issues:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April
.
.
.
And now the applicants are appealing - but the Inspector is accepting new comments. But they have to be about traffic issues:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April
.
.
.
Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > additional comments can be sent to the appeal Inspector by 22nd April
The applicants who failed to get planning permission for an industrial estate north of Sidford have appealed - and the campaign against this have swung into action:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > BREAKING NEWS: Applicants submit appeal against decision to reject planning application
The campaign is giving advice on how to submit further comments to the Inspector:
Campaign Update 26
NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) on Twitter
Say NO to Sidford Business Park - Home | Facebook
.
.
.
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > BREAKING NEWS: Applicants submit appeal against decision to reject planning application
The campaign is giving advice on how to submit further comments to the Inspector:
Campaign Update 26
Apologies for the delay in providing
an update but over recent weeks we have been trying to clarify what is required
in the lead up to, and at, a planning appeal hearing. We now believe that we
are much clearer in how we need to progress.
As those of you who had submitted
objections to the planning proposal will now be aware from the District Council
that the process associated with the planning appeal has commenced.
Before we address that a belated
thank you to all who took part in our fundraiser Ceilidh which made a profit of
£530. This brings our funds to just under £1,500.
We had been anticipating having to
put a plea out to raise significantly more funds in order to fund legal
representation at the appeal hearing. At this stage however we do not think
this is necessary as we believe we have sufficient funds to support the work
that is required over the next few crucial weeks. Thank you however to those
who have in recent weeks made offers of further donations, but at this stage we
think it would not be right just to take money from you without having a clear
idea of what we would spend it on.
We have discussed how to approach
the appeal with several people, including a solicitor, all of whom have
planning experience. It is now our considered opinion that we can between us
manage the next set of activities and fund these out of our existing funds. We
may however possibly need to consider raising additional funds in a few months
time should we decide to seek a professional representative to take the lead on
our behalf at the appeal hearing.
As the recent letter from the
District Council, a copy of which we attach, makes clear there is now a further
opportunity for anyone to make comments about the planning proposal which can
be submitted to the Planning Inspector. As you will see there is a short
deadline by which any additional comments have to be received by the Inspector
- by no later than 22 April.
We would encourage as many of you as
possible who wish to, to submit comments even at this late stage. As the
District Council refused planning permission solely on grounds related to
highways matters you should only submit highways related comments. In doing so
you might want to address matters that include -
- Evidence or statements
regarding the effect of noise, vibration, damage and pollution on your
properties (and vehicles) due to HGV or other traffic
- Effect on the health of
residents attributable to air quality
- Effect of pollution on children
walking to school and in the playground of the primary school
- Road safety issues - lack of
pavements or narrow pavements, plus no lollipop lady, crossing nor traffic
lights to help you cross safely with your children
- Traffic delays due to
congestion at the various pinch points on the A375 in both Sidford and
Sidbury
- Evidence of vehicles mounting
and/or diving on pavements
Where
possible your comments should be supported by photographic evidence. We believe
that it is important for as many photographs and/or videos are submitted to the
Planning Inspector showing images of traffic congestion/difficulties along the
A375 at any point between Sidford and Cotford in Sidbury.
Attached is a brief guide as to how
to present any submission that you make.
In the meantime we are working with
a number of residents in order to obtain evidence from them about how the
traffic detrimentally affects them and their properties so that this too can be
submitted to the Planning Inspector.
Best wishes
Campaign Team
NO
Sidford
Business Park Campaign
Guidance
on submitting additional evidence to the Planning Inspector
- be received by the Planning Inspector by no later than 22 April 2019. Anything received after this date will not be considered by the Inspector.
- quote the planning appeal reference for in order for it to be considered by the Inspector. The reference is – APP/U1105/W/19/3221978.
- quote the address of the appeal site i.e. the Business Park. The address to be quoted is – Land East of Two Bridges, Two Bridges Road, Sidford.
- your name and address
- state “I am against the appeal proposals” and explain whether it is for the same reasons as given by the District Council or, if not, explain your own reasons
The reasons given by the
District Council in refusing the planning application were –
"1. The proposed
development, by virtue of the proposed B8 uses, would result in an
increase of HGV traffic on the surrounding road network, both in the
vicinity of the site and through Sidbury which both suffer from
inadequate road widths and a lack of footways. As such increased HGV
movements within this area will result in conflicts between vehicles,
and between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, to the detriment of
highway safety. The proposed development is therefore considered
contrary to paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework
and Strategies 26 (Development at Sidmouth), and Policies TC7
(Adequacy of Road Network and Site Access) of the adopted East Devon
Local Plan 2013 - 2031."
The Planning Inspector asks
that any additional submissions are –
- in a font such as Arial or Verdana in a size of 11 point or larger
- use A4 paper wherever possible
- number the pages of the documents
- make sure photocopied and scanned documents are clear and legible
- use black and white for documents unless colour is essential
- put any photographs (both originals and photocopies should be in colour), maps, plans, etc, in a separate appendix and cross reference them within the main body of the document
- print documents on both sides of a page. You should use paper of good enough quality that something printed on one side of the page does not show through to the other side
- do not send original documents
- if possible, send 3 copies
You
should send your written submission and/or photographs/videos –
By
post to: The
Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/C Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The
Square, Bristol BS1 6PN
By
email to: west2@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Planning
Portal: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk
Remember
all evidence must be received by the Planning Inspector by no later
than 22 April 2019
NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) on Twitter
Say NO to Sidford Business Park - Home | Facebook
.
