General Discussion
The farmer has put 3 boulders across the at the mouth of the track. The farm gate was moved back in 1929 and the gate on the right was put in to access the field/then bungalow no.1 Secmaton Lane, this was shown on the 1933 OS Map. It was done at the same time Secmaton Rise was formed. The access has been used by all former owners of the bungalow and site in general. The area has also been used as a turning space since 1929 for local residents and is needed more now since SAT NAVs keep sending large vehicles up the lane and failing to show it is a no through route. Residents need to show proof that they have used it for many years and therefore they have a right of way over it. The farmer has already dug up the bollard at the end of Secmaton Rise and drives his tractor over the grass and the road name sign, as he says he has right of way up to the golf course! That is besides the point, lack of turning will make it more dangerous for users, especially since large vehicles will find it hard, or impossible to turn, therefore forcing them to reverse down Secmaton Lane at its narrowest point!! Any ideas of how this can be over come? A concerned resident.
In the first instance, I'd contact the Police. If they refuse to intervene then it is a highways matter and you should contact County Councillor John Clatworthy. His contact details are john.clatworthy@devon.gov.uk
Thank you for your advice. I have contacted Highways, but their plans show that it is not adopted highway, even though at some point they have put tarmac down when resurfacing the road. They say the most they can do is ask the farmer to move the boulders back a couple of feet and if he doesn't they will have to go down the legal route to force him to do so. However, if someone by accident reverses into the boulders, highways say the farmer is at least liable for damages, but doesn't solve the turning issue problem.
By the way this is the entrance to the farmer's proposed development for 10 houses, so I guess he is showing the council what it will be like if he doesn't get planning permission, else why block off the turning space!!! I am sure residents will also be unhappy about this and will contact john clatworthy over this issue.
well since it's on my doorstep, i don't see it as a problem at all. it is not really a turning place at all and if that's what it's being used for i have yet to see someone using it for that purpose. your correct @Kaz with what devon highways will state that it is not an adopted highway, from time to time when they retarmac roads the contracters will do the odd patches and strecthes out of goodwill for those living there.
Yes the Farmer could move them back a couple of feet and could be threatend with the legal costs of damage should someone reverse into the boulders, however he could also argue that he did not put them there or that it is not a public highway and nor a designated turning area, so it is a difficult one to go by with.
I'm pretty sure he would not be making lives difficult if he want's the planning permission, instead he would be doing everything in order to please the Planning Committees and public who surround this area. However there has been a lot of cars in the past driving down the lane to do whatever you want to call the buisness that is not needed in that area so maybe if it was the Farmer that has done this he has those or other reasons for this action. Has anyone asked?
As far as I know the "Farmer" and the people looking for planning are NOT the same person, allthough I suspect the actions taken are connected.
I think FredBassett you will find they are one and the same and are the owners of Lady's Mile Holiday camp. That is why it is odd that they should block the access off. Some who have lodged an objection to the development on the grounds of excess traffic, due to kids walking to school that way have implied there has been an increase in traffic using the track recently,, so that makes it even more strange. See planning application 13/02135/MAJ. By the way how do you know about funny business going on in cars at night down the track? Did you investigate or call the police? Or is it just guess work? If it isn't, yes not good for the area.
@Kaz i can see it pretty much from the view of my house, and have walked the kids and dogs many of times in the evening when cars have gone down there, purpose unknown, harm done no, my buisness to go and have a look no. unless someone has observantly done something wrong then it's not for me to phone the police, and of course i did not wish to go and "investigate" myself, as @jools88 said, there buisness might not be pleasant to see. either way i see no problem with the boulders, cars should not be turning there anyway.
I'm putting 2 +2 together and coming up with a farmer that actually owns Cofton not ladys mile though it's the same surname. either way, it's their land they paid for the driveway they should be allowed to put boulders on it.
Just asking a question, so if an owner of their home extends their driveway, tarmacs it edges it then people start parking /waiting there therefore over time damaging said tarmac does he /she not have some rights oh & council said he can't put signs up.
