General Discussion

This original thread is tooooooooo long please do another 1

I'll be only too happy to oblige.

Webmaster what say you?  

Yes, please do.

Those new to the thread can find part one here:-

Land Grab at the Warren

Okay - so in my very last post on the original (and very long thread) I put forward the idea that if Warren Farm were indeed to be compulsory purchased by TDC then it might ultimately end up being a commercial coastal park.

Just so as all interested in this issue realise that I have not ventured into the realms of fantasy  have a look at this report which was presented to Dawlish Town Council on 7th March 2012.

http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/edit/uploads/903.pdf

DA7 Dawlish Warren Coastal Park

8.23 - 8.25

An urban design and landscape study is needed to establish developer parameters. This large area of level cliff top is threatened by creeping holiday lodge development and the casual use of open fields for car-boot sales and other low grade uses. It is prominent in longer coastal views from East Devon and Exmouth and must conform to policies EN1 and EN2.

The desire to draw tourism activity away from the RAMSAR site on the estuary is understood but it must be a regional attraction if it is to be sustainable through large parts of the year. (Think Vulcania, not a substitute children's play site)

The appeal of such a Park must be of sufficient quality to draw people from the (free) beaches, and thereby hangs the challenge. How much is charged for the users? Is this only a wet weather attraction when people will not go to the beach and are otherwise drawn to other forms of family entertainment outside the District?

The establishment of a quality attraction may draw people from other places and increase loading on the A379. The proximity to Dawlish Warren station may mitigate this problem, but it must not be overlooked. If the intention is that this is only seasonal the matter of its shielding and screening on coastal views becomes even more important if it is not to deter the out of season visitor by its intrusion in the coastal landscape

The infilling of this quiet cliff top area with its path between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren works against the policies that seek to separate settlements.

The existence of the Timaru sewage treatment works in the middle section will be a deterrent and it seems likely that an encircling plantation may be necessary, reinforcing the need for landscape infrastructure.

Dawlish and the Warren are at present invisible from the Mamhead Obelisk Viewpoint, which is an important leisure walk area. Studies need to ensure that such long distance views are not affected negatively by development if the attractions of South Devon are to be maintained. 

I have also found this interesting item, sorry it is long, but I have copied and pasted the relevant parts.

Teign Green Network - Heart of Teignbridge Coast and Rural Areas – 05 September 2014

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42028&p=0

Consultation Draft Strategy (January 2014)

Schedule of Representations – Council Responses

A copy of ‘Schedule of Representations – Comments Received’ which details all comments received to the Consultation Draft Strategy is available on the Council’s website at http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/ A copy has also been placed in the Members Library and Main Reception at the Council’s Forde House Offices. For ease of reference the same presentation format has been used in the ‘Comments Received’ and ‘Council Responses’ schedules.

Comment 1.16

Blue Assets, refers to the SANGS (Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space) provision in Dawlish. This must surely refer to the proposed Coastal Park to draw people and dogs away from Dawlish Warren. There is no substance given to this proposal and it is a weakness of this plan that it does not define the criteria for such a park.

Council Response

The details of the SANGS criteria and proposals are provided in the SANGS reports (for Dawlish Coastal Park and South West Exeter Ridge Top Park) which form part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. The details of each of the projects identified are not provided within the green infrastructure strategy document as there are numerous projects at different stages of development.

Change

BA5 clarified to refer to the meaning of SANGS (Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space) and to refer to Dawlish Warren Coastal Park and the SW Exeter Ridge Top Park, specifically.

Comment 1.52

Plan 9 map legend incorrect, coastal & floodplain grazing marsh, woodland and lowland heath has been mixed up. Para. 4.36, not convinced SANGS alone will be sufficient to mitigate for indirect impacts on Eupropean sites.

Council Response

Noted.

Change

Plan 9 to be amended. Para 4.36 (new 4.37) amended to include other management measures.

Comment 3.6

An area to the west of Dawlish (close to the new urban extension at DA2) is deficient in ‘Accessible Green Spaces (Appendices Plan 14). It is recognised that the 22ha Dawlish Warren Coastal Park (DA7) will be of some benefit to this area, however, both the size and placement of this park are viewed as insufficient to address the needs of this urban extension. This shortfall of AGS/SANGS has been exacerbated by the additional 350 homes to be built at Shutterton Lane on the northern edge of Dawlish Warren following a successful appeal in September 2013.

Council Response

Policy DA6 of the Local Plan provides for approx. 15 hectares of strategic green infrastructure in the area to the south and west of Shutterton Lane and is additional to the coastal park. The coastal park provides sufficient SANGS for all the development and the development at Shutterton Lane includes contributions to the Exe estuary/SANGS and includes open space/green infrastructure within the scheme. There is not considered to be a shortfall in green space or SANGS within the plan or strategy.

No Change

Comment 3.7

Seminars were held in only 4 areas and all dates were finished by the time of the on-line survey. A seminar at Teignmouth or Dawlish should be in order and would generate interest.

Council Response

Noted. Exhibitions/drop in sessions were held at Kennford, Newton Abbot, Chudleigh and Dawlish in January/February 2014 and were complementary to the on-line survey and 6 week consultation period. Presentations/exhibitions will form part of the future promotion of green infrastructure (GR1 & 5.6 (new 5.7).

No Change 

Any comments by readers?  This document was adopted by the Executive on the 30 September 2014 after it looks like concerns were raised about the Dawlish SANGS provision offered by Teignbridge.  http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42104&p=0

I thought that your extract looked familiar. It was drawn from the Town Council's recommended responses towards the draft of what became Plan Teignbridge.  The Town Council Planning Committee put a number of issues to full Council before the responses went back to Teignbridge.  Issues of land ownership were not included as everything in the local plan is subject to land owners/developers wishing to come forward and take advantage of the planning framework at some time during the plan period.

If you do not follow the reference to Vulcania, look at  http://www.vulcania.com/     This huge educational facility is entirely underground and appropriate to the region.  It is an attraction on the scale of the Eden Project and in the middle of volcanic France.  The car and bus parking is located in new orchard woodland.

The challenge at Dawlish Warren is to formulate a proposal on a regional scale that will attract casual visitors to this new site, rather than to stray across to the sandy heath of the Warren, and so satisfy the environmental protection aims.  If it becomes well known in the area, there may be no need for it to be even near the Warren?  Is it the existing commercial interests of the Warren that are seeking this solution?

The challenge of the Warren farm site will be to execute a scheme which has local relevance and does not scatter trivia across this Coastal landscape, visible from the start of the Jurassic Coast.

Other parts of this response to Teignbridge emphasised the need for landscape, planning and architectural skills of the highest order being brought to bear on all sites.  Other concerns are also set out in that paper.

Returning to the challenge of the proposed Coastal Park site, it is quite clear that Teignbridge has not spent a penny on commissioning a set of landscape proposals for public consultation before proceeding with land purchase negotiation.  Teignbridge needs to look sideways at Dawlish and the furore over the Bandstand proposals, which had to be prepared at breakneck speed using consultants with international reputation, in order to get a bid for funding in place to the timescale of the Lottery. That approach was occasioned by Teignbridge leaving it to the last minute to tell the Town Council that there was no TDC plan to advance a scheme for Dawlish.  Once the scheme was put on display there was an avalanche of comment, both for and against from people.  The funding attempt was unsuccessful and the matter rests once more with Teignbridge.

I don't know how your campaign will pan out, and as chairman of the Town Council Planning Committee I do not intend to join the fray, but I do hope that TDC reveal their hand more and demonstrate that they are capable of commissioning design consultants that will do justice to their proposals.

@RobertVickery:

Thank you Bob. Good to get your valued insight on this subject.

@Kaz:

Thank you for digging up the Green Infrastructure consultation public comments, including the Council responses. You will note that the TDC response to Comment 3.6 sidesteps the issue that Dawlish will have a shortfall of SANGS land ( 33 hectares will be required if measured against the Natural England recommendation with which TDC appears to wish to accord) by stating that the Shutterton Park development will provide contributions to SANGS. My understanding is that this contribution will be in cash, NOT additional land.

I think it worth adding to Robert's comments that this report was considered by the Town Council in March 2012 and was supported by all councillors present (Including Margaret Swift).  It required us to fill in a lot of gaps about what TDC intended with a Coastal Park.  Unfortunately, nearly three years on those gaps are largely unfilled.  Hence Robert's criticism of the failure of TDC to invest in project design or consultation to make their case for a Coastal park.