.
.
Friday, 8 February 2019
How much housing and industrial development will happen in East Devon under the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan? >>> We will only know after the upcoming District Council elections in May
There are a few things not quite right with the GESP:
Futures Forum: What's wrong with the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan > "Huge housing growth does not appear to correlate with very modest job growth."
Futures Forum: How to sell the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan and its 2,661 new homes a year > offer a 20,000-capacity sports stadium
Not least that it will have an impact on East Devon:
Futures Forum: A new East Devon local plan will have to implement the strategy set out in the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan by 2023
Futures Forum: East Devon is taking a disproportionate share of development >>> “Because we have the land and we are good at it”
The problem is that we don't know exactly what that impact will be - because the details of how this GESP will affect East Devon will not be published until after the upcoming District Council elections.
As analysed by the East Devon Watch blog:
GREATER EXETER STRATEGIC PLAN – EXETER LEAKS ITS “VISION”*
8 FEB 2019
“But not yet in East Devon until July 2019 (see below). It seems East Devon is the only council keeping ALL its plans secret until after the 2 May 2019 district council elections.
Fishy? You bet!
Anyway, here’s what we currently know:
Interesting proposals for changes to Sidmouth Road and Junction 30 of the M5. The Motorway Services and Sowton Park and Ride being developed as a “Mixed Neighbourhood” (see image above).
The Government requires the Greater Exeter Housing target to be 53,200 new homes over the next 20 years. That is for the combined area governed by East Devon, Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Exeter.
Exeter’s housing ambitions
Karime Hassan, chief executive and growth director of Exeter City Council revealed this week a proposal for 12,000 new homes in the City of Exeter over the next 20 years. His vision of “Liveable Exeter”, for delivering a transformational housing programme for Exeter from 2020 to 2040. involves the creation of 8 new neighbourhoods.
Exeter’s published Vision
Red Cow Village (St David’s) – 664 homes in new neighbourhood, including new work space, on both sides of the railway around St David’s Station.
Water Lane (close to Exe Valley Park) – 1,567 homes. A space for expanding leisure attractions near the quay, with low traffic or car-free development with attractive cycle and walking connections.
Marsh Barton – 5,544 homes in a new neighbourhood. It will remain an important employment and retail area, but with the integration of living and working, to make better use of riverside location. Development linked to the new proposed train station. Creation of new types of work space, including light industrial, workshops, office and shared work space.
East Gate (Heavitree Road) – 962 new homes, an enhanced approach to the city centre from the east, reduced traffic on Heavitree Road and a greater provision for public transport, walking and cycling. New places to live close to the city centre will exist alongside existing neighbourhoods.
West Gate (Western Way) – 617 new homes, opening up access to the river and canal from the city centre, a new cultural destination, an expanded and connected park at the heart of the city, a “Green Bridge” promoting active travel across the river.
South Gate (Holloway Street/South Street linked via Topsham Road) – 300 new homes, establishing an improved link between the city centre and the historic quayside, with a greater emphasis on the wall, city gates and Southernhay.
North Gate (North Street) – 308 new homes, a new approach to the city from St David’s, uncovering the medieval city wall.
Sandy Gate (land off Sandygate roundabout) – 1,050 new homes in a new sustainable and well-connected mixed-use neighbourhood, bridging the city and the new and existing neighbourhoods to the east, providing recreational, cultural and entertainment space where Exeter meets the proposed Clyst Valley Park.
Mid Devon’s published ambitions.
Mid Devon’s Local Plan is almost complete with a Planning Inspectors hearing due in the next few weeks to consult on their final draft.
Culm Valley on the South side of the M5 opposite Cullumpton create a new community of up to 5,000, with a new Motorway junction and railway Station.
Junction 27. A landmark project for a leisure and tourism development involving Tim Smit from the Edan Project
Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension will cover 153ha, to the east of Tiverton.
Teignbridge future ambitions.
Teignbridge has just started a review of their Local Plan and therefore their plans are in the infancy.
Brownfield Their preferred option to develop brownfield land for development however, the required number of homes the government require Teignbridge to build, is not possible to meet the housing needs from brownfield land only. Therefore, open countryside will need to be considered for development to meet the housing needs.
Garden village is being considered with the new settlement proposal to be between 1500-10,000 homes.
So – What are East Devon’s Ambitions?
Hard to say.
Although the other 3 Authorities are keeping their residents well informed on their sections of the GESP proposals, East Devon has been an almost total blackout! There has been a Local Plan in place since 2016 with most of new development being built in an area known as the West End. That is an area close to Exeter’s border plus the new Town of Cranbrook.
At East Devon District Council Strategic Planning Committee on Tuesday 29th January it was hoped that Agenda item 12 would be able to explain more on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan strategy and provide councillors some clarity on the East Devon Local Plan, plus the East Devon Villages Plan only agreed last year which most councillors only learned the previous week, would be jettisoned and replaced with a brand new East Devon Local Plan by 2023.
