Dawlish Discussion

Communities secretary Eric Pickles has approved plans for up to 350 homes on farmland to the east of Dawlish in Devon after ruling that the local council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply in line with national policy requirements.

See more...http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/login/1211504/

are there plans new schools,surgery etc + road infrastruture, because in principle Im not against it but am fed up with nothing being put back into the community to cope with all the new residents

Is this the Shutterton Park development to the side and behind Sainsburys?   

behind Sainsbury's is being built on for the new industrial units, first ones are up for sale at the moment with plans showing the next phases so it might be next to those 

This letter is in today's Dawlish Gazette:

"Planning needs a change

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

John Wilkinson, of Dare, of Littleweek Lane, Dawlish, writes:

I refer to Peter Marsden’s letter in the Dawlish Gazette on September 4.

For the last 11 years Dare has been alerting the residents of Dawlish of concerns relating to developers, land owners and inconsistencies of planning matters at Teignbridge Council, and naturally on many occasions we have not always been popular.

In addition to the above, we have also expressed concerns, sometimes dismay, with relevant agencies and utilities such as Devon County Council Highways, South West Water, town and county councils to name a few. Teignbridge has not had a sustainable, viable Local Plan for many years due to the inability of officers and councillors to produce one, although to be fair, the present central government administration has not helped recently by rewriting the rules while the latest Local Plan was being prepared.

We are currently awaiting a decision by a government inspector, reporting to the Secretary of State for the Environment, regarding an appeal for 350 houses in the Shutterton area which are not in the Local Plan. This decision is due on or before September 10. The following day the land concerned will be considered at the Examination in Public of the Draft Local Plan.

The examiner, Geoff Salter, is appointed by the Planning Inspectorate. We ask why the need for two inspectors and whose decision should be final?

If the appeal is upheld then this has the potential to add an additional 350 houses to the proposed 900 plus. These figures do not include the 450 houses already agreed.

The residents of Dawlish may very well get a Country Coastal park, but probably will not get extra doctors or hospital wards, nor additional classrooms or any better infrastructure, but for sure we will get many extra houses.

The planning system does require change: the people of Dawlish are tired of abbreviations DPNP, LDF, SANGS and so on, and they are also tired of sound bites, eg sustainable development, strategy, resilience, affordable.

We all seem to be suffering from ‘consultation fatigue’; however, to derail the proposed Local Plan now could be potentially very risky but it will be very interesting to see the outcome of both of the government inspectors’ verdicts.

Without any doubt much of the future growth of Dawlish and its location has already been decided. Will this make Dawlish a better place to live or visit? This remains to be seen.

We can elect our councillors but we cannot elect the officers who make many, if not all, of the important plans. We need, indeed deserve a better system but what and how is a job for another day, or generation, maybe."
 

Sadly this is the Shutterton application (land between Shutterton Lane and Sainsburys)

local councillors at town and district were opposed, so too were DARE and just about everyone else who expressed an opinion..  Sadly that counts for nowt.

it will mean the loss of a big part of the green break between our communities.

there will be a "multi use community building" but no funding to equip or run it.  Unlikely to be a GP surgery as this would need a GP practice (which are private businesses) to want to invest in setting up, and all the evidence points to this not being seen as a viable option

Its time the people of Dawlish put a stop to this once and for all. There has to be some way the three levels of local government can put a stop to the building of more and more houses without improving the infrastructure. As for the person behind the development, his past track record needs to be aired at a public meeting the guy dosent even live in this country. There is definately something underhand going on regarding this development and the previous one next door.

So much for Localism. Remember it? It was that great policy trumpeted by the Coalition when they first came to power. Local people would determine what should be and what should not be built in their locality. 

Ha, bloody, ha. 

everything about this coalition is ha, bloody,  ha, everyday I become more and more disallusioned with this once great country!!!

I did laugh at the irony of the gentleman from DARE moaning about what he calls abbreviations (acronyms). 

On a serious note, does anyone know how many years ago it was that Littleweek Lane  was but a field?

Whilst I personally welcome additional housing, it's completely wrong that central government (in this case the Tories) should override the wishes of local government who are naturally far closer to understanding local needs. 

Well that's the east side of Dawlish spoilt forever, next it's the west side. Although we already know that a small number of houses are going to be built at Southdowns, I am puzzled as to why wildlife surveys are being carried out on all the other fields close by. I have a feeling that another proposal for a huge housing estate will soon raise it's ugly head.

When are the authorities and especially the CON-DEMS going to understand. They have built a huge new town by the M5 near Exeter which is a total flop unsold houses unrented industrial units etc. So why are they trying to do the same to Dawlish and Teignmouth. Before houses we need EMPLOYMENT, or are we to be the dumping ground for Exeter and Newton Abbots social outcasts.

