“Our infrastructure, including road maintenance, car parks, dentists, health care, schools and the sewage system can’t even cope with our current population, without extending it even further!” [comment on social media]
“An apparent failure to deliver on new infrastructure, not least to contain the sewage kindly dumped in our rivers and on our beaches by our water company, has quite rightly soured everyone’s taste for new development.” [District Cllr Todd Olive]
“Any proposal to increase house building needs to deal with how this broader set of social infrastructure is provided. Without such accompanying services, I fear that enforcing more house building could leave new or expanded communities feeling hollow.” [Richard Foord MP]
“Any further local development has to be linked to better and additional infrastructure and whilst this is not something that is taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of sites, it is none the less critical.” [Cllr John Loudoun]
.
HOUSING ALLOCATIONS FOR SIDMOUTH: COUNCIL MEETINGS
On Thursday 5th, there was an Extraordinary Meeting of the Planning Working Group of the town council – to which district councillors were also invited – to consider the proposed housing allocations for the Sid Valley.
HOUSING ALLOCATIONS FOR EAST DEVON: WHERE’S THE INFRASTRUCTURE?
Before we look at what councillors had to say at the town council meeting on Thursday 5th, let’s consider the overriding concern of most commentators – namely the lack of infrastructure accompanying any new housing development.
Affordable housing for locals not “ holiday let “ purchasers – but you have to build more services , surgeries, schools, dentists are overloaded and could not take on more –
Also note that there is no assessment of the impacts of development on the local population in terms of sustainability. Only whether the town or village in question can provide the new development with facilities.
Lovely idea but our infrastructure, including road maintenance, car parks, dentists, health care, schools and the sewage system can’t even cope with our current population, without extending it even further!
In piece in the latest Herald, councillor Todd Olive, East Devon’s Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning, looks at developing a masterplan for East Devon – and brings up pretty much the same issues with regards to the ‘big picture’ providing context for the actual local plan itself. With a few excerpts here:
An apparent failure to deliver on new infrastructure, not least to contain the sewage kindly dumped in our rivers and on our beaches by our water company, has quite rightly soured everyone’s taste for new development. The purely commercially-driven approach to the building of Cranbrook hasn’t helped, either.
Listening to the new Labour Secretary of State, Angela Rayner’s announcement of sweeping changes to national planning policy back in August, though, you could be forgiven for thinking that “infrastructure” wasn’t in her vocabulary – much like the previous Conservative government. Her proposed changes are heavy on housebuilding, but light on the things that make development work.
No move towards a genuinely infrastructure-led system. No new powers for your local council to hold developers to account on their promises. No sign of the revolution in local authority housebuilding needed to deliver the government’s 300,000 homes a year target – let alone the affordable homes for rent that we so desperately need.
It’s a bleak picture. That’s nothing new. At East Devon, we have little choice but to take that on the chin – and try to do the best we can with the few tools we have.
Most residents and their representatives, then, would want more affordable housing but with enough infrastructure to support it. Sidmouth’s MP voices this opinion in his monthly piece – the same article headlined in the Herald as pushing for more social housing and in Devon Live as enforcing more house building could leave communities feeling hollow. They are not contradictory!
Most people accept that we need more homes; they just want to ensure they are the sort of homes that people who live locally genuinely need… Developers should not just build houses; they are building and expanding communities – and existing communities must have a role in the development of new plans.
I want to see our more social homes, replenishing our local housing stock. I would like to see sustainable communities built by having accompanying infrastructure – indeed, that we see it in advance of more house building…
Many rural communities here already feel let down by a lack of infrastructure and services. I see this first-hand as your MP, with a postbag full of letters expressing concern – not just about roads, but also about how people here cannot see an NHS dentist and cannot get their children special educational needs provision.
Any proposal to increase house building needs to deal with how this broader set of social infrastructure is provided. Without such accompanying services, I fear that enforcing more house building could leave new or expanded communities feeling hollow.
