Save Our Sidmouth

SVA further objects to Fords’ controversial planning application

Leave a comment

The Sid Vale Association (SVA) has now submitted a further letter of objection to the Planning Application, ref. 16/0669/MOUT, for a business park on land adjacent to Two Bridges Road,Sidford. further-objection-to-planning-application-development-at-sidford-2-doc
A reminder of SVA’s initial submission is here: 9-sva-objection-letter-of-objection-to-eddc-re-16-0669-mout

In addition, the letter copied below has been sent (10th September 2016) to Jeremy Upfield at Devon County Council Highways:

‘Subject: East Devon Planning Application ref. 16/0669/MOUT

Dear Mr Upfield,

I have seen your response to this application, confirming that the application is acceptable in highway terms.

You should be aware that the Sid Vale Association commissioned an assessment of the traffic and highway aspects of this application in 2012. We also carried out our own traffic counts as the existing data was sparse… The analysis showed that;-

• The developers had underestimated the traffic along the A3052
• The DCC traffic figures were higher and more accurate
• The A3052/A375 junction would be overloaded in 2019.

The report was sent to EDDC and DCC at the time.

Additionally,

The Developer’s traffic assessment is based on a split of development, (9120sqm B1, 6840 B2, 6840 B8) which is not allowed in the Local Plan, (this states that all development should have the “onus” on B1 (Strategy 26 in the Local Plan).


• The Developer’s analysis is based on an opening year of 2014, and a design year of 2019, (6.1 of their report) .Delayed construction, (2019 completion at the earliest) will have a marked detrimental effect on the robustness of the Developer’s calculation.


• The Developer’s analysis  uses a highly conjectural assignment of traffic of 15% northwards along the A375 through Sidbury. They have given no justification for this split.(7.13 of the Transport report)

• You state in your letter that “The estimated number of vehicle movements proposed to go north or come via the north along the A375 towards or through Sidbury is in the region of 15% of the total amount of vehicles using the site. This is likely to be in the region of 59 vehicles in the a.m.peak and 51 vehicles in the p.m. peak, of these approximately 4 vehicles in each peak hour could be larger vehicles accessing the B8 section of the proposed development. Whereas the other 85% of the traffic attracted to the site will go south and use Sidford Cross. This would mean that there would be one additional large vehicle every 15 minutes on average going through Sidbury in either direction in the peak periods. It must be stressed that these figure are based on the full occupancy of both the A and B sites, which as explained earlier may not necessarily be the case if both phases are not built out. This is however a very small increase on the number additional movements through Sidbury and would most likely be unperceivable to the general public.”
Contrary to your observation this will have a marked effect on the safety in Sidford and Sidbury as there are long lengths of highways with NO footpaths in many locations in the latter.

I would like your comments please, on the following issues:-

1. Why have you accepted a transport report that is clearly out of date and assumes construction and design year figures which are wrong?
2. Why have you not taken into account the fact the Developer’s assumed development split is contrary to the LP and that traffic figures will be higher if the LP strategy is implemented?
3. Why have you not considered the great numbers of tourist vehicles, which are not mentioned in the Developer’s report, which substantially congest the A375 during the tourist season? (See Cllr M. Rixson’s report which shows the congestion)
4. Why have you not challenged the Developer’s statement (5.10 in their Transport Assessment), that “it seems reasonable to conclude that the surrounding highway network does not suffer from an inherent infrastructure weakness that could be considered dangerous..” when a cursory inspection of School Street in Sidford and the road through Sidbury shows that it does in fact suffer greatly from features that give great risk of danger? (see bullet point 4 above)
5. Why have you accepted the Developer’s assertion of 15% going northward through Sidbury and why have you not taken into account the substandard highway and footway network in that village?
6. On what basis do you assert that the increase in heavy traffic will not be noticeable to the public?
7. Why have you not taken into account the construction traffic during the probably two year construction period, and made recommendations as to its effect and amelioration?

Richard Thurlow,
Chair, Sid Vale Conservation and Planning Committee

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s