I have read all the comments and criticisms made by the public about this scheme, and waited in vain to see a response from TDC.  I suspect something of a bunker mentality is going on (Unlike the town councillors that had the guts during the Lawn arguments to get out there and talk to people) and so I wrote to the Chief Executive 7 days ago and asked the following questions

Q7.  How do you answer those who speak of the Council's actions as immoral?

As yet, no reply beyond a standard acknowledgement.

Where does this leave me?   I feel like I've only really heard one side of the case and unpopular as it may make me, I won't express a firm opinion until I've heard the full argument.

Margaret has called the silence of her fellow town councillors (With a tailored dig at Robert as usual) "Disturbing".    I'd say it is professional, taking time to think about these issues and wanting to hear all the argument.

I realise that I've gone beyond my usual practice of rising above Margaret's barbs, but I've finally had enough of her denigrating a good man with the kindest of natures who daily demonstrates moral values that he doesn't need a compass to find.

Thank you for writing to TDC Michael. I agree with your bunker mentality analysis of what is taking place at TDC. I have heard more about that attitude from others. I would add one more  thing which I and others have said before but I for one will keep saying and which is this:

I understand from the present landowner, Richard Weeks, that if Warren Farm gets compulsory purchased then his farming business, which is his livelihood, will no longer be viable.

I believe that is the moral issue that so many are het up about.  

From the Dawlish Gaazette report of December 2013.

"Dawlish member Cllr Rosalind Prowse described the issue as a ‘very difficult one’ as it affected peoples’ livelihoods and the environment."

Councillor Clayson, thanks for the update and also your continued support for the residents of Dawlish, this is a very thorny subject and Iam encouraged that at least one of our elected members is being proactive and keeping the community informed.

To be fair, I think all Dawlish councillors are concerned by this situation, and I doubt I am the only person asking pointed questions.

Informative comments from Robert and Michael.  If I were Richard Weeks I'd also be making sure I had a tenacious lawyer on side to challenge what is obviously a very complex issue through the appropriate channels. 

You might not be the only one asking pointed questions MC but you are the only one who has thus far told us 1. That you are indeed asking questions and 2. What those questions are.

You, Bob, Margaret, and Howard Almond are the only ones who have posted about this issue on this website. And if not all the councillors read what is on here then I think they should be asked to do so. Lots of information. Food for thought.

They don't have to post back on here. There is always the local newspaper and its letters' page. I am sure many in the parish would be very interested to know what our councillors both individually and collectively are doing about this matter. With the exception of a few of you there is a resounding silence from the rest.

Lynne,  I'm not sure it's fair to 'shame' councillors to post about it here or anywhere else.   If you force the issue like that you'll surely just encourage pandering to the audience or weasel words.  As we've already seen, no comment is no indicator of no action.  Isn't it more appropriate that Mr Weeks make direct contact with councillors?

I do appreciate that conversations etc take place behind the scenes.

That said I do think that a public acknowledgement that the issue of Warren Farm is an er.......issue would not go amiss. Cllr Prowse acknowledged as much just about a year or so ago. (See my post above). I don't see why other councillors cannot do the same. (Unless of course they don't see it as being an issue). They don't have to say that it is right or wrong - just that the issue has issues (sorry, can't find my thesaurus).

I am sure Richard Weeks would love to talk to councillors - especially TDC ones...........    

(Just remembered, and as it took place very publicly I feel no problem about putting it on here, I saw Richard in very deep and long conversation with one of our district councillors the other week at the Christmas fair).      

The TDC Executive met last week. Amongst other things the Warren Farm issue was covered. Here are the  minutes of that meeting http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42795&p=0

Thanks Lynne.

And this, the Infrastructure Capital Programme report, which provides the detail of the land required to be purchased for SANGS which was given the nod by the TDC executive at the meeting, Warren Farm included:

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42681&p=0

Note that in the report the IDP (Infrastructure Delivery Plan) has prioritised the provision of Warren Farm for SANGS as "Critical" and a "top priority" - and yet there is only a passing reference to "certain infrastructure items" in the minutes, alongside a statement on TDC's compulsory purchase record.

Due to the public response to the campaign against the compulsory purchase of Warren Farm, 5 Teignbridge councillors have now put their names forward for this TDC executive decision to be 'called-in'. Thus the roll out of this provision (i.e. the next stage towards the aquisition of Warren Farm) will NOT be taking place tomorrow, as originally noted on the minutes...

Who are the five TDC councillors please?

Right, so hands up then all those who think it okay to put a local farmer out of business so that TDC can have his land for a coastal park?  

I am sure you will know this already JC, but sadly none of the 5 Teignbridge Councillors who have called in the TDC executive decision are Dawlish District representatives.

Hi SoD, I've no idea who the five are, hence the question. Therefore I'd be grateful if you could please share their names with those of us outside of political circles. Thanks. 

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
 

BTW, this information was made public on a parallel discussion thread started by Michael Clayson recently:

"Can a Local Plan be altered?"

For the sake of Richard Weeks and his family (not to mention the reputation of our local authority) to Michael's question the answer most here will be hoping for is, I am sure, yes. 

Who posted that then? Oh yeah! Amazing what bits of info keep coming my way!

Is that happening then? Mr and Mr Weeks addressing members of Overview and Scrutiny committee? Surely none would try and deny them that would they?

(or, would they.....................?)

Thanks for the information SoD. I hadn't seen it on the other thread and assumed you were providing fresh news. Thanks again. 

The irony of Michal Clayson's last comment on 14th December at 21.27 really does take the gold medal. I have sent MC a private message so he knows exactly why I make this statement and those who he talked to, very indiscreetly, during the consultation for the pavillion will also know why I make this statement. 

Copy.

Delete.

Paste.

Top of page. 

Yep because you and MC don't want it there! 

Outside, you two

?! @JC and MS - your last posts. What are you going on about?( and please, please, both of you don't lower the tone of this thread as well. A family's livelihood is at stake remember. That is why I started the original thread off about a year ago and is why I am still posting on the subject now some 12 months later). 

Coverage in today's Gazette about the petition being handed in at Westminster

http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/news.cfm?id=18400&headline=Save-farm%20petition%20goes%20in%20to%20Whitehall%20as%20MP%E2%80%99s%20help%20sought

see also the letters' page.

Lynne, I agree with you and wholeheartedly support Mr Weeks. MC made his comment on this thread, which was not the time or place. I did my brief response but am dealing with the issue away from this forum.

Is your other comment about MC not wanting this high on the agenda a throwaway remark or do you actually mean it?  

I'm going to be forever grateful for Dawlish.com,  I'm sure you all have seen a lot of Margaret and I, and can form your own opinions about us.

Returning to the matter in hand.   I referred in a posting earlier in this thread to the questions I had posed to TDC about their handling of the Warren Farm / SANGS / Coastal Park situation.  These are the questions I asked and the verbatim responses received this evening.

Q1.   As I understand the Local Plan, the Park is over and above the land take required for a SANGS and is designed to draw visitors away from the Nature Reserve.   Is it still your intention to promote greater customer numbers at the adjacent tourist resort?   How will you achieve both these goals, which at first glance appear contradictory?

A: For clarity it is important to note that the Coastal Park and SANGS are alternative names for the same area, which is an item of community infrastructure, the Coastal Park simply being the name for the area identified as the Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space. 

The proposed SANGS Coastal Park is approximately the land area required for a SANGS in Dawlish.  The land area needed is based on guidelines produced by Natural England. These require broadly 8 hectares of SANGS land for every 1000 of additional population. (The additional population is calculated by multiplying the additional dwellings permitted or allocated in Dawlish over the Local Plan period by the average number of residents per household). Natural England have been supportive of the proposed Coastal Park because its size and location are considered to meet the guidelines for creating a successful SANGS area. Agreeing a mechanism to mitigate the impacts from new and existing residents and visitors on the important natural areas has been a priority for the Council and Natural England for a substantial period of time. 

The Council will continue to support businesses operating in and around Dawlish, including those catering to the tourism industry.  It is true that the Council is having to balance a tension between businesses and the environment, but this is not unusual in south Devon.  It is the Council’s intention that the SANGS and other specific measures will help to mitigate the impact of additional visitors to the protected areas at the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). It is also important to say that the introduction of the Country park is to provide a new facility which will be complimentary to the wider resort and will alongside other potential measures, encourage visitors to use this area and the beach and amusement area of Dawlish Warren, whilst managing visitors away from sensitive locations to protect key habitats and species.