In addition to the above has Mr Pickles been informed that building a housing estate with young children women etc might not be such a good idea opposite a not so secure prison for the countries mental nutters. Or was it as usual hidden under the disguise of a hospital.

As I see it, until and unless the proposed Teignbridge Local Plan is adopted Teignbridge does not have a local plan (yes, I know that's obvious but just thought it needed saying). Therefore I suspect there will be a frenzied free for all by landowners and developers in the Teignbridge area, which of course covers Dawlish. They need to get their plans approved you see before any adopted Local Plan rules out whatever bit of land they have in mind for developing.  

And even then I guess that should the proposed Local Plan be adopted but the powers that be then decide that this area actually needed more housing than allowed for in the Local Plan, then developers and landowners would put forward even more proposals for housing and if refused planning permission would then go to Appeal, and win, on the basis that TDC hasn't got enough housing supply for the next 5 or whatever years.  

Did someone say something about Localism? What a quaint idea. Anyone know how it's supposed to work?  

How much money was wasted on "Localism"?

@ micheal clayson

Just thought to ask as this topic seems to be lacking comment . Is anyone actually doing anything to stop this. Pickles needs to be made aware of who is behind this application and his past track record. Also the dire effect this is going to have on the area. Whats happened to DARE and why no comment from Councillor Prowse who is supposed to be chair of all these such developments and localism projects, and other local councillors who sit on the planning committee at Teignbridge

I am no expert, but as I understand the situation there is nothing further that can be done unless Teignbridge District Council can prove in the High Court that the process of making the decision (and crucially, it has to be the process and not the actual decision) was in someway flawed.

Nothing I have read suggests there is any prospect of doing so successfully, and as it would cost vast sums in legal costs to attempt such a claim, only the lawyers would benefit 

i would be delighted to be proven wrong .....

Thanks Michael, so this means that because someone or some department  at Teignbridge district council have not done their job properly the door is now open for any developer to come along and take exactly the same route in order to build more and more houses on green field sites anywhere in Teignbridge.

If so then I for one think its time names where named and action to dismiss or remove from office those responsible taken.

Looking foward to reading about resignations in next weeks Gazette ( wont happen though will it )

It is time that we all write to first the local govt ombudsman complaining about the inept planning process and department that we have in Teignbridge. Our councillors that sit on the planning commitee make decisions in secret. This is against the principles of the council and the pressure placed on the commitee buy the leader has to be regarded as obscene and must border on being gross misconduct by the leader. 

Next write to Eric Pickles and let him & Cameron know that what he has done with his decision on Shutterton has  shown us all that localisim is a dead duck. 

It is no good just venting your fury on this website he goverment and the councillors (other than Michael Clayson) dont read it. 

It was always going to happen wasn't it? They even put a slip into this land from the road when they built Sainsbury's! Why object to the housing (and useless community building) if you didn't object to Sainsbury's? The developers obviously think they'll sell the properties or they would'nt be building them. What needs to be concentrated on now (because the arguement is lost) is to ensure that infrastucture (like Drs, Dentists, Schooling, decent access and amenities) are provided - if this was put onto the developers they'd think again because it wouldn't be profitable.

Why does this forum do that? Go small I mean!!!!

@HuwMatthews2, there is some formatting in your post reducing the font size to 0.8em. Were you doing anything in particular when you posted your comment, e.g. did you paste something in or could you have accidently hit a function or control button?

I've seen it a few times on here but have not been able to find out why it sometimes goes small.

@Michael clayson

As expected the political lies, book passing, and public missleading have extended to this topic.

Wrote to Mr Pickles via e-mail to complain about his involvement in this planning application.

The response is nothing short of a joke

Thank you for your e-mail of 11 September addressed to the Secretary of State about a planning decision in your area. As I am sure you realise, the Minister receives a large number of letters and emails and is unable to respond to them all personally. I have been asked to reply on his behalf.

Whilst I can appreciate that you are unhappy about the decision in question, the department is not in a position to comment or intervene where planning permission has already been granted.

Planning applications are required by law to be determined against the development plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is considered to be a local matter for council constitutions, and is not something the department routinely intervene in.

Where local people have cause for complaint about the way a planning application has been handled, they should in the first instance take the matter up with the local planning authority’s Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer must report any finding of maladministration or injustice to the full council. If still not satisfied, the complainant could ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate whether maladministration has occurred. I should emphasise that neither the Monitoring Officer nor the Ombudsman are able to re-appraise the merits of a planning case, and a finding of maladministration would not affect any grant or refusal of planning permission.

Yours sincerely,

William Strong