General Discussion
In the light of the financial problems concerning the funding of the Red Rock Centre in particular, and the lack of public money available in general, I thought I'd start this thread to see what we think of this idea.
How big will this building be? Once built who will pay for its upkeep? How will it be staffed? Who will pay for the staffing? Who will use it etc.
Not that what the likes of you and I think is really in the least bit relevant or will even be taken into consideation.
Just curiosity on my part.
This was an element of the planning application rejected by Teignbridge but over ruled by the Planning Inspector
I'm not aware of any consultation since, so it must be assumed the developers are building at their own risk. Or it will never materialise and remain a detail on a plan.
But if the developers do build then all of Lynne's questions are pertinent. Does anyone have the answers?
It seems to me that only the Developers can answer those questions as they are intending to build these new houses and community centre against the wishes of the local authority.
Thought Bilsons orignal application got rejected due to the land being earmarked for employment use only. Why should Redrow's application be any different. Bigger section 106 budget perhaps
Welcome back Fred.
TDC refused permission but Eric Pickles (in between courses presumably) approved the subsequent appeal. Blame him not TDC.
Should anyone fancy contacting Redrow re the proposed community building (or any other aspect of the development for that matter) here's how:
-
Redrow House, Pynes Hill, Exeter, Devon, EX2 5AZ
- 01392 880400
- westcountry@redrow.co.uk
- MD: Keith Miller (keith.miller@redrow.co.uk)
Thanks Lynne, I will contact them and ask all the questions you posed on this website. As a responsible Councillor I think it is appropriate that I do this.
I now now await the Avalanche of criticism from the usual suspects!
Lynne, do you know whether this mbuilding you refer to is part of a later phase of this development, as I can't see reference to it in the documents you've provided a link to. I'm probably not reading it properly. Thanks.
If you were at the Town Council meeting how about posting an update about Rock Pool Cafe on the other thread?
Guess what I just logged on to ask about Dorian? You beat me to it by a few mins!
@JC Not sure when the community building is scheduled to be built. Perhaps Redrow could tell us (via Margaret perhaps?)
Mrs C, reference your snide remark concerning Eric Pickles - your body fascism doesn't really sit comfortably with your Guardianista credentials, does it?
This development is coming soon.
Register your interest today!
See more...https://www.redrow.co.uk/developments/shutterton-park-dawlish
Yes @Margaret, Michael Clayson answered it after a couple of us wondered why you posted on this thread, making much of being a responsible councillor, without updating us about the other thread as you'd inferred prior. Maybe we misunderstood you or maybe you weren't at the meeting.
@Dorian, I was at the meeting but I was out for the whole day yesterday until late last night. MC posted this morning before I had chance, it really is as simple as that!
Lynne, in case you're still wondering a quick call in my tea break established this:
As part of the planning permission Redrow have been obliged to earmark the land for possible 'community' use. They don't have to do anything with it other than (for a total of nine months) market it for community use i.e. try to get other parties interested in building on it or developing it for the benefit of the community. Community use is a broad brush and is by no means 'council funded'. It includes commercial enterprises - for example it could be a children's nursery, health centre, dentist etc. If after 9 months Redrow haven't had secured any interest they can apply to use the land for their own purposes e.g. further development.
So to answer your questions, there is no building, no obligation, no staff, just a requirement to see if anyone wants first dibs on using it 'for the community'.
Thanks for the info Dorian.
Anyone fancy opening a 'book' on what that land eventually ends up being used for?
This is on the agenda for tonight's (Thursday 19th Feb) Dawlish Town Council's planning committee meeting.
and this is what the town council had to say about it.
And I'd like to know just exactly where the SANGS is in Dawlish that apparently needs to be in place in order for TDC's granting of planning permission for all this new house building to be legal.
Anyone?
Extract from Report to TDC Executive 30th July 2013
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=38250&p=0
5 TIME-SCALE
5.1 Preparatory work and discussion related to SANGS is required urgently so that delivery of these projects can be certain before planning applications come in the area. The s106 agreement negotiated as part of the Shutterton Park appeal has earmarked £436,800 for acquisition and capital costs of delivering the SANGS and £264,671 for maintenance and management of SANGS. However the agreement is clear that this sum will not be paid if the council has not acquired the mitigation area prior to commencement of development. This provides a very tight time horizon for acquisition.
I completely agree with Flo. What prizes did that soul-less estate ever win? If ever a housing estate looked like a stereotypical boring estate, then Oaklands would win first prize in my opinion. Closely followed by the pebble dashed monstrosities on the Little Week estate. At least these Redrow homes, irrespective of other concerns, have an individual non-estate look about them. Out of interest, when were those two estates built and what land were they built on?