Hi Andysport let me clarify who owns what in the Jeffery family. Lady's Mile farm was bought by old Mr Jeffery (deceased) when camping was becoming popular. His son's George and Alf joined them in the trade at the hight of the industry and they went on to marry and have children themselves. There appeared to be a dispute and next the business was split with George running Cofton and Alf Lady's Mile. Since then they appear to be objecting to each other on planning and legal grounds, sometimes ending up at the High Court. Since the 1990s they have also bought both the farms that are due to be developed in the expansion of Dawlish with Alf having Secmaton Farm and George owning Gatehouse. So it will be interesting to see how the DA2 in the emerging local plan pans out since 2 of the main land owners have been working to undermine each others for years. I hope for Dawlish's sake that they put their grievances aside, else we will end up with sites being passed in places which are not beneficial for residents or for the future of Dawlish. However, if they can't work together then Dawlish residents will not get what they need, more housing to allow the children of the future their own homes in the town the were brought up in!
@Kaz - my layperson 'take' on land around dawlish being developed for housing is that provided planning applications are submitted before the local plan is adopted then, given that tdc does not have an adopted local plan, there is no reason for such planning applications to be refused. we have just had a case in point with regard to the successful appeal re the shutterton park planning application. and bear in mind that the shutterton park site was not included as being a site for development in the, yet to be adopted, teignbridge local plan whereas the sites of both the farms you mention are designated as development sites.*
Basically, until the local plan is adopted it is open season re planning applications for developments in and around Dawlish and elsewhere in the district.
Please can someone with a greater knowledge of planning legislation correct me if I am wrong. Afraid I've taken my eye off the ball of late re planning regs etc.
* that said though.............I've just been doing some reading of the objections to 13/02135/MAJ and then some looking at the map produced last year showing how Dawlish would be developed/preserved over the next 20 years or so. I hadn't realised until I read the Dawlish Town Council objection and then looked very, very, carefully at the map that it seems that the land in question was indeed not included in the land in DA2 that it is planned should be used for housing. Is that right? If so, anyone any idea as to why that was given that all the other land surrounding it to the north west of Secmaton Lane is planned to be given up to housing? Don't know if I'm intrigued or confused. Both perhaps?
Here is an extract from the TDC submission to the public examination of the emerging Local Plan. The submission is dated August 2013 and it says this about the DA2 site in Dawlish.
"Site DA2 is deliverable and viable. This is reflected in the findings of the SHLAA
2012 Update (CDD93, p7). Part of DA2 is already consented for a mixed use
scheme of 76 dwellings (11/03265/MAJ) and new developments adjacent to the
site are reporting strong sales and completions. Part is also subject to an outline
planning application (12/03797/MAJ) for 75 new homes that is being determined
by the Council. Landowners with interests over the majority of the site and its
points of vehicular access from Elm Grove Road and the A379 Exeter Road
have initiated the preparation of a masterplan for the unconsented part of DA2
(required though DA2 criterion a). This has involved some public engagement,
including other affected landowners. The Council will support this work to ensure
it will provide an appropriate level framework to help facilitate the delivery of site
DA2. Consequently it is considered that DA2 is deliverable."
A bit more info (apologies if those interested in all this already know what I am about to impart). All the info below obtained from TDC website.
1. Cllr Graham Price (in whose ward this potential development is located) has requested that it be debated and decided at a Full Planning Committee rather than being decided by an individual TDC planning officer.
2. The reasons that Cllr Price cites for this planning application to go to Committee are as follows: "Exacerbation of traffic increase to an already overused narrow road. Due to the relaxation of planning highways concerns I believe this area needs to be scrutinised as Highways now no longer ever come out to examine class c/d roads".
3. Cllr John Petherick also sits on the TDC planning committee and he also represents the same ward as Cllr Price.
4. Don't know which planning committee meeting this will be on the agenda for but here are the dates of the next 6 meetings. Would imagine it would be heard at one of these.
21.10.13; 18.11.13; 16.12.13; 13.1.14; 10.2.14; 10.3.14:
5. Dawlish Town Council recommend refusal for the following reasons:
a) The site stands outside the development boundary of the 1996 Local Plan.
b) The site is not included in the Teignbridge Local Plan submitted for examination.
c) Development is unsustainable because the infrastructure produces unacceptable loading on Secmaton Lane.
d) Development is premature because there are already approvals for a five year supply of housing in Dawlish.
