Lynne
S106 agreement for this development can be found by: clicking on this link http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Application&Refval=12/02281/MAJ then click on associated documents then click on S106 agreement Lots of info re developer S106 obligations including options on how the Sangs requirement can be provided
and from the same Planning Inspector's report (again my emphasis in bold) 12.64 I am satisfied that the terms of the S.106 Agreement entered into by the appellant and the Council [INQ 21] ensure that adequate provision of SANGS would be put in place prior to the occupation of the proposed dwellings [10.5 – 10.7], and the other relevant financial contributions would be paid at ...
@FB As I understand the situation, Redrow can build the houses but those houses cannot be occupied unless and until the appropriate amount of Sangs is in place as required for this first phase, and then more Sangs again as required for any futher phases of development. BTW - the last I heard (about two weeks ago), and from the horses mouth as it were, the Weeks family still have no wish to ...
Found it. From the PI's report dated 24-6-13. (my emphasis in bold) "10.7 In addition, the s.106 Agreement makes provision for financial contributions toward the acquisition, maintenance and management of SANGS, to mitigate the impact that recreational use by future occupiers of the proposed dwellings might otherwise have on the SPA and SAC. The total of the contributions would ...
I've been out of the country so I may have missed the following info. Where's the Sangs that has to go with this development? (Outline approval for this development was given by the Planning Inspector back in 2013 after it had been refused by TDC planning committee. Part of the original S106 agreement was that the development should bring with it the appropriate amount of Sangs. I'll try and ...
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/elections2015 and scroll down
and to look at what I've just said above in a slightly different way. Given that the Lib Dems nationally were/are so electorally unpopular why did the two Lib Dem candidates standing in Dawlish Central and North East ward get all those votes cast for them? I don't know why, no-one knows why. But I suspect I know why.
Well, who knows why the Lib Dems got the votes they did. I cannot help but think that Warren Farm was indeed an issue though that did get them votes. Perversely I know people who care a great deal about Warren Farm's future (in that they wish it to remain with the Weeks family) but were so hacked off with the Lib Dems nationally that they told me they could not place their vote for the Lib Dems ...
Dawlish South West David Bailey Green 624 Humphrey Clemens Conservative 1204 Martin Heath UKIP 798 Mike JamesLib Dem 940 Rosalind ProwseConservative 1207
I think the local elections being held on the same day as the general election may have increased the number of votes cast for the local election candidates. Also, I suspect the new build houses in the ward may have also increased the numbers entitled to vote. I suspect the Warren Farm issue did indeed help the Lib Dems - although I can't prove that of course anymore than someone who ...
