The planning application for the development has a decision date of the 04th Nov 2013. It would seem from checking out the Planning dept website for this application. There have been very few objections to the request.
This is the access address for this specific application and all its associated paperwork - http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Application&Refval=12/03486/MAJ
Anyone interested should have a look.
Counted 23 objections. And anyway it's not the number of objections that determine whether or not something ultimately gets planning permission. What determines that, one way or the other, is local planning policy/ national planning regulations. The successful Appeal concerning the Shutterton Park housing development is a case in point.
I see that there are apparently Cirl Buntings on this site too!
We're being overrun by them!lol
Cirl buntings are an issue with planning, If you have a sighting of cirl buntings maybe you could log it with BIRDGUIDES, Devon County Council and the RSPB
Wasn't this part of the Dawlish Development Plan proposals? I thought that particular location had since been abandoned.
Yes Mcjrpc I believe you are correct in what you say. However, as Teignbridge is yet to have its proposed local plan adopted it is, as I understand it, still open season for any planning applications to be submitted re developing land wherever developers/land owners think they can get planning permission to build whatever it is they wish to build (houses usually it seems) either via an officer decision/committee decision or, if, necessary via a successful Appeal if permission is refused by officer/committee.
By the way given the controversial nature of this applicaiton does anyone know if it is going to the planning committee for discussion and decision? I ask as the last time I looked at the planning documents relating to this application it said it would be an officer decision.
I used to live up there by the Humpy and there were cirl buntings on the land then as they visited my garden and the RSPB used to bring round parties to view them. As I moved 10 years ago, I can't say whether they are still around up there. Maybe the RSPB would know.
Just checked the agenda for this coming Monday's (21st October) TDC Planning Committee. There is a site visit report back on this application and it looks as though the planning application will be discussed at a future planning committee meeting (in other words it won't be decided by an officer).
There's a bit about this planning application in today's Dawlish Gazette.
Have heard that the planning app. may be heard by councillors at either the next planning committee (November) or the one after that.
There's also a letter in the Dawlish Gazette (there have been letters about planning issues published for the past few weeks now) about the TDC Local Plan and all the planning applications for house building that have been submitted (will there be more yet to come?).
I do wonder just how much reduced need there would be to build in the more rural areas if all the urban, inner city, sites with planning permission for houses/flats actually had those houses/flats built. It does seem to make more sense to me that people should live near(er) to places of work, entertainment etc then miles away like we do here in Dawlish. (Apologies OF - I've gone off the specific topic of Meadow Park but I think the point I'm making is relevant).
Should we start another thread on the issue I've raised?
For those interested in this: the online planning documents now show very recent correspondence in which TDC put forward just how much monies would need to be forthcoming from the developer in terms of S106 payments and environmental mitigation costs in order for this scheme to get officer backing. The officer correspondence also points out that as the planning application is for 28 houses that 30% of them should be affordable in accordance with TDC housing policy.
Nowhere in these cosy communications between applicant's agent and Teignbridge DC planning officer can I find mentioned the main concern in connection with this site - that is the accessibility of this housing. The roads around Meadow Park - Badlake Hill, Longlands and Upper Longlands - are narrow and can hardly support the amount of traffic currently generated. Many of the houses are without garages or have more than one car and so there are a lot of cars parked on what are very narrow roads. In the event of an emergency, as has been proved in the past, rescue vehicles find it very difficult to negotiate. There is also the fact of it being a very sloping site and in adverse weather conditions people have been stuck, unable to use their vehicles due to icy conditions. Do these planning officers actually go out and look at the sites they are considering for development or are they stuck in offices looking at everything on Google Earth?
Devon County Council is responsible for highways. This is the response of DCC Highways department re this planning application:
"Observations:
The proposal is an extension to the existing Meadow Park. Roads to access the site are
steep in places, but are currently used to access a residential area and are therefore
considered to be suitable for this proposal. The width of the road is 5m, which allows vehicles
to pass and footways are provided.
Some roads to access the site are narrower. These are currently used by vehicles and the
proposed 28 dwellings are likely to generate in the region of 20 vehicles in a peak hour. It is
considered that this level of vehicle generation can be accommodated.
A sufficient level of car parking is proposed, with a minimum of two spaces per dwelling
proposed. Where spaces are to be provided in garages, the dimensions should be 6m x 3m.
It is proposed that the turning head will be relocated, so this facility will not be lost. It is
recommended that the highway is taken to the edge of the red line or that this land is
dedicated as highway. It may be necessary to condition this.
