Save Our Sidmouth


Leave a comment

Sid Vale Association (SVA) objections to the Sidford Business Park Planning Application

SOS Chair, Richard Thurlow, also Chair of SVA Environment Committee, includes a fierce rebuttal of the Environment Agency response, in this formal objection submitted to EDDC this morning:

Please use freely for your own objections, if you wish. …DEADLINE TODAY! See our most recent posts for how to comment.

Planning Application Development at Sidford. 16/0669/MOUT

The Sid Vale Association wishes to add to our previous objection letter.

We have already objected to the development on the grounds that it contravenes LP policy EN21 by reason of its failure to mitigate the flooding risks…I quote

a. The Application contravenes Devon Local Plan Policy EN21 (River & Coastal Flooding). Mitigation measures as proposed by the applicant are inadequate as they fail to take account of the substantial increase in flood risk caused by climate change contained in the latest Environment Agency guidance.
b. In particular, the Applicants’ Flood Report data (1.6.1) are out of date as they predate the new Environment Agency (EA) report on Adapting to Climate Change: Advice for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Authorities, which was issued on 13th April 2016.

This view was supported by the EA’s Sustainable Planning Adviser on the 18th may 2016. However. further to initial comment of 18th May, the Environment Agency’s Sustainable Places Planning Advisor has submitted a second comment, today 7th June, where they contradict their own objection, because they say that although the guidance came into immediate effect from 19th February, it should not apply to this application because it was well advanced. (See below for actual words).

Environment Agency position
‘With regard to the climate change allowances used within the FRA, we are satisfied that the proposed development should not be subject to the higher standards required in the new climate change guidance. This is in accordance our climate change advice issued on 19 February 2016 which advises:
The guidance will come into immediate effect. However, where local plans or development proposals and associated flood risk assessments are well advanced, we would wish to avoid where possible significantly slowing down completion or adding to costs. We will therefore, other than for particularly vulnerable locations or sensitive developments, continue to base our advice on the existing allowances in the following circumstances:
o Where a local plan has been submitted for examination
o Where development proposals are well advanced or where a valid planning application has already been submitted to the local planning authority.
We have also reviewed the flood report provided by Cllr Rixon dated March 2016 and can advise that we are familiar with the flooding referred to therein. We are satisfied that the proposed development will contribute to a reduction in flood risk overall.’

SVA believe that this is wrong because;-
1. The valid planning application was submitted to EDDC well after the Environment Agency issued its own climate change advice on 19th February 2016.
2. It is evident that this is a particularly vulnerable location and is a sensitive development…
3. The proposed development might well contribute to a reduction in flood risk overall in the immediate future. But it is clear from the latest data provided by the Environment Agency that river flows will quadruple, and surface water run-off double,  over the following decades – and this must be taken into account when considering this application.

It is the SVA’s considered view that this APPLICATION MUST BE CONSIDERED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EA’S REPORT ON ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE, and THE EA’S LATEST ADVICE SHOULD BE DISREGARDED

Reasons; It is clear that the application contravenes East Devon Local Plan Policy EN21 (River & Coastal Flooding), in that the development should not be permitted, as the FRA no longer takes into account the substantial increase in flood risk over the coming decades and fails to demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.


2 Comments

Last chance to comment on Sidford Fields planning application (Closing date TOMORROW, WEDS 8 JUNE, midday). See what others have said.

Comments so far can be viewed at this link: https://planning.eastdevon.gov.uk/online-applications/

To SEARCH, type in ref 16/0669/MOUT

Then click on START. And go to COMMENTS and CONSULTEES COMMENTS

We have been told that one very thorough representation sent in by two of the  Ward Members for Sidford, is hard to find on the EDDC website this evening. It is from  Cllrs Marianne Rixson and Dawn Manley (both East Devon Alliance Independents elected to East Devon District Council in May 2015). Their report, containing useful photographs, maps, and a video, is therefore reproduced here, for your information Comments on Fords employment site_final

 


Leave a comment

URGENT! Deadline TOMORROW (WEDS 8 JUNE) for comments on planning application for the Sidford Fields employment site (phase 1)

Comments by individuals, or households, should be e-mailed to planning@eastdevon.gov.uk

or sent (or hand-delivered if time’s short) to Planning Dept, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL

PLEASE NOTE:
1. Remember to quote ref.16/0669/MOUT
2. You CAN make comments relating to ‘planning considerations’.
The EDDC website lists some examples:

The impact of a proposal on your property;
The proposed design and materials;
Issues relating to vehicular access and parking;
Impact on trees;
Noise issues,
Concerns about flooding.

3. You CAN’T make comments on matters which are not classed as ‘planning considerations’ such as:

Loss of value to your property; Loss of a view;
Boundary and neighbour disputes, or
The impact of a proposal on private drainage systems.

4. All the Planning policies which relate to this development can be found at:

east devon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/local-plan-2013-2031/
(Click on The Local Plan 2013-2031 to access this document)

Thanks to Sidford Resident Kim Scratchley for noting them, as follows:

Strategy 46 p.144
Landscape Conservation and Enhancement and AONBs:

‘Development will only be permitted where it:
1. Conserves and enhances the landscape character of the area;
2. Does not undermine landscape quality; and
3. Is appropriate to the economic, social and well being of the area’

Non-compliance with the NPPF
The National Planning Policy Framework puts an emphasis on protecting AONB land, such as at Sidford. Para 116 of the NPPF states that planning permission should be refused for major developments on AONB land except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Comments could include the fact that this is a tourist area, plus unemployment is low and the proposed development would require in-commuting to fill any jobs created.

ENVIRONMENT p.182

EN13 – development on high quality agricultural land
Development proposes warehousing which could be a 24/7 operation – noise, lighting, impact of pollution from artificial light on local amenity

EN14 – control of pollution – to residents or the wider environment
Pollution of the atmosphere – School St and pinch points in Sidbury – stationery traffic (especially as volumes will increase)
Noise and/or vibration
Light intrusion
Pollution of sites of wildlife value, especially European designated sites or species (eg otters and horseshoe bats)

EN21 – river and coastal flooding
‘Flood risk assessment demonstrates that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.’
NB any increased flood risk would impact Sidbury, Sidford and Sidmouth – remember there were four flood warnings from The Environment Agency in 2012.

EMPLOYMENT p.199

E9 – town centre vitality and shopping areas – THIS NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED
NB. ‘Ancillary retail’ is part of Fords application
Planning application uses include B1 (office), B2 (general), B8 (distribution / warehousing)
…will be permitted provided:
1. ‘Use would not undermine the shopping character, visual amenity, vitality or viability of town centre
2. Amenity interest of occupiers of adjoining properties is not adversely affected by reason of noise, smell or litter
3. Would not cause traffic problems !!! (NB. Lorries already drive on the pavement in School St because they cannot pass oncoming traffic and there are traffic tailbacks during the tourism season)’

TRAFFIC p.221

TC3 – traffic management schemes
,,,’when considering development proposals in town centre, will seek the introduction of traffic management schemes when one or more of the following objectives can be achieved:
1. Safe and efficient movement of mobility impaired, pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles
2. Alleviation of congestion (see E9, 3. And EN14/pollution above)
3. Reduction of traffic conflict and accident potential
4. Reduction of delays to public transport
5. Reduction of environmental damage by traffic’