Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

18/1094/MOUT | Outline application accompanied by an Environmental Statement (with scale and appearance reserved) for the change of use of agricultural land to employment land (B1, B8 and D1 uses) to provide 8,445 sqm of new floorspace, new highway access, cycle and footway, improvements to flood attenuation, building layout and road layout, new hedgerow planting and associated infrastructure. | Land East Of Two Bridges Two Bridges Road Sidford
  • Total Consulted: 439
  • Comments Received: 371
  • Objections: 259
  • Supporting: 110
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 370|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Mr Peter Duke (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 02 May 2019

I have often been to - and through - the small and delightful town of Sidford. There is a convergence of roads in the centre of Sidford that can be quite congested with contrary flowing traffic. To develop this area for the sake of a business park development would only, in my opinion, increase the amount of congestion, add to pollution levels, and be to the detriment of the town, its aesthetic environment and most of all to its inhabitants. There are already adequate business park outlets in Honiton, Exmouth and Exeter, so I feel this particular development would be quite superfluous to local needs, and would be to the detriment of an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Peter Duke

Mr keith hudson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 09 Apr 2019

The A375 is unsuitable for extra traffic, from the sidbury end you have cotford bridge which is so narrow that two vehicles cannot pass at the same time, further into the village there is sidbury school the children have have a garden and a play area next to the road extra traffic will cause more pollution for very young lungs to absorb. The village has several narrow points along the road and traffic hold ups are on a regular basics when the bus or large articulated vehicles meet plus it is dangerous for children who have to walk to school . some of the cottages are just a few feet away from the road and are experiencing damage to the wall structure. From burnt oak to sidford there are narrow points and is extremely dangerous to walk or cycle, when you enter school street the road is so narrow that articulated vehicles drive on the pavement to pass each other to the detriment of pedestrians, not so long ago a tanker and a coach got wedge together, once again there are cottages within a few feet of the road experiencing pollution build up while waiting for the traffic lights to change. This planning appeal should be refused and taken out and never be allowed to be built on this area of outstanding natural beauty k a Hudson

Mr J Loudoun (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 16 Oct 2018

Say NO Sidford Business Park Petition with 1398 signatures from residents with an EX10 postcode. There are in addition over 200 signatures from residents elsewhere in East Devon, as well as from visitors to the area.

Mr J Loudoun (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 17 Sep 2018

See letter and attachment under document tab on our website

Comment submitted date: Mon 25 Jun 2018

Planning Reference: 18/1094/MOUT Outline application for the development of employment facilities on land adjacent to Two Bridges Road, Sidford

This letter is one of strong objection to the above planning application and I most fervently call for the District Council to reject it in its entirety.

Although this letter is submitted after the consultation closure date, as cited on the District Council's website, I rely upon the assurance provide by the Chair of the Council's Development Management Committee that a submission at this point would be accepted.

Further, I give notice that I will exercise my right as a complainant to put make my case orally when the DMC gives public consideration of this application.

I live in a property that was build in 1633 and which abuts the A375 in the centre of Sidbury. The volume of traffic that currently travels through Sidbury is in the tens of thousands each month. The traffic passes this property predominantly at speeds of between 20 and 35 mph. The traffic includes an increasing number of large lorries and articulated vehicles. All of this is having a detrimental impact on the structure of this Grade II cob and thatch building.

There are 40 additional listed buildings along the A375 in Sidbury and Sidford. On the basis of existing traffic volume these will all be facing similar structural challenges as our property does. Additional traffic, which this application will bring, will add to the problems for these and all other properties located by local main roads.

The traffic that flows through this village will self-evidently predominantly also have to pass through School Street at Sidford and then either disperse into, or originate from, one of three directions within and around Sidford. This traffic adds to that which also travels through Sidford along the A3052 in both directions.

One of the applicants claims that the proposed business park will provide employment space for 250 new full-time jobs (Source: front page, Sidmouth Herald, 18 May).

