General Discussion
Business leaders at the Warren have welcomed the development, they say it will attract more visitors.
The wooden 'shacks' which were previously there were demolished over 10 years ago.
It seems a shame the council couldn't have replaced the orginal 'shacks' with a few smaller shops to let out to individual people to rent.
The Fun Fair is now being refurbished in time for Easter.
So much for the stated policy in other applications that they do not wish to attract extra footfall to the Exe Estuary.
My point was that, as in the case of the compulsory purchase of farmland, one of the reasons given was to draw people away from the Warren (as I interpreted it). The redevelopement of the shops seemed to go against this. I have no axe to grind against anyone trying to make a living but as I see it if there is a policy then you either stick to it, in all applications, or abandon it.
I've always understood that the trading units were in private ownership, so their removal and replacement was very much the decision of the owners. The only influence the council could bring to bear would have been through the planning system, and I doubt that a refusal could have been defended against an appeal to the Planning Inspector.
Like many, I've been trying to figure out how development of Dawlish Warren as a tourist resort and protecting the Nature Reserve can be reconciled. I fear that it may eventually be by preventing public access to the later.
@Woolbrook. Quite so.
TDC planners must have a logic of some kind that they are following to recommend that one planning application encouraging visitors to the Warren and the Exe Estuary be approved whilst another, having the same effect, be refused.
There was a very recent planning application to turn part of the public toilets at the Warren into a seasonal bike hire shop. (14/0354/FUL). This is part of the planning officer report concerning that application. (My emphasis in bold). The recommendation was for approval.
@Lynne. surely the logic is that this development is slap bang in the middle of an already developed tourism centre, adjacent to existing buildings, whereas the application refused in starcross was refused because
As Michael Clayson pointed out, both objectives can be achieved if you close the nature reserve to the public. No doubt that's what'll happen...
Yes I can see that difference Michael but my point is this: if, because of European and British planning legislation, they (TDC) have to protect such areas as the Exe Estuary and the Warren NNR from human visitors then either that legislation trumps all others or it doesn't.
I can't get my head around the fact that TDC says it has to have a SANGS at Warren Farm in order to stop/detract people from visiting the Warren NNR/Exe estuary when at the same time it (TDC) has policies in the Local Plan designed to do the very opposite. (ie attract tourists).
I guess the question has to be, can you attract more tourists to the industrialised part of Dawlish Warren without adding to the pressure on the adjacent Nature Reserve.
I am on record as saying that TDC, in my opinion, have not made a sufficiently detailed case to persuade an Inspector to approve compulsory purchase of land.
So, either a case needs to be made that will gain the confidence of an Inspector, and more importantly the landowner and the general public, or alternative solutions need to be found
I think, from what I have observed of the planning system so far, is that what a PI would approve (or not) is determined by this or that planning regs (Shutterton Park appeal being a case in point). So that what any particular landowner/the general public would want to be approved (or not) and what planning regs say should be approved (or not) are far from being the same thing.
And as you and I know the PI decides.
But I'm up for the fight!
My point was Lynne that there are two obligations
To satisfy an Inspector, and ultimately the High Court (Legal/Procedural/Practical) and to satisfy the Landowner/General Public (Moral/Democracy) and the evidence put forward by TDC so far doesn't seem to me to be strong enough to do either. Teignbridge needs to make a practical case for how the coastal park will be more enticing to the public than the existing open space at the Nature Reserve. The failure to do so undermines their case so much that I cannot seem them persuading an Inspector, let alone the landowner and public
Thanks for that clarification.
And perhaps another thing to bear in mind is that, as I understand it, TDC has to have SANGS in place before they can legally give planning permission for all this new house building to take place (or at some point they have to have the SANGS in place). So, as long as TDC want SANGS at Warren Farm, and as long as that issue isn't resolved then at some point the new housing building will have to stop? = reduction in projected CIL monies (along with council tax revenue)?
Or is it the case that as long as SANGS at Warren Farm is shown in the local plan (irrespective of the fact that the landowner has no wish for his land to become a SANGS) TDC can proceed with granting planning permissin for all the new build housing?
Do you know what the actual situation is? Would be very interested to have your thoughts.
Time will tell who is right or wrong re the planning officer and we won't have to wait too long.
There are all sorts of questions that this new building on the Warren throws up and a thorough investigation is probably needed. In 2001 the public were told that the land now being built on, by the same owners of the monstrosity further up, was designated for a volley ball court or something of that nature! Whatever happened to that? One councillor did tell me in 2012, in front of other councillors, that they got it monumentally wrong when they pulled down the huts and allowed the monstrosity to be built. The absolute uniqueness of Dawlish Warren was destroyed forever and that was something they regretted. Woolbrook is correct in thier summation, there is a conflicting message coming from TDC re use of the Warren and visitor footfall and they really do need to decide on the strategic direction they want to pursue.
I'd be surprised if many people would agree that development within the industrialised part of the Warren should stop and we allow the struggling businesses there to wither on the vine.
TDC say that their solution to the conundrum of how to get more people to the tourist resort and less to the nature reserve is the coastal park. On the basis of their public information so far, not many people are convinced. Nor am I
DW tourism businesses need our encouragement in what are still exceptionally difficult trading conditions. It looks to me that they are in danger of getting caught in the cross fire here of a dispute that is not of their making, and that is just plain wrong. This was a planning application that met all lawful criteria and if you don't like the concept, don't shop there. The businesses of the Warren will surely be hoping it helps encourage more holidaymakers to stay in the resort rather than take the day train to Paignton etc
Who said anything about businesses withering on the vine! If trading conditions are exceptionally difficult then I am not sure how building yet another outlet is going to improve trading, and, if trading is so poor why is the same company building yet more outlets, doesn't really make an awful lot of sense. I am also not sure industrialised is the correct term to use, perhaps commercialised is a more appropriate and accurate term. It would still be interesting to find out why the volley ball facilities never materialised.
@Margaret
Tourism businesses in the UK have had a dreadful time over the past decade, and if we don't allow them to adapt and change their offer to meet customer expectations, they will wither on the vine.
Andrew Bulpin from the Dawlish Warren Traders Association said
" Its going to look superb and is in keeping with the resort."
" It increases the retail offering for visitors and gives them another reason to come for a day trip. Its very exciting and I think its a great scheme."
" Its very postive for Dawlish Warren as people are investing serious sums of money here for the benefit of visitors"
I appreciate you think differently, but as neither you nor I are involved in running a tourism related business, I think we should listen with respect to the judgement of those who are.
I think it is a really interesting point that the new build is trying to replicate the look of several individual buildings, although I am told it will be just one building inside. Aesthetically, it is trying to replicate the look of the original individual huts, which is to be applauded but questions remain and lessons need to be learned.
The judgement of at least one Councillor involved in agreeing the demolishion of the huts and being replaced by one giant monstrosity is that they got it wrong! The individual businesses provided an eclectic mix of 'retail therapy' whereas, two buildings owned by the same company may simply offer the 'same old, same old'.
I do think differently and we need a bit more of that!
I agree with you Margaret, but it's hardly an insightful observation deserving of such self-congratulation!
@Michael do you know what mix of retail products are intended? Have any other parties previously tried and failed to get planning permission for the site?
the planning reference for this project is 12/01491/FUL
Click on this link http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Application&Refval=12/01491/FUL and then click on associated documents (see bottom left of page) to see all the documentation.
@Mcjrpc. My understanding is that the additional space will allow for the sale of quality branded clothing of the type that is popular with young people and those of middle years who have kept their healthy figures. Largely found in the shops along princesshay in exeter.
I imagine this will prove popular with many local residents as well as holidaymakers.
I'm not aware of any other planning applications for the site.
The other good news story for the Dawlish Warren economy is the cycle hire business about to be tendered by Teignbridge. A perfect opportunity for the tourism industry to capitalise on the confirmed funding for the Exe Estuary trail link. Both these schemes offer money and jobs to the wider Dawlish economy too.