Took the dog for a walk down that way yesterday. Haven't been that way for months so can't say if the boulders have been moved slightly or not since Kaz's first post but they are still there. Walked down Secmaton Rise and then turned left to go along Secmaton Lane towards the new housing development. Looks like earth moving machines are already on the land in question and that a path running parallel with Secmaton Lane has already been carved out. Such a pathway is shown on the plans I believe.
As I was walking along a woman passed me going the other way towards the Sainsbury's end. She was pushing a buggy with one hand and holding another child's hand with her other hand. She was new to the area and asked me if the lane would eventually take her out on to the Exeter Road. I told her it would but to go careful with the kids as cars go up and down the lane. Are there any dedicated pedestrian areas (ie pavements) along the lane if you turn into it from the right where Secmaton Rise and Secmaton Lane meet? Because if not, and this planning application goes through then I definitely think there should be.
If you look at the planning app the Jeffery's have included a path on their development but the rest of the lane will still be the same. The bolders have been moved as work is going on in the field to put in the sewarge system for the building going on further up the lane.
Kenny you are right about the lane not changing below the site, heading towards the A379 Exeter Road. The fact is the remaining land belongs to someone else, actually 3 landowners. The farmer's land ceases at the track with the gate to the back and to the left his, and the gate to the right belonging to Hilldrive. If fact Hilldrive own from their gate on the track right down to the bad bend, then the remainder belongs to the Deodar, then Orleans. So even if the farmer wanted to widen the lane to make it safer for pedestrians he couldn't. One positive is Hilldrive have recently took out their chainlink gate and put in a metal one, along with removing a small piece of hedge which has made it much safer for waking and cycling. I find now I can see cars coming through the ivy covered dead bush on the Deodar hedge, which at least gives me a chance to stand in or walk into a pullin and let them go by. So that has been a positive for the lane I believe. I don't know what others think?
I have found that traffic and pedestrians mostly use Little Week Lane when I have been walking down Secmaton Lane, so once I have got past that point it is a lot quieter. I don't know if anyone else has found that too during the week days? So extra cars on the upper part of the lane could cause problems between Secmaton Rise and Little Week Lane and to Veryan Close, where all the mums and children walk on a regular basis to and fro from Gatehouse School. The lower end of Secmaton Lane probably would hardly see a difference, because it is easier to go through the estate (Little Week Road), as the road is wider, well it would be if there weren't so many cars parked! Has anyone else found this?
Kaz, where all the mums & children walk on a regular basis to and from Gatehouse school. So how does the extra cars only cause problems for mums & children are we men somekind of super car dodger hero thing ?
Heavy lorries delivering to a building site would not be able to use little week lane and traffic comes into the lane on return from Exeter direction. NO MORE HOUSE TO BE BUILT WITH ACCESS INTO SECMATON LANE.
Andysport - I was wrong, I should have included men as well, because they are important too. They are just as likely to be taking children too and from school.
Kenny - You mention lorries delivering materials to site and the fact that they could only use Secmaton Lane, you are right. However that argument could not be used about the 3 at Deodar who are so close to the main road that it would hardly be noticed. So saying no more houses on Secmaton Lane would affect those, who will have little or no impact. Therefore any development should be taken on its own merit.
Just thought to look up the latest on this planning application - and it looks like it will be going to Planning Committee for decision on 11th March 2014.
Don't know why, it is a forgone conclusion that the secret society that is Teignbridge Planning Commitee will agree to it.
How much do TDC get from national government for every new house built was it £10,000 each plus any section 106 money they can squeeze in addition. I doubt they are going to refuse any such planning requests when they have peoples farms to buy in order to cover up thier past mistakes
It appears that the payments they get are for 6 years what an incentive?
The planning rules changed when they decided that instead of having a good reason to gain permission for a build. you now have to have a good reason why they should not be able to build,
And of course Entitlement to a view has been lost together with open spaces and as we know permission is gained for 1-2 story buildings during construction retrospective planning is obtained and before you know it 3-4 story buildings are shadowing you and you have lost potentially 3-4
hours a day of the good old sun sound familiar?
Let`s hope these Moon flights won`t be too expensive.........
This planning application was on last Tuesday's TDC Planning Committee agenda. Officer recommendation was for the application to be approved. Anyone know what the Councillors decided?
Outline planning permission was granted (all matters reserved) and here is the conclusion of the meeting.
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=40300&p=0