General Discussion
Full details of the proposals for the Lawn are now on the Town Council website
To see the information, copy the link below to your browser
To ensure the Town Council present an unbiased view then people also need to make sure they view the planning application for the Cultual Arts Pavillion submitted to Teignbridge Council as this then provides a rounded picture of the scale of the proposed Pavillion. I am sure both sets of documents will be on view during the consultation process so everyone can view all documentation related to this proposal.
Many thanks for the link Michael. The proposal looks even better than I imagined! I pray that the town wins the funding to allow this exciting, imaginative and inspirational plan to come to fruition. Everything is crossed, but do you know a timescale for the funding decision to be made?
I think the people of Dawlish have to support the proposal first - and that is far from guaranteed.
Judith, I can answer your question. We will know by mid-July if we have got through the first hurdle. If we have, we then have to submit even more detailed plans by October. The final outcome will be announced in February 2015. If DTC are successful at that stage then work has to commence by September 2015 and be completed by the summer of 2016. Let us all hope that the work carried out is in line with the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Dawlish, after all, they are the ones who have to live with whatever is built on the lawn
@Margaret Swift - i am not quite sure of the point that you make in your 20:21. are you implying that the town council is presenting a biased set of images which are different from those submitted with the planning application?
The reason for placing the architects' drawings on the Town Council website is to allow people who have found extreme difficulty reading the drawings on the Teignbridge Planning website to see them in greater clarity on their home computer before jduging the response they may make in the online questionnaire.
The drawings that are on display are those supplied by the architect and are drawn to stated scales on each drawing, and you can reliably measure dimensions at those scales from those drawings.
There is only one additional drawing on display, and that is the site plan which shows the pavilion in the context of the whole length of the Lawn. That is because some people who viewed the TDC website and looked at the submitted site plan assumed they were looking at a representation of the full Lawn, and immediately flew to the conclusion that "the building will take up half of the Lawn". That is perhaps a reasonable reaction if they are not familiar with technical drawings, and for that reason I asked the architects to provide an extended version of the site plan that shows the building in context.
There is no change in the siting or the extent of the proposals in either set of drawings, and people have no need to refer back to the TDC website.
For those people who are viewing these larger images on their home computers, there is clearly no ability to measure directly from the screen, or even from a screen-print image. The original image may have been a jpeg or pdf, supplied by the architect, and each has been loaded on the Town Council website to fill the screen so that as much detail as possible is visible. If you are using a 13" screen on a laptop the image will be approx half the size of a 24" PC screen, so the best thing for those who wish to examine detail is to attend one of the exhibition days, as outlined by Michael Clayson above.
I hope that this is the assurance you are seeking in your posting.
Responding for Michael, the published timescale for Coastal Communities (CCF) gives mid-July for the point at which they decide which applications may go forward to Stage 2. We also have crossed fingers as we believe that many projects rejected in the first two rounds of bidding may have returned for another go, and so competition is likely to be fierce.
If a project is invited to Stage 2 they have until the end of October to expand the detail of the bid and provide any outstanding assurances (land lease, planning approval, etc.,). CCF state that finally they will announce awards in February 2015. We have worked with the architects to develop a scheme which can start on site after Carnival and Air Show 2015 and be complete by June 2016, to comply with CCF requirements and fit our quieter visitor seasons.
The point I am a making is that both the architect plans AND the plans submitted to Teignbridge planning committee should be, and I hope are, on display side by side for the consultation process so everyone can view the proposals in the round.
@Bob Vickery, I am not assured if the only plans on display at the consultation venues are the architect plans. Both sets of plans need to be on display to enable people to make an informed decision.
@Margaret
Please can you explain why you think the drawings on the council website and those contained within the planning application are different?
its exactly the same proposal and the same drawings. There is simply one extra drawing to show the planned development in the context of the whole park rather than just one section.
If that is the case then there is NO reason whatsoever to NOT have both sets of plans at the consultation venues. Let us have both the architect plans AND the planning application plans displayed side by side.
Dear me! Robert Vickery's post at 21.50 sounds like a done deal even before the people of Dawlish have been consulted!