And I'm not sure how serious the planning committee can be taken when their second objection is to the names of the homes!
It'll be the same type of award the the Paddocks won for their heating system. I don't anyone who kept that heating system and know one or two who actively removed it with a hammer.
Planners and architects are always 20 years out of date as a minimum!! Hence the abominable atrocities we have to live with. Some are even 40 years out of date!!
I only asked, so there's no need to be so tetchy. I trust that you don't mean all architects?
For once in s lifetime I was agreeing with you, but you are so dense (or is it pregudiced?) that you cannot comprehend such a concept!!
This post has been hidden due to too many reports.
Show postPlease report the post if you also feel it requires moderation.
Hide postDo give us the benefit of your architectural knowledge Margaret, otherwise we might think you're just being spiteful about a fellow councillor.
Oh go on Margaret pleeeeaaaase. It's the first time you've ever said something where I'm interested to know more and I so want you to share your expert knowledge. No, didn't think so.
While it is clear that opinions of the Oaklands estate are divided, Teignbridge may wish to seize on the critical appraisal of the Redrow planning application by the Dawlish Town Council Planning Committee to buy themselves time to consider options. As I read it currently, no SANGS = no £700k = no houses at Dawlish. Something will have to give...
Wow, I notice (to quote Mrs C from a previous post) "some saddo" has been trigger-happy with the report button tonight.
This post has been reported by others. Please report the post if you also feel it requires moderation.
Dorian, she's watched a couple of episodes of Grand Designs and therefore she must be an expert. Though the episodes might have been repeats from, oh, 20 years ago...
I'll just repeat part of Soul of Dawlish's post: this is important!
Teignbridge may wish to seize on the critical appraisal of the Redrow planning application by the Dawlish Town Council Planning Committee to buy themselves time to consider options. As I read it currently, no SANGS = no £700k = no houses at Dawlish. Something will have to give...
I take it Lynne that you have not yet been given a response from either Cllr John Goodey or Simon Thornley on the SANGS issue? Could it possibly be that the growing weight of public opprobrium regarding TDC's handling of Warren Farm is beginning to register with this administration?
@Dorian, spiteful about a fellow councillor? There really is a wider world out there beyond the boundaries of Dawlish! When I made my comments (lucidly, not blurry at all!!) I was in fact thinking about the architectural abominations thrust on certain districts in Manchetser my home town! Some of which were so awful whole books have been written about them. And the disasters have not been confined to Manchester over the years. As I said, go and do your research.
Not heard anyfink from Cllr John Goodey. Not a dickie bird!
On a not unrelated issue concerning SANGS in Dawlish and in response to a earlier e-mail, I did eventually get a response from Simon Thornley but only after more than 20 working days had elapsed (supposed to have full responses within 20 working days) and that only happened because I had to ask a local councillor to get involved.
Might be something to do with the questions I ask?
Do I think TDC have got a problem with this SANGS business?
Yup.
@Judith
I'm afraid that your description of the proposed Redrow estate as "Having an individual non-estate look about them" is wide of the mark
The proposed houses are all standard off the shelf Redrow designs, a point the committee was trying to underpin by its wry reference to the style names (Oxford, Warwick etc). a quick google search will demonstrate what I mean.
They are described as Arts and Craft style, a description that would have Newton and Baillie Scott rolling in their graves. The worst element of this is the complete disconnect between the designs of the front and back elevations
The fronts are a mis match of details filtched from a number of sources. The backs are completely shorn of any design feature whatsover, and look like the air force married quarters I grew up in. The most likely reason for this disparity is cost. Designing according to the accounts sheet so as to maximise shareholder profit.
The committee was trying to make this point clear by referencing the consistent design approach taken through the Oaklands estate. There is a clear concept that is followed through, and you see a specific design created for a specific location.
We need to remember that Dawlish did not want houses built at this location, nor did Teignbridge. The Inspector ruled and we must obey. The committee was not advocating an Oaklands Park #2 but rather a Shutterton#1. We should expect that greater care is taken to create homes that have been designed for that location, rather than a standard Redrow estate identical to those that might be seen in Oxford, Warwick or any one of the hundreds of developments they are building around the country.
Margaret - so when you said that 'all architects and planners are 20 years out of date as a minimum' you meant 'there are lots of examples where town planning has failed' and 'there are plenty of buildings I regard as monstrous carbuncles'. Ahh the nuances of language.
Dorian, it's clear that when Margaret said that planners and architects are always 20 years out of date, that she didn't mean "always"! It's obvious that she meant "sometimes"! Any responsible linguist would know that!