Local Plan to be replaced
At the meeting last week, the Head of Planning Ed Freeman explained that the present Local Plan was in 2 parts, with the section on Policies would require total re-writing because the Policies would be “substantially superseded” by the emerging GESP Policies. He also explained that the Villages Plan policies, will be merged into the new Local Plan.
Tory Councillor Philip Skinner who along with Tory Councillor Paul Diviani who are the only 2 East Devon`s elected representatives on the GESP “steering group committee” along with 2 elected members from the 3 other Authorities gave only a few hints on some of the latest thoughts for the GESP Strategy for East Devon.
Higher Density Housing for Exeter proposed for GESP
Regarding a question on Housing, he explained that it had been decided by the steering group, that each authority had a certain quota of dwellings proposed and it was not correct that if one Authority was unable to provide the housing numbers, other Authorities were required to build extra dwellings to offset the shortfall. He also explained that Exeter City Council had to return to the drawing board to enable extra dwelling numbers through “much higher density” within the confines of the City.
East Devon will take on most of the Industrial and commercial development for the GESP
Councillor Skinner also told the meeting regarding business development that he aimed to “Get the best for East Devon” and explained that to “Our strength and Exeter’s demise, they do not have the capacity, but we do!” and claimed most of the commercial and industrial development “will be in our patch”
After 2 years of joint secret meetings.
Exeter’s residents know what to expect with “Liveable Exeter”, Teignbridge residents are being told that their local plan is being re-assessed and are having public consultations, and Mid Devon residents have been through their public consultations and an agreed local plan about to be approved.
However, the residents of East Devon only know that their local plan is now being superseded by a new plan with substantial more housing and more industrial, commercial and business development.
All will be revealed in July 2019 after the District Council Elections. Who will you trust to steer East Devon through the next few years of obtaining the most appropriate and suitable Planning Policies. Leave it to the Tory Councillors who have kept everyone in the dark?
Or choose an Independent who are the major opposition for East Devon?
Futures Forum: What's wrong with the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan > "Huge housing growth does not appear to correlate with very modest job growth."
Futures Forum: How to sell the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan and its 2,661 new homes a year > offer a 20,000-capacity sports stadium
Not least that it will have an impact on East Devon:
Futures Forum: A new East Devon local plan will have to implement the strategy set out in the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan by 2023
Futures Forum: East Devon is taking a disproportionate share of development >>> “Because we have the land and we are good at it”
The problem is that we don't know exactly what that impact will be - because the details of how this GESP will affect East Devon will not be published until after the upcoming District Council elections.
As analysed by the East Devon Watch blog:
GREATER EXETER STRATEGIC PLAN – EXETER LEAKS ITS “VISION”*
8 FEB 2019
“But not yet in East Devon until July 2019 (see below). It seems East Devon is the only council keeping ALL its plans secret until after the 2 May 2019 district council elections.
Fishy? You bet!
Anyway, here’s what we currently know:
Interesting proposals for changes to Sidmouth Road and Junction 30 of the M5. The Motorway Services and Sowton Park and Ride being developed as a “Mixed Neighbourhood” (see image above).
The Government requires the Greater Exeter Housing target to be 53,200 new homes over the next 20 years. That is for the combined area governed by East Devon, Teignbridge, Mid Devon and Exeter.
Exeter’s housing ambitions
Karime Hassan, chief executive and growth director of Exeter City Council revealed this week a proposal for 12,000 new homes in the City of Exeter over the next 20 years. His vision of “Liveable Exeter”, for delivering a transformational housing programme for Exeter from 2020 to 2040. involves the creation of 8 new neighbourhoods.
Exeter’s published Vision
Red Cow Village (St David’s) – 664 homes in new neighbourhood, including new work space, on both sides of the railway around St David’s Station.
Water Lane (close to Exe Valley Park) – 1,567 homes. A space for expanding leisure attractions near the quay, with low traffic or car-free development with attractive cycle and walking connections.
Marsh Barton – 5,544 homes in a new neighbourhood. It will remain an important employment and retail area, but with the integration of living and working, to make better use of riverside location. Development linked to the new proposed train station. Creation of new types of work space, including light industrial, workshops, office and shared work space.
East Gate (Heavitree Road) – 962 new homes, an enhanced approach to the city centre from the east, reduced traffic on Heavitree Road and a greater provision for public transport, walking and cycling. New places to live close to the city centre will exist alongside existing neighbourhoods.
West Gate (Western Way) – 617 new homes, opening up access to the river and canal from the city centre, a new cultural destination, an expanded and connected park at the heart of the city, a “Green Bridge” promoting active travel across the river.
South Gate (Holloway Street/South Street linked via Topsham Road) – 300 new homes, establishing an improved link between the city centre and the historic quayside, with a greater emphasis on the wall, city gates and Southernhay.
North Gate (North Street) – 308 new homes, a new approach to the city from St David’s, uncovering the medieval city wall.
Sandy Gate (land off Sandygate roundabout) – 1,050 new homes in a new sustainable and well-connected mixed-use neighbourhood, bridging the city and the new and existing neighbourhoods to the east, providing recreational, cultural and entertainment space where Exeter meets the proposed Clyst Valley Park.
Mid Devon’s published ambitions.
