General Discussion
Lynne asked this question in a thread about a Neighbourhood Plan for Dawlish
Okay - let me ask this question. Can the current Teigbridge Local Plan, the one that was adopted in May of this year, can it now be altered in any way? Not necessarily by any of the Neighbourhood plans that may come forward but by other ways?
In other words, is what is writ in the Local Plan, the word, as it were?.
In other words, can the Local Plan be altered so that Warren Farm does not become the site of a Coastal Park SANGs? Yes or No
I think this is off the subject of a Neighbourhood Plan, and risks creating a mega thread of the length that many of us despair of, so I have taken the liberty of creating a separate thread.
I am not an expert on these matters, but as I understand the situation the answer is Yes.
Local Plans come up for review every 5 years and the public can contribute to this
You can also challenge a LP in court, but as the recent experience shows you need to be very clear of your grounds for this to be effective
I would also comment that a Plan is a blueprint, but it only becomes a reality if it is acted upon. Housing allocations only create buildings if a Developer comes forward with the money. Equally a SANGS is only created if the local authority acts on the proposal. This can be influenced by public pressure but also is informed by the demands being put on the authority by bodies such as Natural England.
Thank you for the info.
In terms of Warren Farm I don't think time , and certainly not a time of 5 years, is on Richard Weeks' side (please someone tell me I am wrong on that).
Read the below as this implies that revisions can be made, therefore SANGS could theoretically be moved and this noted in law I guess. Does anyone else read this the same?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/regulation/35/made
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012
Availability of documents: general
35. (1) A document is to be taken to be made available by a local planning authority when –
(a) made available for inspection, at their principle office and at such other places within their area as the local planning authority consider appropriate, during normal office
hours, and
(b) published on the local planning authority’s website,
(2) In relation to any document made available under these Regulations, except a local plan or supplementary planning document which has been adopted or approved, the local
planning authority may cease to make the document available once the period specified
in paragraph (3) has expired.
(3) The period mentioned in paragraph (2) –
(a) where the document relates to a supplementary planning document or to the local
planning authority’s statement of community involvement, is 3 months after the day on
which the supplementary planning document or statement of community involvement is
adopted;
(b) where the document relates to a local plan, is the 6 week period referred to in
section 113(4) of the Act that applies as regards the local plan concerned.
(4) Where a local planning authority adopt, or the Secretary of State approves, a revision
to a local plan or a supplementary planning document, as soon as reasonably
practicable after the revision is adopted or approved, the local planning authority
must incorporate the revision into the local plan or the supplementary planning
document made available int accordance with this regulation.
SANGS are coming up at Tuesday 9th Dec Teignbridge Executive.
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42681&p=0
Sorry to apear thick, but can someone tell me exactly what is the meaning of SANGS.
I have seen it mentioned a few times but could find no referrence as to it's meaning.
Thank you in advance.
Thank you for that link David.
Now, can someone who knows about these things (and on this particular matter I am totally non partisan) explain the implications of this report vis-a-vis the Warren Farm/Sangs issue.
Perhaps one of our Dawlish district councillors could let us know? (Oh and just in case none of 'em read this website do you know what I am gonna do? Yep! I'm gonna send all of 'em the link to this thread).
Teignbridge are saying the following in their Local Plan
A Coastal Park is proposed between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren. The main
purpose of the Coastal Park will be to attract visitor pressure away from the
European Sites at Dawlish Warren (SAC) and the Exe Estuary (SPA and RAMSAR),
and as such it will be a piece of strategic infrastructure providing suitable alternative
natural green space (SANGS) over and above open space normally required to
serve new development.
So, the point of issue is that TDC say this park is needed to stop over use of two nature reserves nearby.
Those who disagree with TDC are saying, it is wrong to force Farmer Weeks to sell his land, that a coastal park at that location wouldn't work because it is not a good place for it, and that other promotion of Dawlish Warren tourism is going to encourage people to use the nature reserve anyway
I think that is a fair summary
I sent out the e-mail below to our 5 Teignbridge District councillors (Cllrs Graham Price, Ted Hockin, John Petherick, Rosalind Prowse and Humphry Clemens) at 10.00am this morning. As I type this I have yet to receive any response. Should any responses turn up in my in box I will post on here.
Here's what I wrote;
Dear Cllrs,
You are no doubt aware of the controversy attached to the proposed SANGS Dawlish Coastal Park as per the Teignbridge Local Plan.
I note this issue forms part of a report that will be discussed (and voted on?, noted?) at the TDC Executive due to meet this coming Tuesday 9th December. Here is the link for the report http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42681&p=0
I, and others, would be interested to hear back from any or all of you as to what you understand the purpose of this report is vis-a-vis the proposed coastal park.
Also, what happens to this report after it has been to the Executive? Will it be presented to the full council or not or what?
This link may be of interest to you. https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/34154
Yours sincerely,
The report is about, inter alia, providing money for SANGS - Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space; so it does impact on Warren Farm and Langstone Cliff. I think questions have been tabled about CPO. The Executive will vote on the recommendation, which is subject to "call in" until 16th Dec. (Call in = five councillors may request that the decision is considered by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.) The council need the land for SANGS to facilitate development of 1200+ houses. In Exminster the developer is providing the land for SANGS, for some reason in Dawlish the Council is taking a completely different approach.
Thanks to Lynne and David for bringing to our attention some critical information relevant to this issue.
Recently someone did point out, I think it was Lynne, that the people of Dawlish and the wider parish are receiving very mixed messages. On the one hand they are told that the extension to the Exe Estuary cycle route is critical to further improve tourism for Dawlish Warren and Dawlish and then on the other hand they are told that the SANGS development is essential to reduce visitor impact on Dawlish Warren. There really is a need for clarity here and for some serious strategic planning for both Dawlish and Dawlish Warren. Joined up thinking is urgently required.
@ Michael
Many thanks for your in depth explanation. Very much appreciated. All the very best for the coming festive season.
Can I amend your last sentence Margaret so that it reads - joined up sensible and thought through thinking is urgently required.
(and yes it is me that's been pointing out this mixed message nonsense. It makes an absolute mockery of TDC's argument that Warren Farm should become a SANGS in order to reduce visitors to Dawlish Warren NNR. I'd be doubled up laughing if it wasn't that it has such potentially tragic consequences for the livelihood of the Weeks' family).
Question: Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Answer: No.
@Lynne - i think we need to see what comes out of the executive meeting - but there are more than five councilors ready to sign.
Let me put it this way, any councillor who is on the neighbourhood parish plan will have signed or will sign to say they are in favour of the Plan Teignbridge, else Teignbridge would not accept working with them on it. TDC decide whether the parish plan is sound as they are giving them guidance so Dawlish and Teignbridge don't conflict. Basically, with the best intentions in the world to gain extra money for Dawlish the councillors have been led into a position where they are actually being gagged by TDC, it is not their fault. So please, please do not have a go at the Councillors as they do work hard for the commuity and it is this that has meant they are between a rock and a hard place now. We have to rely on Councillors outside of Dawlish to take up the cause and give Dawlish the voice that they have lost due to the parish plan. So thank you David Cox for helping us and the farmer in his hour of need!
Is this notion of deterring visitor numbers to Dawlish Warren for real?
How can something like that become an objective in an area which is founded on holiday parks and tourism? If it really is a primary goal surely the obvious thing would be to compulsorily purchase a couple of caravan parks. That'd put paid to the visitor numbers (and knock out a sizeable chunk of the local economy into the bargain.).
@Kaz my response in red:
"Let me put it this way, any councillor (what type of councillor do you have in mind? Town? District? both?) who is on the neighbourhood parish plan will have signed or will sign to say they are in favour of the Plan Teignbridge, else Teignbridge would not accept working with them on it. TDC decide whether the parish plan (you mean Neighbourhood Plan?) is sound as they are giving them guidance so Dawlish and Teignbridge don't conflict. Basically, with the best intentions in the world to gain extra money for Dawlish the councillors have been led into a position where they are actually being gagged by TDC (how?) (other parish/town councillors in the rest of the district must also then be in the same position including Teignmouth? are they gagged as well?) , it is not their fault. So please, please do not have a go at the Councillors as they do work hard for the commuity and it is this that has meant they are between a rock and a hard place now. We have to rely on Councillors outside of Dawlish to take up the cause(why?) and give Dawlish the voice that they have lost due to the parish plan. (Neighbourhood Plan?) So thank you David Cox for helping us and the farmer in his hour of need! So.......if councillors outside of Dawlish have to help Dawlish have a voice then are our councillors helping other parishes in Teignbridge have a voice? Are the councillors in those other parishes gagged as well? . Or is it just restricted to Dawlish for some weird and wonderful reason?
As you can see I am somewhat confused by your posting. Please can you unconfuse me?(and I suspect others also)
Neighbourhood Plan Summary Guidance
What a Neighbourhood Plan can and cannot do
A Neighbourhood Plan can…
• Decide where and what type of development should happen in the neighbourhood
• Promote more development than is set out in the Local Plan
• Include policies, for example regarding design standards – provided the Neighbourhood Plan policies do not conflict with the strategic policies in the Local
Plan
A Neighbourhood Plan cannot…
• Conflict with the strategic policies in the Local Plan prepared by Teignbridge District Council
• Be used to prevent development that is included in the Local Plan
• Be prepared by a body other than a parish or town council or a neighbourhood forum
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37197&p=0
This being the case we have two opposing groups
A Plan Teignbridge v B Warren Farm against SANGS with Resident Supporters
Let’s look at where others fit in.
1. The Neighbourhood plan itself is definitely in with Plan Teignbridge
2. Therefore the Dawlish Town Councillors have to support Plan Teignbridge because they cannot prevent development that is included in the Local Plan, therefore cannot support group B without being in conflict, which would mean any councillor that did would have to resign from the steering group I would guess, correct if I am wrong.
3. The remaining Dawlish Town Councillors could support group B but that would look disloyal not supporting fellow councillors who are working hard to gain extra revenue through the extra 10% CIL for the community, however they might find a voice still.
4. Non Dawlish Councillors therefore have no connection with the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan and therefore are free to comment without conflict.
The above appearing to be how it looks from what I have read, this is why we might have not heard much from our Town Councillors regarding Warren Farm and SANGS. I applaud the fact they are working to get money for Dawlish, which we do need, but as I can see it has tied their hands somewhat. Has anyone else an opinion, and have I read the situation wrong. I hope I have for Mr Weekes sake. Can any Teignmouth councillor comment since they have already done theirs so know the procedures/restrictions first hand?
I think Michael put it most succinctly in his opening post:
"... Housing allocations only create buildings if a Developer comes forward with the money. Equally a SANGS is only created if the local authority acts on the proposal. This can be influenced by public pressure but also is informed by the demands being put on the authority by bodies such as Natural England."
So it is perfectly possible to be a supporter of Richard Weeks in his battle with Teignbridge while at the same time being a supporter of a a new Dawlish Parish Neighbourhood Plan. (You will note that the only reference to compulsory purchase in the entire LP document is on page 44 in reference to WE1)
BTW, the TDC report of May 2013 (written six months before the successful appeal for an additional 350 houses at Shutterton Park) states:
"The proposed 'Coastal Park' and potential for additional SANGS in the vicinity of Shutterton Brook could provide up to 28 hectares of SANGS at Dawlish. This provision [...] could meet Natural England's recommended provision of 8 hectares of SANGS per 1000 additional population..."
With Shutterton Park taken into account, by the same criterion 33 hectares of SANGS are now required in Dawlish, but only 22 would be provided at Warren Farm. While Teignbridge have done their best to sweep the additonal Shutterton Park SANGS mitigation requirement (that's LAND not CASH) under the carpet, the town would still need an additional 50% more SANGS than is currently stated - with location options seemingly narrowing. So who is it that is most in conflict with Plan Teignbridge? The people who fear for the livelihood of Richard Weeks who point to this (and other) anomalies - or Teignbridge itself?
Margaret Swift is a town councillor. Margaret Swift is one of the six councillors sitting on the new Neighbourhood Plan steering group. Margaret Swift was at the stall today helping to collect signatures for the petition against TDC's proposal and Warren Farm. So.......if Margaret feels free to do that why don't any of the other town councillors? For if Soul of Dawlish is right then there should be no problem. Yes? No?
(like the name checks Margaret?)
SoulofDawlish glad you are here to explain. Could you explain the below, because you might do it better as to bringing SANGS forward with development or if they are to contribute with land or monies.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239039/Shutterton_Lane__Dawlish__Devon__ref_2188938__10_September_2013_.pdf
Department for Communities and Local Government
Our Ref: APP/P1133/A/12/2188938
10 September 2013
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78
APPEAL BY SHUTTERTON PARK LIMITED
AT LAND TO THE SOUTH OF SHUTTERTON LANE, DAWLISH, DEVON
APPLICATION REF: 12/02281/MAJ
10.7 In addition, the s.106 Agreement makes provision for financial contributions toward the acquisition, maintenance and management of SANGS, to mitigate the impact that recreational use by future occupiers of the proposed dwellings might otherwise have on the SPA and SAC. The total of the contributions would be calculated in accordance with the JIA. The Council has identified the Dawlish Coastal Park as its preferred site for the provision of SANGS, but since there is some doubt as to the timetable for its delivery [8.41], the s.106 Agreement contains provisions to ensure that the phasing of the development, and occupation of the dwellings, would be in step with the delivery of commensurate amounts of SANGS. As an alternative, if the Council were unable to acquire and provide its intended SANGS in time, the S.106 Agreement makes provision for the owner of the appeal site to provide SANGS on other land, with the prior approval of (and for eventual transfer to) the Council. The phasing and occupation of the development would again be linked to the delivery of commensurate amounts of SANGS.
11.5 I have attached a condition concerning improvements to the foul sewer, to ensure that capacity is adequate to meet the needs of the development before any of the new dwellings are occupied. At the inquiry, subsequent to the execution of the S.106 Agreement, the Council and the appellant reached agreement that the disputed conditions concerning the completion of off-site highway works, and phasing of the development to be commensurate with the provision of SANGS, were no longer needed. I share that view; I consider these matters to be adequately addressed by the provisions of the S.106 Agreement [10.4; 10.7], such that no additional conditions are necessary.
Sorry to have missed meeting you and Margaret Swift in Dawlish today - perhaps sometime soon?
@Kaz,
The TDC Executive report of the 10th December 2013 puts it in plainer English:
"The planning obligation agreement (S106) with Shutterton Park Ltd provides £436,000 funding to deliver the Coastal Park and a further contribution of £264,000 to the ongoing management and maintenance of the Coastal Park. However the S106 agreement sets out alternative arrangements should delivery of the Coastal Park be delayed."
So although the Coastal Park was in the Local Plan long before anyone knew the result of the SPL appeal (i.e. the Coastal Park was predicated on the basis of mitigation contribution from the 900 homes only in the Local Plan) come September 2013, the monies deriving from the S106 developer contributions for permission for an additional 350 houses at Shutterton Park were then also earmarked by TDC for delivery of the Coastal Park. But this approach ignores the fact that a/ a shortfall of 6 hectares of SANGS already existed at the Coastal Park and b/ an additional 350 homes at Shutterton Park would generate a requirement for an ADDITIONAL 6 hectares of SANGS.
The long, short and middle of it is this. Either Richard Weeks is being short changed, or the people of Dawlish are. Or both. If the CPO goes through and RW only gets a farmland price for his land, he will face the prospect of going out of business, Dawlish will get no addtional SANGS land. while TDC will sit on whatever cash is left after legal fees.
A lose, lose, lose scenario that in many people's eyes can and should be avoided...
So........our local politicians need to pull their collective fingers out and do something about it then! And do something about it FAST!
Seems like the Lib Dems are trying to do something;
"Democratic Services Manager
Teignbridge District Council
Dear Neil,
I wish to call in for reconsideration a decision made; but not yet implemented by the Executive, which took place on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 , and is contained in agenda item 13 'Infrastructure Capital Programme', to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS)
In order to see if alternative sites offer better value to the council and/or more suitable. To examine human rights issues and potential reputational damage to the Council of compulsory purchase of Warren Farm.
The council’s constitution states:
“the Overview and Scrutiny Committee may invite people other than those people referred to in Rule 5.5(a) to address it, discuss issues of local concern and/or answer questions. It may for example wish to hear from residents, stakeholders and Members and officers in other parts of the public sector and shall invite such people to attend.”
I wish to invite Mr and Mrs Weeks of Warren Farm Dawlish, to give a presentation to the committee.
The following four councillors have indicated their support for the call in, I will be asking other councillor to support this call in.
Cllr James McMurray Cllr Gordon Hook Cllr Jackie Brodie Cllr Alun Williams
Yours
David
Cllr David Cox"