"Entrants into the workforce have a much tougher time getting a full-time job than those who are already employed, suggesting that a proportion of part-time work is going to younger people and those returning to work, and that any growth in full-time work is overwhelmingly going those already employed". (Source: The Guardian newspaper article "Full-time jobs are few and far between", dated 28 February 2018).

The reality of the type of new jobs that are being created within the UK economy is that these are part-time rather than full-time. Therefore, it follows that it is most likely that in order to have the claimed 250 new full-time jobs there will have to be more than this number of employees working part-time. It also therefore follows that there will be more than 250 related travel journeys by those filling these new jobs. The planning application shows that it intends to have just over 250 parking spaces on the site. This surely must mean that the applicants expect that each working day there will be at least an extra 250 plus cars entering and exiting the site.

Given that it is likely that there will be more than 250 vehicles requiring on site parking and that there is only plans to provide around 250 parking spaces, then local side roads can expect to be utilised as parking spaces for the over spill of vehicles of those working at the business park.

It is apparent that local traffic both through Sidford and through Sidbury will increase as a result of the business park being built. Additionally, there will be vans, lorries and articulated vehicles both working out of the site and/or servicing the units there. All of this will mean that local traffic, by both volume and size, both through Sidford and through Sidbury, will increase.

When all of this daily additional traffic is added to the existing volume of traffic that travels through Sidford, Sidbury and the environs of Sidmouth roads, it can only lead to greater environmental damage, higher levels of vehicle emissions, greater delays and traffic jams, and blocked roads. All of this will be to the detriment of local residents and pedestrians. Already, one only has to read the local press or view local social media to see regular photographs and reports of traffic jams and driver stand offs in Sidford and in Sidbury. If this planning application gains the District Council's support it can only increase all of these traffic difficulties to the detriment of residents and their properties in Sidford, Sidbury and Sidmouth.

Much is made by one of the applicants about the benefit to the local communities and economy due to the intention to create 250 new full-time jobs. This can only be an aspiration rather than a statement of fact. The number of units within the planning application might allow for this number of potential jobs, however, at this point it would not be possible for the applicants to say with any certainty which businesses would actually locate or relocate to the site.

Further, as it is not intended that a single large business would locate/re-locate to the site, it would be down to each and every business on site to determine how many jobs they create. To create 250 new full-time jobs would in turn require a significant number of SME micro-businesses to operate from the site.

The applicants cannot also say with complete certainty which new businesses would start-up from the site and which existing businesses would re-locate from elsewhere in East Devon. It will be up to each and every business that would operate from the site to determine how many jobs it will have. Further, it would be for each business to determine how many new full-time jobs it will create. Any assumption by the applicants about how many businesses will locate/re-locate to the site is merely that, an assumption. The same will be true for how many new full-time jobs will be created there.

The application makes bold statements about how there will be local recruitment to the jobs on site. I cannot understand how that claim can have any basis in reality when each and every business operating from the site will determine its own recruitment strategy to suit its individual needs.

The application makes grandiose claims about informing and promoting alternatives to vehicle use to those working on the site and to those visiting the site. Further, it makes a claim that it will promote healthier lifestyles to those working on site. I cannot understand how that claim can have any basis in reality when each and every business operating from the site will determine its own advice/policies to its employees and visitors. I see not validity in these claims.

Most surprisingly the application states it will increase accessibility by public transport for those using the site. This claim cannot be delivered by the applicants. They do not, and I cannot see how they could, determine the local public transport strategy and timetable. This is another fanciful statement by the applicants.

In this letter of objection, I have concentrated on addressing travel and employment issues. I would also in summary draw the District Council's attention to the following brief points -

There will be significant detriment to not only those living in the vicinity of the proposed site, but also to those passing through the area as the business park will be visible thus making it what can be described as a "blot on the landscape". This will detract from the benefits that we have of the site being in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This will be to the detriment of tourism, the local economy and the lives of those living locally.