Quote "We have worked with the architects to develop a scheme which can start on site after Carnival and Air Show 2015 and be complete by June 2016, to comply with CCF requirements and fit our quieter visitor seasons".
Deeply worrying for the people of Dawlish!
Margaret, what's more worrying is the number of occasions that you completely misunderstand or misinterpret postings on this website. For the sake of your constituents, I really hope that the same doesn't happen in chambers.
Nothing is a done deal, it can't be as the funding isn't there yet!!! As you well know but either deliberately or absentmindedly forget.
Oh dear Judith, too much liaison with Councillor Clayson who refers to his electorate rather grandly as his constituents! As local Councillors we have electors, only Members of Parliament have constituents.
But... No I don't misunderstand or misinterpret I just don't use smoke and mirrors to try and confuse people. If the drawings are the same then why not display both? Unless, of course, there is something to hide! It really isn't rocket or any other science.
For the absolute record, I have no idea who "Judith Chalmers" is, and have never had any liaison, communication, discussion, contact or any other involvement with this person about postings on this site.
Please can we keep to the issue of what form of change, if any, the people of Dawlish want in the town centre. There is a serious consultation underway.
I absolutely agree, there is a serious consultation underway and that has happened because some Councillors forced the issue and insisted upon a timely consultation and on proper procedures for the collection and analysis of the completed surveys.
@Margaret Swift. your 2207 requires an answer from me? do you not understand that the only plans that are in circulation were drawn by our architects and not a fabrication by me? the same drawings were submitted for planning as those we are displaying. if you don't believe me.....i give up. i think that you are trying desperately to create a smokescreen to confuse other members of the public. i watched you take copious notes when i gave the presentation to town councillors and members of the chamber of trade last week and you must have understood because you asked but one question.
I find this thread absurd and I am going to bed.
Fine, then display both the architect plans and the plans submitted to Teignbridge council, in fact, I am assuming that is what will happen as to do anything different would be absurd. I too am off to bed!
All looks good to me ..... except (there's always one isn't there!) the play park equipment which is fine for a rural setting but will look cheap and unfinished in a town centre location. I think that needs a re-think.
Thanks Huw
Appreciate your comment, including the advice regarding the proposed play equipment. I hope you also make your comment on one of the consultation forms (paper or online) so that it can be included in the evaluation.
Super facility just in the wrong place. Needs to be either on the Warren or part of bigger development of Shutterton. When it comes to mass public entertainment the Warren is ideal good parking, toilets, open space, the sound system can be oriented out to sea so less noise impact. It could also be more easily accessable from town if the re-development of the sea wall is more carefully planned. Why can DTC not see the potential in this. Building it on the lawn is just not viable and will produce another white elephant, let alone be a total waste of the hard thought cash. This is not the first attempt to build such on the lawn so having failed at least once maybe twice before why keep wasting time and rescources on it.
No answer to a previous question regarding the past plan for car parking being refused by the environment agency as they considered it liable to flooding . Car park, cultural centre, whats the difference when it comes down to public safety.
Also still no proof from councillor Vickery that TDC actually hold the deeds and are the legal owners of the land, something which I asked should be shown alongside the planning documents at the road shows.
@fred
The new proposals are designed to reduce flood risk. By removing the massive Tarmac apron it will significantly reduce the impermeable surface area
With regard to ownership of the Lawn. Teignbridge is totally satisfied that they own the land and can prove that they have controlled and maintained it for decades
Thanks for the suggestion re the Warren. I hope you will fill out a consultation form so this can be included in the evaluation
@michaelclayson - i think you will find the impermeable surface area actually increases by 300-400%!
If the councillors want to have a running arguement over this issue. Would it not be more fitting to do it during a council meeting. It's only my own opinion, but it doesn't give me confidence in how this planning process is going.
The area of hard standing for the new bandstand is larger than the original bandstand area. Then add the play park hardstanding. Now add the new basketball court and finally add the additional 2 pedestrian walkways that cross, what was lawn, to the back of the new bandstand.
The new development on the plans shows an area of nearly 40-50% of grass area of The Lawn.
