Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

12/1185/MOUT | Outline planning application for a mixed use development providing for Class B1(a) offices (up to 3,100sqm GIA), Class B1(c) and B2 Industrial Units (up to 4,791sqm GIA), play space/open space, sports field, including two football pitches, multi-use games area, changing rooms and parking and erection of up to 170 dwellings (34 affordable) and associated roads and infrastructure including a main spine road (all matters reserved) | Land East Of Harepath Road Seaton
  • Total Consulted: 238
  • Comments Received: 145
  • Objections: 138
  • Supporting: 1

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 145|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Fiona Matthews (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 10 Jun 2013

The updated ecological reports provided by Atkins Ltd. do not allay any concerns about the impact of the development on bats. The ecological surveys are fundamentally inadequate for this site, which is situated in an area of unusually high importance to rare bats. No further ecological surveys have been performed since the first ecological reports were submitted. Without suitable baseline surveys, it is not possible to conclude that the proposed mitigation will prevent adverse impacts on local bat populations. The law is clear that developments should only be permitted where it can be shown that there will be no negative impacts on bats or their local populations.

The key points are as follows:
o The site is known to be used by species given particularly strong legal protection (Annexe II, Habitats Directive). It is also adjacent to a maternity roost of Grey long-eared bats. Nationally, the population of this species numbers approximately 1,000 individuals, making it by far the rarest bat in the UK.
o The site is known to be used by greater and lesser horseshoe bats, and is likely to be part of commuting routes between the Beer Quarry Caves Special Area of Conservation and other known sites in Dorset. Additionally, lesser horseshoe bats are clearly moving across the site in order to access the Axe Wetlands: on 26/4/13 I captured an adult lesser horseshoe commuting onto the wetlands from the development site at emergence time, demonstrating a link with an unknown roost in close proximity. The methodologies used in the ecological appraisal are inadequate to establish the extent of commuting and foraging activity by Annexe II species, or to understand the potential implications for the integrity of the Beer Quarry Caves SAC.
o Grey long-eared bats commute from Colyford onto the Axe Wetlands to feed. I find it astonishing that Atkins Ltd state that the site 'does not lie on a commuting route between the known roost and the Axe estuary.' They appear to use as evidence radiotracking of a single individual which I undertook on a voluntary basis last year, the aim of which was to identify the roost location for a bat caught on the wetlands. The tracking of this animal was intermittent, and no attempt was made to determine its precise commuting routes. The acoustic data collected by the consultants would not identify Grey long-eared bats. In summary, there is a complete absence of evidence about whether or not this rare species uses the proposed development site. Based on proximity to the roost, my judgement is that use is extremely likely.
o The proposed development would also affect movement of bats from a matrix of other sites known to be of high local importance (such as Holyford Woods).
o There has been no assessment of the use made of the small woodland immediately adjacent to the site by bats. This is a significant failure as 'hard' development and associated lighting would have substantial implications for woodland species.

o The conversion of agricultural land in this critical location into urban development would radically change the permeability of the local landscape to bats. As acknowledged by the ecological consultants, [the development] 'has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of the commuting route between Seaton and Colyford , through loss of commuting habitat and disturbance by lighting'. The provision of new habitats at the periphery of the site does little to address this problem: the target species are extremely light-shy and evidence from developments elsewhere show that light-spill from house windows, security lighting and sports pitches is as important as street lighting in reducing the ability of bats to move over a site. The 'lighting plan' therefore does not mitigate for the loss of dark agricultural fields. The fact that there is already some lighting to the west of the site on Harepath Road is of no consequence when considering this application. The relevant question is whether the development will produce NEW adverse conditions to bats. Clearly it will, with lighting issues being extended for a considerable distance eastwards.
o The proposed new planting will obviously take a significant period to establish, and in the interim there is nothing in the plan to counter the likely impacts on bats. Whilst establishing grazing would benefit bats, there is nothing in the plan to explain how this would be achieved, or how its continuation could be assured in the long-term.

