Dawlish Discussion

Whilst walking along Dawlish Warren this weekend I happened to notice the attached sign. To that end , all the dog signs, are written in such away. That unless you look closely and understand the beach layout. You maybe mistaken for thinking the signs state'NO DOGS ON THIS BEACH'. When in actual fact part of the beach is okay for dogs, but at a distance you would not even see the small print. 

I found the sign confusing and I have lived here for many years. What must it be like for visitors who do not know the area!

Sorry about the size of the image, new camera!

I've shrunk it for you - webmaster

Dogs shouldn't be allowed on any part of that beach (or in fact any beach) during the summer months. 

@Mrs C what are you going to do if you can not go on the beach ? you will have to stay on the sea wall.

and you think that comment is funny Onsport, that is a despicable comment and totally uncalled for

@Mrs C - you continue to amaze me with your comments. i think you would have  been much happier in the 16th century as a puritan. what factual justification, if any, do you have for your comment? i would be interested to hear it, maybe! 

@Mrs C    i think you ignore the attraction of dawlish warren as a holiday destination where dogs can be with their families.  if you deny dog owners the fun of running their dogs on defined parts of the beach, then the holiday-makers will go and stay elsewhere.  the only problem is with people who ignore the signs. 

I generally don't like dogs or dog owners but must agree Mrs C you are out of order, go suck on a humbug

I find your comments on this thread distasteful, and full of smutty innuendo Onport1968

ok, I'll say it as I find it.  Personally I am mighty fed up with dogs dominating where I can or cannot go.

Most parks are right-offs to use these days and it's not just about the few who don't pick-up mess, it's the preponderance of large or snappy or so called 'status dogs' that are allowed to run up to children (and me!) frightening them witless.

Parks are supposed to be relaxing places to go, not somewhere to have to keep a watchful eye out all the time of where you step and what dog is going to bound up to you or your kids.

Ironically when a park does designate a dog free zone it is the humans who get penned into 5% of the park while the dogs get the other 95%. 

Beaches in the summer are the one place that should be a bastian of being completely dog free.  Children play in the sand and can get serious eye infections from dog mess.

Tides don't necessarily wash this away but smear it along to other zones.

Owners 'accidently' lose track of which groynees they are supposed to keep their dogs between.

So in conclusion, before I get a barrage of people telling me dogs have to be allowed to run around somewhere and everywhere, I am totally and utterly resigned to the reality that dogs will always have the whiphand in most public places by popular demand and nothing will change that.

However, all I ask is not to whitewash the equal truism that they spoil many people's quality of life!!

Bob Vickery, you're wrong in my opinion. The only problem is actually those dog owners who wantonly allow their dogs to shit on our beaches. Those of us that have children or grandchildren will understand. 

Well, I hope you are sitting down Mrs C as for once I absolutely agree with you!! And it not just on our beaches but on our pavements and on the lawn area! Why do people not pick up after their dog? 

The worst culprits are those that do pick up put the pooh in a plastic bag and then throw it into the hedgerow or side of the road etc, where it will not degrade for at least a 1,000 years!! At least if they had not put it in a plastic bag it would have degraded a bit quicker!! But...........they should pick up and take home!! 

@webmaster, appreciate the assistance on the shrinkage.

@Clive - your argument is 'dog mess on the beach!'. where do you think your 1's and 2's go, outer space? no, they get pump a short distance of shore to come back in on the tide. also when we have severe amounts of rain, emergency gates open and let even more out directly onto beaches, river's etc.  dog owner's contribute to where you live and relax as well. i've seen plenty of so called parents disposing of nappies where they shouldn't. if you don't like the high percentage of dog's and their owners you can always jog on. 

Human excrement does not get buried by the sand for unsuspecting children and adults to step on

It would be nice during the ban months to be able to enjoy the beaches with my poo(ch) after 6pm. Remember most dog owners are responsible. If you need help with your dog I have started Dog Training Dawlish. Look in Services section.

Any body walked through the pedestrian part of Secmaton Lane it is full of dog poo. Children walk this lane to gatehouse school, never mind training the dogs its the owners that want training. PICK UP AFTER YOUR DOG?

@ALLEMS - point taken, there are around five emergency overflows?  but at least timaru gardens secondary treatment the norm. to be expected and by eu standards dawlish bathing water quality is good to excellent.

there's 2 beaches in dawlish that dogs are banned from during the summer and I've been told wardens have been in there fining people who are taking their dogs on there - surely if you don't like dogs you could go on one of them... It's hardly a chore to walk right instead of left when you get to the beach is it... 