Mid Devon’s Local Plan is almost complete with a Planning Inspectors hearing due in the next few weeks to consult on their final draft.
Culm Valley on the South side of the M5 opposite Cullumpton create a new community of up to 5,000, with a new Motorway junction and railway Station.
Junction 27. A landmark project for a leisure and tourism development involving Tim Smit from the Edan Project
Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension will cover 153ha, to the east of Tiverton.
Teignbridge future ambitions.
Teignbridge has just started a review of their Local Plan and therefore their plans are in the infancy.
Brownfield Their preferred option to develop brownfield land for development however, the required number of homes the government require Teignbridge to build, is not possible to meet the housing needs from brownfield land only. Therefore, open countryside will need to be considered for development to meet the housing needs.
Garden village is being considered with the new settlement proposal to be between 1500-10,000 homes.
So – What are East Devon’s Ambitions?
Hard to say.
Although the other 3 Authorities are keeping their residents well informed on their sections of the GESP proposals, East Devon has been an almost total blackout! There has been a Local Plan in place since 2016 with most of new development being built in an area known as the West End. That is an area close to Exeter’s border plus the new Town of Cranbrook.
At East Devon District Council Strategic Planning Committee on Tuesday 29th January it was hoped that Agenda item 12 would be able to explain more on the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan strategy and provide councillors some clarity on the East Devon Local Plan, plus the East Devon Villages Plan only agreed last year which most councillors only learned the previous week, would be jettisoned and replaced with a brand new East Devon Local Plan by 2023.
Local Plan to be replaced
At the meeting last week, the Head of Planning Ed Freeman explained that the present Local Plan was in 2 parts, with the section on Policies would require total re-writing because the Policies would be “substantially superseded” by the emerging GESP Policies. He also explained that the Villages Plan policies, will be merged into the new Local Plan.
Tory Councillor Philip Skinner who along with Tory Councillor Paul Diviani who are the only 2 East Devon`s elected representatives on the GESP “steering group committee” along with 2 elected members from the 3 other Authorities gave only a few hints on some of the latest thoughts for the GESP Strategy for East Devon.
Higher Density Housing for Exeter proposed for GESP
Regarding a question on Housing, he explained that it had been decided by the steering group, that each authority had a certain quota of dwellings proposed and it was not correct that if one Authority was unable to provide the housing numbers, other Authorities were required to build extra dwellings to offset the shortfall. He also explained that Exeter City Council had to return to the drawing board to enable extra dwelling numbers through “much higher density” within the confines of the City.
East Devon will take on most of the Industrial and commercial development for the GESP
Councillor Skinner also told the meeting regarding business development that he aimed to “Get the best for East Devon” and explained that to “Our strength and Exeter’s demise, they do not have the capacity, but we do!” and claimed most of the commercial and industrial development “will be in our patch”
After 2 years of joint secret meetings.
Exeter’s residents know what to expect with “Liveable Exeter”, Teignbridge residents are being told that their local plan is being re-assessed and are having public consultations, and Mid Devon residents have been through their public consultations and an agreed local plan about to be approved.
However, the residents of East Devon only know that their local plan is now being superseded by a new plan with substantial more housing and more industrial, commercial and business development.
All will be revealed in July 2019 after the District Council Elections. Who will you trust to steer East Devon through the next few years of obtaining the most appropriate and suitable Planning Policies. Leave it to the Tory Councillors who have kept everyone in the dark?
Or choose an Independent who are the major opposition for East Devon?
Wednesday, 6 February 2019
Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > BREAKING NEWS: Applicants submit appeal against decision to reject planning application
A reminder was sent out yesterday about the upcoming fundraising event for the campaign against the proposed industrial estate on the border of Sidford:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > ceilidh fundraiser reminder > Saturday 23rd February
Funds will clearly be needed now:
Campaign Update 25 - Applicants lodge planning appeal
We have today received the news that most people living locally didn't want to hear. Namely, that the applicants who submitted a planning application to build a business park on agricultural land in an AONB, have now submitted an appeal against the decision taken last October by the District Council to oppose their application.
This clearly is very disappointing and speaks volumes about the attitude of the applicants to the wishes of those who live locally. After all, the Town Council, the District Council and 1,400 local residents who signed our petition all oppose the proposed business park.
We are determined to immediately take steps to raise funds to allow the Campaign to represent the views of local residents at the planning appeal hearing that will now have to be held. Our next email will set out how we intend to raise the funds to do this.
However, in the meantime we would again remind you of our timely ceilidh fundraising event which is being held on Saturday 23 February in Sidford Social Hall, Byes Lane, Sidford, starting at 7.30 pm. Tickets cost £5.00 and can be obtained by emailing us or from the Rising Sun in Sidford, the Red Lion in Sidbury or Paragon Books in Sidmouth.
It's more imperative than ever to support us!
This is what we have today issued as a press release -
The Campaign is disappointed but determined to fight on!
The news that the applicants have lodged an appeal, whilst not unexpected, is nonetheless a massive disappointment, particularly for local residents who have overwhelmingly made their views known about this unwanted and unnecessary business park.
The fact that the applicants are going to an appeal when the District and Town Councils and so many local residents have all said that they are against the proposed business park shows how little the applicants care about the local area and its people.
