Full story in Sidmouth Herald here
which in part says:
Natural England’s lead adviser referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), saying that the allocation of sites within, or impacting upon, designated landscapes must be assessed for:
● The need of development in that location;
● The cost and scope of meeting that need;
● An assessment of how any detrimental effect and the extent of how this could be moderated.
The adviser notes an EDDC document aimed at justifying employment need – but maintained its objection to the allocation of a jobs site within the AONB at Sidford “until the assessment required by the NPPF identifies this as a suitable location”.
“It is considered this assessment, which should include a sensitivity and capacity study, should be completed before further consideration of the allocation,” said the correspondence.
On Sidmouth, the report also says: “Given the sensitivity of the town it is disappointing that, despite recognising the importance of the town as an all-year-round tourist destination, there is no recognition of the environment’s important role in that function.”
.
Sidmouth Independent News 
As the Herald article goes on to say:
“Little-seen correspondence penned to EDDC in May, brought to the attention of the Herald this week, responded to a consultation on the Local Plan…”
In other words, District Council officers have been sitting on a crucial piece of evidence which rubbishes the Sidford/Sidbury site.
But since when has ‘evidence’ really been a concern of the District Council?