General Discussion

Now here's a twist to the 'what should be and what should not be built' at Shutterton debate.

From today's Gazette:

ENFORCEMENT officers are considering what steps to take because time has run out for the building of business units on the outskirts of Dawlish.

Developer Millwood Homes had until the beginning of August to build up to eight industrial and business units on the site at Shutterton Bridge.

The Ashburton-based company had permission to construct the buildings as part of a deal struck with supermarket giant Sainsbury’s.
 

This is the rest of the article from today's Gazette.

"As part of that deal, a Section 106 agreement meant that the units had to be completed within nine months of the store opening. Subsequently, Millwood Homes submitted a revised planning application to reduce the number of units from 11 to a maximum of eight after the firm argued the current commercial climate meant the previous plans did not reflect demand,

The application was approved by planners, who gave an extra three monthss to complete the project which effectively meant within a year of the store opening. Sainsbury's celebrated the first anniversary of the store opening on August 3rd but to date, no units have been completed.

Now enforcement officers at Teignbridge Council are in talks with Millwood Homes to find out when work will start and making it clear that the project must be completed. A Teinbridge Council spokesman said: 'Failure to comply may result in enforcement action'". 

@Lynne - thank  you for posting this . i told teignbridge planning 12 months ago these units would never be built and have repeatedly asked what enforcement action they intend to take. you just get fobbed off.

Please could you ask what in this case is meant by "enforcement action" and how this will or will not effect Sainsbury's. I have been told by Sainsbury's PR company that the section 106 agreement for these units has nothing to do with them and is the sole responsibility of Millwoods.

Thanks

What a shame you haven't got someone on board that has extensive knowledge of the procedures and legalities surrounding this issue, that could challenge and hold TDC to account.

I'm sure you could undertake extensive reasearch in order to hold TDC to account, if you choose to do this it is very successful and will put you in an extremely strong position in the future, you may find that they would invite you to join the planning committee so to elleviate issues in the future.

If you choose to go down this route, let me know I will give you a copy of a notice of intent, this will put TDC under notice (sorry to say but this will be the extent of my help)

 "you may find that they would invite you to join the planning committee so to elleviate issues in the future".

Wouldn't FredBasset need to be elected as a councillor first of all and then see if s/he could get themselves a seat on the planning committee?

I wonder if I'm alone in wondering why people who get so het up about building in and around Dawlish, also get so het up about non-building?! Fair play to you, but for goodness sake, really?

Really? Yes, really, some of us do.

Why though Lynne?  Life is not a dress rehearsal. 

Because it matters.

Oh well, I asked. Shouldn't have wasted my bandwidth though, as that was a typical non-answer to be expected from the likes of DARE and the rest of the anti-everything brigade.

Have a nice weekend, I hope the sunshine doesn't spoil it too much for you. 

Just loving this sunshine and busy enjoying it. Will give you a fuller answer to your question when it (the sunshine) is no longer with us. Which, knowing this country's weather, will probably be sometime soon.      

It matters that something has not been built when it should have been as much as it matters that something has been built when it shouldn't have - it's called planning control.

On another thread Nelson has asked about the provision of allotments being part of a S.106 agreement. Let us suppose that was indeed the case and that the developer, having built the houses, then decided to ignore the fact that, as part of the agreement that they could build x number of houses, they should also provide y number of allotments. Would that be a satisfactory state of affairs? (Okay I know providing allotments is not providing a building of some kind but you can see what I am getting at I'm sure). 

S.106 agreements are there for a reason - to be adhered to. As I see them they are a 'deal' between local authority planners and developers. Which goes along the lines of "If you want to build xyz  then we want/need abc in return because the impact of your development will have an impact on the local community so you need to provide abc in order to mitigate the effects xyz will have on said community".    

Thank you for your explanation Lynne. 

If you want TDC to enforce in the future use past to direct future 106's and make TDC have the 106 implemented prior to any development this would solve your concerns.