The Say NO Campaign is absolutely determined to support the District Council and its rejection of the planning application at the appeal. But to do this we need to engage professional representatives to forcefully make our case against the business park development. This will take a significant sum of money that we must raise from our supporters. We will now be publicising how people can donate directly into our recently opened bank account, as well as continuing to accept cash donations.
Sadly, our fundraising ceilidh on the evening of 23 February at Sidford Social Hall cannot be timelier. If anyone wants to support the Campaign financially, or in any other way, we would invite them to contact us at nosidfordbusinesspark@yahoo.com.
Best wishes
Campaign Team
NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) | Twitter
.
.
.
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > ceilidh fundraiser reminder > Saturday 23rd February
Funds will clearly be needed now:
Campaign Update 25 - Applicants lodge planning appeal
We have today received the news that most people living locally didn't want to hear. Namely, that the applicants who submitted a planning application to build a business park on agricultural land in an AONB, have now submitted an appeal against the decision taken last October by the District Council to oppose their application.
This clearly is very disappointing and speaks volumes about the attitude of the applicants to the wishes of those who live locally. After all, the Town Council, the District Council and 1,400 local residents who signed our petition all oppose the proposed business park.
We are determined to immediately take steps to raise funds to allow the Campaign to represent the views of local residents at the planning appeal hearing that will now have to be held. Our next email will set out how we intend to raise the funds to do this.
However, in the meantime we would again remind you of our timely ceilidh fundraising event which is being held on Saturday 23 February in Sidford Social Hall, Byes Lane, Sidford, starting at 7.30 pm. Tickets cost £5.00 and can be obtained by emailing us or from the Rising Sun in Sidford, the Red Lion in Sidbury or Paragon Books in Sidmouth.
It's more imperative than ever to support us!
This is what we have today issued as a press release -
The Campaign is disappointed but determined to fight on!
The news that the applicants have lodged an appeal, whilst not unexpected, is nonetheless a massive disappointment, particularly for local residents who have overwhelmingly made their views known about this unwanted and unnecessary business park.
The fact that the applicants are going to an appeal when the District and Town Councils and so many local residents have all said that they are against the proposed business park shows how little the applicants care about the local area and its people.
The Say NO Campaign is absolutely determined to support the District Council and its rejection of the planning application at the appeal. But to do this we need to engage professional representatives to forcefully make our case against the business park development. This will take a significant sum of money that we must raise from our supporters. We will now be publicising how people can donate directly into our recently opened bank account, as well as continuing to accept cash donations.
Sadly, our fundraising ceilidh on the evening of 23 February at Sidford Social Hall cannot be timelier. If anyone wants to support the Campaign financially, or in any other way, we would invite them to contact us at nosidfordbusinesspark@yahoo.com.
Best wishes
Campaign Team
NOSidfordBusinessPark@yahoo.com
SayNOtoSidfordBusinessPark (@say_oto) | Twitter
.
.
.
Tuesday, 5 February 2019
Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > ceilidh fundraiser reminder > Saturday 23rd February
The last information from the campaign against an industrial estate on the outskirts of Sidford gave the news about a fundraising event:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > ceilidh fundraiser!
The latest is a reminder:
Campaign Update 24 - Ceilidh Fundraiser
Don't forget to come and join us for a fun evening on 23 February in support of the Campaign's fundraising!
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >> campaign group's latest update > ceilidh fundraiser!
The latest is a reminder:
Campaign Update 24 - Ceilidh Fundraiser
Don't forget to come and join us for a fun evening on 23 February in support of the Campaign's fundraising!
We are holding a Ceilidh with local band Mischief and Mayhem who are a ceilidh
band based here in East Devon. They perform with a caller who will lead you gently through the dances and when the dancers need a rest they enjoy playing tunes and singing songs to entertain you. Don't worry if you are a novice to the niceties of a ceilidh; many of us are too!
The Ceilidh starts at 7.30 pm on Saturday 23 February and is being held at Sidford Social Hall, Byes Lane, Sidford. You are most welcome to bring your own food and drink as we don't have a licence.
Tickets, which are at the very reasonable price of £5.00 each, are available by emailing us or from a number of local businesses - Rising Sun, Sidford; Red Lion, Sidbury and Paragon Books, Sidmouth.
Don't forget to bring your purses and wallets as we will be holding a raffle with a wide array of prizes!
Attached is a flyer advertising the Ceilidh which it would be great if you could display. Below is a photograph of the band Mischief and Mayhem and you can follow this link for more about them Mischief and Mayhem.
The Ceilidh starts at 7.30 pm on Saturday 23 February and is being held at Sidford Social Hall, Byes Lane, Sidford. You are most welcome to bring your own food and drink as we don't have a licence.
Tickets, which are at the very reasonable price of £5.00 each, are available by emailing us or from a number of local businesses - Rising Sun, Sidford; Red Lion, Sidbury and Paragon Books, Sidmouth.
Don't forget to bring your purses and wallets as we will be holding a raffle with a wide array of prizes!
Attached is a flyer advertising the Ceilidh which it would be great if you could display. Below is a photograph of the band Mischief and Mayhem and you can follow this link for more about them Mischief and Mayhem.
We look forward to seeing you on 23 February!
