General Discussion

There is already planning permission in place for 75 new dwellings and pre planning application documents are now being prepared for a futher up to 415 dwellings on that site. I note from the planning documents that it is anticipated that a planning application will be submitted sometime early in 2015 for this up to 415 dwellings development.

I would like to quote from one of the documents but I see that very clearly on its front cover  is a copyright statement. One needs permission to quote from it. 

So, for those interested, I'll have to be satisfied by pointing you to a very 'interesting' bit of this particular document which is concerned with the mitigation needed re all these new houses given that they are going to be built near the Warren NNR and the Exe Estuary and all the issues and controversy that such developments can cause/are causing because of the need for SANGS (see the Warren Farm/Coastal Park SANGS saga).

Okay, for those interested in reading what I am getting at, do the following;

1. Go to TDC's planning portal - the bit where it says you can look at planning applications submitted.

2. Type in 15/00095

3. Click on the bottom left hand corner where it says 'associated documents'

4. Click on Additional plan information - that should bring you to a EIA scoping report

5. Scroll down to page 19. Look at 5.2.9.

6. What is it that's not required?  

Lynne, any copyright would apply to reproducing the actual image of the document, not reporting the content, or providing a link.  Allow me:

http://docimages.teignbridge.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=3348537&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf

Are you addressing me or Lynne?  I thought I was being helpful by providing a link, I didn't have time to re-type the clause.  What's behind such an aggressive comment as I don't understand it? 

I wasn't sure just what it is that it is deemed (by whom?) isn't required? The SANGS? the £350 per dwelling contribution? or both? Plus I wasn't sure when I would and when I wouldn't infringe the copyright (wouldn't want to give anyone the opportunity to shut me up would I. Well, would I?!).

Thank you Mcjrpc for posting that link. I can access it quite easily. If others can also do the same then they too can scroll down to the page and para to which I refer.

Just trying to keep people informed that's all. Don't understand the aggro either.

Oh and on the subject of keeping people informed - I am most definitely not standing for election to either town or district council in the May elections.

As far as I am aware all new builds have to pay the £350 whether it is 1 house or multiple houses.  I guess the 'deemed' is in relation to the SANGS.

Therefore I suppose the question to ask is why is a nearby (how nearby is nearby to this proposed development?), and presumably additional SANGS to that proposed at what is presently Warren Farm, deemed to be not required?

And to whom should that question be posed?

I only object when the word is used in a homophobic sense, as when your mate Dorian used it.

Oh here we go again.  Dorian's use of the word queer was as homophobic as Margaret's, neither were. Stop this nonsense. 

Well anyone with an ounce (or is that a gram?) of intelligence would know that the phrase I used is not derogatory but I do think you should go and read Dorian's post again. Homophobic language should never be dismissed as nonsense and should always be challenged.

You're not challenging anything Margaret, you and your brother are just trying to stir things up.  Meantime yet another post falls victim to your aggression and malice. 

Okay - in the hope of bringing this thread back to its original topic I am posting this.

I intend sending an e-mail to Cllr John Goodey who is the portfolio holder for housing and planning at Teignbridge District council asking him to clarify some things conncerning this "deemed not to be required" statement in the EIA report.

The e-mail is ready to go. Should anyone have anything they would like me to include you can message me via this website. Please make it relevant(!) and polite.

Thank you. 

@Mcjrpc

In my opinion, Dorian is most certainly a homophobe.  It is significant that since the remark was originally posted in mid-December Dorian is nowhere to be seen.  Is he/she unable, or unwilling, to defend themself?

Homophobia. A subject for discussion most certainly. But on a separate thread perhaps? 

Please Mrjrpc, do not try to detract from the fact that you would prefer to dismiss homophobic comments. 

I asked a question and you explained that you did not have time to retype the clause and for me that was an end to the query. Mrs C is the person on here who constantly stirs things up, as she has done in this post. Put the blame where it belongs please. 

Just your opinion Burneside.   In my opinion the comment was quite clearly in the context of 'nowt so queer as folk' directed at you and your sister for your petty argument with JC over the main route into Paddington. You're cynically contriving it oherwise because, let's face It, Dorian has taken Margaret to task over her behaviour as a councillor and this is your way of settling the score.   Now if either you or Margaret is homosexual and Dorian was making a sly dig that would be different.  I for one did not take it like that.

