“Firstly, now that there does seem to be access, nevertheless, at the time the owners were claiming the Alexandria Industrial Estate was full.”
“Secondly, the process whereby the ’employment land’ was allocated at Sidford seems to have been questionable, to say the least.”
“Thirdly, planning permission was granted (after appeal) for an industrial estate at Sidford, but for very specific uses only. There is now talk of a supermarket or housing being built on the site.”
.
The front page of today’s Herald announces that the site for an industrial estate at Sidford is to be sold:
FOR SALE – Sidford Business Park site on the market for £4million | Sidmouth Herald
The owners are reported to be saying that “They have decided to invest in improvements to their other employment site, the Alexandria Industrial Estate in Sidmouth, instead, and have applied for planning permission for a new road to make access to it much easier. The proceeds from the sale of the Sidford land will help fund the upgrade to the Alexandria site.”
However, what was reported at the time of the original application to build an industrial estate at Sidford seems to contradict this.
Firstly, now that there does seem to be access, nevertheless, at the time the owners were claiming the Alexandria Industrial Estate was full.
Here is a piece from June 2018:
Sidford business park > And Alexandria Industrial Estate: “a satisfactory solution could be reached” to the issue of access
The business behind proposals for an industrial estate at Sidford has complained that ‘there is not enough room to expand’ at their current site:
Sidmouth News, Sport & Things to do | Sidmouth Herald
There are several rejoinders:
> In 2013, when the Local Plan was being put together, the owners of the Alexandria Estate showed frustration at not having adequate 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.”
http://eastdevon‐consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/pref_app?pointId=1275473463022&do=view
> The developer at the proposed industrial estate at Sidford says “Sidmouth needs new employment space as areas such as the Alexandria Estate were full.” The Town Council doesn’t 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
> A study from five years ago made the point very clearly and very comprehensively – and is still as relevant to the current application:
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.”
> Again and again, it has in fact been proven that there is no ‘need’ for further employment land on this scale:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >>> “Sidmouth’s outstanding natural environment is a key asset – and conservation, enhancement and sensitive management of the landscape, heritage and wildlife of the area is critical.”
Futures Forum: VGS comment on Fords planning application 18/1094/MOUT >>> “there is no proven need for this particular business park”
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >>> “One of the many reasons why we do not need a new site in Sidford is that many of our employment sites are dormant – because East Devon’s current Local Plan is based upon an anticipated annual UK economic growth rate of 3% from 2007, which has turned out to be just over 1%.”
Secondly, the process whereby the ’employment land’ was allocated at Sidford seems to have been questionable, to say the least.
Here is a piece from the Save Our Sidmouth umbrella group (of which VGS was a member) from January 2016:
Local Plan “a deeply flawed document”? | Save Our Sidmouth
With more here from the East Devon Watch blog from June 2018:
Sidford Business Park – a grubby history
Tim Ford, once a much-respected plumbing and electrical contactor in Sidmouth, is renewing his controversial application to build a business park in the AONB at Sidford. (18/1094/MOUT)
Incredulous locals wonder how it was possible for a council to allocate an ‘employment site’ in its local development plan that is on a flood plain, is a rich wildlife habitat, and whose main access would be a narrow street where two lorries can’t pass without mounting the pavement!
For the dominant Tory group on East Devon District Council it was easy!
First, they let landowners and developers decide where to build. In 2007 they asked East Devon Business Forum how much employment land the district would need over the next 25 years. EDBF was a lobby group which included the Carters of Greendale, the Stuarts of Hill Barton and Tim Ford of Sidmouth. Their answer was predictable: lots and lots!
Second, they put Chair of EDBF, Cllr Graham (‘I ain’t doin’ it for peanuts!’) Brown: The disgraced ex-EDDC Tory Councillor Graham Brown “If I can’t get planning, nobody will” scandal refuses to die | East Devon Watch in charge of quietly asking landowners where they would like to build. Apparently, the proposal for a Sidford business park was first mooted at one of these confidential meetings in July 2010.
Third, in 2011 they elected Paul Diviani, founder member of EDBF, as leader. Under him the District Council became what many saw as a ‘Development Corporation’, the planning system became less about protecting the environment and more about encouraging building.
Fourth, they didn’t listen to the public or community groups whom they ignored or misrepresented. Sidmouth Chamber of commerce said the business park would be catastrophic for local businesses, Council minutes recorded the Chamber as supporting it!
Fifth, they whipped their large political majority to vote through the Sidford allocation. When hostile public reaction worried them just before the 2015 council elections they voted to ‘remove it’ from the Local Plan. Universal Rejoicing! But in 2016 the Inspector kept it in the Plan. Why? Because East Devon’s chief planning officer had not been instructed to give the Inspector reasons for the council’s change of mind!
Sidford Business Park – a grubby history | East Devon Watch
Thirdly, planning permission was granted (after appeal) for an industrial estate at Sidford, but for very specific uses only. There is now talk of a supermarket or housing being built on the site.
Here is the judgement from the planning inspector in August 2019:
“The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for outline application (with scale and appearance reserved) for the change of use of agricultural land to employment land (B1, B8 and D1 uses) to provide 8,445sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and footway, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure at Employment Site, Two Bridges Road, Sidford, EX10 9QR, in accordance with the terms of the application, 8/1094/MOUT, dated 9 May 2018, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule attached to this decision.”
Why permission has been granted for Sidford Business Park | Local News | News | Sidmouth Nub News
Here is the VGS comment on the emerging Local Plan from October 2013:
Public Examination of the New East Devon Local Plan ….. Sidmouth: the issues: Sidford Employment Allocation
The District Council will be aware of the tendency for A1/A2 land-use to be granted in East Devon over time, following B1/B2 approvals Futures Forum: What is the difference between a ‘business park’… and a ‘retail park’?, Futures Forum: What is the difference between a ‘business park’… and a ‘retail park’… Part Two – which might explain the ‘minor’ change to “Strategy 26 – Development at Sidmouth: ® 6.133” to include ‘retail’ as a matter of course at the proposed employment land site at Sidford.
However, if the District Council were serious in its contention that ‘There is little doubt that town centres are under increasing pressure from the competition coming from out-of-town trading’http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/vhstc_taff_report_270912.pdf, then this ‘minor’ change should not be included.
The VGS therefore proposes that
‘2. Jobs – provision of up to 5 hectares of additional employment land, with a particular onus on B1 space with uses (with any retail “ancillary to primary use of each unit”) should be rewritten as‘
2. Jobs – provision of up to 5 hectares of additional employment land, with only B1/B2/B8 space permitted, to the exclusion of any retail.’
.
.