Recommendation:
THE HEAD OF PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF OF
DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL, AS LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, MAY WISH TO
RECOMMEND CONDITIONS ON ANY GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION:-"
This doesn't make sense. If they're providing 2 spaces for each dwelling, it follows that they're anticipating 2 cars per household which would mean 56 vehicles potentially likely to access the site at any given time and not the 20 quoted. The main road which accesses Meadow Park is Badlake Hill, part of which has no footpath at the lower end, also the narrow part of Weech Road past the Swan has no footpath. I repeat the question, do they actually come out of their ivory towers and look at the surrounding areas of the sites they are proposing for development?
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock. I'm sure Mr Stone is ticking the days off on his calendar.
Well down Secmaton Lane the planning dept have just granted permission for the three houses at Orleans. That means the other planning app for 10 that Mr Jeffrey wants to build will now be granted as it cannot be objected to. Well done planning dept.
This letter is in today's Dawlish Gazette:
"Delays bring us to a standstill
Wednesday, 06 November 2013
Terence Stone, of Terence Stone Development Ltd, of Plympton, writes:
We note the prominent article in the Gazette, of October 26, regarding objections to our totally justified proposal to complete the final small stage of our major development at Meadow Park, Dawlish.
This scheme should have been completed by 2005. The final road and sewers were approved and adopted some years ago but solely due to planning delays and intransigence by Teignbridge they were delayed.
Given that a major scheme at Broadmeadow, Teignmouth, and the Meadow Park completion were all delayed, it has resulted in three generations being laid off and the company, established in l960, being brought to a standstill.
Various branches of our local family, many of whom were employed by the company, were residents in Dawlish in the fifties and indeed our plans for meadow Park were formulated in the Sixties.
I suspect many of those who now object are of recent origin and adopt the Nimby attitude now that they are resident in the area and attempt to dictate to long-established business and residents what can be done in the future.
The majority of properties have two large garages or garage and parking. Given that all our existing houses have at least one garage and drive parking, why are people parking and causing congestion in the roads? It is obvious that this is caused largely by trade vehicles and motor homes in drives which are not appropriate in a residential area.
Many of the complaints have not been researched:
l Infrastructure inadequate – however it is designed and adopted to the required standards, there will be footpaths as required.
2 Road safety would be very much compromised – yes, Devon and Dawlish is hilly and attractive. That is why we like it and live here and drive appropriately.
3 The RSPB has ‘objected’ but do they not know we have been engaged with experts and Teignbridge Council for two years on this issue and making provision possibly with an area left in its natural state?
The application covers the final semi-detached houses adjacent to the road and are similar to those on the lower phase, with double garage under and only extend ten metres back from the footpath. It will be seen in addition that the land and road falls from the last existing house on the north side at the end of the close and are sited well down on the landscape.
Indeed of prime importance is the fact that the properties are placed substantially below and within the existing natural field boundary hedges. it does not extend into the natural coastal preservation area above and it will be noted that the adjacent Humpy development and properties at the top of Stockton Hill are at a much higher level.
The company’s contractors’ offices and yard established in the Sixties (part of the site) were approved in agreement with the local Dawlish authorities and constructed with permanent concrete foundations and blockwork for subsequent conversion to housing on completion of this 12-acre site.
I trust that this information clarifies the position."
Talk about rose tinted glass's. My heart bleeds for him. AAhhhhhh!!! I bet if he lived in Meadow Park and was not the developer wanting to make a nice profit at the expense of turning other peoples lives into a misery, he may play a different tune, maybe not.
If Terence Stone Development is responsible for the existing houses, (as I understood from his letter), I wouldn't trust them with any more development. The road is narrow, cars are parked along both kerbsides so other cars can pass, and pram pushers and pedestrians use the road where the pavement gap is too narrow. Some planning! What worked in the sixties doesn't necessarily work today, and I imagine that's why local residents have objected, not because they're nimbies. I don't live there but I sympathise with them!
What made me smile was this paragraph:
"I suspect many of those who now object are of recent origin and adopt the Nimby attitude now that they are resident in the area and attempt to dictate to long-established business and residents what can be done in the future."
Does Mr Stone not know that what can be built and what cannot be built is not determined by local residents (irrespective of how long they have been living here) but by planning policies and regulations? And whilst these policies and regulations may well change over time it'll be nowt to do with the wishes of the local population.
I am sure I am not alone in remembering that the planning inspector who looked at the original Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan expressed his grave concerns with regard to the proposal to build more homes at Meadow Park.
And he was/is a professional who doesn't live in Dawlish let alone at Meadow Park! So no ill-informed Nimby he!
To hell with what the residents think, he's already banked their money..
From what he writes, you'd think it was being used as a lorry park. He should apply to have it designated a Royal Park - no trade vehicles or motor homes are allowed in them either.