In summary, the ecological appraisal of this site is poor, and the potential for adverse consequences to rare bats is significant. I strongly recommend that any proposal to convert the site from agricultural and woodland habitat be rejected.

D Fox (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 06 Jun 2013

I read in the local papers that the Planning Dept is recommending this plan. I am unable to attend the meeting but I wish you to record my strong opposition to the scheme. It is quite ridiculous to build on a greenfield site when there is an abundance of free space on the Tesco and Racal site. I trust that the Planning Committee has enough good sense to see the how unnecessary it is to ignore the available land on Harbour Road and will listen to the overwhelming wishes of local people. I trust that my comments will be placed before the Committee.

Mr Michael E Holes (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 05 Jun 2013

See letter under document tab on our website

Mr And Mrs Chilcott (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 20 May 2013

See letter under document tab on our website

Mr Martin Sawer (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 14 May 2013

I would strongly support Seaton's future development close to the town centre and I would ask EDDC to resist 'any further significant housing developments beyond the existing 'Built-up Area boundary'.

Please make use of the available land and existing industrial units along Harbour Road first before destroying the Axe Valley environment and the 'Green Wedge'.
This would also chime with the vision of making Seaton a 'Green' tourist destination.

I strongly support the 'Green Wedge' policy between Seaton and Colyford - it is a vital contributor to the delicate balance of the Axe Valley's use by humans and its natural attraction and beauty. Seaton's role as a Jurassic Coast Gateway Town is not enhanced by these proposals which just reflect a sprawl, with no attempt to develop the positive side of Seaton and its possibilities in the centre.

As a resident of Colyford, I would not want to see any development of the lower Axe Valley that allows Seaton to become ¿doughnutted¿ by developments around an empty centre, as has been the case in other towns ¿ this leads to economic and social problems. The development of Seaton should start at the centre and heart surely?

Some ideas for addressing some of the current demands for development:
a.Why not make more use of existing small business parks nearby, for example in Colyton or near Branscombe Cross on the A3052? Or what about growing the existing business units in Seaton ¿ where the recycling centre used to be; or off Harepath Road by Dack¿s?
b. The proposed football club facilities for Seaton are not going to be of sufficient improvement to make it worthwhile - and there is no room for parking and the light pollution for Colyford would be very intrusive, when added to Colyton Sports Centre's light spillage. Why not enhance, develop and share the Axmouth FC facilities for Seaton FC - there is much more room there surely?

This government's policy is for the communities to play a part in local decision making, and I hope all the views of the local communities are taken into account appropriately and given due weight.

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Jan 2013

I object to this application, because:
a) it compromises the 'green wedge' policy between Colyford and Seaton;
b) developing Seaton in a 'ring doughnut' fashion will harm the centre of Seaton;
c) new residents of Seaton need to be able to walk to the Seaton shops, not require transport;
d) there are acres of undeveloped land closer to Seaton along the Harbour Road;
e) there will be damage to the Axe Valley natural environment by the accompanying increase in traffic and development;
f) the football pitches proposed are too far out of Seaton for them to be appropriate for Seaton FC - not easy to get to: how will family spectators get there and park for example? The proposed pitch areas are subject to flooding surely; if training pitches are needed, there are existing pitches in Colyton and another used by Axmouth FC - please look at ways of using these first.
g) why not expand and market the existing business park areas in Harbour Road Seaton, and in Colyton etc, for 'light industrial use'? What about the ex-Racal site in Seaton for this as well?

Peter G Mason (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 14 May 2013

This letter is supplemental to my previous letter of objection dated 31 December 2012 and should be read as such insofar as the comments made in my earlier correspondence are still relevant given the revised proposals.

