General Discussion
There is a Council meeting on Wednesday 30 July at 7pm to discuss the results of the consultation on the developments for the lawn. Everyone welcome. Thanks.
The agenda item is "To consider the means of evaluating the data and comments from the consultation process on the Lawn Project as defined for the stage one bid."
Coastal Communities Fund has announced their decision on the stage one bid. They are not supporting the project, and it will not be proceeding to stage two consideration in its present form.
However, CCF is keen to support Dawlish and so they are suggesting that the Town Council and Sustrans (Who were bidding for funding linked to cycle trails) get together and write a new joint bid which could then be considered at stage 2 of the CCF process.
CCF is hosting a meeting in Exeter involving our Mayor and three other councillors sitting down with Sustrans to discuss what such a joint scheme might consist of. The outcomes of that discussion will be reported back to a Town Council meeting later this month (Date not yet set)
So, that is where we are so far. It looks like any bid that may go forward to stage 2 would be on a smaller scale than was proposed at stage one. That should come as good news to many.
@Mcjrpc I was unable to attend the meeting last night but, from the report I got after the meeting, what michael clayson says above would appear to be accurate. However, I was also told that at the end of the meeting the council voted to continue with the planning application for the proposed cultural arts pavilion so it really is a confused picture.
Margaret
On the advice of CCF we are continuing the planning process as a means of obtaining detailed views from TDC and agencies such as Environment about land and other planning issues related to replacing the Bandstand.
That is the only reason why the planning application has not been withdrawn. Were it not for this CCF advice I would personally have voted for withdrawing the planning application as it is clear to everyone that the initial proposal made under stage one is not proceeding.
If people on this thread would like accurate information please read the minutes of the council meeting last night which will be available soon. Michael is quite right as it was recommended by the CCF and others who were at the meeting with extensive planning experience all councillors present agreed that this was the best thing to do.
Thank you. Seems sensible to me (although the conspiracy theorists will probably see it differently).
Can we now have resignations from the council members responsible for wasting the towns and tax payers money on this folly?
And if our representatives hadn't have applied for this last-in-a-lifetime funding, then I'm sure that the same old moaning ostriches would have been demanding why they didn't!
You've quickly forgotten that of those who took part in the consultation, more preferred what you call a folly than preferred either of the other two options. Despite the fact that from those that preferred the pavilion there were no pro-forma responses, unlike the responses from the anti-brigade.
And now we're left with the eyesore laughingly called a bandstand. I bet you're really pleased about that.
I look forward to voting for whoever is standing against FredBassett in the next town council elections.
Time you shut up and resigned with them, like most of the posters on here would prefer. Just for your deaf ears I will not be standing for council. What would be the the point?
Anyone who has listened carefully to explanations of the Coastal Communities Fund Third Round process will know that one condition of application is that a Planning Application had to be submitted and registered, for the Bid submission to be valid. Now I know that small alterations to homes are sometimes drafted on graph paper in the kitchen, and give barely adequate information for a planning committee to form a sensible view of a scheme, but this project had to be prepared by professionals in double-quick time and supported by planning reports that would be accepted by the District Council as a valid full design application. So, it was voted by the Town Council that architects should produce a scheme on which costs could be assessed so that the written submission to CCF could be completed in barely four weeks. Our bid was for £1 million + or - a few pennies.
CCF have told us that the bid AS SUBMITTED was unsuccessful, but in the next breath they also say that they are very,very keen to deliver a project in Dawlish. They have also let us know that they had bids totalling £153 million for a pot of £42 million that they can distribute. So, the Town Council has agreed that they will go to the meeting and discover how much they may be able to negotiate, and for what elements of the original project, before turning down that offer. The money spent so far has enabled us to get our foot through the door, and given the public an opportunity to imagine a future for central Dawlish that may be more than cobwebs and closed shops. I don't suppose that will stop FredBassett bleating, but I hope it helps others understand why there is still a will to live.
Why are you still going on about your folly, its over the money isent forthcoming, and you and your mate Clayson have lost the town as Burnside has quoted in excess of £23,000.
Its time you both now did the decent thing and resigned. Take a close look at the objections to your planning application, and to the numerous letters of objection in the local press and bow out gracefully.