Indeed Margaret, you didn't use the word 'all'. However given your profession I'd have thought you would know that zero article used with plural nouns become generic references. Therefore 'all architects'. Google it if you don't follow ;)
To bring it back on topic, when it comes to house design, if you are building for the lower end of the market bland Lego houses are the order of the day, it's how they keep the cost down.
Okay - on this SANGS issue. For those interested. Look up planning reference 12/00061/Ref. Click on Associated Documents and then click on the Appeal Decision Notice dated 10th September 2013.
This is what it says at 10.7 on page 32
Michael, thanks for responding to my concerns in a polite manner and for taking the time to explain the rationale behind some of the objections. I can't say that I've changed my opinion, as I personally loathe identikit soul-less housing estates such as Oaklands, but thats just my opinion. The Millin Way estate isn't everyone's cup of tea, but I really like it - likewise elements of the first phase of the new estate at the top of Carhaix.
Of course costs have to be kept down, not just for shareholders but also to make the homes more affordable.
This is the original S106 document. See section 17 on page 29 to top of page 31 concerning SANGS provision.
Interesting stuff, Lynne.
It would appear from the document that the owner of the Shutterton Park land is a member of another local farming family. It might seem reasononable to expect therefore, that the suitable "alternative provision" for SANGS land would be able be provided by this same person, the 3rd party to this S106 agreement (per the terms listed under para 17.2).
Helpfully, the agreement also does the calculation for the "SANGS Mitigation Area" for us (based on the Natural England figure of 8 hectares per 1000 additional residents at an average occupancy of 2.23 persons per household x 350 houses) by providing a figure of 6.24 hectares.
If this calculation is applied to all new housing developments requiring SANGS mitigation in Dawlish (and I see no good and fair reason why this should not be the case) the requirement grows to [8/1000 x 2.23 x 1888] 33.68 hectares.
You will note that this SANGS mitigation requirement figure is some 50% higher than that being proposed by TDC through the acquisition of Richard Weeks's Warren Farm.
So not only is it 'morally wrong' for Teignbridge to compulsory purchase Warren Farm (and threaten the Weeks family's farming livelihood in the process) it is mathematically wrong also - which begs the question: if an 'alternative provision' can be made for Shutterton Park regarding SANGS, could not the same provision also be made at other Dawlish development sites?
Just spoken on the phone with someone at Redrow Homes.
Their schedule is for the show home to be ready end August/Sepember and the first new homes to be completed by end of Autumn/Winter 2015.
Schedule being met is subject to adverse weather conditions and any other unforeseen delays. But they will endeavour to have show home ready by Autumn of this year.
Indeed. Preferably also subject to the scrutiny of the Teignbridge District Council Planning Committee.
Lots of stuff in Plan Teignbridge to guide a developer's design brief, such as "integrating with... the adjoining built and natural environment..." and "buildings [to] exhibit design quality using materials appropriate to the area..." and "placing the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport above those of the motorist..." but little regard seems to have been given to this document's policies by Redrow in their rush for 2015 sales.
As MC has indicated above, what is on offer is a 'cut-and-paste' trad-pastiche housing estate straight out of a home counties sales brochure. The least we should expect is that the well informed criticisms of our Town Council will now be given a fair and public hearing.
from TDC's website: (my emphasis in bold)
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/article/15169/Why-is-Habitat-Regulations-mitigation-needed
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 sets out how Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) must deal with planning applications that have potential to impact on European wildlife sites (Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites). This impact may be direct or indirect:
- e.g. distant development may cause significant impact on the key species when they are away from the designated site
- e.g. a single development may have a small effect but a combined overal large effect
Section 61 of the Habitat Regulations requires the LPA to assess whether a significant effect is likely and if the LPA considers it is then the LPA must undertake an Appropriate Assessment to consider whether or not the effect can be fully mitigated. The LPA may ask the applicant to provide evidence to help them undertake these assessments. The LPA must consult Natural England on the completed Appropriate Assessment.
The legislation says that LPAs must NOT grant consent for a development that would, either alone or in-combination with other developments, have a likely significant effect on a European wildlife site, unless full mitigation is provided.
The only exception is where the development is of over-riding public interest. Such proposals must be referred to the Secretary of State and any unmitigated effects must be fully compensated.
Developers should contact us to discuss as part of our pre-application advice.
Thank you, Soul of Dawlish, for a supportive comment. I had decided not to explain our committee reasoning when this thread became, once more, abusive (20 Feb, 20:52) from a member of our own committee who was absent from our meeting.