HOUSING ALLOCATIONS FOR SIDMOUTH: THE TOWN COUNCIL DEBATES:
The big conundrums that the public and the District Council have to grapple with is how many homes and employment sites do we really need, not just for the immediate future but across the life of this Local Plan and where should these be allocated? In Sidmouth and the wider Sid Valley there is clearly a need for more homes. But where should they be built is a far more vexing question. If most people were honest, they would probably say that they don’t want anything build near to them, but we all know that is both impractical and more than likely quite selfish.
There are several red lines I would like to see protected. One of these is respecting and protecting the AONB that surrounds us here in the Sid Valley, and to do this would mean severely restricting and potentially refusing to allow building to take place in the AONB. This is not NIMBYism but a genuine wish to defend our attractive and essential environment.
Another is ensuring that there is no further coalescence of the green buffer zone that exists between Sidbury and Sidford, although the granting of planning permission in 2019 by a Planning Inspector, for the business park at the site on Two Bridges Road in Sidford has moved the boundary between these two parts of the Sid Valley unnecessarily closer. I would not want to see the boundary between Sidbury and Sidford to move any closer.
Any further local development has to be linked to better and additional infrastructure and whilst this is not something that is taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of sites, it is none the less critical. To build more and more residential properties as are necessary, will inevitably place greater stain on our existing infrastructure including schools, GP surgeries, public transport, highways, as well as our mains water and sewerage systems and our other utilities.
The infrastructure issues are beyond either the responsibility or probably the influence of the District Council but it, as it develops our Local Plan must highlight these and at some point, they will all need to be addressed. If they are not then all of them will move from creaking to failing.
Focused on Sidm_34a as the most appropriate part for development as concerns about overall scale.
Concerns about closure of gap and loss of separa1on between Sidford and Sidbury par1cularly if all developed.
Concerns about access arrangements as roads leading into the site par1cularly the end of Furzehill are very narrow.
The site would need to secure the mul1-use trail proposed by DCC which is proposed to aid walking and cycling through this area.
Questioned whether it was appropriate to include any employment uses on this site.
SIDFORD
The planning working party then considered the Sidmouth site selection report – starting with the site at land west of Two Bridges Road, Sidford [Sidm_06]:
Site is too hilly and prominent
Concerns it would open up pressure to release other land in the future to the north
Concerns about flooding.
Reduc1on of the Green wedge par1cularly in combina1on with other land proposed to come forward nearby.
Then the committee looked at the site also on land at Two Bridges, Sidford [Sidm_29 (a/k/a Sidm_24)] – which is “an existing Local Plan allocation (041A), as part of a larger site including the portion to the south that now has planning permission (041B), for employment. It is recommended both of these areas remain allocated for employment.” In other words, it is already part of the designated industrial estate at Sidford.
This is what the planning working party had to say:
Is it realistic to think this will come forward given that previously allocated employment site to the south has not been delivered?
Concerns about urban creep leading to joining of Sidford and Sidbury particularly cumulative impact with other sites.
Concerns about flooding particularly the junction between Sidm_29 and Sidm_06.
Would need to deliver the multi-use trail.
Viability challenges given lack of interest in allocated employment land to the south albeit concerns that values sought by developer are unrealistic.
The small site of land north of Cornfields, Sidford [Sidm_31] was also looked at:
Although not liked as a site for development it is accepted that it makes some sense as squaring off the built edge.
Some concerns about access and how this would be achieved.
General acceptance of this site.
SIDMOUTH:
Finally, the committee conceded that the largest proposal would have to be accepted – that is the site on land west of Woolbrook Road, Sidmouth, EX10 9UU [Sidm_32 (a/k/a Sidm_01)]
Site 32b has been looked at as a potential park and change and would not want to lose this option.
Is there poten1al to include 32b as woodland is not of good quality.
Generally accepted as a development site.
HOUSING ALLOCATIONS FOR SIDMOUTH: NEXT STAGE: DISTRICT COUNCIL
Those decisions have gained added urgency with the news that the new government intends to revamp the national planning system – putting up our housing numbers by 250 a year if we don’t publish a draft new Local Plan in the next three months. That would mean adding a community about half the size of Whimple to East Devon every year – on top of the 900 homes a year we must already deliver.