@michaelclayson- so your answer , on the deeds question to fredbassett is that you do not actually hold the deeds? you are saying the land belongs to teignbridge because it has been maintained and controlled the area for decades. i would have thought, legal, teignbridge still need to go through the legal process to have the land placed in their charge. during this process it will give the true owners, who ever they maybe, a right to challenge. i don't believe that your statement gives teignbridge the right to legally go ahead and submit plans on land that is currently not legally theirs. i would appreciate your feedback as to the legal stand point i have made. i feel the legal ownership of the land should be confirmed before any further actions are taken on the bandstand plans.
@michael
Hear and understand what you are saying but as always you provide nothing to back it up.
Tarmac or grass an area designated as being unsuitable for development due to the high risk of flood by the environment agency, remains unsuitable unless major work is done to elieviate the risk. In this case that work has not been done.
As to ownership again whillst both the town and district councils have each taken turns at maintaining and deciding what and what cannot happen there. The point remains that unless they hold a tittle deed with the land registry in their name they are not the legal owners of the land. It only takes one document to prove this and is a two minute job to obtain a copy, however this seems to be not posible.
Originally the council was charged with maintaining the land and ensuring it was only ever used for the public use and entertainment of the people of Dawlish and their visitors. This does not mean that they in turn own the land, which is the point I and others are trying to make. As far as i,m aware documentary evidence of land ownership goes back many many years so lets see in written form when and why ownership of the land transfered from the residents of Dawlish to TDC. Thanks in advance
Dear Allems
I would love the opportunity to talk to you in person about this, if you come to one of the consultation events we could have a look at the drawings together. Alternatively you can ring me on 888378 and we can fix a time to meet. I truly don't see from the information provided how the calculation of 300 to 400% can be made.
With regard to legal title, the land has been in public ownership for well over 100 years. How otherwise could not one but two previous bandstands be built? At one time there were tennis courts on the land. The current Bowls Court is built on land leased from TeignbrIdge. You can be assured however that the town council will not sign any lease without the necessary assurance from our solicitors that it is legally valid
@ Fred
i am not an expert on land drainage. I have to rely on the information provided to me by the experts we employ, I have passed on the explanation given in good faith.
Robert has already explained that all assets owned by Dawlish Urban Council were transferred to Teignbridge when the old Urban Council was dissolved in 1974. I would also point out that Dawlish Town Council leased the entire Lawn from Teignbridge under the past administration within the Transfer of Assets scheme. This was all done properly and legally with solicitors employed by the Town Council to check the validity. So as recently as 2010 this very issue has been legally tested.
Once again your beating around the bush. As a freehold land owner myself I have a simple two page document known as a tittle deed which clearly shows the name and details of the land owner. All we ask is that you or TDC provide a copy of this document refering to the lawn. If everything was checked and above board as recently as 2010 why is it proving so difficult to provide this document. I can download mine in a matter of minutes from the land registry web site. It is irrelevent what agreements between DTC and TDC are in or have previously been in force as you both represent local authority and are accountable to the rate payers and electorate. Please stop the childish excuses and obtain a copy of the tittle deed as requested and display it with the other documents. You were voted into office to represent the people of Dawlish not to make excuses for the incompetance of the district council.
Given that two Councillors have been seen out this morning measuring around the bandstand area, it does make you wonder about the integrity of the plans on display.
@ burnside
They havent got a clue, the whole project was rushed through at the last minute when the prospect of funding was discovered, and has subsequently cost us thousands thats without planning permission or a brick being laid. Imagine what the continuing costs are going to be. All this I suspect being funded by the money they got for the sale of Park Road without any public consultation until now.
Goodness me, there's a lot of bickering on here - I don't wish to get involved in all that - but for what it's worth, I think it's a great design, and will be a great asset to the town: It doesn't take up nearly as much space on the green that I've been led to believe, and even so I don't think people think "Let's go to Dawlish, there's some lovely grass there". There will still be a huge area of undeveloped ,lovely parkland even if this got built - look at Teignmouth, a nice seafront, the crazy golf, park, and a large area of grass too - it can be done! We desperately need to make Dawlish's offer better - we can't rely on the beach and some grass to bring people in, we need more people at that end of town, look how many empty shops there are at the moment. Finally, I imagine there will be more events here if this gets built - which can only be a good thing for the residents - in addition of course to the Shaftesbury theatre etc. We are a large(ish!) town, and it's about time we had the facilities of one.
When the word 'town' is used just what is it people have in mind? The size of the shopping area, the overall area of the town (by which I mean urban and suburban land area combined) or the population of the town?
Dawlish population - circa 13,800
T'mouth population - circa 14,500
Exactly, so not a huge difference. We’re still larger than Dartmouth, Tavistock, Honiton, Totnes etc.
I agree, if it's done on facilities, shops etc, then yes Teignmouth is "bigger". That was kind of my point really.
Correct me if Im wrong Lynne, but is Holcombe classed as Dawlish, I always think of it as Teignmouth
Irrespective of geography and nearness to Teignmouth I believe Holcombe is in the parish of Dawlish as is lots of the property to the east of Teignmouth. Have you noticed where the "Welcome to Teignmouth" sign is when you go to Teignmouth from Dawlish? Well, all those houses the Dawlish side of it are in Dawlish and not Teignmouth irrespective of their closeness to Teignmouth.
this link should show you the boundary of the Dawlish South West local council ward. Note that it goes as far as Sprey Point and includes Holcombe.
It is classed as Dawlish, its postal address is Dawlish, EX7.
Population ~800
1.4 miles from Dawlish, 1.9 miles from Teignmouth.
Does this mean we can have a nice pavillion now?! 
I have no opinion one way or the other on the Pavillion or The Lawn, I very rarely go into Dawlish centre, too busy commuting outside the area for work
Hate the name "Cultural Pavilion" (sounds like something from North Korea) but very much in favour of a venue, or set of venues, where performances can be put on. At the moment we have (1) the Shaftesbury (the only venue with a stage, lights etc), (2) the Manor House and (3) various churches and their attendant halls (including the Strand Centre in that class). Most of these are uncomfortable, unwelcoming and pretty bad acoustically. Really nowhere near enough for a community like ours.
For those that are interested. In addition to making requests on this thread for the town or district council to provide proof that they own the land known and referrred to as the Lawn, by simple way of a tittle deed. I also sent a pesonal message to councillor Clayson asking what the problem in obtaining such a document was.
Quess what folks, totally ignored, which goes a long way to proving the point. Will be making the same request via the freedom of information channel and if that draws a blank I think we can safely assume that niether council own the Lawn and we are being scammed by the very peolple we elected to ensure things like this didnt happen.
Please take this into account when you fill in your survey forms and question their ownership or this project and no doubt others will cost the rate payers for years to come. In addition you may wish to question how the town council can afford to staff and operate the building in the future.
FredBassett has made a reasonable request to our elected officials. To produce a copy of the title deeds for the property they intend to change dramatically from its current configuration. The longer the delay in producing this document, the more doubt is placed on the ownership, by them, of the property. Produce the document proving ownership and resolve this issue. It doesn't matter what excuses are given as to who owns the land based on previous actions. If you don't hold the title deed the land CAN be a subject of a LEGAL DISPUTE of its ownership. Do we want to go down that road? I think not.
The people of Dawlish who are being asked to pay for something they already own, by a District council who claim to own it but dont seem to be able to prove it, backed by a town council who say the district council own it so that they dont have to pay to maintain it.
I am prepared to believe that Teignbridge is more than capable of asserting in a court of law that there is ample evidence that they own the Lawn, and can point to decades of evidence of this being put to practical effect in addition to whatever the paperwork says.
Fred as you know there are pieces of land all over the country that District, Town Council's own and yet there are no deeds for. These can be areas that they have taken over the maintainance for and eventualy they take ownership. The why's and where for's of these plots and who own's them get lost in time folk forget and document's are mislaid it has always been my belief that it was given to the people of Dawlish but was it ??. So if this is so did the people of Dawlish give there permission for the bandstand to be built, the wildfowl enclosure, the Strand alterations that encroached onto the Lawn area or the Bowling Green. We all know that the land was granted to the Bishop of Exeter in 1044 by Edward The Confessor and then sold in 1802 and soon afterwards landscaped but who bought it History gets a little vague at this point i would imagine ownership fell into the hands of those who maintained it.