Q2.  What is the consequence of not reducing use of the Nature Reserve?  Where is the pressure to do this coming from?  Might we otherwise end up with the Reserve closed to public access?

What is the consequence of not reducing use of the Nature Reserve? 

This is answered in detail in the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy that is available on our website at: http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37957&p=0.

In summary, an increase in recreational use of the site is likely to result in significant further damage to the designated features that include overwintering waterfowl populations and dune habitats. This would be in breach of our legal responsibilities.

The Council’s Countryside Rangers have been working for many years to minimise these impacts at current use levels and continue to do so. Additional measures would be needed to mitigate the effects of future growth and provide an opportunity to make a real difference to the long term future of these important habitats and features.

Where is the pressure to do this coming from? 

There is a legal requirement not to allow development or other ‘plans or projects’ that would result in negative impacts on a European wildlife site.  The European sites in this case are Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA, which includes the Warren).  The SAC is designated for its dune habitats and a population of petalwort. The SPA is designated for its populations of overwintering waterfowl.

The requirement comes from the European Habitats Directive, which is transposed into English law in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.  Regulation 61 specifies that Local Planning Authorities must not adopt a Local Plan or grant a planning permission that would result in net harm to a European wildlife site.  However, 61 (6) allows plans or projects to proceed if the impacts on the European sites are fully mitigated.

Teignbridge District Council, East Devon District Council and Exeter City Council have been working with Natural England for several years to assess how developments might impact the SAC / SPA and how to fully mitigate such impacts.  They are also working to mitigate the existing impact on these important areas, as evidence shows that recreational use already impacts the special interest of the European sites.  Increased numbers of residents or tourists around the estuary would lead to increased recreational use and increased impacts. 

Government requires Teignbridge District Council to make provision for a certain amount of new housing in the District.  Due to a range of other constraints across the district (such as flood zones, mineral deposits, etc) and the requirement to provide homes for local need, some of this housing has been allocated close to Dawlish. 

To satisfy Regulation 61 and the requirement for additional development, the local authorities (advised by Natural England and specialist consultants) have agreed a suite of mitigation measures to offset impacts of increased recreational use, to be funded by the developments whose effects they will mitigate.  Natural England advised that the mitigation package must include a combination of measures to protect the European sites and provision of alternative recreation sites to attract people away from the European sites.  These sites are called Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGS).  The SANGS approach has been tested at a number of other European sites around the country.  NE recommends provision of 8ha of SANGS per 1,000 new residents.

Might we otherwise end up with the Reserve closed to public access?

The Council does not want this to happen.

The Council in partnership with East Devon District Council and Exeter City Council have been and continue to work towards preserving the SAC / SPA which Dawlish Warren forms part of.  It is clear that even without growth these important natural areas are being impacted upon by recreational use and would therefore need further careful management.

In relation to future growth, if Teignbridge Council does not deliver mitigation measures to Natural England’s satisfaction, the Council would be in breach of the Habitat Regulations.  Obviously we will work hard to prevent this situation arising and if key mitigation measures cannot be delivered for some reason we will work with NE to try to find satisfactory alternatives.  The current suite of measures was devised to provide maximum benefit (mitigation of impacts) for least negative impact on users and the public.  If these measures cannot be delivered, the options may be more restrictive.

Q3.   Why are you confident that a coastal park will succeed in drawing people away from the combined attraction of a beautiful nature reserve adjacent to a well developed tourist resort with considerably more parking and served by a railway station, coastal path and cycle path?

It is a legal requirement under the Habitat Regulations that the Council includes policies and proposals within its Local Plan to protect the status of the internationally important wildlife sites. Accordingly, the Council has worked with Natural England to develop policies and proposals in the Local Plan which seek to minimise those potential impacts.

The Council and Natural England believe that a well designed and attractive area of SANGS is likely to attract some people away from the Dawlish Warren and will provide an ‘interceptor’ location for people to visit, which will go some way to reducing pressure on the SAC and SPA. The location of the proposed Coastal Park adjacent to the Lady’s Mile foot and cycle path, and reasonable distance to either Dawlish or Dawlish Warren railway station also helps its connectivity. 

While existing and new residents and additional tourists will still want to visit the beach and the estuary, we can have a reasonable expectation that they may also choose to visit the SANGS also, which will be a facility available to walkers and families to enjoy. The objective of the combined mitigation strategy is that this would lead to no overall net increase in recreational impacts to the SAC/SPA.

Q4.   Have you thought about the potential links that might be made from the coastal park to the large population living on the Pidgley estate?  Will there be a safe route across the A379 for ambient families with young children?

Our intention is to maximise the ability for local residents to safely access the Coastal Park. We will plan for any necessary improvements to access provision in consultation with relevant stakeholders such as local residents and the Highways Authority. For residents of the Pidgeley Road area, this could include improved access via Warren Copse, with safer crossing points where required.

Q5 Would you still be pursuing a Coastal Park at this location if the Inspector had not forced you to accept development South of Shutterton Lane?

The Secretary of State issued his decision to allow the appeal at Shutterton Park on 10 September 2013. The Dawlish Coastal Park proposal had originally been included in the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan consultations in 2011 and was included in the ‘Teignbridge Preferred Options Core Strategy’ consultation document, published in January 2012.  The provision of a Coastal Park was therefore already a preferred option prior to the Secretary of State’s Shutterton Park decision.

Q6. Did you consider any other locations for the SANGS?   Did you consider any other locations for the Coastal Park?   If yes, why was this location thought to be best?

The Council assessed alternative options for a SANGS near Dawlish – the evidence document submitted to the planning inspector as part of the Local Plan Examination can be found here; http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37826&p=0

As set out in the report, the DA7 Coastal Park location was preferred for a number of reasons, including because of the coastal aspect, size and ability to fit in appropriate walking routes, accessible location which can ‘intercept’ visits from Dawlish, lack of steep inclines, and existing good connectivity.

Q7.  How do you answer those who speak if the Council's actions as immoral?

The Council understands that there will be opposition to any compulsory acquisition of land but disputes that the actions are immoral.  There are numerous statutory powers that exist for central Government and public bodies to compulsory acquire land to enable the provision of infrastructure for the public good.  A recent local example of compulsory purchase powers (CPO) being used is for the construction of the South Devon Link Road.

The legislation which permits compulsory acquisition contains inherent safeguards to protect the rights of private landowners.  If voluntary negotiations to acquire land are unsuccessful then ultimately an Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, makes the decision whether the CPO has been lawfully made and if it should be made.  The acquiring authority is legally required to meet the valuation and legal costs of the landowner irrespective of the outcome of the public inquiry.

Any dispute in valuation of the land subject to the CPO would be determined by the Lands Tribunal.

It is important to note that the Council has appointed a professional valuer to assess and value the land in question and to negotiate with landowners to see if an agreement can be made. This process is still ongoing and compulsory acquisition is a last resort.

It is also important to understand that the Council is carrying out its legal duties in respect of British and European Law, which rightly work to protect valuable vulnerable habitats.  Striking a balance between the environment, the economy and the wider interests of society is a challenge.

Finally it is worth mentioning the wider benefits that a Coastal Park would bring. One of the landowners of the area at the Coastal Park has already applied for residential development on the site (under Class MB of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2014).  If the proposed Coastal Park was to be provided, this would protect in perpetuity the green space between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren and provide a valuable asset to the community. 

 *****************************************************

So, where does this leave me and my own opinion on this issue?

This is necessarily a series of (relatively) brief responses to my questions, but the impression they give is that this is a course of action being forced on TDC by external pressures such as the legal requirements to balance housing development (also pressed on TDC by national policies!) with environmental protections.  But there does seem to be a lot of wishing and hoping about how effective these mitigations will be, and I'm not persuaded so far.

My sense that this is a course of action being forced on Teignbridge is reinforced by the fact that the potential acquisition costs would be drawn from future developers payments on houses that have not yet been built and when you add in the costs of creating the various elements of the park and then maintaining them, it is most definitely a case of "Pain today, jam tomorrow maybe"  It sounds like a very difficult path.

I suspect TDC will put maximum effort into negotiating a settlement with the landowner.  If that fails, there is a legal process they have to follow that requires them to satisfy an Inspector that their plans are well prepared and likely to be effective.  How likely they are to succeed in that attempt or defend a Judicial Review application seems to me to depend on whether their plans for the Coastal Park go beyond wishing and hoping. 

maybe it's not a looking glass I've gone through but a rabbit hole I've fallen into......... 