The proposed revisions to the application are substantial in nature and it is surprising the applicant has not updated the planning support documents to reflect this. The industrial area is substantially reduced by almost 90% from 38,339 sq m of predominantly B2 General industrial use to 4,791 sq m presumably B2 use although the information is not sufficiently detailed to confirm this. The original estimate for job creation was 400 but given the revised scale of the proposal the assumption must be this will be significantly reduced but no revised estimate has been offered.

Notwithstanding the site area has been reduced overall (although I am not sure by how much) it is clear the area designated for residential use has significantly increased from a little over 3.3 Ha to around 4.6 Ha (some 40%) at the expense of the proposed industrial use). Again the detail provided by the applicant is not sufficiently detailed to be precise.

Car parking provision across the development appears to be very limited which will lead to significant congestion not only within the developed area but also on Harepath Road which will only be exacerbated when Lyme Bay Auctions have viewings auctions etc. The information provided does not detail if the original proposal for 393 spaces is maintained or varied.

The proposed football pitches will effectively join Seaton with Colyford, destroying the existing green wedge and creating significant light pollution in the adjacent residential area through the use of floodlighting. In addition, the pitches will be constructed on significantly sloping land which will require considerable landfill to level. The impact of this has not been evaluated but is of major concern. Presumably, the developer will use spoil from excavations required to construct buildings/infrastructure on other areas of the site to level the land which will significantly mitigate his spoil disposal costs. The muga has been repositioned and the assumption is it remains of the same size and scale as originally proposed. The proposed changing rooms have also been resited but it is confirmed they will remain at 288 sq m gross. If, as appeared to be envisaged in the original planning support documentation, the football pitches/facilities will be utilised by Seaton Town FC there is considerable concern at the lack of parking provision spectator facilities. This is particularly so, if Seaton FC play in higher leagues (as is their aspiration and potential) and expand their already substantial number of teams (currently 14) and the number of spectators present at matches etc. The proposal does not appear to meet requirements in either locational or facility provision terms.

There is little detail around what is envisaged to replace the original play facilities of 0.17 Ha which may now be part of the open area in the centre of the first phase of the residential development.

The original development was subject to independent financial appraisal review which again does not appear to have been revisited in light of the major revisions proposed.

There is a need for far greater information and supporting documentation than is currently available to fully understand and objectively review the proposal and its viability.

The current planning application and supporting documentation should therefore be withdrawn and a new application, with supporting documentation and revised financial appraisal review prepared and submitted for proper, informed review and consultation with local residents and representative bodies.

However, if EDDC consider otherwise then the proposal, with inadequate supporting information, will be considered primarily in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the absence of a current Local Plan.

NPPF summary in relation to the proposed development

The summary below is largely taken directly from the NPPF document with comments in relation to its impact on the consideration and determination of this application in blue italics.

The foreword to the NPFF states Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations and Resolution 42 187 of the United Nations General Assembly defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.


The proposed development does not satisfy this definition as it will effectively join Seaton to Colyford and destroy the viability and integrity of the green wedge between the two communities which is vital to the prevention of urban sprawl. The local communities of Colyford and Seaton are concerned this should even be considered and overwhelmingly wish to preserve the separate identities of the settlements, avoiding coalescence. The current application also has strategic implications in relation to the development of further areas of Green Wedge to the west of Harepath Road which will almost certainly follow if the development of this land is approved.
The proposal does not provide any economic or social benefit for local communities which has not or could not be very adequately provisioned through land already available for development in the area. The industrial element has been so reduced that it will bring little benefit in relation to job creation which will result in the majority of occupiers in the residential area being forced to travel to other employment centres nearby, for example Axminster. There is little benefit in constructing an additional 170 houses in an area which will be unable to support the working aspirations and requirements of a large number of additional residents when provision is already being made through the expansion of nearby towns better placed to support such growth in employment and infrastructure terms. In addition Seaton already has land designated for substantial residential expansion and development of this site as currently proposed is not required to fulfil the development needs of the town and the surrounding area. The proposal is of strategic importance to the local area and its potential adverse impact on this and future generations should not be underestimated or understated. If the land is lost to speculative and opportunistic development it cannot be recovered

Three dimensions to sustainable development identified: economic, social and environmental.