Fred, I did as you suggested and downloaded the title plans and deeds from the Land Registry. The registered owner is Teignbridge District Council. So why the song and dance about it not being registerered?
Ok copy and paste then. So who said it wasent registered and why could the town council not manage to do it and why did Mr Clayson have to pass matters onto Teignbridge's estates office.
Fred, you are a caution. You've initiated an ill-founded rumour, peddled it as truth, made me (and those who clicked the agree button on your posts) believe you knew what you were talking about, sent Cllr Clayson on a wild goose chase then chastised him, TDC and the Town Council for not getting you instant answers. And now you're distancing yourself from your rumour, demanding that I disprove it to you and criticising everyone for giving your claims credence in the first place. Genius!
It's too big to cut and paste but here's what you could have done at the outset. The deed number is DN512530.
Not as simple as you make out, here's the bit that's missing when did TDC obtain tittle to the land, who did they buy it from and how much did they pay for it. Or did they just lay claim to it as sugested by cllr Vickery
There is no ill-founded rumour the land known as the lawn formerly part of the Luscombe Estate was definatley given to the people of Dawlish to be used for public entertainment. It was formerly tennis courts and this information is readiIy available.
My issue was with the point that niether DTC or TDC where prepared to prove ownership of the land, and to that point they still havent, you say you have and have probably spent £14.95 in doing so, which would suggest a vested interest in the lawn project, or why would you do that.
If you google the deed number you will see that somebody made a freedom of information request on TDC in 2011 they refused to provide a copy of the deed then, but did advise that DN512530 refered.
If your happy with your findings thats ok however we still dont know how TDC aquired right of tittle, and its looking like we arent going to find out. I have certainly made no "demands" of anyone, only reasonable requests for proof. Have also not criticised "everyone" only the ones in public office who still havent provided the requested info.
Do you have a particular problem with people who question local government decisions and actions or do you really not care about what they waste tax payers money on and how projects like this impose on public open spaces. Please respect the fact that not everyone voted for the Voices of Dawlish or the Conservative councillors.
Fred, I have an answer for you. Next April there will be new elections to town and district councils and I will probably not put myself forward again. (That should make you happy). So, put your nomination form in and get on the town council and then you can pass your hours chasing useless information instead of getting others to do it for you.
What really puzzles me is what you will do with the information you are seeking. Are you going to write a history of The Lawn for local publication? You can't change the facts as they exist, so what is the purpose of your enquiries?
Fred, if you read my other posts you will know I'm not a fan of the proposals, so suggesting I have a vested interest or a party political bias is grasping at straws.
I've got a lot of time for challenges to any 'authority' which is why I checked it out in the first place. It cost £3 to look at the title plan and another £3 to find out who the registered owner was. As for the request under the Freedom of Information Act - you didn't mention that TDC refused to provide the deed because it would be cheaper for the enquirer to get it themselves from the Land Registry. Is that a conspiracy or appropriate use of taxpayers' money? https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=29099&p=0
I'm open minded about your allegations but so far you've just cast doubt without substantiating anything. So the land was given to the people of Dawlish for public entertainment. You, I and others may not like the proposals but how are they inconsistent with that intention?
Next year's elections will be interesting, I suspect some of the present Councillors could be looking for other ways to occupy their time once the electorate have had their say.
As you and your colleage have taken the decision not to respond to a valid request for information then sorry but you will have to remain puzzled.
As for standing for election next year, well maybe not, being told what and what not to say or do by the old school at Teignbridge dosent fit into my agenda.
I wish you luck with your appication for funding in order to build your folly, but as you will not be standing again it seems you wont be around to take the flack when it turns out not to be what the majority who express an interest want to see, as was the Strand development. Will Mr Clayson also be standing down or will the Voices For Dawlish attempt to carry on in silence.
