Lynne
Okay - in the hope of bringing this thread back to its original topic I am posting this. I intend sending an e-mail to Cllr John Goodey who is the portfolio holder for housing and planning at Teignbridge District council asking him to clarify some things conncerning this "deemed not to be required" statement in the EIA report. The e-mail is ready to go. Should anyone have anything they would ...
Therefore I suppose the question to ask is why is a nearby (how nearby is nearby to this proposed development?), and presumably additional SANGS to that proposed at what is presently Warren Farm, deemed to be not required? And to whom should that question be posed?
If you take a look at the document referred to on the Gatehouse Development thread and scroll down to page 8, take a look at 2.5.2 - where mention is made of provision of an extra care unit for the elderly and infirm being part of this development.
I wasn't sure just what it is that it is deemed (by whom?) isn't required? The SANGS? the £350 per dwelling contribution? or both? Plus I wasn't sure when I would and when I wouldn't infringe the copyright (wouldn't want to give anyone the opportunity to shut me up would I. Well, would I?!). Thank you Mcjrpc for posting that link. I can access it quite easily. If others can also do the same ...
There is already planning permission in place for 75 new dwellings and pre planning application documents are now being prepared for a futher up to 415 dwellings on that site. I note from the planning documents that it is anticipated that a planning application will be submitted sometime early in 2015 for this up to 415 dwellings development. I would like to quote from one of the documents but ...
Interesting information to be found from this link http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/inyourarea/neighbourhood/
Okay, if I ping an e-mail off to Cllr Goodey re Warren Farm perhaps someone could send one to Cllr Gribble about the future use of the sports pavilion on the playing fields? Flo?
Thanks for the clarification. So, by the same process of thought, but on a different Dawlish issue, perhaps I (and others) should have been writing to Cllr John Goodey, Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning at TDC about the Warren Farm/Coastal Park issue rather than our Dawlish district councillors?
Thanks for that update Michael. Great that benches and the orientation board will be up on the fields soon. One question though. Surely we should be approaching our Dawlish councillors to take up Dawlish issues rather than one whom I believe represents Bovey Tracey?
Ah yes, the missing covenant re the fields. A document much heard about with claims of it having been sighted in past times, but in the recent past and present its existence cannot be proven. It seems it has disappeared. Although from what I can remember from the 'keep a supermarket off Sandy Lane Playing fields battle of 2007-2008' (remember that?) such covenants can be undone anyway via legal ...