By the way I dont bleat as Im not a councillor only the sheep like yourself do that in order to get recognised at TDC or DCC.
A civil question so I will answer you. The RIBA fee scale for architects is an established scale on which to calaculate professional fees, in this case up to Stage C -Sketch design. As well, there were fee costs for structural engineer input, and quantity surveying input. Other costs accrued to a Flood Risk survey and an environmental survey - all of which are necessary elements to accompany a Planning Application. Remember that this is/was for a project totalling nearly £1 million. The Town Council commissions specialists as and when needed to provide such services, as do the District Council and, nowadays, the County Council. This has been considered to be less costly than employing retained professional personnel.
burnside (Bernard ). Please don't be so disrespectful to Cllr Vickery nobody is being disrespectful to your sister Cllr Swift. Why are you doing as you live in London and you don't know any of the Dawlish councillors. This vicious vendetta has to stop.
well now.........if, by submitting that bid to the CCF, Dawlish ends up with CCF financial input for some kind of project aimed at boosting the local economy then won't the £23,000 spent by the town council have been money well spent?
Not that for one moment do I think that whatsoever the CCF say they are prepared to fund will be agreeable to everyone because it goes without saying that it won't be. Just that if the total public monies spent attracts more people to the town = more private money being spent here then surely the public expenditure will prove to have been cost effective.
And talking of money and seaside towns - didn't take Cameron and Osborne long did it to get down to Eastbourne and promise all sort of funding for its burnt out pier. Wonder if Eastbourne is a Tory/Lib Dem marginal seat by any chance? Tories afraid of the UKIP factor as well apparently. (and what is also 'interesting' about that input of public money is that from what I can gather Eastbourne Pier is privately owned and was insured. So.......if the owners can claim on private money via their insurers to restore the pier why is public sector money being promised? Something for you to look into Annother46?)
Thank you Lynne, that is exactly the point.
I have been lobbying for Teignbridge to do a public consultation on plans for the Lawn for some time now, reminding them that a scheme for the town has been promised since February 2012.
Unfortunately they didn't do it, and faced with CCF opening up a unique opportunity this year for storm towns to be a priority, TDC declined to make a bid saying they didn't have time.
From a standing start, the Town Council mobilised a bid within weeks and got our community a foot in the door. We now have a small window of opportunity to create a revised bid that hopefully will be more to the taste of most people and get some real investment for the town.
It's not easy, but the alternative would have been to see an opportunity pass by that isn't likely to come around again soon.
"It's not easy, but the alternative would have been to see an opportunity pass by that isn't likely to come around again soon."
Unless of course Dawlish were to be in a marginal parliamentary constituency and there was a general election on the horizon? Just saying..........
If your analysis is correct Lynne, all the more reason for the Town Council to ensure that we move forward to put in applications rather than sit around waiting for things to happen.
You wouldn't believe the amount of work it requires to make a government funding application, and faced with Teignbridge not making any bids it has fallen to town councillors, most particularly Bob Vickery, to put in the hours.
I think that must be why Linda has finally lost patience with Burneside (see above) and his treatment of a guy who, whether you agree with him or not, doesn't deserve the level of personal abuse he receives from some people.
If you are intending revising the bid why not relocate it to a less sensitive location i.e. the Warren. The advantages are clear to see. Ample car parking, toilets, more space, more holiday traffic, less objection to noise.
Why has it always got to be about the town centre and its out dated shopping offer.
I bet if you built some more wood hut shops alongside the woodlice then some of the town centre traders would re-locate also.
You really are missing an exciting opertunity here.
You could also alocate some of the grant money to restore the existing bandstand in town.
You have no knowledge of my present domestic arrangements and therefore are totally unqualified to make the comment you posted earlier. I suggest you pause and think before opening your mouth in the future.
@Councillor Petherick both my 87 year old mother, and brother post on this forum and both are bright intelligent people with their own views, which I have no control over and would not wish to exert control over. As for the remark about bullying from Mrs C, the reason I resigned from Voices for Dawlish was precisely because of the bullying from the small minority in that group. If you do not agree with their ideas and ask questions then you are subject to all forms of bullying, as I know only too well, as did a former Deputy Mayor from the same group.
Good idea Wondering. Surely that wouldn't offend anyone. Get rid of the tarmac, create a violet garden to commemorate Dawlish's past.
http://strandcentre.org.uk/vv_History_violets_in_Dawlish.pdf
@FredBassett. Your posts always seem to champion moving everything to the Warren or Shutterton. Wouldn't that choke off Dawlish completely? If you had it your way how would you envisage the town centre in years to come?
Oh Councillor Swift, don't forget your husband who also posts on here and presses Agree on everything you write and on everything that is written against me. So that explains 4 of the Agrees...
Talking of bullying, wasn't your husband responsible for writing a letter to the Gazette that could have been construed as bullying against a former councillor who defected from VfD to the Tories?
Margaret, that sounds like gamekeeper turned poacher, I can't imagine anyone could bully you.
I like the idea of a violet garden, surprised it hasn't been thought of before.
On this violet garden angle. Could we also have other flowers and plants that attract bees and butterflies? And scented flowers for the visually impaired?
I'm not precious. You can have violets and lots of other violet-coloured, scented, butterfly and bee attracting flowers...
Maybe the bees could go off and sting those yelling kids in the new playground and basketball areas. 
Mcjrpc
I make no bones about how I see the town centre, basically its a dump and as proven by the recent alterations throwing vast amounts of money at it isent the answer. Unless the private landlords come together as one and decide on a way to improve things then we are all wasting our time. The sea front is dominated and controlled by the railway therefore any alteration is out of local control, the brook nice as it is, is a dominant feature again little can be done to improve. Control of the lawn has now apparently passed to Teignbridge who keep saying they have no money.
The shops unfortunatly have no future and will eventualy be converted into the much needed affordable housing we hear so much about.
I think thats enough negativity and thats not what Im about and so thats why I prefer to promote out of town development. The potential of the Warren in attracting visitors is massive and is far more deserving of more investment. All it needs is better access and if network rail intend keeping the costal route then we need to get them to do just that open up a new access road either under or over the tracks.
Mrs C once again you demonstrate that you know nothing about my family, for which I am eternally grateful, because if you did you would know that anyone who knows my husband would never ever describe him as a bully. He is in fact the exact opposite of a bully.
Dorian, a bully will bully anyone and everyone, no one is immune or exempt. Bullies behave as they do for a variety of reasons but most commonly to either get their own way or exclude those who do not agree with them.
Bullying of any kind is unpleasant and often indicates phsycological imbalance, 'Pair' bullying is less common, vicious, coordinated and can be totally ruthless.
lynne you are quite right the Pier is privately owned and insured the and the owners (six piers ltd.) are planning to rebuild the £2million talked about by Downing st. is not for the pier or the repairing of fire damage but for the uninsured traders that have not had a fire but are unable to trade because of access along the pier from what I have understood so far but it is still early and I think more news will transpire over the coming days.
So this fund is pretty much like the ten million fund set up after the floods and storms in the earlier part of the year That is to say its not from local council funds and having a direct impact on funding for sevices for local people who after all fund the local council's
I agree with your point I think money well spent in respect of future projects
Robert Vickor
Thank you for your reply I have a better understanding of what the money was spent on could you please tell me who the £23k was paid by ie TDC DTC or DCC ? also will the Flood Risk survey and an environmental survey that have already be done be used in the future? for different projects
@Annother46 - local council funding is determined by central government. the cut backs in the funding of local government leading to the cut backs in local services have been due to the cut backs in central government grant and the restrictions placed by central government on local government with regard to how much local councils are allowed to increase their council tax charges. the two forms of government are intertwined with central government holding the trump card with regard to local government finance. central government has played a very crafty hand though in that although local government is being squeezed really hard financially due to central government financial policies, central governement has left the decision making of what services get cut back to the individual local councils.
So, the private traders on the privately owned pier were uninsured. Do we know why that was?Do you think that public money being spent on them to the tune of £2m is an okay thing for public money to be spent on? Doesn't matter from where the public money is coming (in this case central government) - tis all public money.
As you say though - it is still early days so more information may yet be forthcoming.
http://m.theargus.co.uk/news/11383304.Eastbourne_Pier_fire__Owners____ignored_sprinkler_advice___/
(and apologies to all. I am very aware that postings concerning the fire on Eastbourne Pier is way off the topic of this thread)
When we hear of people being uninsured, we automatically assume that this is due to their own negligence but it could be that they weren't able to get insurance, due to various factors. Insurance companies seem to be very picky these days as to who or what they insure. If these people were left without a means of earning their living, shouldn't we then give them some help to get back on their feet?
letter from today's Dawlish Gazette:
‘Forced by strict and limited timing of CCF’
Wednesday, 06 August 2014
Cllr Robert Vickery, of Postern House, Priory Road, Dawlish, writes:
Democracy came to a grinding halt on Wednesday evening when some of Dawlish’s elder rank and file followed their piper, former councillor (not mayor as previously reported) Peter Large, to the Manor House where they attempted to take over the debate of the town council.
Their spokespeople, former mayor Valerie Jeffery, Tony Everest and Peter Large, had prepared speeches and delivered a withering attack on the scheme presented recently to the public in consultations.
However, it had been reported moments earlier that the Coastal Communities Fund (CCF) bid had been unsuccessful, but the town council has been invited by CCF to meet with Sustrans to formulate a revised combined bid that stood a stronger chance of success.
But the message was not heard, and to occasional bursts of noisy applause Peter Large insisted that the council had taken the unusual step of spending £23,000 on a scheme before consulting the public, which was divisive, rigorously opposed and must be abandoned (loud cheers).
Mr Large and others on these pages have clearly not listened to council statements about the process forced on us by the strict and limited timing of the Coastal Communities Fund.
This included the requirement to have entered a full planning application which can not be done without competent plans being drawn up, with accompanying technical and environmental reports. They have not cared to listen to the assurance that major concerns emerging from the consultation process would lead to modification/adjustment to the scheme before proceeding further.
The fact is that a hand is being held out to Dawlish to deliver a major project with funding that is not drawn from local taxation, an opportunity that occurs very rarely. We will not know how much or little may remain from the original scheme until we meet personnel from CCF. The offer is dependent on the council working with Sustrans, and doing it quickly to deliver the final application by October 16.
The noisy minority that came to protest were mainly from the 20 per cent who do not want any changes on the Lawn. They must recognise that the recent consultation came down in favour of the current proposals, supported by two thirds of the community college teenagers who will have to live with it far longer than that audience.
Those who support the scheme may have stayed home in the expectation that the council will be driven by their support, and I do not intend to betray their trust.
We are clearly being asked to reformulate a proposal and, as far as I am concerned if I am allowed to contribute, it will be done against that background and not the memory of continued rude interruptions and noisy insults.
Comment on Lynne's post 'letter of today's Dawlish Post' - Wed 06th August 2014.
I understand why the Town council went ahead ahead with the initial proposal and was obviously with good intent for the benefit of the Town. Although spending £23k off the people's money, which is in short supply was, in my opinion, a gamble with consequences if it does not bear fruit. Especially when the people were not consulted first due to the time restraints of the initial bid. I think my partner would be unhappy if I told her I had just spent £23k on lottery tickets, but justified it with a statement that there was a chance of winning millions!
So, the original bid (for the pavilion on the lawn) has been turned down by CCF but........CCF are saying to Dawlish muck in with Sustrans and we may well be able to do something for Dawlish.
So, seems like it was a good thing then that the pavilion bid was put in otherwise this potential Sustrans/Dawlish bid may never have seen the light of day.
Have I got that right?
Yes Lynne
Exactly right. The opportunity for Dawlish to get some serious government money is here now. Teignbridge opted not to follow up this chance because it was too busy on other projects, and the Town Council stepped forward to ensure that we didn't lose out by default.
How much money was lost/wasted/spent by the previous tory/lib dem town council administration on the selling off of the Manor House/buying of that property in Park Road fiasco of 2009/2010? Were the people of the town consulted about that? Can someone refresh my memory please.
(Just found this http://archive.audit-commission.gov.uk/auditcommission/sitecollectiondocuments/PublicInterestReports/20110801dalwlishtcpir.pdf
Teignbridge said that there were key documentation deadlines for the Carlton Theatre project in Teignmouth. These fell during the time period for bidding to CCF and they could not take officers off this project to write a bid for Dawlish.
Okay it was short notice but is it just my perception or does Dawlish always lose out to Teignmouth where TDC is concerned?
@Mcjrpc - Hmm.......funny you should say that..........think you'll find that it is not only your perception. When I first arrived here and heard that take on things I thought it was a load of baloney. Later I thought that perhaps it was because Teignmouth is(now was?) a bit of a Lib Dem stronghold and as TDC was then Lib Dem controlled thought to myself "Well now Lynne perhaps there is some truth in the tory accusation that Lib Dem controlled TDC favours spending on T'mouth over Dawlish". But since the Conservatives took control of TDC back in 2011 I have to say this preference for Teignmouth over Dawlish seems to have continued. Perhaps they are trying to woo votes there?
And on the subject of local councils and the wooing of votes and ****stirring etc. Just thought I would bring to everyone's attention that as well as there being a general election next May there will also be local elections for Dawlish Town Council and Teignbridge District Council. Strongly suggest that fact be borne in mind between now and next May.
That's it then, the money for the wood louse is not forthcoming and never will be, and despite what Vickery's imagination tells him, the majority of consultation respondents did NOT want it blighting the lawn. Yet again his pipe dream has gone up in smoke. It's just as well that Vickery has publicly stated he is unlikely to stand for re-election next year because after this fiasco it is highly doubtful he would achieve a second term.
Burneside, I had hoped that your ruthless cyber bullying campaign had stopped, sadly, apparently not, is this a family trait?
Do you recognise any of the following:-
1. There are bullies in all stages of life from childhood to adulthood, and, across all ethnic and religious groups.
2. Bulies are often socially immature and unable to feel secure in their own shoes, the only way they know how to gain that is through bullying.
3. Secondary bullies imitate the primary bully's behaviour and join in resulting in pair or gang bullying.
4. People in the group may be enticed by the power the primary bully exudes, while others may feel coerced into bullying for fear of becoming the next victim.
May I suggest that you 'grow up'
It's gone off topic on the other thread so I'm bringing it over to this one.
Margaret Swift - you've pointed out that over 200 letters of objection have been lodged with TDC compared to a 'handful' of letters of support. Are you now saying that the 283 people who completed the surveys in favour of the development are of no consequence because they did not lodge directly with TDC?
What intrigues me is that 400 of those who completed the survey were over 50 and I would have expected more of them to be against the proposals. I'd say that far from being a landslide vote it's pretty much neck and neck, which is what the results of the survey suggest anyway. It's not surprising that the no voters are more motivated to write letters of objection.
Roberta, it would have been simpler but also pointless. If the outcome had been "No", then that would mean that most of those surveyed would have wanted no change to the current carbuncle. And that evidently isn't what they want.
283 people have actively voted in favour, not a handful. As I said earlier, even with a mobilised 'no' contingency, the stated views are still pretty much split down the middle. No-one can claim to be representing the majority of the people of Dawlish because the real 'majority' haven't expressed a view.
Vickery is a politician and therefore subject to scrutiny, he has also been the lead Councillor driving forward the ill-fated wood louse proposal, which despite what he thinks, will not now go forward. In my opinion he deserves all the flak which comes his way for trying to impose his folly on the town.
Burneside
Scrutiny? I think it goes beyond that, your posts indicate a focused, viscious vendetta towards a Town Councillor, perhaps you will put yourself forward for election as a Town Councillor next year, the people of Dawlish would doubtless benefit from from great wisdom.
You surely have to live in the parish of Dawlish to be a DTC councillor? I doubt that the expenses would stretch to return trips for Burnside from the Isle of Dogs...
@Mrs C
As I said to another poster at the weekend, you have no knowledge of my present domestic arrangements.
Burneside
As a smock wearing straw sucking local I touch my forelock to you as I am encoraged that someone from the big city is offering wisdom and guidance with local issues.
Pardon me for not going through a sheep dip before posting this response.,
Margaret on the other post you said "Many people were told that the proposed new building was only twice the size of the current bandstand". I'd like to know more about this. Who was told and by whom? When? Why? Were they referring to the volume or the footprint? Did it affect anything? Please can you elaborate. Thank you.
@Mcjrpc - if the woodlouse is not going ahead, what relevance is your question as to the size issue? seems a waste of effort for irrelevant info.
@ALLEMS - Why is it irrelevant? If someone has been pulling the wool over our eyes I for one would like to know. Alternatively I could go off topic or call someone an idiot, but I thought I'd break with tradition by finding out more.
As usual people seem to be working for their own agenda under the guise of what is best for the town. Of course it only seems to be best in their view as long as it is happening the way THEY think it should. Any other options or opinions are to be fought against. I'm very glad there are elections coming up. True colours are being shown and it will be easier to wade through the election nonsense knowing how people act when they are not writing an election leaflet. I feel very sad that yet again Dawlish prefers to fight against itself rather than seeking to boost Dawlish within the District, County and Region. There are always enough people looking in from the outside ready to criticise, why are people within the town so willing to give them a helping hand? Is it any wonder that Teignmouth seems to come out on top in many ways, they don't seem to suffer this cat fighting in such a way and certainly not in such a public online way as Dawlish does. They seem to put their efforts into achieving things rather than bitching about things and playing games of "he said, she said". I've seen groups of toddlers sort out disagreements in a more grown up way than seems possible on this forum. For the good of Dawlish and for the sanity of all those trying not to get involved, please, please - enough now. No excuses, no "yes, but ....." just force yourself to stop.
I sort of understand the reasoning behind the CCF bid and the application for a cultural pavillion, but cannot link the proposal to reversing the demise of Dawlish Town Centre or enhancing the lawn area. It is planning madness to plan/build out of town supermarkets and retail parks and then permit a building (the size of the pavillion) on a green open space, (the size of the lawn) to ... try and .....revive town centres?
I was walking down the strand the other day and people were occupying all areas of the lawn soaking up the rays, playing ball, toddlers running around, parents chasing their children, blankets laid out, people reading, couples sat together, ice creams, pasties, and so on ... all so priceless, why cheapen that?
Beelebub2000-flitflot, you have hit the nail on the head! Well done, and I hope that does not sound patronising!
It was claimed by one councillor that the lawn is a big green empty space not much used. He went on to say "how long can people sit and look at an empty space". Clearly this Councillor has not stayed long enough to see what you and I have seen; people enjoying the open space of the lawn area and appreciating the priceless value of the space.
And how many people were "occupying" the tarmacked eyesore in the middle of the lawn? The proposed pavilion had a footprint no larger than that tarmac. Why do some people still not get it??
"...the other day..." was obviously before Friday last week.
Sorry Mrjcpc, I have been on holiday and then had to look after my 87 year old mother who had an operation. That is not an excuse but a factual explanation of my absence. I have many examples of residents being given mis-leading information but, more to the point, I was at the meeting for Councillors and chamber of trade on 16 June when a councillor stated that the proposed pavilion was only two and a half times larger than the current bandstand. This has since been challenged and disproved but meanwhile many Dawlish residents have been fooled into believing that the proposed pavilion is only slightly larger than the current banstand, which we all know is not true.
People were occupying the tarmac, using it as an open space. Tarmac can be replaced with paving to make it less of an eyesore, its area should not be used to justify building footprints.
Any new building, regardless of footprint size, that replaces the bandstand would probably need the same hard area again that the tarmac occupies to take concentrated foot traffic.
From the onset the size of new proposal should have been realistically represented in a way that is easily interpreted by citizens who are not used to reading plans. The 3D images are pretty, but how many aspects do they show?
The next Council meeting to discuss the CCF bid is on Tuesday 19 August at 7pm. All welcome. Thanks.
How about removing the existing bandstand (and basketball hoop!), landscaping the area but leave a tarmac area with removable seating. Then purchase a portable stage and inflatable cover (google search 'Inflatable Stage' for details) which could be used by any group, at any location in the parish (including the tarmac area on the lawn), for pretty much any event as needed.
Cost say between £25-50k for something really decent and, if looked after, only the inflatable bit would require maintenance/replacement at regular intervals.
The fair is here and the carnival is on. There is fun to be had on the lawn! At the moment there is no green space but that is part of the beauty of Dawlish Lawn .. its versatility!
Rather concerned that the planning application stands as is. Leaving the bid and the need to do something about the bandstand area aside, why does the existing plan breech planning policies S2, WE11 & EN5. Why was there no respect for inherent Dawlish in the first place?