Having only recently got a dog I never realised how much hostility there was for them, it's not their fault if their owners aren't responsible. 

Personally I love to go on a beach that bans children - who (in my opinion) are in fact are much worse than dogs!! And while we're at it ban all the grumpy old people and tourists as well.... 

@OhCoralina - here, here.

Perhaps we should just ban OhCoralina instead.

@OhCoralina  - exactly right. ignore the old grumps like burneside who probably don't use our beaches anyway.

Well if grumpy old people were banned from the beaches you'd be the first to go.

Great advert for Dawlish.. .good thing Teignmouth lives and welcomes tourists!

Indeed, rather astonishing that a Town Councillor advocates banning certain groups of people from the beach.  

I agree with burneside and I think this is a breach of the code of conduct for Councillors 

It's a pity that grumpy old people aren't banned from here too!  Mind you it'd be rather quiet!  As for Phil Bagshaws first ever post  on here - he doesn't live on Riviera Terrace by any chance does he?

So you have finally come out of hiding Judith! I'd be very very careful what you say in the future! And NO, Phil Bagshaw does not live on Riviera Terrace, but I think you already know that don't you? 

Well if that was the case you would not be posting on here Mrs C. 

I have no idea what's going on?

I am a bit perplexed by Robert Vickery's post at  17.42 today as he is the Councillor who has led on the proposals for the Cultural Arts Pavilion, the sole aim being to bring big events into Dawlish on a regular basis, ie tourists, yet his post indicates that he would like to ban tourists! 

I think we all know it was a wry dig at Burneside not a manifesto for Dawlish, don't we?    What perplexes me more is why you would use it to promote your ongoing feud with a fellow councillor.  It degrades Dawlish. 

Maggie, yes I had a lovely holiday thank you for asking. I did however miss your, erm, "late-night" rants. 

Well I did not miss your slanderous comments, which I believe have been passed to those concerned.

Mcjrpc, I did not think it was a wry dig at Burneside, I thought it was a biased and prejudiced comment. For clarity, I have no on-going feud with any Councillor. If wanting the best for Dawlish, and endeavouring to make sure correct information about proposals for Dawlish get into the public domain, is being perceived as a feud then the perception is inaccurate. 

Biased and prejudiced against what - grumpiness? Anyway, thank goodness you're here to set the record straight and save us from those councillors who obviously don't want the best for Dawlish.  

Maggie, slanderous? Facts in the public domain cannot be slanderous! Expressing disquiet at the use of public donations is not slanderous, it's opinion made in the public interest. You have it your way, and forums such as this would all be closed down. As this thread demonstrates yet again, you're terrible with the misreading and misunderstanding aren't you - time and time again either deliberately or due to a foggy mind. 

@Margaret Swift. ref 13 july 0032, i wish that you would not misrepresent what i say in open session to the town council, or in presentations to the public, about the proposal to create new visitor interest on the lawn.

There is no "sole aim ...to bring big events into Dawlish on a regular basis". You have referred to me elsewhere in Discussions as "this appears to be the obsession of one particular Councillor, but at the yellow book stage I believe the concept of the cultural arts pavilion was deemed to be flawed and thrown out so it does beg the question why we are being presented now with a flawed plan? "

I am not obsessed by a single vision. As an architect I try to think laterally and seek solutions to problems that stare us in the face. For central Dawlish it is the challenge of greater and greater investment in Teignmouth and the clear evidence of shops, even charity shops, closing along with the banks to Teignmouth. I dd not seek election as a councillor to sit on my hands, and we have reversed the fatally flawed Transfer of Assets that would have bankrupted the town within ten years, added value to the Strand project by DCC, brought the Manor House back into a condition of which people can take pride in holding meetings and activities there (we will add the internal lift this autumn to complete access to all levels), taken a forward role in getting pedestrian signage installed and encourage the production of the Shopper's map, as well as largely un-noticed installation of benches for public use at beauty spots around the town.

You sit in Council meetings, as does your hubby Phil Bagshaw in the audience, and have heard me state that the current Lawn proposal has three related parts. There is a playpark to encourage visitors with children to dally a while longer and perhaps buy food in the town to have a picnic on the large expanse of the Lawn which will not be touched by this scheme. The playpark will be protected by low fencing to exclude dogs and strollers from wandering among the children at play while their parents may listen to music, watch dance, anything of small or large scale that can be performed on the improved open stage.