Best wishes
Campaign Team
Best wishes
Campaign Team
Saturday, 2 February 2019
Converting offices into housing under the new 'permitted development rights' allows developers to build homes well below space standards, remote from infrastructure or with insufficient natural light, as well as dodging affordable housing obligations.
There is the argument that we 'need' a new industrial estate at Sidford - because we 'need' new housing at site of the current industrial estate at Alexandria Road:
‘New industrial estate for Sidmouth’- plea
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
PLANNING chiefs plotting Sidmouth’s future should hand the town a brand new industrial estate and build houses on its current one, civic leaders have urged.
Town representatives have asked East Devon District Council (EDDC) to change a strategy document which proposes the creation of 12 acres of employment land and 720 new homes in the town.
They want to see a new employment site to the north of Sidmouth AND improved access to the Alexandria Industrial Estate - branded “past its sell-by date”.
Residents might have to “swallow” a new industrial estate being built in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) for the good of the town, said Councillor Graham Liverton at a Sidmouth Town Council Trustee meeting on Monday.
“We have to bite the bullet,” he said, “if Sidmouth is to survive and carry on it’s vital. We want to get away from Alexandria Road. That industrial estate needs to be moved, it would be better for housing.”
‘New industrial estate for Sidmouth’- plea
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
PLANNING chiefs plotting Sidmouth’s future should hand the town a brand new industrial estate and build houses on its current one, civic leaders have urged.
Town representatives have asked East Devon District Council (EDDC) to change a strategy document which proposes the creation of 12 acres of employment land and 720 new homes in the town.
They want to see a new employment site to the north of Sidmouth AND improved access to the Alexandria Industrial Estate - branded “past its sell-by date”.
Residents might have to “swallow” a new industrial estate being built in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) for the good of the town, said Councillor Graham Liverton at a Sidmouth Town Council Trustee meeting on Monday.
“We have to bite the bullet,” he said, “if Sidmouth is to survive and carry on it’s vital. We want to get away from Alexandria Road. That industrial estate needs to be moved, it would be better for housing.”
‘New indsutrial estate for Sidmouth’- plea | Latest Sidmouth and Ottery News - Sidmouth Herald
Futures Forum: The future of the Alexandria Road Industrial Estate
Or maybe not:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Other sites are available
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > And Alexandria Industrial Estate: "a satisfactory solution could be reached" to the issue of access
Futures Forum: Sidford Business Park > "the need for the development has not been proven, with the existing employment site at Alexandria Road still having capacity."
Meanwhile, a decade later and the government hopes it can kill two birds with one stone - solve the housing crisis and save the high street by relaxing planning laws:
Futures Forum: Is turning shops into homes the best way to save our high streets? >>> "Deregulation in pursuit of numbers"
A spate of articles from the Architects' Journal shows there's considerable disquiet about the idea coming from the built environment professionals:
Weekend roundup: Building the slums of the future | Opinion | Architects Journal
Architects should be angrier about poor office-to-resi conversions | Opinion | Architects Journal
Office-to-resi: is it time for architects to boycott? | News | Architects Journal
Office-to-resi conversions producing ‘poor-quality housing’, report warns | News | Architects Journal
And many other professionals are joining in:
An open letter on Permitted Development Rights | Local Government Association
A new low in office-to-residential conversions | Opinion | Building Design
Have office to residential conversions had their day? | London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com
Quality warning for office-to-resi conversions | Construction Manager - News
Office-to-resi PD rights 'most shameful planning policy since 1945', says TCPA chief | Planning Resource
Indeed, the Town and Country Planning Association has made it very clear that this isn't working:
.
Inside Housing - News - TCPA launches campaign against office-to-resi development
.
.
.
Futures Forum: The future of the Alexandria Road Industrial Estate
Or maybe not:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > Other sites are available
Futures Forum: Sidford business park > And Alexandria Industrial Estate: "a satisfactory solution could be reached" to the issue of access
Futures Forum: Sidford Business Park > "the need for the development has not been proven, with the existing employment site at Alexandria Road still having capacity."
Meanwhile, a decade later and the government hopes it can kill two birds with one stone - solve the housing crisis and save the high street by relaxing planning laws:
Futures Forum: Is turning shops into homes the best way to save our high streets? >>> "Deregulation in pursuit of numbers"
A spate of articles from the Architects' Journal shows there's considerable disquiet about the idea coming from the built environment professionals:
Weekend roundup: Building the slums of the future | Opinion | Architects Journal
Architects should be angrier about poor office-to-resi conversions | Opinion | Architects Journal
Office-to-resi: is it time for architects to boycott? | News | Architects Journal
Office-to-resi conversions producing ‘poor-quality housing’, report warns | News | Architects Journal
And many other professionals are joining in:
An open letter on Permitted Development Rights | Local Government Association
A new low in office-to-residential conversions | Opinion | Building Design
Have office to residential conversions had their day? | London Business News | Londonlovesbusiness.com
Quality warning for office-to-resi conversions | Construction Manager - News
Office-to-resi PD rights 'most shameful planning policy since 1945', says TCPA chief | Planning Resource
Indeed, the Town and Country Planning Association has made it very clear that this isn't working:
.
Inside Housing - News - TCPA launches campaign against office-to-resi development
.
.
.
