Liatris Planning Application

06/3400/MOUT

Introduction

Stand Up For Seaton has identified many areas in which this developer’s plans contradict the East Devon Local Plan, The Devon Structure Plan and national Policies and Guidelines, all of which are summarised in attached appendices.

Our main objections can be summarised as follows:

Short Summary: this planning application fails to meet the test of its ability to regenerate the town in all the areas outlined below and in appendices; it should therefore be rejected.

General summary: this is not a robust planning application. In the main, it restates policies about development and attempts to show that the application meets them. However, many of its basic tenets are flawed and there is almost no evidence within the application for any of the more optimistic, and sometimes grandiose, claims which it makes for the regeneration case. It is environmentally unsound and does much more damage than good, particularly regarding tourism. It requires that the whole town is disrupted for up to 5 years for almost no gain, except maximum profit for the developer.

Part 1 of this objection concentrates on the areas in which this planning application deviates from national policies

Part 2 of this objection concentrates on the areas in which this planning application deviates from the East Devon Local Plan and the Development Brief for the Seaton Regeneration Area

Part 3 is this part

The Annex is a repudiation of the Transport Assessment

Stand Up For Seaton objects to this development for the following reasons:

1. It does not regenerate the area

Firstly we need to ask the question: exactly what do we mean by "regeneration" of Seaton and, if it has to be done, who and what are we regenerating the town for?

Greenwich Council defines "regeneration" as follows:

It would seem therefore that the basic tenets of regeneration cannot be met by the development. For these reasons alone the planning application should be rejected.

2. It contains high levels of unacceptable risk

This development requires a vast amount of preliminary risk in development terms, much of it being passed by EDDC and the developer to secondary developers who may not be able to stand it. There has been no attempt by EDDC to consider selling its own land on the site on the open market nor to regenerate its own land following the above criteria. It requires large outlay of finance up-front; what effort has been made to ensure that the developer is able to bear this risk? Has due diligence been far-seeking and thorough?

3. No account has been taken of the effect of transporting one million tons of infill to the site

The developer admits that it will require 65-90 lorries per day, 6 days per week, 10 hours per day for up to 4 years to bring infill to the site. Two possible routes are suggested: one passes by the primary school, the other past a nursing home. Both require negotiation of several "pinch points" in Seaton and surrounding villages on their way to the development. The increase in pollution in the town will be unacceptable and undoubtedly people with chest complaints and other breathing difficulties (particularly babies, children and the elderly) will suffer, particularly the children at the primary school. This is a completely unacceptable and unsustainable way of dealing with this site.

4. The Traffic Assessment has major flaws and there will be increased and unacceptable levels of traffic

Attached is a report showing that the Traffic Assessment has so many major and minor flaws, in itself it should be a reason to reject the planning application. For example, no separate figures are available for weekends. When proper figures are used it shows that Seaton will suffer from a huge rise in traffic from other areas (including Lyme Regis in Dorset, which has resisted the call for large stores and is happy to see them placed in East Devon). Lyme Regis cites the lack of large stores as a plus point for quality of life in the town.

Seaton is the only town in the area which does not have a secondary school; children are bussed to other schools in the area. There would be an increased need for school buses from this development. Roads will need increased maintenance.

5. It will lead to overdevelopment – housing, (with its effect on medical and emergency services facilities) and retail

Housing:

In the EDDC Local Plan, Seaton is shown as being required to build no more than 300 dwellings to fulfil its requirements to 2011. More than 130 (perhaps up to 150) of these dwellings have already been built as infill developments within the town. The current requirement is therefore for Seaton to build no more than 170 homes by 2011. At least 630 homes are planned on this site (386 in this application, a further 64 on a site not yet in the ownership of this developer but included on the previous master plan, at least 30 on land currently owned by EDDC and approximately 150 on the land owned by the Axe Riverside Company). This is overdevelopment to satisfy non-local needs – indeed, given Cranbrook New Town,, it is overdevelopment of the entire EDDC area. This is being done without the appropriate infrastructure for such a large number of homes and is therefore unacceptable in terms of development. It would see the population of Seaton rise by some 20-25% within 5 years. This is untenable, unsustainable and unwarranted.

We already know that on the original plan of 450 homes by this developer, they had asked at the Local Plan Inquiry in November 2005 for the 40% requirement (180 homes) should be reduced to 75 due to the developer’s extraordinary costs in raising the flood plain. This is unacceptable. (We have, of course, offered alternatives to this planning application that would reduce the costs of building on this site and increase the ability of the developer to increase the amount of affordable housing in consequence of this).

The effect of more housing on medical and emergency response facilities:

If the total development of this site is allowed to go ahead (approx minimum 630 homes) this will lead to a 20-25% increase in the population of the town within five years without any consequent improvement in infrastructure or services. The lack of community facilities is dealt with in another section of this report. However, local doctors, dentists would be unable to cope with the extra patients, there would be increased pressure on fire (first response) and paramedics. In addition, if no affordable housing is available and homes are sold to elderly, retired residents, the demographic of the population will lead to an unacceptable increase in visits to doctors. At the moment the average number of consultations per doctor per patients is 3.2 in the UK. Research carried out by one Seaton doctor found that his average was more than 12.0 given the multiple illnesses of his elderly patients.

There would also be increased call-out to an already stretched ambulance service and the retained fire service – each of which would compete with increased road traffic to get to sick people or fires.

Retail:

The supermarket is planned at around 5,000 sq m and the non-food store over 2,600 sq m as compared with the largest shop currently in Seaton being around 750 sq m. This again is an unacceptable scale of development for such a small town. It would be more appropriate to Sidmouth which has twice the population of Seaton.

A reason given for such large shops is that we do not have very large shops and, were we to have them, money spent outside the town would stay in the town. No evidence whatsoever is given for this statement (and presumably at least for EDDC, shoppers would be lost to the other nearby superstores resulting in no net gain). The vast majority of the population in this town moved here because we do not have large shops and as a town the scale of this development is totally inappropriate. The impact of this level of new retail space on the current town centre will be catastrophic. For example, the local post office – situated as it is within a town shop - would be completely unviable as income from the shop subsidises losses in post office income.

Also, given the interim report of the Competition Commission on 23 January 2007 and bearing in mind the stranglehold that the Tesco supermarket chain has in this part of East Devon (the only major supermarket chain in Honiton and Axminster, our nearest towns accessible by car and public transport) what safeguards are in place to ensure that this chain does not complete its domination of this area, giving it a monopoly of retail outlets of this size? Peter Freeman, Chairman of the Competition Commission said: "It would be a cause for concern if supermarkets, either individually or collectively, were in a position to increase prices or lower their offer in any particular locality or region because of lack of effective competition,". The commission said larger stores constrained the prices, product range and service of smaller stores. Below-cost selling by larger grocery retailers "may also unintentionally contribute to the exit of smaller grocery retailers and specialist stores," it said in its statement.

We have seen no robust evidence that bringing large retail outlets into small towns shows a positive economic effect for the town. In 2000 the Department of Health recommended that local authorities should discourage the provision of new supermarkets over 1000 square metres outside existing town centres in recognition of the value of local shops to low income households. They noted that in large supermarkets special offers are mainly for processed food, but lower income groups without access to private transport, and in particularly elderly and less mobile people, are less able to advantage of them. Also, the use of "price flexing" (temporarily undercutting local shops) is common.

Evidence to the Competition Commission also noted: "As a high street declines, it becomes increasingly unattractive to shoppers until the local economy reaches a 'tipping point' where the amount of money circulating is insufficient to maintain all the businesses. The result is 'a sudden and dramatic loss of services – leading to food and finance deserts'. This desertification expresses itself in a several ways. In the case of big centres of population, we see the 'Clone town' effect – the same national retailer chains move in and the rest is charity shops and pound shops. In smaller market towns, there are two options – either 'pretty, but useless main streets with a dearth of everyday services' or irrevocable decline".

6. There is a complete lack of real employment opportunities:

It states in the planning application that "more than 300" jobs will be created if this planning application is allowed to go forward. This is not the case – many of these are "displacement jobs" including 147 to be lost at the holiday village and others which will be lost in the town due to the proximity of 7,600 sq m of new retail space. No evidence of where and how jobs will be created over and above displacement is provided, nor the level at which they would be remunerated. Given that we will have a population of more than 1,200 extra adults in Seaton we cannot see where the vast majority of these people can acquire jobs of a level that could sustain the cost of housing, particularly as the developer wishes to see affordable housing at less than 20% of total housing. Seaton can only become a commuter town for Exeter (if there are enough jobs of quality there given transport costs) or it will attract yet more elderly, retired people to the town or those with second homes, each of which brings its own problems.

7. The flooding risk to neighbouring properties and those upstream will be increased

The developer is at great pains to state that the homes on the site will not flood and that the flooding risk on homes outside the development area will not change. Yet, in other documents the developer states that it recognises that the development will be a self-contained island surrounded by at least 3 ft of water in the event of flooding and goes on to suggest refuges and shallow draft boats or sea tractors to assist in evacuation in case of extreme weather. Bear in mind that climate change models show that "extreme weather" – particularly wetter winters - are becoming more and more likely. Unfortunately, should the flood risk be unacceptable and the worst case scenario happens, developers will have long gone and undoubtedly will be outside the reach of European Courts should they be found liable for negligence in this respect.

No research has been done on the impact of this development on neighbouring properties which will have a 2 metre flood barrier behind them and will be the homes with 3 ft of flood water mentioned if extreme weather causes the "self-contained island to be cut off. They will be be on the route of flood water which going towards the monsoon drain. We have seen no evidence that the local authority has consulted the Association of British Insurers on this matter, which we believe is a duty on them.

South West Water has already queried its ability to manage sewerage and mains water on the site (the whole development site, having been unaware that this planning application was for only part of the site) and has noted that it is possible that the major sewers and water mains will not be able to cope with the extra demand of homes and 250,000 tourists. They note that the mains and sewers would be buried under a further 2m of rubble. They have asked for a new report from the developers based on this and the actual number of homes on the site plus the forecast number of tourists.

More importantly, it does not fulfil the criteria of the sequential test – and is unlikely to pass the exception test - in PPG 25 (Flooding) and has not used the latest Environment Agency data. On these grounds alone should be rejected.

8. Community facilities, youth facilities and the application of planning obligation payments towards their replacement have not been appropriately funded or phased

We are in a little difficulty in this section since we have been told by EDDC we are not entitled to know the extent of the monies offered towards planning obligations either in total or towards the various projects chosen by EDDC without public consultation. However, we can make general comments.

The use of the holiday village as a community resource is well-documented, with photographs of local residents using its facilities extensively in the 1950s and 1960s to date. We cannot accept that this significant loss can be made up for by (a) a small visitor’s centre, (b) a "possible" small room in an annex to the visitors centre and (c) an extended marshland owned by EDDC as a tourist site – the projects designated by EDDC for the use of planning obligation finance.

The needs of the community are totally different to those of tourists. We need facilities for sport and recreation, for social activities and for community projects, as well as space for a Youth Centre – both indoors and outdoors. It is government policy that these should be provided for a town of the size of Seaton. The health and welfare of the majority of people in Seaton cannot be provided for by current plans of the developer.

Planning obligation requires that lost facilities should be replaced phase by phase – i.e. lost facilities should be replaced within a short time span. No replacement is provided for in the current planning application at all. The projects chosen by East Devon District Council are not "like for like" or enhancement of community facilities.

We also note the absence of public open space in this development. We do not consider the provision of a hard-paved, very small "Town Square" or using a monsoon drain for cycling and walking on when it is not a flood drain as an adequate provision. Indeed, there is no alternative to a "Town Square if it is to serve the function of a walkway to entrances to shops, homes, the visitors centre and the tramway. To state that it is for the community is perhaps being over-creative on the part of the developers.

Planning obligation remuneration remains a problem: the purchase of marshland for a tourist facility (as yet unfinanced) and the building of a visitors centre (also as yet unfinanced) cannot be considered by any stretch of the imagination as replacement of lost community facilities.

No attempt is being made to replace the gym, swimming pool, day nursery, youth centre and meeting currently available to the community. It is inappropriate to consider putting a day nursery or a community facility or youth centre in a tourist Visitor Centre. Government guidelines suggest that community facilities should be sited together in an appropriate building in an appropriate location. If the developers cannot afford to put a community building on the site the whole basis of their ability to finance this development should be questioned.

It is also likely that there will be pressure to remove the skateboard park as it is directly alongside housing, as has happened in other communities, robbing the town of this much-used facility, which recently has been the focus for outdoor youth activities and festivals.

9. There is too little public open space and what little there is is of poor quality

With the exception of the hard-paved "Town Square (which is actually only a passageway for entrance into various buildings which has to be sited as it is) there is no provision for open space in this development. The only open space shown is the use of the monsoon drain as a walkway and cycleway. However, it is noted in the planning application that if this drain fills with more than 25cm of water it will sweep an adult off their feet.

10. Long stay holiday accommodation will be destroyed and there will be a negative impact on tourism

The backbone of Seaton’s economy rests on its location as a seaside town on the World Heritage Jurassic Coast. The current holiday village with its 400 beds manages to have an 80% occupancy rate throughout the year. It is therefore obvious that there is a call for overnight tourist accommodation in the area. The owner of this holiday village disputes its value as a modern tourist venue yet seems able to justify this with his other two holiday villages which are essentially the same as the one in Seaton (Weston super Mare and Hayling Island – the latter recently bought from the holding company of the same developers who have put in this planning application)

The planning application calls for the demolition of this holiday village and its replacement by "day tourism". The government’s own figures show that day tourists spend one-third of the amount of overnight tourists. Current overnight beds – approximately 120,000 per year. To replace this we would need 360,000 day tourists. The projected figures are: Visitor’s Centre 230,000, Wetlands Centre 30,000 = 260,000 leaving a shortfall of some 100,000 tourists. (The Tramway is excluded from this equation as figures for it will not change). We will therefore be in a situation of net loss. Also, we will have a loss of ALL tourists for up to 5 years whilst attempts are made to finance the new conceptual projects.

We also note that day tourists will share parking facilities with the supermarket and non-food store and that free parking will be for a maximum of 3 hours. After that a fine will be payable. This will mean that tourists will be able to visit only one of the three possible attractions available to them (the tramway, the visitors centre, the wetlands centre. These would better therefore be called "half day" visitors.

We note that for a period of some 2-3 years the town would have no tourist facilities whatsoever and the site would be nothing more than a building site with a supermarket and non-food store on it. It could take years for the town to recover its tourist potential after this hiatus.

South West Tourism has identified an urgent need for "holiday villages" in the south west. This site would make an ideal location for such a village and would not require raising of the flood plain – the village itself could be raised on walkways.

11. The Visitor Centre is too small and in the wrong place

It is impossible to create a viable "world-class" visitor centre with a footprint of less than 500 sq m next to a supermarket with a footprint of more than 5,000 sq m and a non-food store with a footprint of 2,600 sq m. It will be overshadowed by the retail outlets and the need to share short-term parking with shoppers shows a lack of understanding of how tourists can be attracted to such a second-rate or third-rate venue.

For some reason the Visitor Centre is constantly cited along with the proposed Wetland Centre as a tourist attractor. It must be borne in mind that the Visitor Centre and the Wetlands Centre are currently conceptual projects and there is a risk that one or may never happen. It will be very difficult to make a case for two separate funding streams for such income as lottery money or regional development funds.

The SUSTRANS cycle route is an important asset to the town and deserves consideration as a separate stand-alone facility. It is disingenuous for the developer to take the credit for attracting this cycle route to the town; there have been many years of patient negotiation on the part of SUSTRANS and the town to bring their project to fruition.

12. A lack of commitment is shown to environmental considerations

The effect of this development on the environment will be catastrophic. The sustainability statement consists of merely 13 pages much of it restating national policy. The development is not being built sustainably and the developer admits that they do not have a sustainable procurement policy. There is already a problem with contamination of the land (PCBs from old electricity sub-stations still on the site and contamination from the former gas works and railway). The developer states that the only contamination work done on the site is five soil samples taken in 2002. They state that they have consulted the Environment Agency on this matter but so far we have been unable to confirm that this is the case, the Environment Agency saying that consultation has taken place only on flooding matters.

No provision has been made for dealing with contaminated land on the site. We know of previous gasworks, railway workings and electricity sub-stations but there is no plan in this planning application for dealing with them comprehensively.

We know that climate change and global warming is having immediate and long-term effect, yet this has not been taken into account in any way in this planning application. All national guidelines stress that this should be dealt with at the earliest possible part of the planning process.

13. There is a lack of planning gain

This has been dealt with earlier, but deserves its own section. The community is losing: a swimming pool, a gymnasium, an OFSTED day nursery, meeting and function rooms and long term parking facilities. It has already lost a youth club which hosted short mat bowls, table tennis, ballroom dancing, meetings and events.

It is proposed that as planning gain it is offered: affordable housing, a contribution to a visitor centre and a contribution to a wetland centre. By no stretch of the imagination could any of these be called planning gains for community facilities which will be lost.

Mention has been made of the possibility of a "community room", gym or crèche within the footprint of the Visitors Centre. This is entirely inappropriate. No attempt has been made to provide planning gains for losses on the required phased basis. The Visitors Centre and the Wetlands Centre are entirely conceptual projects at the moment and would take a minimum of 3-8 years to fund and construct – planning gain requires that lost facilities are replaced as early as possible in the development.

14. There has been a total lack of public consultation on this planning application

There has been no public consultation on this developer’s plans which differ so much from the Local Plan and the Development Brief. The developer had a small exhibition about the masterplan for the site, arranged with only one week’s notice and providing very little opportunity for consultation and feedback. The developer has refused to answer letters about the development (Seaton Town Council Letter – July 2006) and has failed to provide adequate consultation prior to and after submission of the planning application.

This development is of a scale and nature that required a long lead time for public consultation. Although officially there has been a consultation period of eight weeks, it was more than 2 weeks after the planning application was registered before documents became available to the public. There was then a period of 10 days over Christmas and New Year when they were not available to the public due to the long holiday period. Therefore at least 4 weeks of this period should not have been counted as consultation time.

It is also noted that EDDC had previously insisted on a comprehensive regenerative development on the entire site for some years. It now appears to be proposing to enter negotiations with one developer only, whereas the whole site has at least four landowners. This shift in policy, which previously may have contributed to areas of the site lying derelict, has been sudden and without consultation with the public, who indirectly via the EDDC holdings, are effectively one of the landowners. 

No account has been taken of the following public meetings where there were many people who gave voice to the lack of public consultation or an unacceptable delay before information was made available to the public:

Date and location	Organisation	Number attending
26 September 2006 - Winstons	Stand Up for Seaton	More than 300
01 November 2006 - Town Hall	Seaton Development Trust	Between 500 – 600
15 November 2006- The Knowle	Stand Up for Seaton	More than 120
9/10 January 2007 – Town Hall	Stand Up For Seaton	724
15 January 2007 – Town Hall	Seaton Development Trust	150 approx
15 January 2007 – Town Hall	Town Meeting	320
17 January 2007 – Holiday Village	Stand Up For Seaton	300 approx demonstrators

back to top