The NPPF defines these as:

an economic role contributing to building a strong, responsive and
competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is
available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and
innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development
requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;


As referred to above the proposal does little to enhance the local economy and does not have sufficient benefit to satisfy this dimension. Indeed, greater strain will be placed on local infrastructure, healthcare, schools, roads, transport and employment which have not been adequately addressed. The promised Business Development unit is unlikely to be delivered until late in the development process, if at all, and will only operate on a long term basis if reasonable occupancy is maintained (there is no criteria against which to establish reasonable occupancy).

In addition, the legal entity entering into the S106 agreement (Seaton Park (Devon) Ltd) is a special purpose vehicle set up to develop the site. As such it has few, if any, assets and is very unlikely to be in existence for the 14 year period it will covenant to operate the BDU. There are no guarantees being proposed or any financial bond to ensure the operation of the BDU. The benefit of this element of the application is highly questionable in its present form and cannot be considered as a positive contribution to the local economy. Other elements of the reduced commercial industrial development are all market lead and may not be realised for several years if at all.

There are financial contributions proposed in the 106 agreement but these are also dependent on completion and sale of large tranches of the housing development. Together they total some £337,000 paid over several years depending on the phasing and sale of the housing units.

The affordable housing element at 34 units is considerably less than would normally be required which will significantly enhance the profitability of the proposal. This should be reviewed.

The only significant investment made by the applicant at the outset of the development is the construction of the link road between Seaton Colyford Road and Harepath Road which is required primarily to service the residential development. There is already road access from Harepath Road which could service the revised industrial content of the scheme. This is not currently controlled by the applicant but could be utilised either by agreement with the adjoining owner or, if no agreement is possible, in partnership with EDDC utilising compulsory acquisition powers.

a social role supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by
providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and
future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with
accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its
health, social and cultural well-being;


This proposal does little to support the local community and such benefits as are realised are dependant upon large scale residential development adjacent to an industrial area with little or no accessible shopping or infrastructure. This type of development can be better serviced through use of other more appropriate land nearby. The proposed new settlement will be largely isolated from the facilities afforded by Seaton and Colyford on foot which will create greater incidence of car use for access to local infrastructure and facilities together with the need for most occupants to travel to work in neighbouring towns as Seaton will not have the capacity to provide sufficient employment.
In the context of a proposed development which, in housing terms alone, will have a value of the order of £40million once completed the relatively modest social and economic benefits being proposed do not adequately compensate or enhance the community in Seaton or Colyford. Short term financial gain is reserved for both the land owners and the developer who will realise substantial profit.

an environmental role contributing to protecting and enhancing our
natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to
improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and
pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to
a low carbon economy.


The proposal adversely impacts the natural environment and given the high density nature of the development in an open area of agricultural land of significant importance, adjacent to wetlands of national stature there is little, if any enhancement of the built and historic environment. Colyford has been a distinct settlement for some 800 years which should not be compromised for short term financial gain. The increased usage of Colyford Seaton Road, which is narrow, undulating, with numerous bends and no pavement for pedestrian or cycle use is not capable of sustaining the potential increased traffic of all kinds, including possible commercial industrial HGV use. The effect of this proposal cannot be taken in isolation from the undoubted effects and stress on infrastructure which will also follow the substantial development planned in the Seaton Regeneration Area etc.

The framework states these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually Dependent and the planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable solutions.

Plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account, so that
they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable
development in different areas.

Sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in
the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in
people's quality of life,

The National Planning Policy Framework constitutes guidance for local
planning authorities and decision takers both in drawing up plans and as
a material consideration in determining applications.


The NPPF clearly envisages applications of major local significance and potential impact for future generations should not be viewed or considered in isolation. The wider economic, social and environmental implications together with wider strategic opportunities to provide land supply of the right type in the right place at the right time are a key element in the decision making process. Clearly, in this instance there are significant alternative and more appropriate land allocations which are already available for development and in the pipeline both in Seaton and the surrounding towns which negate the need to develop the subject land on this scale at this time. There are more appropriate opportunities available to provide sustainable development and positive improvements to the quality of life of the local population.

The NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.


In this instance there is no evidence the proposed development meets the criteria for sustainable development and with the major revisions now proposed much of the supporting documentation to the application is no longer relevant.

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are
out of date, granting permission unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this
Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be

However, from the day of publication, the framework states decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the
preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies
(the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that
may be given); and

the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to
the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan
to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be


The NPPF gives weight to policies in emerging plans and in this instance there are several important policies and strategic initiatives in the locality and surrounding areas which are highly relevant to consideration of this application. They should be given adequate weight and consideration in deciding the overall impact the proposal will have and the opportunities available to satisfy local needs and aspirations on land already designated for such uses in the vicinity which would be more appropriate. This is especially so given the size and impact of the development proposed.

Decision taking should:

always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity
for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings;


As this application is for outline consent there is no information to support the proposal will in any way satisfy this requirement. From the limited information available it is highly probable it will not do so.

take account of the different roles and character of different areas,
promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts
around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;


The above supports the need to protect the Green belt wedges around our urban areas and the need to recognise the character and beauty of the countryside. It is key in this instance.

contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and
reducing pollution. Allocations of land for development should prefer land
of lesser environmental value, where consistent with other policies in this


This policy aligns fully with the major objections and concerns raised in respect of this application. There are clear opportunities for development of land of lesser environmental value, which is better serviced in the locality and surrounding areas.

encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been
previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high
environmental value;


There is ample opportunity for development in the centre of Seaton on brownfield land which is not of high environmental value easily serviced and more accessible. This could also accommodate football facilities better suited to use by Seaton Town FC.

promote mixed use developments, and encourage multiple benefits from
the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land
can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk
mitigation, carbon storage, or food production);

conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so
that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this
and future generations;


The subject land is within the World Heritage site and designated as being of Great Landscape Value in addition to being Green Wedge. As such it should be conserved as far as is possible to preserve the quality of life of this and future generations. This proposal is sited between Coastal Preservation Zones to the East and the West, the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to the North, within sight of the Jurassic Heritage Coast, and adjacent to the Axe Valley Wetlands and Seaton Marshes. These are all areas of highly valued landscape.

It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and
inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and
private spaces and wider area development schemes.


The current proposal includes a high proportion of very small semi detached residences and little car parking provision arranged around narrow estate roads. The nature of the housing reflects the current trend towards unsustainably small housing units which, are inadequate for family units as they mature beyond the first new born. The UK is developing the smallest and poorest housing in Europe which is inconsistent with the aims and aspirations of the NPPF and stated Government policy. The proposal does not meet the criteria of the following elements of the framework in many respects although as this is only an outline application there is insufficient detail to fully appraise the proposal.

Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments:

will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for
the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to
create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit;

optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, create
and sustain an appropriate mix of uses (including incorporation of green
and other public space as part of developments) and support local facilities
and transport networks;

respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local
surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging
appropriate innovation;

create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the
fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion;

are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate

Planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

Green Belt and Green Wedges as defined in the Framework.

The Department for Communities and Local Government have advised in a letter dated 3rd April that although green wedges are not mentioned in the Framework they are by convention generally given the same status as Green Belt, because they fulfil at least two and in this instance at least 3 or more of the five purposes of Green Belt by preventing sprawl and encroachment on the countryside. The Framework maintains strong protection for Green Belt which is stated to be of great importance and this includes Green Wedges.

The framework states the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Green Belt serves five purposes:

o check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;

to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict
and other urban land.

Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.

As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by
definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in
very special circumstances.