Friday, 1 February 2019
What's wrong with the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan > "Huge housing growth does not appear to correlate with very modest job growth."
The Greater Exeter Strategic Plan asks the obvious question then gives its own answer:
Why do we need to build more houses?
Partly, because the Government says so, but partly, because there is a demand for more housing that needs to be met.
Futures Forum: How to sell the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan and its 2,661 new homes a year > offer a 20,000-capacity sports stadium
The East Devon Watch blog has just put together a very convincing counter answer:
ARE THE WHEELS FALLING OFF THE EAST DEVON GROWTH WAGON?
30 January 2019
This is necessarily a somewhat technical summary of why Owl thinks EDDC has got its recent past and future jobs and housing numbers terribly wrong, and attempts to pinpoint why this is. If the assumptions below are correct East Devon cannot hope to match new jobs to housing number increases and hence to aspirational growth figures.
It has huge implications for the district – not least Cranbrook and Axminster, where huge housing growth does not appear to correlate with very modest job growth.
CURRENT STATISTICAL TREND 258 JOBS/YEAR
EDDC’s 2015 aspiration 950 jobs/year
EDDC’s “Jobs-led policy on scenario” 549 jobs/year
Ash Futures (Experian) “Upper end” 309 jobs/year
Ash Futures “more likely” scenario 200-234 jobs/year
Evidence from the first set of job growth statistics published by EDDC since the adoption of the local Plan are running at less than half the number used to justify the housing development target. This is only one quarter of EDDC’s aspiration to create one job per new household or 950/year.
A “Jobs-led Policy On” aggressive growth strategy lies at the heart of EDDC’s Local Plan for 2013 to 2031.
Consultants were employed to create a number of scenarios forecasting growth in jobs. They ranged from 162-191 jobs/year for forecasts based on past trends to a top estimate for above average “jobs led” growth of 309 jobs/year. This top estimate would justify a housing target of 13,050 for the period.
One of these consultants, Ash Futures, gave cogent arguments as to why this figure, in their opinion, lay at the upper end of likely growth and proposed a more modest, more realistic, set of growth assumptions generating 200-234 jobs/year. This more likely scenario was never converted from a jobs forecast to a housing assessment but it would have been just a bit higher than the 10,512 figure based on past trends. All these forecasts took account of demographic changes, migration into the region and economic growth.
Ignoring this, EDDC decided to add a further 240 jobs/year to the upper end 309 figure in a new “policy on” scenario to provide a total forecast of 549 jobs/year. (Something to do with Cranbrook but the details of this and whether there is any double counting remains a mystery). This 549 job/year figure was ultimately used to justify the final 17,100 minimum housing target for the 18 year period of the Plan adopted in 2016.
The plan requires a minimum average build of 950 houses/year. EDDC’s aspiration is to combine this with the creation of one job for every house built. But this demonstrates a complete failure to understand demographics and household formation. The need for houses and the need for jobs is not a simple equation of one with the other.
Papers attached to EDDC’s Strategic Planning Committee for 29 January 2019 (see footnote) contain data for East Devon employment covering 2009 to 2016. The explanatory text says: “It is recognised that it is an aspiration of Members [surely not every Councillor?] to deliver one job for each new home across the district but since the adopted Local Plan does not set out to deliver this it is not considered appropriate to formally monitor the relationship between the delivery of homes and the delivery of jobs.”
Here’s why – the real evidence, from the data, is of jobs growing at an annual rate of only 258 jobs/year.
This figure confirms the more modest forecasts presented by Ash Futures and, inconveniently for EDDC, is less than half of that used to justify the “Jobs-led Policy On” housing targets. It is only a quarter of the one job per house aspiration of “Members”.
Where does the 258 job/year trend come from? It is the gradient of the best fit linear regression trend line to the data given the Strategic Planning Committee and shown in the graph below. The full data source is referenced in the footnote.
This is a relatively small sample; and the extent of the fluctuations in the recorded number of jobs from year to year can be seen in the graph. For the technically minded the correlation coefficient of the trend line is 0.6, which is quite a strong one.
All the job number quoted above are for “full time equivalent” jobs (FTE).
Owl has been fortunate to find from the same official source as used by EDDC a set of estimates of the total number of jobs in East Devon which extends the time series to 2017. The significance of this is that the total number of jobs in East Devon fell between 2016 and 2017 and so we can expect the same to happen with FTEs. As a result Owl feels even more confident that the trend line shown above, despite the sample size, reflects what is actually happening.
The Local Plan has been in preparation since 2002 and EDDC has been following a growth policy for many years. So, although 2013 marks the formal start of the Local Plan, there is no statistical evidence to consider 2013 a “turning point” for job growth, though it does look to be an outlier.
With EDDC’s plan to build houses running ahead of creating the jobs needed for a sustainable community, just who are we building all these houses for?
Isn’t it time to cool the building programme, not ramp it up as Owl fears is being planned in the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan?
One of the key architects to all this is Councillor Paul Diviani. When asked at a recent council meeting why East Devon is taking all this development replied: “Because we have got the land, and we are good at it”.
Footnote: The combined minutes, agenda and reports of the Strategic Planning Committee with the job data for 2009 to 2016 on page 116 can be found here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2744658/290119strategicplanningcombinedagenda_opt.pdf
Are the wheels falling off the East Devon growth wagon? | East Devon Watch
.