Q1.   As I understand the Local Plan, the Park is over and above the land take required for a SANGS and is designed to draw visitors away from the Nature Reserve.   Is it still your intention to promote greater customer numbers at the adjacent tourist resort?   How will you achieve both these goals, which at first glance appear contradictory?

A: For clarity it is important to note that the Coastal Park and SANGS are alternative names for the same area, which is an item of community infrastructure, the Coastal Park simply being the name for the area identified as the Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space. 

The proposed SANGS Coastal Park is approximately the land area required for a SANGS in Dawlish.  The land area needed is based on guidelines produced by Natural England. These require broadly 8 hectares of SANGS land for every 1000 of additional population. (The additional population is calculated by multiplying the additional dwellings permitted or allocated in Dawlish over the Local Plan period by the average number of residents per household). Natural England have been supportive of the proposed Coastal Park because its size and location are considered to meet the guidelines for creating a successful SANGS area. Agreeing a mechanism to mitigate the impacts from new and existing residents and visitors on the important natural areas has been a priority for the Council and Natural England for a substantial period of time. 

The Council will continue to support businesses operating in and around Dawlish, including those catering to the tourism industry.  It is true that the Council is having to balance a tension between businesses and the environment, but this is not unusual in south Devon.  It is the Council’s intention that the SANGS and other specific measures will help to mitigate the impact of additional visitors to the protected areas at the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). It is also important to say that the introduction of the Country park is to provide a new facility which will be complimentary to the wider resort and will alongside other potential measures, encourage visitors to use this area and the beach and amusement area of Dawlish Warren, whilst managing visitors away from sensitive locations to protect key habitats and species.

TDC themselves actively encourage visitors to the Warren NNR. Did he say that would stop? If he did I missed it.

Q2.  What is the consequence of not reducing use of the Nature Reserve?  Where is the pressure to do this coming from?  Might we otherwise end up with the Reserve closed to public access?

What is the consequence of not reducing use of the Nature Reserve? 

This is answered in detail in the South-East Devon European Site Mitigation Strategy that is available on our website at: http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37957&p=0.

In summary, an increase in recreational use of the site is likely to result in significant further damage to the designated features that include overwintering waterfowl populations and dune habitats. This would be in breach of our legal responsibilities.

The Council’s Countryside Rangers have been working for many years to minimise these impacts at current use levels and continue to do so.TDC themselves actively encourage visitors to the Warren NNR.Additional measures would be needed to mitigate the effects of future growth and provide an opportunity to make a real difference to the long term future of these important habitats and features.

Where is the pressure to do this coming from? 

There is a legal requirement not to allow development or other ‘plans or projects’ that would result in negative impacts on a European wildlife site.  The European sites in this case are Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA, which includes the Warren).  The SAC is designated for its dune habitats and a population of petalwort. The SPA is designated for its populations of overwintering waterfowl.

The requirement comes from the European Habitats Directive, which is transposed into English law in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.  Regulation 61 specifies that Local Planning Authorities must not adopt a Local Plan or grant a planning permission that would result in net harm to a European wildlife site.  However, 61 (6) allows plans or projects to proceed if the impacts on the European sites are fully mitigated.

So this has to happen because of Brussels and Westminster policies 

Teignbridge District Council, East Devon District Council and Exeter City Council have been working with Natural England for several years to assess how developments might impact the SAC / SPA and how to fully mitigate such impacts.  They are also working to mitigate the existing impact on these important areas, as evidence shows that recreational use already impacts the special interest of the European sites.  Increased numbers of residents or tourists around the estuary would lead to increased recreational use and increased impacts. 

So why then encourage even more visitors by,for example, the recent building of the Exe estuary cycle/walk way? 

Government requires Teignbridge District Council to make provision for a certain amount of new housing in the District. Westminster again  Due to a range of other constraints across the district (such as flood zones, mineral deposits, etc) and the requirement to provide homes for local need, some of this housing has been allocated close to Dawlish. 

To satisfy Regulation 61 and the requirement for additional development, the local authorities (advised by Natural England and specialist consultants) have agreed a suite of mitigation measures to offset impacts of increased recreational use, to be funded by the developments whose effects they will mitigate.  Natural England advised that the mitigation package must include a combination of measures to protect the European sites and provision of alternative recreation sites to attract people away from the European sites.  These sites are called Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGS).  The SANGS approach has been tested at a number of other European sites around the country.  NE recommends provision of 8ha of SANGS per 1,000 new residents.

Might we otherwise end up with the Reserve closed to public access?

The Council does not want this to happen. Presumably that's why they keep advertising it to visitors (see a contradiction here anyone?)

The Council in partnership with East Devon District Council and Exeter City Council have been and continue to work towards preserving the SAC / SPA which Dawlish Warren forms part of.  It is clear that even without growth these important natural areas are being impacted upon by recreational use well they would be wouldn't they given that TDC and DCC between them keep advertising their existence  and would therefore need further careful management.

In relation to future growth, if Teignbridge Council does not deliver mitigation measures to Natural England’s satisfaction, the Council would be in breach of the Habitat Regulations.  Obviously we will work hard to prevent this situation arising and if key mitigation measures cannot be delivered for some reason we will work with NE to try to find satisfactory alternatives. So why don't you start looking now then?  The current suite of measures was devised to provide maximum benefit (mitigation of impacts) for least negative impact on users and the public.  If these measures cannot be delivered, the options may be more restrictive.

Q3.   Why are you confident that a coastal park will succeed in drawing people away from the combined attraction of a beautiful nature reserve adjacent to a well developed tourist resort with considerably more parking and served by a railway station, coastal path and cycle path?

It is a legal requirement under the Habitat Regulations that the Council includes policies and proposals within its Local Plan to protect the status of the internationally important wildlife sites. Accordingly, the Council has worked with Natural England to develop policies and proposals in the Local Plan which seek to minimise those potential impacts.

The Council and Natural England believe that a well designed and attractive area of SANGS is likely to attract some people away from the Dawlish Warren and will provide an ‘interceptor’ location for people to visit, which will go some way to reducing pressure on the SAC and SPA. The location of the proposed Coastal Park adjacent to the Lady’s Mile foot and cycle path, and reasonable distance to either Dawlish or Dawlish Warren railway station also helps its connectivity. Yes it most certainly does help its connectivity. People can simply walk down the coastal path to the Warren NNR (especially if TDC keeps advertising the existiance of the NNR to tourists) 

While existing and new residents and additional tourists will still want to visit the beach and the estuary, we can have a reasonable expectation that they may also choose to visit the SANGS also, which will be a facility available to walkers and families to enjoy. The objective of the combined mitigation strategy is that this would lead to no overall net increase in recreational impacts to the SAC/SPA. Wot - with the coastal path leading straight down to the Warren? Yer 'avin' a laf ain't ya? 

Q4.   Have you thought about the potential links that might be made from the coastal park to the large population living on the Pidgley estate?  Will there be a safe route across the A379 for ambient families with young children?

Our intention is to maximise the ability for local residents to safely access the Coastal Park. We will plan for any necessary improvements to access provision in consultation with relevant stakeholders such as local residents and the Highways Authority. For residents of the Pidgeley Road area, this could include improved access via Warren Copse, with safer crossing points where required. Blimey - now they've got their eyes on messing about with Warren Copse! 

Q5 Would you still be pursuing a Coastal Park at this location if the Inspector had not forced you to accept development South of Shutterton Lane?

The Secretary of State issued his decision to allow the appeal at Shutterton Park on 10 September 2013. The Dawlish Coastal Park proposal had originally been included in the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan consultations in 2011 and was included in the ‘Teignbridge Preferred Options Core Strategy’ consultation document, published in January 2012.  The provision of a Coastal Park was therefore already a preferred option prior to the Secretary of State’s Shutterton Park decision.

Q6. Did you consider any other locations for the SANGS?   Did you consider any other locations for the Coastal Park?   If yes, why was this location thought to be best?

The Council assessed alternative options for a SANGS near Dawlish – the evidence document submitted to the planning inspector as part of the Local Plan Examination can be found here;http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37826&p=0

As set out in the report, the DA7 Coastal Park location was preferred for a number of reasons, including because of the coastal aspect, size and ability to fit in appropriate walking routes, accessible location which can ‘intercept’ visits from Dawlish, lack of steep inclines, and existing good connectivity.

Q7.  How do you answer those who speak if the Council's actions as immoral?

The Council understands that there will be opposition to any compulsory acquisition of land but disputes that the actions are immoral. A family could end up losing their livelihood! There are numerous statutory powers that exist for central Government and public bodies to compulsory acquire land to enable the provision of infrastructure for the public good.  A recent local example of compulsory purchase powers (CPO) being used is for the construction of the South Devon Link Road.