I most forcefully call upon the District Council to reject this application and recommend to the applicants that they look elsewhere should they wish to continue with an intention to build a business park within East Devon. There is no demonstrable need for this business park locally, and this is absolutely the wrong proposal in the wrong place.

Yours sincerely
John Loudoun

Mrs J Powell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 08 Aug 2018

Dear Sir
Although the date for objections for the above has now passed, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that no consideration was given to the properties in Two Bridges Road, Although properties in Sid Vale Close to the south of the plan were referred to no mention was made of the properties to the west.
All of my principle rooms overlook the planned business park, as do most of the properties in Two Bridges Road..The increase in traffic will directly affect our properties and I hope this will be taken into consideration,This Planning Application would be Detrimental to the residents in Two Bridges Road and have a visual impact
The Attachment are photos from Sandylands Lounge and Kitchen and Brook Bungalows Lounge and KItchen it shows just how close we are to the site
Sent from Samsung tablet

Thanking you for your Attention on this matter


Mr & Mrs G & J Powell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 07 Aug 2018

see scanned email with photographs received 07/08/2018 under "view associated documents" tab (allow 3 working days for scanning)

Comment submitted date: Thu 07 Jun 2018

Please see scanned photos dated 6th June under the document tab.

Comment submitted date: Thu 07 Jun 2018

Dear Sirs,

We wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons.

1 This site lies within an area designated by the National Parks Commission under section 87 of the National Parks and access to the countryside 1945 as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The proposed development would be contrary to the policy for such an area. The site should not be developed unless there exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest. (paras 109, 115,116 NPPF). There are no exceptional circumstances and it is not evidence based.This development will not respect the characteristics and special qualities of the the area in which this development is proposed.
This is Grade 2 agricultral land and is at the present time planted with a crop.EN13 NPPF states that Grade2 will be protected from development not associated with agriculture or forestry.

2 The road network is unsuitable. The pavement starts at Purbeck Cottage in Two Bridges Road with a bus stop. If people are waiting for a bus pedestrians have to walk in the road because it is so narrow.
School Street also has a very narrow pavement and by Sidford Farmhouse two people cannot pass each other without walking into the road causing safety . Traffic problems to residents and public will add congestion, pollution,carbon emissions and noise. Being so narrow two vehicles cannot pass in School Street. Usually one or both have to drive on the narrow pavements which is damaging to the cottages (1700's) and to the people.Also Sidbury has the same problems being in a conservation area with a listed bridge (Cotford) and narrow winding roads all the way to the site which is a hazard for pedestrians as there is no footpath. There is also a Primary School in Sidbury with no safely areas outside and so dangerous for young children.Planning permission should not be granted if emergency services may impeded in Sidmouth. Sidford and Sidbury.EDLP policy 47 states inadequacy of road network and site access or traffic generated caused by the development then no permission will be granted.

3 This development is on a flood plain. The proposal is for this land to be built up one and a half metres which will cause the flood water which comes down from the hills to be diverted to vunerable sites. If as they suggest that hedges are to be removed by Laundry Lane the water will flow down and flood the bottom side of the village such as Englands Close, Hamilton Garage, The Salty Monk and Packhorse Close. Evidence that the climate is changing means that greater weather uncertainty surrounding rainfall trends could mean an increased risk of flooding.

Development in the landscape of the Local Plan states< Conserve and enhance the landscape of East Devon. This application will do neither it will ruin it.

No thought has been given to the residents to the west of the site. They will get the full brunt of traffic pollution, noise, and smells 24 hours a day affecting our quality of life. No mention of these residents are mentioned by Ford's in their application.

Please see scanned photos dated 6th June under the documents tab.

Mr J T Bell (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 25 Jul 2018

See letter under document tab on our website

Mr A J Saunders (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 20 Jul 2018

Please see scanned letter dated 13/07/2018 under the documents tab.

Mrs U V Harrington (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 16 Jul 2018

See letter under document tab on our website

Ms M Tucker (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 16 Jul 2018

See letter under document tab on our website

Showing 1-10 of 370|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution