General Discussion
http://www.newlands-dawlish.co.uk/index.htm
(and don't forget to pop into the Hole in the Wall this Saturday between 10 - 3 if you wish to see where it's planned that the other 1600 or so houses should be built)
Ive looked at your link and what they are proposing sounds good, we do need this Lynne and where housing already excists surely its just an expansion!!!
Sent my response to the tossers by e-mail as follows
Have read your plan for 76 more houses around Gatehouse and think you are very missguided in several areas.
1) We dont need anymore housing in Dawlish reguardless of what the three levels of local government may say, they are only interested in the CIL money
2) Since when has Gatehouse been on the public transport network
3) What about the people who moved to Dawlish to get away from urban sprawl, why should we have our property devalued
4) What about the people who like cars and roads and dont believe your global warming, green outlook crap
5) More missuse of green field land
6) What is your commercial connection or involvement with Sainsbury's
If you want to build houses then do so in the city where there are jobs, infrastructure, so called public transport,and a need for social housing.
The people of Dawlish are sick of developers like you, Sainsbury's and Teignbridge and Devon councils telling us what we need and what is good for us
What we need and want is a quiet restfull life in rural surroundings without outside interferrance from people like you.
Bet you dont put this on your two bit website. Parasites
Best regards
This is a great idea and exactly what is needed up and down the country to create jobs and kick start the economy. The government has no money so it can't just start spending money on things like roads, railways and infrastructure except for the projects it has already budgeted for. I don't know if it is government land that is being used here, but one thing the government does have is land and this can be freed up to create houses and hence jobs.
We need more houses anyway to cater for our growing population (so the estate agents keep telling us) so either you stop having children, start culling the population or build more houses.
Oh MoH I know we've had our spats in our time but this time do you know what? - You made me burst out loud laughing (and each time I read your post I just do it again and again).
PS MoH. Re your point 1) You forgot to include the NHB (New Homes Bonus) monies that TDC will recieve.
PPS Would love to know which school of diplomacy it was you attended. Any chance you could tell us?
Lynne - Good job I didnt stand for council eh. Party whip might have put me in detention or worse still councillor Clayson may have sent me to the headmaster.
pps The Dusseldorf sense of humour academy where spades are spades and bent civil servants and company directors are locked up.
hope this helps you work it out
ppps Hows the bike riding on the new paths going only seems the word hasent got around yet and us tax and insurance paying road users are still having to avoid the spandex clad organ doners
This business about having to build more homes because we have an ever increasing population.
Just a thought but........if we have ever more mouths to feed surely we need more land on which we can grow crops, graze cattle and sheep etc, not less. I raise this point as there seems to be a big push to build on fertile farmland thus reducing the amount of land available for producing food.
And the logic of this is?
Just had a response from the firm that's putting forward this plan for the 76 homes. (Like MoH I had also e-mailed them). I wanted to know how much of their development would be affordable.
They have responded saying that in line with TDC's policy they anticipate it will be 30%.
Let's hope that proves to be the case.
(By the way MoH have you had a reply back from them yet?)
How are we going to cope with the increase in traffic have you ever tried getting out of Gatehouse Rise
between 8.30 - 9.00 am or getting home between 3.00 - 4. 00pm. Gatehouse rise is already used as a
parking lot for delivering and collecting school children.
Why do we need these 75 houses when planning permission has already been granted to the other development in the same area i.e Secmaton lane.
l did not buy my house to be in the middle urban rat race and to be devalued by some one making a good bit of money out of this namely the farmer who sold this land.
Everyone said we are short of housing only because the council sold it all off.
What will happen when we are short of food demolish the housing and turn it back into green pastures
what ever happen to green belts moved when the goal posts were moved.
This field is always full of birds and has been maintained all the time
Maybe someone higher up would like to spend time in Elm Grove road at the times stated.
if you look at the plans they are going to build a public car park to help with the school situation, and what makes you think your house will be devalued !!!!
The council sold off a lot of its housing stock because of the Right To Buy legislation. I seem to remember a certain Margaret Thatcher being highly involved in that. Remember her? However, added to the problem of council housing being sold off was the fact that local councils were not then allowed to use the monies from the sell of their housing stock to build replacement houses. Is it any wonder that we now have, have had for some time, a shortage of social/affordable housing?
Totally agree with you about the food issue.
Would urge all those with concerns about what is being proposed to go public on the matter. Letters to the local press (Dawlish Gazette) wouldn't go amiss.
These 76 homes plus the 251 on Mr Goodridge's cornfield (sorry, ex- cornfield) are just but the start of what is being proposed. Take a look at the draft plan for Dawlish. Some 2,000 new homes in total. All around the Gatehouse area.
I was talking to someone Dawlish born and bred last evening about all of this. He is furious. I told him to 'go public' as well.
Do we know what is meant by affordable? Are 30% of the properties being sold to local first time buyers at a reduced price?
Good Question SteveJ - I suspect it means social rented or shared ownership. But I agree it would be good if TDC/the developer would tell us what actually is meant by that term.
You could try contacting the developer and see what they say (and then let the rest of us know as well if you could).
Looking forward will we not need more homes in the next 20 years for our children who want to stay in Dawlish. I haven't done any research but i estimate there are about 1200 or more children in Schools at present maybe some of those will need housing when they fly the nest. As for the problems with traffic its going to increase its something we have to live with. To put it into context i recently visited friends who live close to Heathrow i stayed at Heston services on the morning i was leaving it took me 1hr 40 mins to travel from Heston to the junction with the north circular road just over a mile and we moan if we get hung up in the Strand for 5mins and that is usually due to poor parking. Things are going to change some things for better some probably not so good Dawlish is great as is but change will come whatever
We might well need more homes in Dawlish for those who want to stay here but will those homes on the open market be any more affordable for local people (by which I mean within the financial reach of those who wish to buy) than houses are now? I suspect that a lot of the houses that will go on the open market will be bought from people from outside the area - no problem with that, free country - but suspect that will mean prices will be kept up. And don't forget the developers need to make a profit.
Then to the case of the affordable housing (by which I mean social rented/shared ownership). These are to be available to local people who cannot afford to buy. Good. But we need to know what 'local' means. Does local mean those living in the parish of Dawlsh? or will it include those living further afield for example anywhere in Teignbridge?
The definition of 'local' is very important as is the word 'affordable' but it seems to me both are used with no real definition (or different defintions?) by all of us. We constantly need to ask both TDC and the developers what they mean by 'affordable' and by 'local'.
If all those who live in the new houses (of whatever kind of tenure) are also of working age (but I doubt that because I think many may well be bought by those who have retired which will only serve to perpetuate Dawlish as being one big retirement home) but say, just for the sake of argument, that many are of working age then yes, I agree, the amount of traffic will increase. And as I can't for the life of me see that all of them will have work in Dawlish and immediate areas how many of them I wonder will be commuting by car up to Exeter? Will it take 1 hr and 40 mins to travel from Dawlish to Starcross during the early morning rush hour?
As a definition for affordable housing, this may be of interest. http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152897.pdf
Here is the response I got to my email....
Thank you for your email.
The precise make-up of the affordable housing will be set out in a Planning (Section 106) Agreement which will specify, amongst all the other required contributions, the percentage, the mix and tenure type and the mechanism by which homes are allocated (e.g. to local people first) This will hopefully be agreed with Teignbridge District Council (and Devon County Council) over the course of the next few months alongside other required contributions.
Teignbridge District Council's policy is for 30% Affordable Housing at Dawlish and we have already offered this, with the mix of rented, shared equity, discounted and "key worker" homes all to be agreed with the Council, with the proviso (which I am afraid I need to make at this stage) that no unexpected other requirements arise.
You will find a definition of "affordable housing" within Annex B of PPS3 which is available at
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1918430.pdf
It seems Teignbridge has sudden attack of house building in the areas they control both here and around Newton Abbot.
Firstly where are the 1600 people who are in desperate for the housing,secondly the affordable housing will be bought up by people with surplus monies as an investment.
Another thought is the roads to Dawlish with bottle necks in Dawlish itself /Starcross and the usual stop and start at Teignmouth especially during the summer.
Me suspects it is more likely our local civil servants and bureaucrats are protecting their jobs and pensions.
They will force the new housing policy through whatever we think.
When i first moved to Dawlish some 20 odd years ago it was a thriving town you could in them days buy most things you needed without going to Newton or Exeter a far cry from how it is today there is little left and part of that not all is due to the lack of expansion. Dawlish has stood still for to long the reasons are a small percentage of the population have stood against anything that is likely in any way shape or form to change the town. This town for its very survival needs to expand and at the end of the day these proposals are spread over 20 years and with the world financial situation as is most of the proposed expansion will proberly never happen add in the prospect of climate change just look at the Enviroment Agency web page to look at areas likely to flood due to sea rise and we will be needing more than 1600 houses in the not to distant future. Dawlish is a great place and i am not keen on 1600 houses but unfortunatly the town centre does we have to be realistic new houses will bring in people who have good jobs and money to spend and if only a small percentage of that income is spent in the town centre it may just keep it alive. My heart is with you Lynn but my head tells me that we need some expansion lets hope its not to painfull for you or i
"the new houses will bring in people who have good jobs and money to spend"
What type of jobs and where located?
Well Lynne i honestly dont know but they certainly wont be jobs in the locall area more likely to be people who work further afield who want the Dawlish lifestile but may work in London Bristol. I have a friend who lives here but works in the City four days a week he goes by train Sunday evening and returns Thursday evening his wife and children stay here he earns in excess of 100,000 a year and has disposable income maybe we need more of the same
Well, that's a thought most certainly.
What happens though when the train line moves inland (as surely it will within the next 20/30 years or so). They won't be able to use the train to commute then, will they?
And in reality, just how many of the people living in the 2,000 or so houses will commute to London/Bristol/Bath to work?
This whole scheme is government sayng to Teignbridge and others that if you want to save your jobs and avoid redundancies then sell land and bring in more council tax.
After watching a video from a previuos subscriber where is this modern rail network for all those commuters and as for those roads.I suspect someone has got their head up the ar-e.
Some will make a lot of moneyout of this but it wont be the dwellers of Dawlish who benefit.
We will just have to put up with its legacy.
Summed up perfectly leatash. All I've heard since moving here is Dawlish needs regeneration, yet as soon as anyone dare to suggest that we have new houses and heaven forbid a decent Supermarket then it's "let's stay the way we are". Just imagine the outcry if Dawlish consisted of 100 dwellings and someone suggested it should be expanded to 200 dwellings!!! Dawlish is residential, I wouldn't expect many of the new residents to work locally, we have buses, cars, trains and the internet these days. I know a family who moved here a year ago but both parents work in the Midlands and they spend several days each week away from Dawlish. They live here because they like the area and they earn excellent salaries, which are mainly spent in local shops and businesses, which are also supported by their relatives and friends who visit frequently. I think that is repeated by many of the people who moved here in the last few years.
A bigger population will hopefully ensure expansion of the Shutterton Bridge area into a proper Retail Park and an increase in local job opportunities which are badly needed.
Am sure the success of Sainsburys will encourage more development in this area.
Lynne you are of course correct about the train moving inland but so will the road maybe there will be a connection between the two so if we except that to be the case the good people of Starcross whose homes will be under water will need to move. and keeping that thought some areas of Dawlish will suffer the same fate maybe we should be pushing the planners to look forward not 20 years but 80 and sort the problem before its to late but that is probably wishfull thinking. I personally find that when you bring up these problems with local planers they clear there throats and change the subject its as though they have the attitude it wont be my problem to solve as its 40 years or more ahead but i strongly believe now is the time to plan ahead . wriggler also makes a valid point if houses are purchased by people from outside the area they may even be retired relatives friends visit bringing yet more people to Dawlish to spend money it could be a win win situation.
Totally agree with you Leatash about this head in the sand attitude by so many (not just planners) concerning rising sea levels and the impact this could well have on those areas that lay below (present) sea level. The rail line is not only an artery to/from the south-west/rest of the country it also acts as a barrier twixt land and sea especially at places like Starcross. When (not if) the rail route moves inland there will be no reason for money to spent on keeping 'our' rail line and sea wall in good order. And the result will be?
I also agree that a new road will need to be built - not only because of the sea-level issue but also because the present A road is totally unsuitable to take the extra traffic all these new houses will generate. Where will this road be located? What route will it follow? How will it be funded?
As there is only one way in and one way out of Dawlish (well okay there are the back lanes but they can't cope with huge volumes of traffic) what happens if/when Starcross gets flooded? Ditto Dawlish town centre? Dawlish will be cut off, won't it?
And if some areas of Dawlish such as the low laying town centre meet the same fate as Starcross due to rising sea-levels then does it not follow that there won't be much of a town centre left in which all these extra people and their visitors can spend their money?
Might be of interest, next Tuesday's BBC File on Four (Radio 4) 20:00 is on the new planning laws proposed for the UK. Usually a well balanced and informative programme, am sure it will be of interest to anyone concerned about these new proposals.
Dawlish Town Council recommending refusal of this planning application - see extract from planning committee minutes below (and before anyone tells me yes, I know, it is ultimately up to TDC's planning committee, not Dawlish Town Council, whether or not this is given approval).
11/93265/MAJ Plot Ref :- Type :- FULL
Applicant Name :-Mr D Seaton Date Received :-10/10/2011
Location :- Land off Elm Grove Road Date Returned :-19/10/2011
Langdon Road
Dawlish
EX7
Proposal :CASE OFFICER - ROSALYN EASTMAN
Outline planning permission for residential development (Use
Class C3) and a neighbourhood centre (mixed use
A1/A3/B1/D1/D2) (approval sought for means of access)
Observations :It was noted that this application is listed by Teignbridge Council on
its planning portal as 11/03265/MAJ
It was RESOLVED unanimously by those members present and
voting that this Council recommends REFUSAL of this application
on highway issues. The volume of traffic will exacerbate an existing
problem with Elm Grove Road. It is already overloaded with traffic
and has safety problems associated with residential parking and
two educational establishments. The existing approval for housing
on Secmaston Lane will put pressure on the junctions.
As some of you know, I tell it hear first before anyone knows...Planning for this development has been passed! That should please Lynne. Looks a nice little housing plan. Remember where you heard it first ;0) dawlishbornanddead rides again...
You've only made 5 posts on here, and they were all about this new mini-development. Hardly makes you the oracle of all things Dawlishian! :-)
I guess if any of us had gone along to the planning committee meeting that I believe was held yesterday at TDC we would also have known the committee's decision.
Public meeting, public decision making.
It will be interesting to see if the 30% quota affordable homes is adhered to.
As we had a discussion (see above) about road and rail links and rising sea levels I just thought I'd let you all know that the rising sea level issue is not addressed at all by Devon County Council's Strategic Planners in their response to the draft Dawlish plan. Total silence.
They also see no need for a new road to replace the A379. In their response they talk of more people in Dawlish using the rail network to get to/from work (how much do rail fares cost these days?!) and envisage greater use of the number 2 bus service (why?). In addition to that, they then state that as more people will be working from home there will be no noticeable increase in the amount of traffic.
Needless to say people in Dawlish and nearby Parish councils in their responses to the draft plan expressed great concern about the impact of traffic on the A379. But hey, if DCC planners say there will be (and is?) no problem then who are we to say otherwise?
Lynne people generally have there head in the sand with regards sea level rise and global warming issues in general. Most of my friends who are not stupid by any means wont discus it i was recently asked at a dinner party not to mention global warming as it upset people. As regards Devon County they will eventually say something when they get their feet wet going to the office
Unlike you lot I have things to do instead of gossiping about Dawlish, I may have only made 5 posts but each one informed & from the inside unlike the sh1te you & your fellow 'Knights of Dawlish' churn out day in day out.
Please, do us all a favour & stop posting useless missinformed info on the Nature dissapearing, sea levels rising & global warming due to some new houses that will be built in Dawlish & hopefully bring back infrastructor, jobs & 'hope' to this dwindlling dying town.
Oooh, get her! Misinformed people are those that deny that global warming is happening, that sea levels are rising, and that greenfield housing developments destroy nature. Is this new estate being built on land that you own or have a pecuniary interest in, perchance? I can't wait for posting number 7.
So when exactly will the A379 be under water? I'm sure someone will notice before it gets so bad that we can't make alternative plans. I wish Global Warming would hurry up, it's going to mean a big saving on energy bills. Considering that World Governments have been having meetings for years and issuing dire warnings about the catastrophe that is to happen, but:
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 as a supplement to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and eventually ratified in February 2005. Richer countries, known as “Annex 1 countries”, are subject to legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In aggregate, these cuts seek a minimum 5% reduction in the 1990 level of all Annex 1 emissions before the end of a first commitment period in 2012.
However, the US refused to ratify the Protocol and has allowed its carbon dioxide emissions to increase between 1990 and 2010. Canada and Japan have largely disregarded their Kyoto commitments.
This isn't the place or forum for discussing this but as not a single major world power has taken this supposed global Warming seriously then it is hardly surprising that most of the 'general public' also treat this as an excuse to increase tax revenues with such things as CCL levies on fuel bills etc. Indeed, our govt is now considering raising the speed limit on Motorways so ensuring an increase in fuel consumption and I assume an increase in so called greenhouse gasses, and of course more tax revenues on the increased fuel consumption..
So let's discuss urban development and not get sidetracked by this Global Warming 'guff'. When I see a major world power actually doing something about these warnings instead of just raising more 'green' taxes, which go where exactly??? then I might consider it is more than just a story.
I'll swear I've been watching a David Attenborough programme these past couple of weeks concerned with the polar regions showing, amongst other things, how the ice caps are retreating. Why are they retreating because they are melting. Why are they melting? Because......
I agree -the new houses in Dawlish will not, all by themselves, cause the sea levels to rise.
The climate is already warming. A consequence of which will be rising sea levels which means land below sea level will be at risk. Isn't Starcross (or parts of it at least) below sea-level?
And why is it that we can't have discussion, debate and disagreeemnt on here without some people having to resort to insults?
A rise in sea-level, a storm coming in from the east, a spring tide. I don't know when the sea-wall at Starcross will be breached, who does, but I fear that it could happen sometime in the none to distant future. As we all know the sea already comes up and over onto the rail line during winter storms so just how much more wind and height in sea level would it take for it to come over completely?
Oh and those energy bills. We won't be saving on them if the climate warms up. They could well cost us more. We only have the temperate climate that we do courtesy of the Gulf Stream. If that stops, and some scientists fear that it could, then we will have a winter climate akin to N.East Canada.
Anyone see the film The Day After Tomorrow on the box the other night?
I agree with Lynne.
Shaldon has already built new flood defences and Teignmouth ahs had £4m allocated to start. So someone locally is taking it seriously. One problem in dealing with global warming is that it's a generational thing. The signs are happening now but the major effect will be in 30, 40, 50 years time so many people believe selfishly that they don't have to worry about it - they'll be long gone! And the same is true for many at a national level; politics in most countries is short-termism - i.e. the time-span of political elections - and is subject to enormous vested interests (especially the US but also most so-called developed nations with a large industrial base which would be difficult/ expensive/ non-competitive to change).
The science on global warming is sound. It is happening and will accelerate unless something is done about it globally.
Is this an issue for a Dawlish forum? Yes it is because unless everyone stands up to express concern political inertia will prevail and it's our children/ grand-children who will suffer.
Well said Lynne and neilh you are both spot on i wont be here in 40 years but my children and there children will be wake up wriggler as neilh stated countries have a vested interest in ignoring the science it is proven and will happen and now is the time to make changes
I do not claim to be a climatologist (is anyone else on this forum?) but can someone explain why the Arctic ice is melting but the ice at the Antartic is increasing?
It's only increased in East Antarctica by a miniscule percentage. The sea ice though has significantly decreased in West Antarctica.
If you do a search on Exe Estuary Management Partnership you'll see that the issue of flooding either side of the River Exe is not only being taken seriously but is being addressed. Something to do with rising sea-levels........
Note there is a public consultation concerning the flood protection issue due to take place early 2012.
The World has always changed and evolved and will always continue to do so. I have been down Mines in areas that were once volcanic and picked up fish fossils in arid areas of Africa as these exceptionally dry areas were once under the sea.
If we were living during those time we would have been complaining about Climate change depriving us of our fish as the sea receeded!!!!! Man is never happy!!
There are stable areas of land that were once volcanos, people live in those areas now, people still continue to live in areas which are threatened by vocanic activities.
Many areas of land we live on today were once under the Sea and many areas that are now dry land will be under the Sea again at some time in the future. What's all the fuss about. I wouldn't live in a place that is threatened by volcanic activity but I have friends who do, their choice. In the same way I wouldn't continue living in a place where serious flooding might happen, I will move if that ever happens, simple really.
Climate change, there has always been climate change ever since there was a climate!!!
@wriggler. it doesn't help though that humankind are accelerating the current phase of climate warming.
'humankind are accelerating the current phase of climate warming' well that depends on which expert you listen to/read, you pays your money and takes your choice, to requote a well known saying 'there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
OK, Nelson, I am going to shoot myself in the foot now, a very interesting read is the Revenge of Gaia, by James Lovelock. Gaia is an 'old' god but basically Nature, the point being is that Nature will take revenge on Man, quite passively by the problems we are beginning to see due to Climate change, due, in some part to our behaviour. I do find it difficult to refute the arguments and research of the book and would recommend it to any skeptic, althought I still have a few doubts James Lovelock's arguments.
Man, sorry I'm not being politically correct but 'Man' is quicker and easier to type than Humankind, will never defeat Nature, we have distorted the World because we are innovative, if we breed too much we can distibute food to keep people alive 'artificially', which nature does not allow. Animals cannot 'overbreed' as their populations are limited by the food available in the area the animals live. The end result is quite simply there are too many of us and Nature will eventually balance things out by 'dread' diseases or drowning us or whatever is the consequence of the way we are behaving. Sorry for the long diatribe but whilst I might have some doubts about our contribution to climate change I do have to admit that ultimately, until there are a lot less of us on this planet, well, I'm not sure what Nature will do, but we are fighting a losing battle, long term.
I suppose building Flood Defences is simply another protection we need because we have actually caused the flooding, Nature will zap us eventually.