The legislation which permits compulsory acquisition contains inherent safeguards to protect the rights of private landowners.  If voluntary negotiations to acquire land are unsuccessful then ultimately an Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, makes the decision whether the CPO has been lawfully made and if it should be made.  The acquiring authority is legally required to meet the valuation and legal costs of the landowner irrespective of the outcome of the public inquiry.

Any dispute in valuation of the land subject to the CPO would be determined by the Lands Tribunal.

It is important to note that the Council has appointed a professional valuer to assess and value the land in question and to negotiate with landowners to see if an agreement can be made. This process is still ongoing and compulsory acquisition is a last resort.

It is also important to understand that the Council is carrying out its legal duties in respect of British and European Law, Westminster and Brussels again (Localism anyone?)  which rightly work to protect valuable vulnerable habitats.  Striking a balance between the environment, the economy and the wider interests of society is a challenge.

Finally it is worth mentioning the wider benefits that a Coastal Park would bring. One of the landowners of the area at the Coastal Park has already applied for residential development on the site (under Class MB of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2014).  If the proposed Coastal Park was to be provided, this would protect in perpetuity the green space between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren and provide a valuable asset to the community. If you don't want building to take place on the coastal areas then quite simply bring in policies protecting the coastal areas (thought you 'ad 'em already?). Refuse any planning application - you have the power. Er..........and this coastal park - won't it have any buildings then? or don't you know because you haven't come up with any plans for it yet?

PS I don't think the question was asked so I'll ask it here - perhaps someone can pass it on to you.

The residents of the Pidgely estate have been mentioned but what about all those new residents to be found over Shutterton and Gatehouse way. How will they access this coastal park?

(I am now off for a cup of tea. Who knows I might even come across a mad hatter, a white rabbit, a dormouse, and goodness knows what other endangered species).    

Your penultimate sentence has given me a laugh Lynne

Well done Lynne

Oh and what will the posters say about the new SANGS?

Welcome to our lovely Coastal Park, a great place to have a picnic with the family next to the sewage treatment works.  You get to enjoy the fragrant sea air if you get past the pong of sewage!

There are beautiful views across the Coastal Park which is a relaxing natural environment, oh and the jewel in the crown is Leadstone Campsite. 

Enjoy your walk especially if you have a dog, but remember to look out for little packages that are left and not picked up by others, dog poo on your shoes is an added bonus we think you would like because our warden cannot be everywhere.

Finally we request that you stay on site and do not use the South West Coastal Path to go to the beach, this would then help us save the wildlife and put traders out of business.

Enjoy your time at the Coastal Park and we hope to see you back soon! 

Thank you Michael Clayson, I think you've ably demonstrated your effectiveness in word and deed. Hopefully everyone will graciously allow you time off from this subject and you can get on with some Christmas shopping. 

If you look above you will see that on 16th December at 08.01 SoulofDawlish posted a letter by Lib Dem Councillor David Cox asking that the decisions made by the TDC Executive councillors regarding the purchase by Teignbridge District Council of Warren Farm be called in to be examined by Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Cox also requested that Mr and Mrs Weeks be allowed to address O&S.

Since then nothing has been posted about this matter.

So I would like to ask the following questions in the hope that someone (SoulofDawlish?) can furnish us with answers.

1. Have any more councillors signed to say they wish the matter to be raised at O&S? From what I can ascertain the original 5 comprised 4 Lib Dems and the 1 UKIP councillor on TDC.  

2. If more councillors have signed, are they all Lib Dems or has this now become even more of a cross party request?

3. Have any of the Dawlish TDC councillors signed up for the call-in? (Dawlish has 4 Conservative and 1 Independent district councillors?)

4. Will Mr and Mrs Weeks be allowed to address Overview and Scrutiny committee?

Do any more councillors need to sign up for it to be called in?  I thought it had already been called in and therefore no one else needs to sign up?  

I personally don't believe that Farmer Weeks' plight should be used as a party political football - we keep getting told that this is a moral issue, I don't see how making it party political helps his cause. 

Yes, Michael, thank you. Your typically determined, analytical and illuminating questioning really is getting to the heart of the matter.

One point though - I believe your understanding of the quantum of SANGS provision at Warren Farm (Q1) is incorrect. The Coastal Park is not, as I understand it, in excess of the SANGS requirement for Dawlish; rather it is deficient to the tune of some 11.6 hectares (using TDC's own calculator) when all relevant sites (those within the Local Plan, those already being built and those with planning permission) are taken into account.

These extracts from the TDC SANGS report of May 2013 refer:

2.1 The proposed submission Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 (November 2012) includes provision for the allocation of at least 900 new homes at Dawlish. This is addition to current planning commitments for 638 homes in the parish. 

2.9 Natural England has issued SANGS guidelines. These recommend the provision of 8 hectares of SANGS per 1,000 additional population. [At 2.23 persons per household]

3.1 Proposed submission Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 Policy DA7 makes provision for a ‘Coastal Park’ through the allocation of 22 hectares of land on the undeveloped coastal headland between Dawlish and Dawlish Warren... This will function as SANGS towards mitigating the recreational impacts arising from the 900 planned new houses at Dawlish and other consented new houses at the town.

4.3 Natural England guidelines recommend the provision of 8 hectares of SANGS for every 1,000 new population. It therefore follows that 3,430 additional persons through the consented / plan led growth at Dawlish would place a requirement for 27.4 hectares of SANGS.

So in May 2013, you will note Warren Farm was 5.4 hectares short of the SANGS required. Then in September 2013 the successful Shutterton Park appeal added 350 houses to the total for Dawlish. This has increased the SANGS requirement by a further 6.2 hectares. Dawlish would therefore need a further SANGS land uplift to the tune of over 50% of the current provision if the Natural England guidelines are to be observed (refer also Q5).

As to the TDC responses you have received, it is apparent that if an increase in recreational use of the Warren was to result in significant damage to wildlife habitats, restrictions (or closure) should not be ruled out. This would not only be unfortunate for users of the Warren, it would be a disaster for the local businesses that depend on the year round trade that such activity generates. Thus, rather than providing an attraction to the area which (we are told) is expected to balance environmental concerns, undeveloped coast protection, local amenity and visitor needs (a tough juggling act), if the site does not function in its ultimate purpose - as a SANGS - it could end up throttling the town’s golden goose, driving tourists away. (Ironic, as it is this bird that is expected to be fattened up by other developments, according to the Teignbridge Local Plan, at or alongside the Warren Farm fields).

To be effective as a SANGS, the Warren Farm Coastal Park site must ‘intercept’ traffic from Dawlish that would otherwise have been heading for the Warren beaches and dunes. However once someone has got into their car to travel (with or without a dog) to the beach it would not seem very likely that they would be ‘intercepted’. Rather, they will go the extra mile to the Warren. The Coastal Park is also much further away from the 900 new houses at DA2 (Gatehouse Farm) where an adjacent ridge top ‘Country Park’ had been offered by the developers (on land in their ownership) but not taken up by TDC. This site is also more conveniently positioned for the majority of people already living in the town and can be reached on foot without crossing the busy A379.

Why TDC and its executive continue to pursue Warren Farm in the face of poor mathematics, untested logistics and an outraged Dawlish public, is baffling. Can a new resolution be found now that the decision to proceed has been called-in to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee? We will find out in the New Year.

"Can a new resolution be found now that the decision to proceed has been called-in to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee?"

Has the call-in been accepted then? Will Mr and Mrs Weeks be allowed to address O&S councillors? 

To answer my own question: I understand the call-in has been ruled unconstitutional. 

So what happens now then?

Ruled unconstitutional? By whom?

 I assume by whoever it is who makes the decision on these things at TDC.   

Booted into the long grass by an unelected TDC exec?

Well........I don't know which officer advised the appropriate councillor(s) that the call-in was unconstitutional. But I do know that councillors don't always follow officer advice. They certainly don't always follow officer advice at Planning committee.

Depends I suppose, on what advice councillors want to 'hear'.   

Here is TDC Overview and Scruting Committe Guidance on Call-ins that they have to abide by, no where does it say that anything will be deemed unconstitutional!  Maybe they need to specify on what grounds and then it could be investigated as to whether this guidance is actually correct by putting it to a higher authority!

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9602&p=0

Kaz, without a public written statement on this matter, we are shooting in the dark. In the meantime, notwithstanding the imminent Christmas holidays (which will undoubtedly be a very uncertain time for the Weeks) we should gird our loins for a continuing land battle.

Thank you for that link Kaz. I will try and find out on what grounds the call-in has been deemed unconstitutional, who made that decision and in consultation with whom (but please remember that I am, like you, just a member of the public so whether or not my question will be answered and when is anyone's guess).

In the meantime might I draw your attention to (f) and (j) under 5.6 Call-In and Urgency to be found on that link you gave. Just wondering if they might be the 'get-out' clauses.        

Okay - this is what I have been told (albeit not by official TDC sources).

The call-in was ruled unconstitutional by TDC's Democratic Services Manager after the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny (Independent councillor Mike Haines) questioned it.  

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9612&p=0

this link gives information concerning decision making by councillors

note    

 (c) respect for human rights – it is important that human rights should be considered at an early stage in the decision-making process;  

I would like to know when Richard Weeks and his family’s human rights were considered early in any of the decision making processes  in connection with TDC’s plans for land comprising what is presently Warren Farm, Dawlish.

Please provide documentary evidence.

(Can anyone suggest to whom in TDC that should be sent?)

This lady perhaps?

Nicola.Bulbeck@Teignbridge.gov.uk

The Chief Executive is the senior officer who leads and takes responsibility for the work of the paid staff of the Council. The role of Chief Executive is a full time appointment. Post holders are selected on merit, against objective criteria, following public advertisement. They are appointed by the whole Council.

As head of the paid service, the Chief Executive works closely with elected members to deliver:

Leadership: working with elected members to ensure strong and visible leadership and direction, encouraging and enabling managers to motivate and inspire their teams

Strategic Direction: ensuring all staff understand and adhere to the strategic aims of the organisation and follow the direction set by the elected members

Policy Advice: acting as the principal policy adviser to the elected members of the Council to lead the development of workable strategies which will deliver the political objectives set by the councillors

Partnerships: leading and developing strong partnerships across the local community to achieve improved outcomes and better public services for local people

Operational Management: overseeing financial and performance management, risk management, people management and change management within the council

What an excellent idea!

I shall send my question to her sometime over this weekend so it's waiting for her when she when she gets to work on Monday.

Wonder how long it will be before I get a response.

You're assuming that she's at work on Monday, she may have started her Christmas holiday. Though if she's not in, I'd assume that you'd get an "Out Of Office" auto reply. 

Well, I'll find out when I send the e-mail and I'll be sure to let you all know. 

Earlier this morning I sent the e-mail below to Nicola Bulbeck. As no 'out of office' message has come back I assume the e-mail has arrived safely.

TDC used to have a minimum response time for 1. acknowledging e-mails and 2. responding to the issues raised in them. For the life of me I can't find anything along those lines on TDC's website now so have no idea if the protocols still exist or not. So don't know how long it might be before I receive a response. 

Anyhow here's the e-mail:

So it's an agreed fact that the Warren is no longer all about tourist-based commercialism. This is the thin end of a very big wedge. 

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Warren-white-elephant-replaced-bespoke-facility/story-11716596-detail/story.html

That is a 2009 story. What is on that site now?

Think this is the site in question http://www.carehome.co.uk/for-sale/profile.cfm/id/97007654881

Another planning application of similar vintage concerns what is now the Sandpiper housing development at the Warren. As I remember it the original planning appplication for that site was for a nursing home. This would not only fulful a demand created by the elderly, it was claimed by the developer, but would also provide much needed local jobs.

Anyhow for one reason or the other planning permission was granted and then some time after that those behind the nursing home scheme said it was no longer viable and then subsequent to that a planning application to build houses on the site was submitted. I think this new planning application was granted by TDC on the basis that permission had already been given for the site to be developed for accommodation (ie a nursing home) therefore there was no good planning reason why that should not be changed to houses.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-27230960.html

and

https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/16180

and

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=25532&p=0

As I say that is some 5/6 years ago but I think if what I say got checked out I wouldn't be all that incorrect.    

So...........these new residential units that now have planning permission to be built on this part of the Peppermint Park site........... will there be any restrictions as to whether or not they can be used as second homes/holiday homes?

Is the Warren indeed becoming more residential or is it the case that the type of holiday accommodation on offer is changing as the 'residential' units are bought up by second home/holiday let business people?

I don't know the answer. I am just posing the question.

PS And as for all this a nursing/retirement home is desperately needed in the Warren so you, TDC, you just must give us planning permission so that not one but two can be built, what a load of baloney that turned out to be. Two applications were given planning permission for a retirement/nursing home to be built but neither have come to fruition. What caused that then? Lack of demand?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. 

Do you all now understand my cynicism with regard to planning matters?

Makes you wonder what the coastal park would actually turn out to be should TDC get its way and CPO Richard Weeks' land.   

Almost forgot about the presentation in the Manor House regarding the public consultation in relation to Gatehouse Park Developments and their proposed planning application in 2012 and this is the plan they presented.  Clearly is shown where the Ridge Top Park was proposed to be and biodiversity corridor.  It actually fits in well with the DA2 development proposed and shows that they had intent to provide it.

http://www.lhc.net/assets/Downloads/Gatehouse%20Farm,%20Dawlish%281%29.pdf

I do wonder at the weight of judgement given to the words of planning professionals in these cases.

Denise Pichler, from agents Pichler Planning, added: "There is an identified need for residential homes and there are no bespoke nursing homes in that area. The existing building is a real white elephant."

Is my memory at fault when I remember Ms Pichler as a former member of TDC planning dept?

I believe that the Planning Authority should demand more concrete evidence behind such statements, even to the extent of a condition being loaded with a sizeable Bond from the developer which would be executed in favour of the Council if they failed to develop the stated building. There's probably a clause introduced by the Planning Minister which would prohibit such a measure?

In all of this debate the silence of TDC is noticeable. I find this paradoxical when I remember that TDC personnel addressed the new Town Council a couple of years ago, impressing on us the importance of using social media to get our message across.

These are my own views as a member of Dawlish Town Council, but do not represent an official view of the Council.

And if/when TDC does break its silence what's the betting it will try pointing the finger of blame for the Warren Farm/Coastal Park controversy firmly in the direction of those who participated in the first Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan steering group that met during 2011/2012.

(and just to be clear I am not saying that I am pointing the finger of blame in that direction just that I think TDC will try to do so).  

I would like to know the following:

Who in TDC and then when did TDC decide that the coastal park concept should be altered from it being just that (a coastal park) to it being designated a SANGS? I don't think it was anyone on the DNP#1 steering group was it? Therefore it must have been TDC that did so. Who? Why? and When? 

Robert you are correct and here is the proof that she was at one point working for TDC

https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/denise-pichler/17/452/118

Director

Denise Pichler

Pichler Planning Consultancy Ltd

 – Present (7 years 4 months)Exeter, United Kingdom

Pichler Planning Consultancy is a specialist town planning practice providing professional planning and development advice for a wide range of clients.

I qualified as a Town Planner in 1992 and spent much of my planning career working in local authorities to a senior level until moving into the private sector in 2004.

Pichler Planning Consultancy was set up in 2007 and provides a flexible and cost efficient service for all types of planning related work on a diverse range of projects.

My portfolio is extensive and varied and I am involved in all areas of planning expertise.

and it's not only ex local government planning officers who are full of planning advice.

Seems some cllrs are up to the same thing 'n all. Have a read of this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9921344/Councillors-for-hire-who-give-firms-planning-advice.html  

And who knows there might even be councillors with inside knowledge of what land is going to be developed in the future who make sure they get they mitts on that land and then just sit and wait it out.

Can't find anything online to back up that assertion I've just made but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past, isn't happening now, and won't happen again in the future. Just no proof. And anyway I imagine it isn't illegal any more than the ex officers and planning councillors selling their expertise to those who can afford it.

However, to my nose it is all a bit pongy (just like the Timaru sewage works can be on occasions).

So, to return to the main subject of this thread.

This is how I understand the timeline concerning events has thus far unravelled. (and if anyone has any different views then please do post them).  

1.       TDC officers knew from September 2011 (but not before then because no-one had had the courtesy apparently of contacting the owner when the idea was first mooted earlier in that year) that the land they had their eyes on for a coastal park, Warren Farm, was not available.ie Richard Weeks, the owner, made it very clear that he did not wish to sell this land.   

2.       At this early stage RW was told by TDC that they could not use compulsory purchase to acquire his land. RW believed the idea of a coastal park would be reviewed given as he didn’t wish to sell the land and it could not be compulsory purchased by TDC.

3.       However, irrespective of  RW's indication that he did not wish to sell his land, TDC continued to show it as the proposed coastal park in the draft Plan.

4.       In July 2013 the TDC Executive met and a report on the four options for SANGS in Dawlish was given to the committee. The preferred option according to this report was for the land at Warren Farm.(planning reference DA7). It was at this meeting that the issue of a compulsory purchase order was first mentioned.

5.       Note that the designation of the proposed coastal park has now changed from that of an a.n. other coastal park (compulsory purchase order not applicable) to that of a SANGS (compulsory purchase order applicable).

6.       The owner of Warren Farm met up with TDC for a second time in September 2013. By this time the proposed coastal park had been designated by TDC as a SANGS. It was at this meeting that the owner was told by TDC officers that TDC had the power to issue a Compulsory Purchase Order .(because the land had now been designated by TDC as a SANGS).  

7.       Owner meets up with TDC executive in December 2013

8.       I post this on Dawlish.com https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/33467

https://twitter.com/Save_WarrenFarm    I've set up a Twitter account . Please share  and re-tweet.

There is an addition to be made to that timeline I've given above (and I'm posting it separately rather than amending that timeline so that this info doesn't get overlooked).

The additional information is this.,

I understand that after TDC had published its main modifications to what was then its draft and as yet to be Adopted Local Plan, but prior to TDC submitting this plan for Inspection, a letter was sent by Richard Weeks to Mr Salter, the  Planning Inspector, saying that as the land at Warren Farm was in private ownership and not for sale the SANGS at DA7 would be undeliverable. 

So, it would seem that for the past three or so years Richard has done his utmost to make sure that all who needed to know were aware that his land was, and is, not for sale.

And have they taken any notice?  

Letter in this week's Gazette

Do we really want coastal park?

Wednesday, 24 December 2014

Paul Hadcroft, of Beach Road, Dawlish Warren, writes:

As a fairly new retailer in the Warren I have a few concerns about the compulsory purchase of Warren Farm.

The first being the new coastal park is designed to reduce footfall in the Warren. The fewer people visiting the warren will be a devastating blow for businesses, not just in the Warren but Dawlish too.

My second point is that we have all seen the signs to car-share to reduce pollution and congestion within TDC area, So wouldn’t the park be better placed where they are building all these new houses, as the proposed coastal park will be a car journey away for most?

The third and final point is if this coastal park gets the go ahead, will this be an end to the car boot, market, stunt show and bonfire night? All of these are held at Warren Farm and very popular with locals and tourists alike.

Is this what the people of Dawlish want?

and would I be right in thinking that Warren Farm is also used by the Dawlish Air Show organisers as a car parking area? So where will air show visitors park their cars if Warren Farm is taken out of the equation? (I did send an e-mail to the air show people some weeks back asking this very question but to date I have received no response)

For info (comments anyone?)

Extract from the minutes of Teignbridge District Council Executive Committee meeting 9.12.14

Question:. From where do the Council expect visitors to its proposed country

visitor park at Dawlish Warren to have come from?

Answer provided by the Business Manager – Strategic Place:

A large proportion of visitors are expected to be residents in Teignbridge who visit the fragile dunes at Dawlish Warren for recreation and for its nature conservation

interest. However, the provision of the Coastal Park may also attract visitors

from outside the district.

A supplementary question then asked what percentage of users to the

proposed country visitor park would come from the developments whose

impact it was supposed to mitigate?

The Deputy Chief Executive responded by saying it was difficult to estimate

when the development had not been constructed and that a large proportion of

visitors would come from district wide locations. The Country visitor park was

to mitigate the impact on Dawlish Warren from new developments within the

area

Natural England have the power to close areas off to the public , so who's to say that they in conjunction with TDC don't arrange to close off the Warren to the public if  the public don't use the new park.

Why not just close off the Warren NNR then if 'they' are so concerned about it and leave Warren Farm as tis.

Win/win I'd say.

Seems we've got celebs joining the fray now http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/news.cfm?id=19512&headline=BBC%20wildlife%20expert%20backing%20farm%20fight

Celeb singular. I thought that the petition had already been handed over?

Interesting to read the names of the followers of that particular Twitter account. Usual party political suspects...

In my post of 24th December timed 08.08 I referred to a letter sent by Richard Weeks to the planning inspector. I've now found that letter online. For those who wish to read its contents - click on this link.

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=40014&p=0

Many thanks Lynne. An intelligent and well thought out response to the proposals. Did Mr Weeks ever get a reply? 

Well I don't know if he ever received a reply. But was what he said taken on board and acted on? 

I think we all know the answer to that!

We do!

TDC’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be meeting on Monday 12th January 2015.

Amongst other reports it will be looking at this one http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42840&p=0

Note 5.5 where it says (my emphasis in bold)

5.5 The infrastructure delivery plan investment over the next three years

contributes to:

· A new railway station at Marsh Barton for South West Exeter and Teignbridge

residents access to employment

· Primary school education provision for South West Exeter

· New green spaces for the Dawlish Coastal and South West Exeter ridge top

parks

· Further sports provision in the Teignbridge area including playing pitches

· Heart of Teignbridge and coastal cycle provision

I also note this at the bottom of that report

Call in does not apply as the final budget recommendations will be considered

for approval by Council on 24 February 2015.

However, although a call-in does not apply I further note that the agenda says questions from the public and councillors are allowed (again my emphasis in bold)

A G E N D A

PART I
(Open to the Public)

Note: 
Executive Members may observe proceedings
Executive Members may be invited to speak by the Chairman of the Committee

1. Apologies for absence.

2. Public questions (if any) to be submitted no later than 12 noon on Thursday, 8 January 2015.

3. Members questions (if any) to be submitted no later than 12 noon on Tuesday, 6 January    2015.

4. Minutes of meeting of the Committee held on 24 November 2014 (previously circulated).

5. Agreement of the agenda between Parts I and II.

6. Declarations of interest.

7. Matters of urgency or report especially brought forward with the permission of the Chairman.

Now, given that the issue of the Dawlish Coastal Park forms part of a report going to this committee and given also that this coastal park is proving such a controversial matter it has occurred to me that perhaps questions pertaining to it might not only be raised by members of the public but also by our very own Dawlish district councillors all five of whom, according to the TDC website, sit on the Overview and Scrutiny committee. 

Here are the names of the councillors who are members of the Overview and Scrutiny committee. I have highlighted the Dawlish councillors’ names in red.

Councillors: Haines (Chairman), Prowse (Vice Chairman), Austen, Ballinger, Brodie, Bunday, Clarance, Clemens, Colclough, Connett, Corney-Walker, Cox, Dennis, Evans, Fry, Fusco, Hockin, Hook, Jeffery, Kerswell, Klinkenberg, Lambert, Lewis, Parker, Petherick, Price, Purser, Smith, Vogel and Williams.

Cllrs Petherick, Price and Hockin represent the ward in which Warren Farm/the proposed country park SANGS is sited.  Richard Weeks and his family, living where they do, are also represented by these three councillors.

Just found this that might be of interest to some

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=40100&p=0

Yesterday I went for a walk along Secmaton Lane.  Whilst there, with the new build housing to the back of me, I looked in a north and north west direction across fields where I understand a lot of new build housing is scheduled to be built in the future. In terms of the Teignbridge Local Plan I believe this area is referred to as DA2.

Being the imaginative soul that I am I tried picturing all that area being covered in houses and roads and wondered to myself where the people living in those houses might walk their dogs or just go for a nice country walk with lovely views. Along that ridge top that I could see in the distance perhaps? Surely that would be an ideal place.

And it wouldn’t only be the people living in all that new build who’d be able to access such a country park by foot, for such easy access would also be available for those already living in the vicinity such as the Elm Grove area, Newlands, the Pidgley estate, the Hentys, the Drives and more areas than that quite possibly. 

So why TDC is proposing that there should be a new park along Warren Road the primary function of which would be to provide a dog walking area for the expanding population in this part of Dawlish is completely and utterly beyond my comprehension.  I feel I am missing something in TDC’s logic. Can anyone tell me what it is please?

This is an extract from that link I’ve posted above:

“East Devon District Council have stated..........that ‘a key part of the SANGS provision can be expected to be easily accessible spaces to peoples’ homes, in walking rather than driving distance, that would be especially appealing to dog walkers’. TDC have chosen a site that is the furthest away from the proposed developments so why is their interpretation of the requirements different to a neighbouring authority?”    