My sister is entirely capable of speaking for herself, I am not "cynically contriving" anything.  But I certainly will not let the likes of Dorian get away with making homophobic remarks on this forum.

Margaret, are you not going to apologise for your monumentally aggressive post in the wee small hours of Sunday morning? 

So, in yet again an attempt to bring this thread back to its original topic, I'm posting to let you know that I have now sent that e-mail to Cllr John Goodey. I copied in all 5 of our Dawlish district councillors (three of whom are also Dawlish town councillors) and also Cllr Bob Vickery (as he chairs the town council planning committee) and Cllr Mary Lowther (as she chairs the town council civic amenities committee.)   

Sorry Lynne,  just this one time,   I'm with you on Sangs. 

Sorry Burneside for not posting from my three week holiday in Thailand, am back now, good to see the party's still in swing and the booze is still flowing.   i see you've been off this forum longer than me, perhaps you were trying to recover from the unexpected vote of confidence in your arch nemesis Judith Chalmers.  Since it's only the Swift clan trolling on the homophobia ticket there's nothing to 'defend', least of all to you.  Intelligent people can differentiate, they can judge me.   Perhaps you doth protest too much though:

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

As @Lynne said can we please bring this thread back to its original topic? and please can we stop the personal arguments?

Please have a look and refresh yourself on the terms of the forum:-

https://www.dawlish.com/home/terms

Update (for those interested).

See my post of 19th Jan. timed at 13.21

I did indeed send an e-mail to Cllr Goodey asking him for answers to questions concerning the "deemed not to be required" statement.

However, here we are some 20 working days or so later and I have yet to receive an acknowledgement let alone a full response to my e-mail.

So, I have sent him a reminder e-mail this morning. Copied in are all our Dawlish Teignbridge district councillors (ie Cllrs John Petherick, Price, Hockin, Clemens and Prowse) and the chair of the Dawlish Town council planning committee (Bob Vickery) and the chair of the Dawlish Town council civic amenities committee (Mary Lowther).

Just checked TDC's planning portal. There is now a response from the RSPB. Here is an extract (my emphasis in bold).

So the Cirl Buntings will get a good payment from this to be able to go and populate somewhere else. Just as long as they do not pick on another piece of land that some landowner / developer has their eyes on for future developement.

http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/news.cfm?id=24657&headline=Chance%20to%20quiz%20developer%20on%20homes%20plan

Absolutely right Ken. And if TDC Councillor Stephen 'Bad Boy' Purser gets his way, our cirl buntings won't even get that. Nor for that matter Dawlish its SANGS (Page 9, today's Dawlish Gazette).

And few will be fooled by the posturing (SP's and TDC's) on Affordable Housing. It's the developers' bottom line - the cash cow now funding TDC's apparent munificence - that is really being sought to be protected.

Big advert in this week's Dawlish Gazette on page 4.

Public consultation (shouldn't that be 'consultation'?). Gatehouse Farm Development

At the Manor House, Old Town Street.

Thursday 26th February - 12.30pm - 6.45pm

Friday 27th February -12.30pm -6.45 pm

Members of the project team will be on hand to discuss proposals and answer any question (I've got one - where will the SANGS be?).

email ed@heynesplanning.co.uk for further info

Why is the Cirl Bunting argument always used they are everywhere drive up the Ashcombe Road the hedges are full of them and they are not a British bird they have migrated from France where they fly around in huge flocks.  Yes they are rare and have protected habitat but are not as rare as the Barn Owl and we allow farmers to destroy their habitat on a daily basis.

Re my post dated 17th Feb at 09.12

Yes there is a response by the RSPB but what I have quoted is not from the RSPB but from  TDC's biodiversity officer.

Point is though that this officer is saying the Joint

CIL, will definitely be required.

(see page 3 this week's Gazette for more about this development)   

Enjoy the cirl buntings while you can Leatash. But I agree with you on barn owls - in fact many of our raptors are in jeopardy from habitat encroachment, environmental changes and from over-zealous estate management. Having assisted locally in the rearing of a brood of barn owl chicks (including the gory bits) I have a better appreciation for the challenges our wildlife faces in the race for survival. If we were only to consider more carefully about how society's needs are met (e.g. by prioritising brownfield rather than greenfield development) our co-existence with nature would become enriched.

Public consultation (shouldn't that be 'consultation'?). Gatehouse Farm Development

At the Manor House, Old Town Street.

Thursday 26th February - 12.30pm - 6.45pm

Friday 27th February -12.30pm -6.45 pm

Members of the project team will be on hand to discuss proposals and answer any question (I've got one - where will the SANGS be?).

email ed@heynesplanning.co.uk for further info

Let us all know what they say Lynne. 

Gatehouse consultation

I asked when this was proposal was likely to have its first house ready for occupation. This is important as it is when building starts/dwellings are ready for occupation that SANGS (somewhere nearby) must exist. I was told that  the earliest this development could possibly commence would be some 18months/two years away.

SANGS: I asked why there was no SANGS as part of the development (in the sense of being geographically and physically part of the development). Might not adjacent, or near adjacent , agricultural land be cheaper for the land owner to provide as SANGS rather than pay thousands to TDC for the provision of SANGS somewhere else? The person I spoke to said he understood that there was a bit of an issue locally concerning SANGS provision. “Yep” said I “You could say that. So why doesn’t this development help resolve it by offering land, rather than money, for SANGs?”  “That’s a thought” he said “Why don’t you put it down on our feedback form?” So I did.   

Sewage disposal:  concerns were expressed by some present about sewage and surface water disposal. There is already a sewage issue along Secmaton Lane which appears to have been aggravated recently by the new build housing that has gone up over the past two years/18 months. More housing will only make this situation worse. How will it be resolved?

Community building/retail unit:  this is shown in the plan. I asked would it actually happen or was it just there because it needed to be a la planning requirements, irrespective or whether it was needed (or not). There appeared to be agreement that money for this community building might actually be better spent on keeping the Red Rock going.

Elderly extra care unit: one of these is shown as well. We’ll see.

Education: there is a bit in the plan that just shows a space labelled ‘education’. I asked what that meant exactly it being geographically physically away from Gatehouse School. I was told that it was there, just there, and could be anything really. Could just as easily end up being a car park for the staff at Gatehouse school (well that’s what the man said). 

Thanks for the update Lynne. It really does beggar belief that there now appears to be so little correlation between planning consent and what is actually built and provided. We really are going to need some strong district Councillors over the next few years who are fully prepared to stand up and speak out for Dawlish.

"We really are going to need some strong district Councillors over the next few years who are fully prepared to stand up and speak out for Dawlish."

Party whips and/or being gagged because of a pecuniary interest in any particular TDC Dawlish issue notwithstanding!  

Thats intresting Lynne i understood at the time when the road was widened and parking restrictions introduced a car park would be provided for parent's dropping and picking up their children i have been wondering where it had gone now i know.

We really are going to need some strong district Councillors over the next few years who are fully prepared to stand up and speak out for Dawlish.

Dear god, I hope this doesn't mean what I fear it means!

There she goes again, nothing useful to say! 

Was that car park supposed to have been part of the Buntings site. 

@ken - you got me confused for a bit there ken. thought for about 5 seconds that  you meant a Cirl Buntings site. But you don't, do you. You mean The Buntings housing development site (don't you?).

I don't know is my answer. Kaz might though. 

Going back a few years when my children attended Gatehouse i remember a letter for parents explaining because of the new development there would be no parking on the road but a car park was being built for parents to park as they dropped or picked up children.  I was told at the time it was a condition of planning consent MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD DO A LITTLE DIGGING 

I remember that proposal too Ken.

I have lodged an information request with the Planning Officer, and will report back what I find out.

Well, let's say, just for argument's sake, that the area marked 'education' does indeed become a car park for the school. It will still involve some walking on the part of parents/carers in order to get  the children back and forth from the school and the car park. 

Now, not saying that all car driving parents like to park so near the school that if they could they'd probably park in their kid's classroom. But.............

(and if it is open and available for parents/carers to park there during drop off/pick up times what would stop other people using it as well at other and all times of the day?)

And if, as Soul of Dawlish says, all the site construction and increasing amount of residential traffic has to go through Elm Grove Road and the top end of Secmaton Lane to access the area (there being no road from the Sainsbury's roundabout into the new development/residential sites) then all these children will be crossing a very busy road in order to get to school. won't they? 

