Seaton Regeneration Area Plan :: Planning Support Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
4.1 The Government’s Planning Policy Guidance Note PPS1 places emphasis on community involvement in applications for major development. Local authorities are required under the changes to the planning legislation to set out their requirements for developers to provide a Statement of Community Involvement in relation to major planning applications. This chapter of the planning support statement represents the Statement of Community Involvement in the application arising from the opportunities given to the public to comment on the evolution of the scheme by Liatris Holdings’ professional team.
4.2 The principle of the development of the Seaton Regeneration Site and to a great extent the objectives of the Council for the layout of land uses has already been the subject of considerable public involvement. The Council itself carried out significant public consultation exercises on two separate occasions relating to the consultants’ reports in the formation of previous master plans for the site. The Council also undertook a period of public consultation that led up to the approval in March 2005 of the Planning Brief for the Seaton Regeneration Site. At the same time as the Planning Brief was being progressed, the Local Plan for East Devon was going through its statutory public consultation stages that proposed the principle of redevelopment of the site (including the loss of the existing holiday village) through its Policy LSE2. This consultation exercise gave the opportunity for the public to make representations in relation to the principle of the development and to other relevant policies that dealt with the Seaton Regeneration Site. A public inquiry was held into these proposals taking place in 2005. Thus there have been a number of separate opportunities for the public to comment on the principle of development and the evolution of the Council’s Planning Brief.
4.3 Over the last 12 months, Liatris Holdings and its consultants have held numerous meetings with senior officers and members of East Devon District Council in the evolution of the master plan and the planning application. The wider involvement of the community took place through the holding in Seaton on 6 and 7 July 2006 of an exhibition into the master plan proposals which was publicised beforehand locally.
4.4 The hours of opening of the exhibition at Seaton Town Hall extended over a two-day period, including an evening to allow those who work to access the exhibition proposals. The master plan proposals at that time were exhibited together with material relating to the Council’s Planning Brief; the location of the flood plain, the proposals of the Local Plan and other background material. Members of the public attending the exhibition were given the opportunity to take away comment forms to either be filled out at the exhibition or returned to Signet Planning by an appropriate date.
4.5 In the two day period of the exhibition, over 450 people attended. Some 130 comment forms were received and a number of issues of a general and specific nature were raised, both in the comment forms and in the views and opinions expressed verbally by members of the public to the Liatris Holdings’ team attending the exhibition. Copies of the comments form can be made available to the Council upon request.
4.6 Overall the balance of views was against the project rather than in favour, although it is important to note that many of the objectors opposed the principle of development of the site. However, it is the case that not all those who have written in appreciated that the site is allocated for development in the Local Plan and therefore the question of the development of the site in principle has already been the subject of consultation and is adopted East Devon District Council policy. Notwithstanding any in principle objections, there were a number of concerns about how the development may take place and the content of the master plan that was displayed at the time of the exhibition (see Summary of Responses generated by the public exhibition at Appendix 2). The concerns raised can be summarised as dealing with the following matters: -
a) how development could take place, given the flooding problems experienced in Seaton and the inclusion of a larger part of the site within the flood plain;
b) whatever was agreed between the Environment Agency and the applicant, there would still be long-term problems of flooding in the area;
c) the impact of the development on the local highway network;
d) the potential impact of the new food store on existing traders within the town centre;
e) the loss of the Lyme Bay Holiday Village;
f) the loss of the swimming pool, gymnasium and ‘hall’ currently used by local residents within the Lyme Bay Holiday Village buildings;
g) the proposed loss of the children’s play area in the north western corner of the site in the event of the relocation of car parking to that part of the site.
h) the proposals for the redevelopment of the boatyard in the form of the activity hub including public house/hotel/restaurant, etc, particularly from land owners in that area who indicated they would not co-operate in such proposals;
i) the housing on the site should be well designed and should provide for attractive areas of open space and children’s play;
j) the housing on the site and development as a whole should not be too high, particularly given the site levels would be raised to overcome flooding problems;
k) that there should not be vehicular access into the scheme as a whole off the Underfleet;
l) that there was appropriate parking on the scheme, not simply to support the proposed shopping facilities but to allow appropriate capacity for tourists to visit Seaton in the summer;
m) how the Council’s proposed Visitor Centre would go ahead;
n) the impact of development on adjacent residential properties on the fringe of the site along Harbour Road;
o) that the car parking on the site should not provide opportunities for anti-social behaviour including high speed vehicle driving;
p) the capacity of local facilities was insufficient to accommodate the people within the new housing – particularly schools, doctors’ surgeries and dentists. This was allied to a concern that any monies paid to the Council or authorities as part of a Section 106 Agreement may not be directed to the appropriate local providers;
q) the impact of development on the Axe Estuary from a visual and landscape point of view;
r) the application should include the existing employment uses in the south eastern part of the site (riverside workshops, Bradford’s premises, etc) and that these buildings and businesses should be relocated elsewhere;
s) that apart from the buildings on Underfleet, there were no jobs in Seaton for the people proposing to move into the housing to take up. It was likely therefore that the potential residents would be driving elsewhere to work;
t) that there was a lack of facilities available for young people in Seaton and that the development would merely exacerbate those problems. There was particular concern that if the youth club was to be redeveloped on the corner of Harbour Road and Underfleet, it should be replaced - with one idea being in a building further north along the Underfleet closest to the skate park;
u) that the Seaton Tramway should continue to operate and should not be interrupted by the development;
v) that there was sufficient car parking provided to serve the needs of Seaton and visitors to it in the tourist season. Currently, the perception was insufficient parking exists so there should be no net loss of parking for general needs.
4.7 In contrast to the concerns set out above, there were a number of supporting comments and aspects of the scheme that were welcomed. These were generally supportive of -
a) the principle of development and for finally making the regeneration happen;
b) the new convenience goods store, citing it would add to competition and choice in the area and discourage people from travelling to other large retail stores in Axminster, Honiton, Bridport, etc;
c) the proposed square in the western part of the development as a welcoming point for visitors into the area and for the pedestrian access from the square into the town centre, promoting access from the convenience goods store car park to the town centre;
d) the deliverability of the scheme, given the backing of a food store operator and housing developer;
e) the general disposition of the land uses on the site and the range of house types being proposed as part of the scheme;
f) the concept of providing affordable housing;
g) the additional car parking being provided through management agreements with the food store;
h) the provision of the focal points for the development alongside the River Axe and along the northern boundary of the site;
i) the provision of an ‘avenue’, rather than a vehicular access or boulevard out on to the Underfleet;
j) the idea of an activity hub in the south eastern corner of the site so long as it could be delivered. There was particular support for the concept of additional hotels in Seaton in the future.
4.8 In addition to the public consultation exercise with the exhibition, separate meetings were held with representatives of Seaton Town Council, Axe Parish Council and ward councillors. The Town Council raised a number of issues that are covered in the above list. However, the applicant prepared a summary response paper which is included in Appendix 2. As a result of the public exhibition and meetings with town councillors/ward councillors, a number of changes were made to the master plan compared to the exhibition version. These changes included: -
a) the reinstatement of the children’s play equipment on the north western corner of the site rather than its proposed use for replacement car parking.
b) a reconsideration of the buildings around the proposed square with particular regard to ensuring there was scope for an appropriately sized Council Visitor Centre and Seaton Tramway;
c) changing proposed employment uses to housing on Council owned land at the Underfleet;
d) confirmation with the Council that certain land owners in the south eastern corner of the site (the boatyard) may not be minded to co-operate in the scheme. This area is however outside the application area and will be a matter for further debate between the Council and the land owners concerned;
e) the provision of a SUSTRANs terminus (showers, changing rooms, bike racks, opportunity for cycle hire, etc);
f) the provision of a community facility adjoining the Visitor Centre.
4.9 In finalising the environmental impact assessment, particular regard was had to the concerns of the public in relation to the flooding issues and the impact of traffic generated from the development. Confirmation is contained within the environmental assessment documents (summarised in non-technical terms) about the operation of the surface water drainage system. The Environment Agency is satisfied that by raising the site levels in association with other proposals, the development of the site will be acceptable in flooding/hydrological terms.
4.10 The main area of concern that residents had about the issues relating to the loss of the holiday camp can be summarised in two principal areas. The first area is the perceived reduction in tourism that the closure of the holiday camp would bring about. As set out in paragraph 2.7, the development of the regeneration site has as one of its main purposes the ability to contribute towards the Jurassic Coast Visitor Centre and (latterly) help facilitate the Council’s new marshland proposal to the north of the site. Thus, although there will be a loss of tourists from the holiday village closing (see correspondence in Appendix 1), the overall picture will be an increase in not only the number of tourists visiting Seaton but also the spending capacity of the tourists concerned. Thus there will be a net economic benefit to Seaton rather than a loss.
4.11 The second area of concern relates to the loss of facilities within the holiday village, namely the gymnasium, swimming pool and hall that existing residents of the town currently use. The difficulty with replacing these facilities is that individually the operation of such facilities would not be commercially viable given the relatively low numbers of people using them. For example, the number who use the gymnasium is not sufficient in itself to justify the operation of a commercial leisure or health club in isolation from a complementary commercial venture, such as an hotel. The same argument would apply in even more force to a swimming pool which is an expensive facility to run and manage. The applicant in recognising that there are these concerns however has proposed as part of the contributions they make to the Visitor Centre to explore with the Council the provision of a community room which could have a number of purposes but could include the operation of a small gymnasium or indeed as a community meeting facility. It would not though be possible to maintain the swimming pool. The positioning of the swimming pool, gymnasium and hall is currently on the route of the proposed flood channel on the site. The reason for this particular route for the flood channel is that it links to the lowest point in Harbour Road, and so these facilities could not be retained in isolation in any event.
4.12 Many of the concerns of local residents in terms of the impact of development on community facilities are therefore being addressed through the issue of contributions for those facilities in the Section 106 planning agreement. The Section 106 agreement will also result in contributions being made to the Visitor Centre and the arrangements for the facilitation of the marsh scheme. As a result of the proposals, the economy of Seaton will be enhanced and with the exception of the loss of the swimming pool and potentially gymnasium (although this could be compensated for), facilities in Seaton will not suffer as a result of the proposals, indeed there will be an enhancement of them and the subsidy given to those facilities (eg, health and education) that currently do not have sufficient capacity.
4.13 Concerns in relation to ensuring that the details of the housing development, when submitted, will be of a high quality and be related to the Seaton site and its environment, are being promoted by the developer through the design statement submitted in accordance with the master plan. If the Council is minded to approve the application, it would be possible for reserved matters submissions to be required to accord with the design statement. This statement promotes individuality of design and an approach to providing the 500 dwellings on the site in a way that will ensure high quality in the future.
4.14 An indication was given at the exhibition of how the ‘avenue’ would appear in terms of its width and pedestrian and vehicle usage. Support was generally obtained for this concept.
4.15 Therefore the outcome of the public consultation exercise was, so far as reasonably possible, taken into account in any revisions to the master plan made from 7 March up to the submission of the application. A number of factors were not able to be responded to, eg, the provision of a swimming pool on site, but it is considered these relate to the principle of development in Local Plan Policy LSE2, rather than the contents of the development within the scheme as a whole. The key features of the site, such as the housing element, the retail element and the tourism/employment element nearest to Underfleet were generally supported in principle, albeit there were concerns from particularly local traders about the impact of the new food store on the town centre. This matter is examined separately in the retail assessment although it is the case that the Council has in the recent past resolved to grant permission for a new convenience goods store on the site.
4.16 Overall, it is considered that, with the history of public consultation on the site relating to the principle of development, the combination of the exhibitions and further consultation which the applicant has carried out accords with the Council’s emerging statement of community involvement and the intentions for this process within PPS1.