The performance stage is wide and shallow compared with the deep and narrow box provided by the bandstand. There will also be seating stored in the building to bring out and place on the Lawn in front of the stage. If there is an open-air theatre event the seats can be allocated and paid for to ensure that an income is derived to pay for such an event (the last open-air theatre that visited Dawlish was Kneehigh eighteen years ago!). Open air theatre is seasonal and does not threaten the permanent theatre provided by the Shaftesbury, nearby. 'Back stage' facilities could be found in the attached foyer.

The third element is the provision of a heritage/ visitors 'foyer'. I have used that word regularly to describe a space within which tourists can discover something of the history and current attractions of Dawlish which may lead them to walk further or look again at, e.g. the waterfowl collection, the Town Museum, the way the railway winds along the coats, the extensive Bernard Chapman photographic collection, with greater understanding and renewed interest. Additionally, and particularly through the colder months when the open stage will not be usable on a regular basis, the front of the stage can be closed against the weather and combined internally with the visitor space to provide a venue for small exhibitions and other events. To imagine the difference it may make, think of those autumn and spring days when coachloads of visitors arrive at Tucks Plot, look around at an empty Lawn and quiet, quaint town, and clamber back aboard their coaches.

Finally, the 'yellow book' town centre masterplan plan was prepared for Dawlish Community Trust (DCT) with SWRDA funding and provided a guide to the town's regeneration. It was two years later that an opportunity was provided in the Sea Change programme to apply for funding and a feasibility study was proposed by DCT and accepted by the Town Council. The outline brief was handed to TDC to prepare a study which incorporated a replacement bandstand, exhibition space and cafe and was handed to TDC's architects. It took some months to develop and when complete showed that the cafe element would not provide payback within three years. The Sea Change programme was brought to an early end by the Government and the possibility of amending the scheme and continuing to construction disappeared. There was a public consultation on this proposal alongside TDC's Amberline Coast study. I am now quite glad that the Government frustrated further progress because the proposed site was on the edge of the Strand and would have had a far greater influence on the uses that could be developed on the main part of the Lawn. The current proposals have taken account of the earlier study and omit the cafe, not only because of the economic lesson learned but also because it would have harmed existing cafe and restaurant businesses.

I have laid down a lot of facts already known to some people and promise not to repeat them.

Just one question Vickery, how exactly do you intend to cordon off the lawn to ensure that only people who have paid for tickets can view a performance?

@Mrs C/Judith Chalmers

If you believe your original post was legitimate why did you then remove it so quickly?   Thankfully a screenshot was taken which can be used in the future if necessary.  

I am so pleased the owners of Red Rock cafe have received front page publicity in the Gazette on their reopening.

Burneside has hit the nail on the head Mrs C. As to having a foggy mind, I wonder what you mean by that! Foggy or not I do not leave myself wide open to legal challenge.

Come guys... How easy are you all to wind up... Although given the small minded views I've seen on here so often I can understand why you think I might have been serious...! Life's too short to spend all your time on here bickering like school children (que more moaning and bickering no doubt) 

Dawlish is an amazing place to live, why not take whatever enjoyment you can get rather than moan!! :) peace out!! 

Oh the irony, it turns out Mrs C was correct.   I won't be posting the press report, but it's out there on t'interweb.  

Humble pie anyone?  

@Mcjrpc

Did you actually see the post from Mrs C/Judith Chalmers before she swiftly pulled it down?   I think the owners of Red Rock cafe have a strong case should they wish to pursue it.

This is all easily resolved, Mrs C put your post back on the thread. 

Dear oh dear Maggie, 18:05 is a bit early even for you isn't it?  How can I put back something that is deleted, and was deleted by the way at the request of someone whom I respect. You're the weirdo who took a copy, so you put it back on! Thanks Mjrpc on here and also to those who have privately messaged me with their support for my query AND for my right to query.  Try looking at the facts Maggie, and stop your personal feuds from clouding everything that you see and everything that you think you see. 

Back to the original subject NO DOGS ON BEACH

get over it 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BHQT3Omqtw

Perhaps this might be the solution

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/dog-owners-in-deep-doo-doo-if-they-don-t-bin-it-on-clare-beaches

As highlighted for jocularity in Radio 4's 'Have I got News for You', this tannoy system is claimed to be 'motion-activated'.