Our Town Council Planning Committee was, sadly, poorly attended and without any member of the public to give support or raise objections to any element of the Redrow planning application. We did give the very large bundle of documents a good deal of consideration and came to our conclusions in the light of:
Redrow's consultant planners appear to be unaware of Plan Teignbridge and its current status, referring only to the fact that the old TDC local plan was out of date (and implying that you can drive a cart and horses through it). That did not fill us with confidence;
The engineering detail of drainage calculations, hydraulic flow and intercepts swamped the detail so much that we could see no convincing demonstration of how the run-off from surface water(roofs, roadways, paths) would be controlled to ensure that flash floods in the Shutterton Brook will not result in flooding further downstream in Dawlish Warren. If they intend to share the holding pond alongside Sainsbury's, we could find no reference to it;
The estate layout was a grid that you would apply to any bit of flat land, without response to contours or orientation, to achieve maximum fill of site with little boxes. Redrow is not the company that made the earlier planning application that was refused by TDC but given the OK by the Minister. That does not absolve them from developing a scheme that faces the fuel challenge of current times to achieve zero energy intake. The money that they may spend on folksy 'Arts & Crafts' facade detail can be applied instead to better design in passive solar heating, levels of insulation and solar gain through roof panels. That site falls towards the south , is not shadowed by trees or factory chimneys and can be developed to be energy conscious. The Redrow scheme is loaded with images appropriate to 1927 bull-nose Morris owners rather than a 2014 electric Nissan;
Our reference to Oaklands was meant to be the Phase 1 scheme, opening directly off the Teignmouth Road and not the later phases. The landscape and architectural skills applied in phase 1 produced a series of larger and smaller spaces with a restricted palette of materials that give identity to each part and respond to natural features and land form. It is skill at that level that is needed on such a prominent site overlooking the Sainsbury's development. Clearly, quality was a consideration in the overall cost of that site development, something that was given less consideration in the later phases extending back to Oakhill Road;
It was not the names given to house types, 'Canterbury', 'Warwick', etc., that got up our noses but the application of 'wall-paper' front facades to little boxes that will pepper the hillside with front and rear elevations that bear no relation to each other (see MC's very adequate comment above). Would you set out to buy a perfectly ordinary Ford dressed up with a bonnet carrying a Rolls Royce mascot, or an Aston Martin front grill applied to it? Is that the basis of selecting good design in 2015? My own view is that Redrow are insulting our intelligence by wall-papering the country with their 'Arts & Crafts' culture and by so doing destroying local character by applying national uniformity.
I do not ask anyone to support my views, or those of my colleagues on planning committee, but to ask for intelligent design solutions to be provided that reflect our traditions and respect the local vernacular of South Devon. This application should come to a full TDC PLanning Committee and you can show support for our views if you attend it.
Lest anyone imagines that my joy only embraces modernism, I spent a few years searching out Voysey houses in Surrey on my afternoons out from school and really admire the Baillie Scott house near Windermere that is open to the public. Its Arts & Crafts exterior goes all the way round to the rear elevation and internal doors and fixtures are consistent. Sham Redrow it is not.
I will respond to BV's post simply to say that if I had been at the meeting I would have made the same comment as I did on this thread. I would have gone on to say that our country is littered with the dreadful mistakes made by planners and architects. My reference was mainly about my home city of Manchester, where the mistakes were particularly bad and are well documented, but other areas such as Oxford and Liverpool also had their fair share of the monstrosities designed back in the 60s and 70s. A quick google search will verify this. The reference to 'the high quality award winning design of the Oaklands Estate in Dawlish' is disturbing if indeed the committee believe that should be the standard by which future housing in Dawlish should be measured.
Monstrosity in the eyes of one person is a delight in the eyes of another. If this country had design education incorporated in the school curriculum as they do in parts of Scandinavia we might have more intelligent debate.
"Monstrosity in the eyes of one person is a delight in the eyes of another" - I suppose that could apply to the monstrous woodlouse that happily got binned.
Margaret had a little dog
Its fur was white as snow
And everywhere that Margaret went
The dog was sure to go.
Down boy! Woof!
Looked at the planning docs again today. Cllr John Petherick has now requested that the planning app. goes to committee, for councillors to discuss and decide on, rather than a TDC planning officer deciding.
@Dorian, you are a disgrace to this site and a thoroughly disgusting person. I am eternally grateful you are not one of my supporters.
Given that I don't rate your judgement, that's of no concern to me Margaret. My judgement is that you are a weak and lazy councillor who needs to lash out at her fellow councillors to mask her own inadequacies.
Burneside, when was the last time you ever posted on a thread when your sister Margaret wasn't already on it slagging off someone who disagreed with her? See what I mean when I suggest that you come across as her yappy guard dog?