Actually Fred, I think you should stand and, like me, be a completely independent Councillor so you do not have to dance to other's tunes and not feel obliged to support proposals that are not in tune with the people of Dawlish.
If there were to be say a collection of voters out there who I thought would support such an application then I may be persueded to stand however my political tendancy to lean very much to the right wing may not be seen as tempting to the majority. Unless you know differently.
Fred, on a Town Council we should all be working for the people of Dawlish and representing their views, which is what you clearly do, and not working for self - interest and glorification, so you would be a great candidate for the Town Council.
Question for you. On your downloaded copy of the deeds for the lawn, did you by any chance come across a clause within preventing any form of building dating back to around the mid to late 60s. I did sugest to you it wasent all straight foward didnt I. Now why do you think TDC wont provide a copy for public viewing.
No Fred, I wouldn't overlook that given I don't like the look of the plans. It doesn't detail any restrictive covenants, it refers to rights assigned. Where did you get the information about building restrictions? Happy to email it if you would like to see it, but as mentioned anyone can get it for £6. Even so, I thought your point was that TDC is not the registered owner?
@Mcjrpc, unfortunatly I don't think it is possible to upload pdfs at the moment, but if you email it to me - webmaster@dawlish.com - I can upload it and post a link here.
Thanks, Webmaster, have emailed it. These two links are interesting. A 'masterplan' by Dawlish Community Trust from 2008. Haven't read it yet but see page 53 for plans for the Lawn then. Also a history of the Lawn - I'd like the 1906 bandstand back please!
http://www.dawlishhistory.org.uk/articles/newsletters/Newsletter2011Jul.pdf
https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=33319&p=0
that second link that Mcjrpc has given will take you to the Yellow Book proposals that some of us who were living here in 2008 may remember.
See in particular 10.4 on page 53 and also the illustration (figure 10.3) on page 59.
Thanks Lynne. As already stated by others, 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?
So thats it then the people of Dawlish have already bought and paid for the lawn so no need to pay Teignbridge District Council a lease for 30 years, and I agree with Mcjrpc lets have the 1906 Bandstand back with Sunday band concerts throghout the spring and summer. In addition please give the black swans a fighting chance by bringing in some new blood. Haven't things changed since the Yellow book was produced.
I agree with Ken. Whatever happened to the swan Cignets that were born last year, how many were there was it four? Yes, the bandstand would be great. I remember going to the local park as a kid and sat with many hundreds of people on a Sunday afternoon to listen to the band playing.
I have read the 100 page report and find it somewhat ambiguous at best.
A friend of mine offered his solution with very attractive rates. Maybe Teignbridge should give it a try, or even buy their own
Just to throw some more fat (a very appropriate term as you will see) into this particular fire.........I've just been watching a feature on BBC News this morning about type 2 diabetes and the nation's weight problem.
Now.......as part of the way to solve the diabetes problem is for people not to be fat, one way of getting fat off is by exercising more. The BBC then showed an outside exercise area full of equipment in the London borough of Brent where people of all ages can go to use the equipment.
Just wondered if such a facility might be of use in Dawlish? After all if the kiddies can have their play parks, and the youngsers their basket ball nets, why not the adults their outside exercise equipment?
Yes Lynne good idea but not on the Lawn. There simply isn't enough room for it all and to keep a decent green area for the many uses it has currently.
how about using some of the area at Sandy Lane. A decent play park with a section of the equipment would go nice there.Parking nearby, leisure centre, skate park and the Blackdown Centre could be knocked down and a nice little cafe put there instead.
Want happen though, too ordinary - not enough culture ;-)
I've always thought the art deco pavilion at Sandy lane playing fields would make a great cafe. What about section 106 monies from all the new housing development taking place/scheduled to take place being used in the way Duckileaks suggests? After all much of the new housing is/will be within walking distance of the playing fields & leisure centre.
Brooklyn Bride that is exactly what happens in Dartmouth now! They have a beautiful bandstand in their town centre gardens, which is entirely in keeping with the historic town, and bands play weekends throughout the season to large crowds.
Agree with you on that one, that old cricket pavilion is a lovely building and as you say would make an excellent cafe or adult only wine bar, and a focal point for say the mobile stage as above.