The framework also states a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt.

Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in
National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.

Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the
economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development,
and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these
dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options
which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued.


The above clearly supports the contention this application should be refused.

The emerging local plan specifically identifies the land between Seaton and Colyford as follows:

Green Wedges

6.24 One of the potential results of creeping development could be the coalescence of adjacent or neighbouring settlements, villages or towns. To prevent such coalescence it is important that open land between settlements is retained thus helping them maintain their separate identities, their landscape settings and to avoid the creation of unrelieved development.

Strategy 8 - Development in Green Wedges (formerly S6):
Within Green Wedges, as defined on the Proposal Map, development will not be permitted if it would add to existing sporadic or isolated development or damage the individual identity of a settlement or could lead to or encourage settlement coalescence.


It is clear from the above policy statements contained in both the NPPF and the emerging local plan that development in Green belt wedges should not be permitted. This accords with the wishes of the residents of Seaton and Colyford and is supported by neighbouring Parishes.

Seaton in the emerging local plan

The emerging plan (November 2012 iteration) makes the following comments in respect of the town and its strategic vision.

The town is located within a stunning natural environment with international and national recognition of its geological, wildlife habitat and landscape quality value World Heritage Site, three European Special Areas of Conservation, East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and numerous local wildlife designations. The Council's work on the Axe Wetlands Project has over recent years had huge impact, raising the biodiversity value, and the public's understanding and appreciation of this special area.

Community facilities, school, health, social and cultural, are seen as borderline or inadequate with no capacity to serve additional residents.

Restricting any further significant housing developments beyond the existing Built-up Area boundary by locating the majority of the required 125 houses within the existing town.

The East Devon Local Plan promotes the regeneration of a large area of the South-Eastern part of the town and the Council has approved or has stated an intention to approve planning permissions for housing (about 400-450 units) employment, leisure and retail development. Seaton's two main functions are therefore, as a residential base, popular with retired people and commuters, and as a traditional seaside resort. In the last 10 years, Seaton has been affected heavily by the closure of the Lyme Bay Holiday Park. Many jobs within the town are relatively low paid and/or seasonal, notably in the tourist and care industries.

New Homes -
Encourage development of an additional 125 homes Strategy 25, page 85 on sites within and adjoining the town with a small, 25 home allowance, made for future windfall completions

There will be limited housing development in the short term beyond that
already proposed in the regeneration area.


The additional 125 homes are catered for through the intensification of residential provision on the regeneration area and through 2 smaller sites. These are identified in the plan as follows:

As Part of the Regeneration Area this land has a current planning
permission for mixed use commercial, tourism and open spaces development and residential uses. Current residential capacity is estimated at 290 new homes and It is proposed, that intensification of use provides for an additional 75 dwellings SHLAA site E171 giving a site total of 365 new homes.
In addition two smaller sites SHLAA sites E006 and one made up of E007 & E008 are allocated in the Development management policies of the plan for residential development 50 new homes

In particular, Harepath Road will form the focus for current and future job opportunities in Seaton.
North of the town east of Harepath Road, north of Fosseway Industrial estate, also previously referred to as LSE2 this land is allocated for mixed-use employment and recreation uses with the employment element taking up no more than 55% of the site.

Reserve Site land east of the Harpeth Road Fosseway site It is recognised that it may be difficult to deliver the various uses needed for the town, there are a high level of archaeological remains and infrastructure constraints around the town. A 'reserve' site is therefore indicated on the Proposals Map (SHLAA site E315) for land east of the Harepath Road Fosseway site. This site remains outside of the Built up Area Boundary and will only be released for mixed use development if monitoring and future projections indicate that there is likely to be a shortage of deliverable employment and or housing and/or recreation land in the plan period.


From the comment and information provided in this letter it is clear that Seaton is at a pivotal stage in the difficult process of regeneration and it is vital for this and future generations that decisions are made with great care and exceptional vision to ensure long term success over short term expediency.