.
.
Why do we need to build more houses?
Partly, because the Government says so, but partly, because there is a demand for more housing that needs to be met.
Futures Forum: How to sell the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan and its 2,661 new homes a year > offer a 20,000-capacity sports stadium
The East Devon Watch blog has just put together a very convincing counter answer:
ARE THE WHEELS FALLING OFF THE EAST DEVON GROWTH WAGON?
30 January 2019
This is necessarily a somewhat technical summary of why Owl thinks EDDC has got its recent past and future jobs and housing numbers terribly wrong, and attempts to pinpoint why this is. If the assumptions below are correct East Devon cannot hope to match new jobs to housing number increases and hence to aspirational growth figures.
It has huge implications for the district – not least Cranbrook and Axminster, where huge housing growth does not appear to correlate with very modest job growth.
CURRENT STATISTICAL TREND 258 JOBS/YEAR
EDDC’s 2015 aspiration 950 jobs/year
EDDC’s “Jobs-led policy on scenario” 549 jobs/year
Ash Futures (Experian) “Upper end” 309 jobs/year
Ash Futures “more likely” scenario 200-234 jobs/year
Evidence from the first set of job growth statistics published by EDDC since the adoption of the local Plan are running at less than half the number used to justify the housing development target. This is only one quarter of EDDC’s aspiration to create one job per new household or 950/year.
A “Jobs-led Policy On” aggressive growth strategy lies at the heart of EDDC’s Local Plan for 2013 to 2031.
Consultants were employed to create a number of scenarios forecasting growth in jobs. They ranged from 162-191 jobs/year for forecasts based on past trends to a top estimate for above average “jobs led” growth of 309 jobs/year. This top estimate would justify a housing target of 13,050 for the period.
One of these consultants, Ash Futures, gave cogent arguments as to why this figure, in their opinion, lay at the upper end of likely growth and proposed a more modest, more realistic, set of growth assumptions generating 200-234 jobs/year. This more likely scenario was never converted from a jobs forecast to a housing assessment but it would have been just a bit higher than the 10,512 figure based on past trends. All these forecasts took account of demographic changes, migration into the region and economic growth.
Ignoring this, EDDC decided to add a further 240 jobs/year to the upper end 309 figure in a new “policy on” scenario to provide a total forecast of 549 jobs/year. (Something to do with Cranbrook but the details of this and whether there is any double counting remains a mystery). This 549 job/year figure was ultimately used to justify the final 17,100 minimum housing target for the 18 year period of the Plan adopted in 2016.
The plan requires a minimum average build of 950 houses/year. EDDC’s aspiration is to combine this with the creation of one job for every house built. But this demonstrates a complete failure to understand demographics and household formation. The need for houses and the need for jobs is not a simple equation of one with the other.
Papers attached to EDDC’s Strategic Planning Committee for 29 January 2019 (see footnote) contain data for East Devon employment covering 2009 to 2016. The explanatory text says: “It is recognised that it is an aspiration of Members [surely not every Councillor?] to deliver one job for each new home across the district but since the adopted Local Plan does not set out to deliver this it is not considered appropriate to formally monitor the relationship between the delivery of homes and the delivery of jobs.”
Here’s why – the real evidence, from the data, is of jobs growing at an annual rate of only 258 jobs/year.
This figure confirms the more modest forecasts presented by Ash Futures and, inconveniently for EDDC, is less than half of that used to justify the “Jobs-led Policy On” housing targets. It is only a quarter of the one job per house aspiration of “Members”.
Where does the 258 job/year trend come from? It is the gradient of the best fit linear regression trend line to the data given the Strategic Planning Committee and shown in the graph below. The full data source is referenced in the footnote.
This is a relatively small sample; and the extent of the fluctuations in the recorded number of jobs from year to year can be seen in the graph. For the technically minded the correlation coefficient of the trend line is 0.6, which is quite a strong one.
All the job number quoted above are for “full time equivalent” jobs (FTE).
Owl has been fortunate to find from the same official source as used by EDDC a set of estimates of the total number of jobs in East Devon which extends the time series to 2017. The significance of this is that the total number of jobs in East Devon fell between 2016 and 2017 and so we can expect the same to happen with FTEs. As a result Owl feels even more confident that the trend line shown above, despite the sample size, reflects what is actually happening.
The Local Plan has been in preparation since 2002 and EDDC has been following a growth policy for many years. So, although 2013 marks the formal start of the Local Plan, there is no statistical evidence to consider 2013 a “turning point” for job growth, though it does look to be an outlier.
With EDDC’s plan to build houses running ahead of creating the jobs needed for a sustainable community, just who are we building all these houses for?
Isn’t it time to cool the building programme, not ramp it up as Owl fears is being planned in the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan?
One of the key architects to all this is Councillor Paul Diviani. When asked at a recent council meeting why East Devon is taking all this development replied: “Because we have got the land, and we are good at it”.
Footnote: The combined minutes, agenda and reports of the Strategic Planning Committee with the job data for 2009 to 2016 on page 116 can be found here:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/2744658/290119strategicplanningcombinedagenda_opt.pdf
Are the wheels falling off the East Devon growth wagon? | East Devon Watch
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)