Adding to the excerise equipment idea, that stage trailer when empty can also accomodate those sort of machines ie treadmills and bikes plus weight training equip. Has a sound system for areobic teaching
It also has the advantage of being able to move so a couple of days at sandy lane then the warren, Starcross etc.
What a brilliant idea.
I agree with both Lynne and Fred, it really is this sort of creative thinking our town needs!
Margaret - it's not the first time this idea has been thought of.
Probably won't be the first time it's ignored either!
I totally agree with Lynne and Duckileaks. The play park needs to be at Sandy Lane. There are a lot of local youngsters who use the park after school and at weekends who may not want to or be allowed to go into town.
As you say Duckileaks it's not the first time this idea has been thought of.
https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/33269
Exercise equipment is a bit old hat, it was done on the continent years ago. The novelty would quickly wear off and it'd soon become another white elephant. If people want to exercise in public places they could be out doing Tai Chi on the Lawn.
I have heard figures of in the region upto £17,000 already being spent on this project, would any councillor be honest enough to say what has been spent and how much more would need to be for this project to go through to build stage.
I am a Town Councillor and have the figures from our Town Council meeting of April 2, 2014 which can also be seen in the published Minutes on the Town Council website.
A proposal was put to that meeting to consider submitting a bid to the Coastal Communities Fund (CCF) by April 30, 2014 (The closing date) which required that a Planning Application had to be submitted to the District Council. As this final round of the CCF scheme widened the scope to include communities affected by the winter storms and flooding, and supporting existing jobs as well as job creation, the Town Council voted to wholeheartedly supported the proposal. Architects were appointed to provide drawings and a number of necessary reports to enable the planning application to be validated within the remaining 28 days.
The cost of the professional work in preparing the submisssion and Planning Application was £21,878. This sum was found from savings elsewhere in the Town Council budget. The cost of councillor time in developing the Brief, attending meetings and preparing the bid is not repaid, i.e. costs nothing.
Previously, members of the Town Council had met with Teignbridge District Council (TDC) members and officers to ask if TDC would be making the bid on behalf of Dawlish. They explained that they had staff committed elsewhere within the timescale required for the bid and could not help with that process.
The bid request to CCF is £963,483 to completion of construction of all elements.
Finally, to give you the full picture, CCF has stated that invitations to proceed to Stage 2 will be announced in mid-July. Should the Town Council not be among those invited to complete the bid then we have a solid model of a scheme that can be adjusted against the comments received from the 600+ survey forms and give this town the opportunity of seeking funding elsewhere for whatever may finally be agreed as meeting the urgent needs of Dawlish for economic regeneration.
If the bid to CCF went to Stage 2 and was eventually successful, could the plans be amended to take account of the submitted survey forms? For example, if the pavilion was not wanted but a new bandstand was, could the funds still be used for a bandstand and the surplus given back to CCF or is it all or nothing?
Mcjrpc, I await the answer to your question with bated breath! As a Councillor I do not know the answer as I have heard several different answers to the same question.
As a Councillor I do need to point out the error in Councillor Vickery's post where he says the cost of Councillor time is not repaid, Councillors are volunteers, they do not get paid for the time they spend on council business so there is no financial cost.
Ok, let's get one thing out of the way. It was not an error, just clumsy phrasing. Town councillors are elected but receive no salary or attendance fees, unlike District and County Councillors. I have no issue with that, but there are members of the public who sometimes imagine that we are paid for our time like first and second tiers of local government.
If we are invited to compete in Stage 2, the material has to be produced by the end of October and it is our intention, already expressed in town council session, to see in what form the project might proceed to reflect any clear majority view. We have also said that if the public survey shows that the proposals are not supported at all, i.e. nothing is to be built on the Lawn, we will have to tell CCF "Thank you, but No, Thank you", and I can look forward to having a late summer holiday. The middle path is less clear and we would need to go back to CCF for a decision if only one element is supported, as you describe. I suspect that they will then rule us out of consideration because our proposal is an inter-related regeneration idea within the scope of CCF's overall criteria.