This site uses cookies

General Discussion

13 Mar 2013 13:29

Check out page 24 of this week's Dawlish Gazette, up the top of the page, to the left.

The site at Newlands where Barratt's wish to build is on the land that was given outline planning permission in 2011 for 76 dwellings, a community orchard, a small community centre and a play area. (Planning reference: 11/03265/MAJ). That 2011 planning application was submitted by Strategic Land Partnerships. 

It seems however that the land and its planning permission has now been sold on as Barratt's now wish to build 96 new dwellings on this site. (Planning reference 13/00584/MAJ)  

It will be interesting to see how the Barratt's plan differs from that originally submitted by Strategic Land Partnerships back in 2011. 

And I wonder how much social housing will be built and how much of that will be for the social rented sector and how much of that will be one-bedroom? 


If you wish to know more then there is a public exhibition of Barratt's plans at the Manor House on Friday 22nd March 2013 between 2.00pm and 7.00pm.

1 Agree
13 Mar 2013 19:47

Another wood hut slum on the cards to go with the Sandpipers joke down the Warren.

Why are these developers so keen to build houses in and around Dawlish when nobody wants to buy them.

There has to be backhanders being given out here

The typical Dawlish fence sitters cannot ignore this situation, we need to get together and get this relentless useless house building stopped.




2 Agrees
13 Mar 2013 19:57

if only this was social housing sad

15 Mar 2013 14:09

I've just had a letter through from Barratt Homes with the plans attached, although with very tiny print.  I see a number of circles with the word issues next to them.

I'd love to know how the local doctor's surgery will cope with all these new residents and how Gatehouse primary school will deal with all the traffic as they can't cope now.  One day there'll be a punch up over parking ..

I can't wait to see how much they intend to sell them cardboard shells for, far more than most locals could afford no doubt. 

@FredB, I'm in complete agreement with you (never thought I'd say that).

4 Agrees
21 Mar 2013 16:18

Just thought I'd raise this thread to remind people that the Barratt's exhibition is tomorrow, Friday 22nd, at the Manor House, between 2.00pm and 7.00pm.

22 Mar 2013 17:02

Braved the weather and went down to the M. House.

Apologies to Barratts if I have any of this wrong but I am doing it from memory as there was no literature about these proposals that could be taken away to be looked at. So all of the info below is from my memory. 

New Plans 

There is still a play space but it is in a different location from that put forward in the outline planning consent.

The number of dwellings has increased by 20 from outline planning permission for 76 to a proposed 96.

The % affordable is still scheduled to be 30%.

Within the 30% affordable I understand there will be 3x1bedroom flats. (I don't know if these will be for affordable rent or for shared ownership). I specifically asked about affordable 1 bedroom accommodation because of the impending bedroom tax. 1 bed accommodation is mega important now.

In the outline planning permission there was scheduled to be a community centre/doctors' surgery type of building. From what I can see this is not in these new plans and has been replaced by a couple of small shops (newsagent type thingys) above which will be located those 3x 1bed affordable flats. 

In the original proposal there was to be a community orchard. Alas, of a community orchard there was not a sign. I asked about this omission. Was told that it was in the outline plans only therefore nothing firm about it having to be included in whatever ended up actually being built. However, trees are scheduled to be planted in and around the play area. I asked if they could be fruit bearing trees. Was told that could be looked into. 

End of report (but if anything else comes back to me I'll be sure to post it).  


22 Mar 2013 23:11

Went up to look myself and as commented earlier its nothing but a wood hut slum. The planning company representatives present where clear in distancing themselves from Barratts and therefore couldnt comment on the expected build quality. In fact they seemed to agree that nobody but the government wanted these highly compacted slum type estates, and that lessons from the similar constructions of the 1950s plus the deck access flats of the 1960s had not been learnt.

Why can none of these developers build a community the like of Holcombe with quality individually designed houses aimed at attracting people with money, businesses and the means to bring a an aire of wealth and prosperety to the town.

The answer is that local authorities are under pressure from goverment to reduce their social housing waiting lists and therefore will not give planning consent for anything else, but "affordable houses"

Has anybody at TDC ever sat down and worked out just what the meaning of an affordable house actually is. If you are unemployed and have never worked and therefore have no savings and are totally relient on benifits then there is no realistic way that any type of house is affordable.

23 Mar 2013 07:08

Fred - 'affordable' rents were introduced by the government in 2010.

'Affordable' rents are higher than social housing rents (social housing rents are typically 50%-60% of the local private sector rents).  However, although 'Affordable' rents are up to 80% of the local private sector rents they are 'affordable' because they are cheaper than renting in the private sector.

(Government's logic - not mine). 

Here's a link giving some more info


Then there is 'affordable' shared ownership whereby the monthly payment is part mortgage part rent. Believe these schemes are an option for those whose earnings are such that they could not raise the required funds to get a mortgage to buy at full market price, but who can raise a small enough mortgage to part own a property along with a housing association.  

Such ownership schemes are 'affordable' because they are not as expensive as buying on the open market (again government's logic - not mine).

Any suggestions as to how to house those whom you describe in your last sentence?  

23 Mar 2013 08:21

and also Fred there are those who are/have worked but not earnt enough to enable getting a  mortgage, not all people who rely on Social Housing are unemployed/single parents

23 Mar 2013 08:22


                  Thats simple

A) A return to National Service (2 years) with money from wages deducted to form a housing deposit.

B) Hostel type accomodation using old hotels or caravan parks. ( The old buildings at Langdon)

If none of the above are deemed suitable, then consider how this situation would be handled in other countries that dont have a national benefits system

23 Mar 2013 08:47

Return to tenament slums then Fred frown

23 Mar 2013 08:48

Government is presently laying off armed service personnel so I don't think A) is an option.

And with regards to B) I think you'll find that hostel accommodation, old hotels and similar accommodation is already in use.

A Devon MP quotes the following as being the national figures for those needing housing:

"250,000 living in overcrowded accommodation and two million on the housing waiting list who are desperate for a home with sufficient bedrooms to accommodate them"

(from "View to a Room" article by Central Devon MP, Mel Stride, in this week's Dawlish Gazette).

The above by the way is the government's reason for the bedroom tax, others might argue that those figures show a need for more social (as opposed to 'affordable') housing. 


How would that situation be handled in countries without a benefit system? I don't know to be honest but I guess they would be left to starve/beg for a living/live on the streets/live in shanty towns.

And some might say that such a scenario already exists in some countries with a benefit system............     


23 Mar 2013 09:19


                      Thank you thats exactly the situation my view is aimed at avoiding this proposed estate in twenty years time will be just what you describe. In the 50s councils in the outlying towns of the big cities built the same sort of estates that Barratts are proposing they became no go areas with the decent families moving out  leaving the scum to create a mob rule culture. Eventually in the 80s and 90s the utility companies managed to cut off these estates and what was left just got burnt out and vandalised. The councils were then left with the massive bill to demolish and clear the sites

Is that what you want for Dawlish?

Comment Please sign in or sign up to post