As I have said before, grab a third of his land that forces him into selling the rest at farm land rates. Somebody  buys it and then puts in a planning app to have houses built on that land. Or are TDC frightend that the landowners of DA2 will withdraw their land if they are forced to supply SANGS land.

I was wondering to myself if TDC could, if push came to shove, CPO all that land in DA2 but then I suppose that would cost TDC more than the land at Warren Farm (DA7) as a lot of the land in DA2 is now worth more (it being in the Teignbridge Plan as land for houses) than the land at Warren Farm (presently designated as agricultural land albeit I understand Grades 1&2 agricultural land).

I don't know what other land Richard Weeks owns and where it is located exactly but I do see what you are getting at about his being forced to sell, speculator buys the land at agricultural prices and then sits and waits it out. Could be ten years, might be a bit more but if then TDC deem it to be the case that Dawlish needed even more housing then, depending on where that land is sited, the speculator could be in for a windfall as that land would have gone from being cheap(er) agricultural land to development for housing land.

In the case of Richard Weeks' land I am talking about the future. But I do not doubt that the buying of cheaper agricultural land and then the sitting and waiting it out for a period of time until the local authority/central government decrees more housing is needed is not an unknown modus operandi. But nothing illegal about it at all. One person wants (needs) to sell land. Another person is in a position to buy that land. And the buyer might then by sheer happenstance find themselves sometime in the future on the right end of a windfall or the buyer might have bought that land knowing full well what that land will be needed for in 10/15 years time.  

I guess it's a question of knowing about how the planning system works. Some 'farmers' do. Some farmers don't.

But an even playing field it most definitely ain't!

How long ago was the land in DA2 purchased, I Understand that it was 2001 just before the last TDC local plan was kicked into touch.

Who purchased it? Do you know?

860 houses gonna be built there ultimately. This particular planning application refers to the first 75.  http://www.cpredevon.org.uk/issue/gatehouse-farm-secmaton-lane-dawlish-860-dwellings-screening-opinion/

this link should take you to the Teignbridge Local Plan

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=41652&p=0

pages 119-124 are specifically concerned with Dawlish and page 122 with the proposed coastal park at Warren Farm (Local Plan reference DA7). 

The majority of the land was I am led to believe was purchased by the Jeffrey family, one of whom's wife was a TDC councillor.

Yes I found out the same, it is available at the land registry - Secmaton Farm was bought in 1998 and Gatehouse in 1997. Gatehouse Farm's application to change the barns to residential in 1998 is quite enlightening if you check it out on the Teignbridge Planning site.

@Kaz - i take it you are referring to planning application 98/2269/cou.

Can you elaborate more on what it is we should be looking for?

Also, who owns Langdon Farm? Do you know? 

and another question if i may. this time for @Robert Vickery

and my question is this. Bob, in the last sentence of the first paragraph in your post of 14th December you wrote:

" Issues of land ownership were not included as everything in the local plan is subject to land owners/developers wishing to come forward and take advantage of the planning framework at some time during the plan period."

Is that statement correct? Cos if it is then how come Richard Weeks is having so much hassle with TDC re Warren Farm? Richard does not wish to come forward with his land at Warren Farm for it to become a coastal park. Therefore, according to what you wrote, TDC cannot have their coastal park there irrespective of what it shows in the Local Plan.

Or is that statement you made incorrect? Or have I misunderstood what you meant by it?   

Lynne,

Yes planning application 98/02269/COU Gatehouse Farm Buildings, Secmaton Lane, Dawlish, Devon, EX7 0LW – Change of use and conversion of barns to 15 residential units. Ken the committee meetings logged shows Cllr V Jeffery’s connection with the application, as she followed council procedures and declared an interest, then left the room, so as not to influence either committee when heard at DTC or TDC in reltation to the application. 

Lynne when I googled Langdon Farm, Dawlish various sites came up with William George Jeffery as the owner and the below planning applications support this:

83/00384/COU Langdon Farm Cottages, Dawlish, Devon, EX7 0QX Change of use from hostel to 3 dwellings – Approved 26/04/1983 Mr Jeffery

89/02316/COU Langdon Farm, Hensford Road, Dawlish, Devon, EX7 0QX Change of use and conversion of redundant barns to dwellings CERTAIN PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS REMOVED - SEE LIST 240 FOR DETAILS – Change of Use –Approved 22/08/1989 Mr Jeffrey (George)

So the family invested in Langdon Farm many years before they aquired Gatehouse Farm.  Therefore, the family could provide SANGS if needed on this site, as it adjoins Gatehouse Farm where their allocation of housing is to be sited.  They might prefer in the future to put housing on the Langdon site, but if Warren Farm falls through, then it might be the only way to enable the expansion to go forward, as SANGS needs to be brought forward in conjunction with development.

Actually Kaz I'd say some of the SANGS needs to be in place before a lot of the development can take place and that according to TDC officers the easiest one in terms of early delivery is the SANGS that TDC want at Warren Farm. TDC need this SANGS in place so that they can then give planning permission for more new houses to be built. More new houses = more CIL (Commuity Infrastructure Levy) and more NHB (New Homes Bonus) and more Council Tax for the TDC coffers.

Ergo they are pushing ahead with whatever it is they need to do to compulsory purchase Warren Farm. It is designated as a SANGS in the now adopted Teignbridge Local Plan remember so I imagine that once it is CPOd TDC would then be in a position to grant more planning applications for more new houses because they will have the SANGS in place that they need to have in order to legally be able to grant this planning permission for more housing. Will TDC need more SANGS in the future? It might do and if that were to be the case, where would this/these additional SANGS be sited?

Below is an extract from the report that went to the TDC Exec in July 2013 concerning the four options of SANGS sites in Dawlish. The bit I am quoting refers to the Warren Farm option. My emphasis in red   

 “While further work is needed to clarify the potential for the

delivery of SANGS and its management, this particular site could provide for early mitigation for visitor impacts in relation to plan led and consented growth at Dawlish which offers significant advantage over Options 1 and 2."

and then there is this from a report dated July 2014 (see below for link details). Again my emphasis in red.  

" 3.1 Legal: It is a legal requirement that a local planning authority does not grant planning permission for any development that would negatively impact a European Site, unless full mitigation is secured. The Mitigation Strategy identifies the measures needed to mitigate recreational impacts from the construction and occupation of a specified number of new houses within the District. Accordingly the principle of securing monetary contributions through S106 agreements and/or CIL (on a per dwelling basis) to contribute towards achieving those mitigation measures is sound and ensures compliance with our legal duty under the Habitats Regulations.

Some Sunday morning thoughts:

So...........SANGS need to be in place (wherever that/those place(s) might be) so that TDC can legally give planning permission for lots of houses to be built so that these houses in turn, via CIL, NHB and Council Tax will give TDC the revenue it needs to keep going.

So.....if in the future there are even more restrictions placed on local councils such as how much grant they receive from central government  and how much local councils can raise council tax then how will local councils raise the revenue they need/keep within their budgets?  

Make cut backs (eg Devon County Council’s cutting back on elderly residential care home provision)? Put more services out to the private sector (private sector will only be interested in running such services if there is a profit to be made though)?

Will councils say that more houses are needed? (thus providing more revenue in the three ways I give above). But if even more houses are built in Dawlish/near the Exe estuary then more SANGS will be needed. More CPOs anyone? Landowners beware! TDC could be coming for you next!   

My point being that things that are deemed to be non essential, such as the development of a coastal park with visitor centre etc at what is now Warren Farm, may go on hold. So, we could be left with an undeveloped coastal park which is just basically a dog walking area (but a dog walking area quite a way from all those new houses remember) at the cost to a local farmer and his family of their livelihood.

Why have TDC yet to come forward with any proposals as to how a visitor centre could be funded, staffed etc.? Why no designs for this centre? Will TDC charge entrance fees? Would they be allowed to charge entrance fees given as it is designated a SANGS.  And who in their right minds would pay to walk their dog at this coastal park when there are the free beaches and Dawlish Warren literally just down the road?

And now I’ll sign off for a while.

As it’s such a lovely morning I think I’ll take myself off for a walk somewhere. Where to go? Hmm...........a walk along to the Warren might be nice. I might even pop along to the NNR whilst I’m there given that TDC keeps advertising it as a place to visit!  

Need a Part 3

Sure? I won't need asking twice you know.

or change the sort order of the posts, @webmaster i know it is difficult but i have seen blogs that do it

Sorry, I can't change the sort order of this forum so I've started a new thread:-

Land Grab at the Warren Part 3