What he's doing is sneering at the concerns of residents in the area with regard to traffic. The main access to the whole of the Meadow Park/Upper Longlands area is via Badlake Hill. This hill and part of Weech Road are single track road with no pavements. This is the main access road used by the majority of residents in the areas of Upper Longlands, Meadow Park and, of course, the future development. Is he attempting to dictate what type of vehicle should access his development? There will be removal pantechnicons, dustcarts and all manner of trade vehicles, not to mention some of the dreaded motorhomes which he obviously doesn't think the residents should be allowed to park on their own drives. He seems to have managed to shoot himself in the foot by insulting any future buyers of his properties by calling them incomers and 'Nimbys'. Duh!
I lived in Meadow Rise at the start of this development. I see nothing wrong with it being finished!
Better than the wasteland than is at the end of Meadow Park - short-term disruption for long term housing. Plus it'll count towards development in Dawlish and may save a few hundred yards of 'green field'.
Let them get on with it and good luck to the man.
In respone to HuwMatthews2's comment re: nothing wrong in the development being finshed. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and I respect that, but you are speaking from a very simplistic point of view.
The wasteland at the end of Meadow Park would only be seen in that light by a person who has little or no appreciation of the amazing wildlife that inhabits these area's and did so in gretare numbers before the humans decided to destroy their habitats to build their own.
As to short term disruption. Have you any idea how long it takes to build these 28 dwellings , drainage etc ?
As to your comment on 'may save a few hundred yards of green field' sigh!
@Huw
Do you now live anywhere in the vicinity of the proposed new development? i.e. Old Town Street, Weech Road, Badlake Hill, Lower Meadow Rise, Meadow Rise, Longlands, Upper Longlands. All these roads will be affected by increased traffic, not just in the short term either. Several of these roads are narrow and have no footpaths in places. Things have changed a lot since the 60's when the first development began; most houses now have at least 2 cars and you have to take into account all the trade vehicles, etc. which will be negotiating very steep and narrow roads. N.B. There is only a 'wasteland' at the end of Meadow Park because work has been started in clearing the site in anticipation of planning permission being granted.
@OLD FART - you're wrong (but then personality comments usually are).
@Cassandra - no. but i do live in an area which may be subject to massive development in the not too distant future.
It's a development that's been on the table ever since the original housing was built. I'm afraid that I fail to understand the complaints from owners of homes that form that original development. 🏡🏡🏡🏡🏡🏡
@Huw - Can you please explain what part of my entry was wrong? thankyou.
@ OF "The wasteland at the end of Meadow Park would only be seen in that light by a person who has little or no appreciation of the amazing wildlife that inhabits these area's"
@Huw - Troll alert.
Letter from applicant/agent Tuesday Jan 28 2014.
Latest sob letter from Stone, I won't go into detail, but if you want to read it, it is the latest doc on the planning web site.
Thanks for alerting us to this, OF. I was under the impression that things agreed 40 years ago are now somewhat out of date but it seems that Mr. Stone is still living in the past.
@Cassandra - if it goes ahead, he will certainly make a small amount of change from it. as to the impact on those who already live in the surrounding area. i'm sure mr stone has their best interests at heart!
On waliking my dog along the road that runs parallel to the first section of land stone wants to build on. I was stunned to see that this section has now been completely cleared and is now a grass field. I know the area was cleared by someone! a while ago, but there was still a fair amount of brush and small trees. Now there is nothing at all!. Now I know why stones letter of the 28th Jan 2014 to the planning dept stated 'MEADOW PARK IS A CLEARED SITE WITH NO EVIDENCE OF WILDLIFE PROBLEMS' problems!!!!!!!!!. No, it's totally cleared of any habitat NOW!.
Absolute digrace.
OF -did you really expect anything else? It's just a measure of the lengths people will go to to get their own way. I trust the council won't let him get away with it (ironic laugh).
Anybody remember the fire at Stonelands
@Cassandra - i suppose not.
25/02/14 - Decision = Outline Refusal.
Fair play to Dawlish Town Council, who opposed the application for a number of reasons. Will Mr. Stone now go & live on Benefit Street, take up employment as a Big Issue seller or will we have to make a collection to keep him living in the manner to which he has become accustomed?
Isn't that where a new Dawlish Parkway would be built? Maybe he'll make more money flogging the land to Network Rail. 
Read your discussions on this issue with great interest!
I don`t know if many of you remember when the first phase of Meadow park was built there was i believe an undertaking from Mr stone that
he would contribute to an access road. he subsequently declined to honour this agreement and therefore has been in conflict with TDC ever since.
if you look back over many years Mr stone retained several small parcels of land and has been deperately trying to develope them.
Not because he needs the dosh as Mr stone is a Millionair! It`s pure and simply a battle he desperately want`s to win against the planners on TDC?
Please 