The site of this proposed development, its detrimental scale and nature, at one of the major gateways to the town is a key strategic element in the successful regeneration of the area. The potential loss of Green Wedge both now and on an ongoing basis if the application is approved is not justified. Once lost, it cannot be recreated and great care is required to ensure it is preserved as its benefit and amenity cannot be overestimated or overstated.

There are numerous valid reasons which have been identified by objectors and local representative bodies to illustrate in detail why the application should be refused. I urge EDDC to take full note and act accordingly in the best interest of the local area and its residents for generations to come.

Yours faithfully,

Peter G Mason

Mr Peter Clarke (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 14 May 2013

See letter under document tab on our website

Mr E Fox (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 14 May 2013

See letter under document tab on our website

Mrs A Smith (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 14 May 2013

See letter under document tab on our website

Comment submitted date: Wed 12 Dec 2012

See letter under document tab on our website

Mr Simon Card (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 14 May 2013

See letter under document tab on our website

Comment submitted date: Mon 13 May 2013

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Proposal: 12/1185/MOUT ¿ May 2013

Further to your notification regarding amendments to the above proposal we wish to register our strong objections to this proposal.
This proposal does not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework. The Framework requires planning authorities to ¿recognise the character and beauty of the countryside, take into account all the benefits of the best agricultural land, and encourage re-use of brown-field sites if not of high environmental values¿. A Green Wedge by general agreement is given the same standing as Green Belt. Paragraph 89 of the framework states: ¿A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt¿. The framework is very clear on this matter and is directly against proposals such as the one mentioned above
This proposal is a serious case of over-development in an area of Great Landscape Value - Policy CO4 (Areas of Great Landscape Value) of the Devon Structure Plan 2001, Policy EN2 (Areas of Great Landscape Value). This development would have a significant visual impact on this area surrounding Colyford and is therefore contrary to policy. The proposed development is not ¿sustainable¿ as defined by the minister the Rt. Hon. Greg Clark MP. No consideration has been given to the local infrastructure, specifically sewage, water supply and environmental impact.
This proposal specifically does not take into account the establishment of need. There is considerable planning permission already in place in the Seaton area. The Seaton Regeneration Site already has permission for some 350 homes as it stands today, let alone other planning permissions granted in the area. No thought has been given in this proposal to why there is further requirement for more homes.

This proposal takes no account the local road infrastructure. There would be a significant Increase in traffic volumes which would lead to serious concerns about road safety and speeding already an issue in the village of Colyford. No consideration has been given to, for example, the Colyton Grammar School transport issues in the area. Coaches and buses transporting children already cause considerable congestion in the area and there is no alternative route for them to use. No consideration has been given by the developer to the impact of the proposal on the Sus Trans cycleway where increased commercial and non-commercial traffic flow that inevitably will come from such a development will cause potentially significant safety issues.
This proposal takes no account of the local economy and the important role of tourism locally.
The River Axe Wetlands is a significant feature of the local landscape and economy, this
proposal is very close to an area that has considerable and nationally prominent wildlife
such as migratory birds and fish as well as protected bats and dormice.
Many visitors come to this area to visit the wetlands. Also considerable investment has been
undertaken in the wetlands in recent times so that tourism numbers can be increased.

Another very important matter is that the previously proposed development in Lympstone (Exmouth 11/1293/MOUT) and the Inspector¿s decision to refuse the developer¿s appeal in decision APP/U1105/A/11/2161479 is pertinent to the above proposal. The Inspector¿s comments in paragraphs 18 to 24 of this decision letter reflect a set of circumstances very similar to those which apply to the Green Wedge between Seaton and Colyford.

In summary we wish to object in the strongest manner possible to this inappropriate and ill-considered proposal for development of the Green wedge between Seaton and Colyford.

We strongly believe that this application should be refused in its entirety.

Simon Card OBE
Mary Card

Showing 1-10 of 145|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution