Below is a precis of one resident’s view of the meeting yesterday. Of course, if the DMC had been recorded, we could have put the recording up and everyone could have heard the debate for themselves here.
CDE application approved.
The Parish Council sent no representative, even though the Parish Council turned both versions of the Application down.
Two parish Councillors spoke in favour – Mrs Tillotson and Chris Cole. Ex Parish Council Chair, Mr Swann, who had been involved in the early days of discussion with CDE, also spoke in favou . Mr Atkins Newton Poppleford Clerk and DMC member did not take part.
Barry Easter spoke in favour. Mr Potter, ward Councillor, who would be surrounded by new housing should Badger Close be approved, also spoke in favour.
Those speaking for the proposal mostly talked about the surgery. They also spoke about CDE saying they would contribute to upgrading the footpath between King Alfred Way and the school, saying this would avoid pedestrians walking though the pinch point at the Southern Cross. However, Farthings Lane is the route already taken to avoid the pinchpoint and the pavement is adequate from King Alfred Way to the school. (The County Council have already pledged to improve Farthings Lane, regardless of the CDE proposal).
Those speaking against the application spoke of the problems on the A3052 which would be caused by the additional traffic should the 4 consulting room surgery be implemented. Of the Budleigh surgery which many NPs use which still has capacity, and the Stowford Surgery, (near Waitrose), which the Sidmouth GPs have signed up to, which will also be available NPs.
They also spoke about the access to the development crossing the safe route to the school from the other side of the village. The poor access, though a quiet cul-de-sac, with cars parked on either side and consequent problems with noise, pollution and congestion, both on the High Street and KAW (King Alfred Way). They raised the problem with flooding that the residents below the proposed development have already experienced, the danger to children on KAW and the emergency access route to the new development via the Public Right of Way next to the Toll House and roundabout. A KAW resident mentioned that last month his daughter had been hit by a car when crossing the A3052 to get a bus.
Another objector spoke of the preference in the village for several smaller developments over one large one. Also the policies negating building large developments in an AONB (Note the AONB were invited to comment on the application, but declined to do so, possibly because a its Chairman works for Clinton Devon. The NPPF preference not to build on high grade agricultural land was also mentioned. (The question of its grade came up with CDE now claiming that , since they a year of 2 ago stopped the farmer from growing crops there, as he had for 25 years previously, because of it now having poor access to large vehicles (?), it had gone down from grade 2 to grade 3).
Cllr Ingham told the 2 Parish Council members present that they should have a Neighbourhood Plan in place. (This would have given the Village control over phased development over a period of time). But he said although it is unfair, (with out a neighbourhood plan), it is first past the post.
So, will development in Newton Poppleford stop there, now its fulfillment of housing for the next 13 years is complete?
Time will tell!
Sidmouth Independent News 
A good debate and I feel that the right outcome – once the evidence was on the table. Well done to both sides – democracy in action!
The key talking point from yesterday’s discussion was Section 106 agreements. It was acknowledged by the Council’s Solicitor that Clinton’s offer of a surgery via a S106 agreement would not stand up to legal scrutiny as it is not necessary to make the application acceptable – it would be above and beyond what is necessary to mitigate against the detrimental impact of the development. Clinton’s agent offered to submit a unilateral agreement instead, pledging to build the surgery, but as these agreements are subject to the same stringent rules as S106 agreements, that would equally be unacceptable. They tried to fudge it by talking in vague language about a non-specific agreement to provide non-specified community benefits – but the solicitor is on record as saying that effectively means the surgery. It would presumably still be open to legal challenge should somebody be so inclined. Is anyone able to offer any legal advice on this?
Of course, that is all IF the surgery ever goes ahead in the first place. It has already been established that the 40% affordable housing + footpath improvements + surgery offered by CDE in relation to this application would not be economically viable. Given that there is no way of making the surgery enforceable (and indeed, building it might raise legal issues), in contrast to S106 agreements relating to the housing and the footpath, would anyone like to speculate as to the chances of the surgery appearing?
I find it very surprising that some people can agree with the outcome. It has only happened because EDDC has no five year land supply. Had the local plan been in operation this application would not have been allowed and would almost certainly have failed at appeal. If it had been turned down then would those who supported it this time have supported it next time? And, if so, why? The new Local Plan says that we do not need this development.
I think if Devon Clinton say they will do something – they do it. So you should relax I guess…
At the DMC, the planning officer made mention of CDE attempting to wriggle out of section 106 commitments in the past. It would seem your faith is misplaced.
It was [unsubstantiated name of a councillor removed by moderator] who said something like that… He has a track record for saying things without any evidence!! Funny chap. It wasn’t the planning officer. I think that Clinton will deliver – why don’t you put your faith in them Matt? Don’t be so angry with everyone lad.
I’m no lad, but nor am I of an age where my eyes and ears are failing me I hope. I’m quite certain it was the planning officer. No matter, the audio recording could verify either way, that’s the beauty of allowing the democratic process to be recorded.
I’m not angry, life is too short to concern oneself unduly over matters in which they have no control. My sense of fair play and justice have been seriously affronted by this whole affair, however.
Oh please – this is a multi-million agribusiness, property and development company not a Father Christmas outfit! Why did they choose such strange s106 things that Newton Pop neither wants nor needs? My guess: Newton Pop will soon be so big it will be a town or a suburb of Sidmouth with intensively farmed animals around it and thats when a new surgery will come into its own. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
But Sandra they are arable fields nearby not for grazing… You are getting a bit carried away… Do you live in the village dear?
No, dear, I don’t but I have spent many, many years watching developments of all kinds in this area. As you say, wait and see.
I say it again people: large companies have PR companies. The PR company which was associated with Tesco in Seaton monitored our blog every day and devised ways of putting their client in a better light …..that’s their job …..
Have you seen what CD have said about the planning meeting on their website – read it before they realise what they have said and take it off!!! Whoops a daisy…