Actually I've just remembered - there will be ( it might already be there - will check) another route in and out of that area and that is via a road linking the Gatehouse end of Secmaton Lane going up through the Bovis/Cavanna estate over into the Strongvox one and down onto Exeter Road via Carhaix Way (or to/from Exeter Road by way of Pidgely Road).

I vividly remember that road being an integral link between the two housing estates when the plans for the developments were put forward back in 2008/9. 

So,.........that could, and no doubt will, take some of the increasing residential traffic (wonder if those living on this new, and at the present probably quiet street, have any idea of what they might be in for in terms of traffic usage in the not so very disant future?). 

But that still leaves the site construction traffic having to use Elm Grove Road.       

@Lynne to the best of my knowledge there was going to be no through route between the two sites and that was suposed to be a condition of the strongvox and bovis / cavanna applications.

Lynne,

I have also been told that the extended Carhaix Way will not be open to through traffic once the building work is complete. I'm not sure what type of restriction is planned - smart bollards perhaps (to allow the passage of emergency or service vehicles) or maybe just signage indicating "access only".

Route 1 - the new link road. The only safe and sensible option for all construction traffic.

Must be my (ageing) memory playing tricks on me.

I can remember there was lots of discussion about this proposed 'linking' road some 6 years or so ago. I remember I suggested (and not just me I am sure) that smart bollards could be put in place to allow through access for emergency vehicles and perhaps the 186 bus service (if it continues to exist) but which would prevent other through traffic from using it and thus stop it from becoming a rat run. I thought that idea got totally ignored and that a through road was what the Highway planners wanted. 

Will take a walk up there some time soon just to see what is happening on the ground.

So........if that access/egress route does not exist that brings us back to the Elm Grove one being the only one.    

I think a letter about all this to the Dawlish Gazette wouldn't go amiss.

Anyone? 

Again if my memory is correct part of the Grounds at Gatehouse including the wildlife garden was used to widen the road and the car park was planned to be opposite the school.  Again if i remember correctly a simular promise by developers was made at Shaldon when the old coach park used by parents to drop children at the School and coaches dropping visitors was built on, to my knowledge no car park was ever built but was promised by the developers. Now if i was building a extension or new house building control would check my work at regular stages of construction do the same rules not apply to large scale development's 

There is a discussion on EoD about parents/carers and parking near schools. Have a read.

https://www.facebook.com/EODawlish

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152771819399001&set=o.107778222580678&type=1&theater&notif_t=like
  this is the original post on the subject Lynne has linked above

What would a letter to the Gazette achieve? Or, probably more to the point, what would you hope it to achieve? Do you think all local policy decisions are made based on the contents of missives from the same old 2 or 3 who like to see their name in print? A bizarre thought process in my opinion. 

What I think it would achieve is making more people aware of what we have been discussing on this thread. As you yourself have pointed out before, there is only what? 50 at most different people look on here. I think the Gazette readership would be greater than that.  

Getting info out to people. That's all I am about.

I'd wager that more local people read EoD, where this info has already been published, than the Gazette letters page. 

And there may be those who read the Gazette letters page who do not have access to a computer let alone have an fb account.

So, any and everyway possible to get the info out.

Any chance you could post the hyperlink please so that we can read the info that you say is on EoD?

Thanks.

To return to Elm Grove Road being the only road in and out (until the road from Sainsbury's roundabout gets built).

So, Elm Grove Road/Gatehouse end of Secmaton Lane is to be used by building site traffic which will go past two schools, a nursery (believe Gatehouse farmhouse is being turned into a nursery) an ever increasing amount of residential property and a therefore ever increasing amount of people, cars, bikes, kids, cats and dogs. 

But I think it is not only the residents of Elm Grove Road that will be affected by this traffic. Not by the site traffic, but by private and business vehicles. I mean, if you are in a car or a van and you want to get to/leave the Gatehouse end of Elm Grove Road why have the hassle of going along Elm Grove Road with all the site traffic and being subject to traffic lights when, depending on the direction of travel, nipping along Elm Grove Drive and then Sandy Lane to/from the Exeter Road or, in the other direction, up along Gatehouse Hill and then down East Cliff Road or not going down East Cliff Road but continuing along Stockton Hill and along towards Old Town are alternatives?

Wonder if the residents of those areas realise yet just how they too might be impacted by there being no road in to the building site(s) from Sainsbury's roundabout.