Developers - love 'em or hate 'em?

Someone posted a remark lower down on the blog that Seaton needs developers more than developers need Seaton and we should just let them get on with it - anything they do will benefit Seaton.

It raises an interesting question. Do we allow any developer in to develop anything anywhere and hope that it will solve our problems? Or, do we insist that developers put in sensible, viable propositions that suit the town at least as much as the developer, whilst allowing the developer to make a reasonable profit? What is a reasonable profit on land bought very cheaply many, many years ago by people who could afford to leave it derelict whilst its value increased?

Just remember that a developer is in a project ONLY to make money - the more money they make, the more the believe their project has succeeded - there is no other measurement that they use. Indeed, once planning permission has been received for a development, most developers then immediately sell on their interest in blocks to housebuilders, supermarket chains and other groups. This is what EDDC has decided to do - sell its land to the developer on the day they receive planning permission from EDDC, this decision has already been taken - in November 2006, even before the planning application was put in.

Developers do not hang around to make sure that everything works out for the best for the town in which they have their land holdings - they move on to the next development. Developers are not do-gooders or philanthropists - there is no reason why they should be - they exist to develop and move on.

So, do we allow development at any price?

So we get 650 new homes - who buys them? If they aren't affordable, it is the usual people - mostly retirees or second homers. If they are of working age - where do they work? How do they get to work? They can't all work in the supermarket, or the visitors centre. If they have children - how will their children spend their time if there are no open spaces, no sports facilities, no youth facilities?

Who benefits most from a large supermarket? The population of a town or the shareholders and directors of the supermarket? How big should a supermarket be for a small town - should it be bigger than the one at Honiton (the one planned is and Honiton is MUCH bigger than Seaton) or should it be the same size as the one we already have? Why does Seaton need such a large store when it is not needed in Sidmouth which is twice the size of Seaton? Should it be a supermarket, or should it be a market hall with local produce? What happens to the shops in Fore Street, Cross Street, Queen Street and Harbour Road if there is a massive supermarket? Does it matter? If so, why does it matter. If not, why not?

Who will visit our Visitor's Centre (the thing you can barely see stuck between the main road and the supermarket, where our visitors have to share 3 hour parking with shoppers?) Why will they visit? If faced with a 3 hour time slot how do you decide what to do - the tramway, the land train, the visitor centre, the supermarket - you can't do them all (and if it is a busy day at the supermarket, you may not be able to do any of them - especially as the traffic will be piling up around the area as people queue to get in from the right angle turn from Harbour Road where there will need to be more traffic lights).

What is acceptable about how your build a development? Is it acceptable to do it on a flood plain. Is it acceptable to bring in a million tons of infill - 65-90 lorries a day, 6 days a week, 10 hours a day for 3-4 years PLUS the construction traffic? How do you deal with the pinch points the lorries have to negotiate around the traffic lights at Harepath Road or the turn down from Seaton Down Hill? What about the pollution and its effect on the health of people living in the area? Do you build sustainably, or do you import vast quantities of materials from other parts of the UK and abroad, using plastics and cheap, chemical-laden components? Do you insist on renewable energy wherever it can be accommodated? Do you just build little boxes as fast and as cheaply as you can or do you build homes that will last at least 100 years (the shelf life of the current development is planned at no more than 75 years for the homes and less for the shops and visitor centre).

Who takes these decisions - the developer, the district council or the people of Seaton? Who guards the guards?

Each time you look at the Seaton Wetlands National Nature Reserve (that's all you will be able to do as we won't have any community facilities) will you care that it was bought by demolishing 400 tourist beds occupied 80% of the time which bring some 60% of custom to many Seaton shops? What will happen to the cyclists who come the 70 plus miles from Minehead on the new SUSTRANS cycle route to Seaton - where will they stay? (When they opened the trans-Pennine cycle way all the accommodation on the route was booked for 2 years ahead). 90% of our tourist accommodation will have gone. Where will people go (guess?).

So, I ask again - do we let developers do what they want where they want? If so, what is the planning system for and who is the planning system for?

Over and out.