There is a problem with squaring the circle of doing this whilst also reducing damage to the adjacent nature reserve. An acceptable solution has to be found if restricted public access is to be avoided. Teignbridge needs to commit more resources to working with the general public to explore how this might be done.
So just clothes? Am surprised. I'm not their target market but I'd have thought better food concessions would improve the offering to visitors. I might be inclined to spend money if there was more than pub grub or a bag of chips on offer. (That's just my commercial opinion, if the owners want clothes, it's up to them).
Happy to hear about the cycle hire although I wonder how long it will be before it all kicks off when the 'no cycling' sign along the sea wall is ignored. Is there a budget for a traffic enforcement officer to leap out from behind Red Rock cafe? 
@Margaret Swift - "questions remain and lessons need to be learned". What questions, what lessons, and what 'thorough investigation' is needed? What has happened that suggests this enterprise has failed before it has even opened its doors?
Hobbs, East and Karen Millen at Dawlish Warren, this I have to see! Mind you, it will save me going all the way into Exeter!
@Margaret. These two projects represent almost £2 million investment in the parish that Nat West walked away from. Let's get behind our business community and applaud the good news.
I would like to know how one retailer can monopolise such a large part of the Warren, are these leases put out to tender or just awarded to anybody who shows an interest?
I understand that the company has a longstanding lease on the site. For more detail you may wish to enquire at the TDC estates department.
@Mcjrpc cyclist have always ignored the no cycling signs, when politly pointing this out to them including they could be fined you normaly get told where to go "unpolitly". as i understand it is network rail who can enforce this ( at least along the wall from red rock to boat cove) but never have anyone to do so.
I like to think that we'd all wish any new enterprise in the area well. However, only time will tell as to whether there will be any, or sufficient, demand for the type of clothing goods described above. I imagine the owners have done their market research. I'm not a fashionista and never have been so it isn't the type of thing that would attract me wherever I was living or wherever I was on holiday but others are very fashion and very brand conscious and I guess there is a market for these type of clothes here in the Dawlish area otherwise why invest so much in the development?
Time will tell.
ps @Mcjrpc - get your point entirely about the cyclists and the sea wall.
No cycling - I get why it needs to be like that but I do think it's a shame - Dawlish would see more visitors if they could cycle in along the flat.
Come to think of it, soon it'll all be on one level with a puncture-free concrete section, might even flout it myself.
@Lynne my reference was to the youth fashion sector of princesshay like the quaintly named "fat face". not high ticket brands . these shops are grabbing huge retail spend
Please everyone, a little positivity would go a long way :).
Maybe TDC should of been more positive when they demolished the old buildings and replaced them with just one retailer. Whilst I admit they where looking run down, replacing them all and letting individual traders continue whould of been better in keeping more employed with more variation in goods being sold thus keeping more people at the warren bringing in more income to the area. Dawlish and the warren needs more investment in many areas so I guess this new build must be seen in possitive way hopefully time will tell.
If anyone thinks this is a planning abomination take a look at those solar panels going up on the left hand side of the B3192 near Ashcombe. What an eyesore it will be. How could that get through?
Same as always with TDC planning dept. Its not what you know but who you know. Plus money talks. Local councillors, business owners and residents with a vested intrest should not be allowed to sit on planning commitees.
I can name at least three that are TDC councillors, live or have local business interests in Dawlish and sit on TDC planning commitee
So maybe instead of solar panels Dorian we could have a coal fired power station or even better nuclear.
Nuclear power station on the Warren would be a good idea, then we could have another no public access area. Getting rather fed up with TDC dictating what can and cant be done around here. Local govermnet should mean just that TDC should be dis-banded and all assets handed back to town halls just think of the money savings. Just out of interest how many land leases are there on the Warren administerd by TDC and where can one find a list of the lease holders.
Oh, so you're saying that local councillors shouldn't sit on planning committees?! An interesting albeit utterly bonkers proposal. Surely all councillors are local to somewhere?! Thanks Fred.
I don't know who these people are either. What's the big deal? Providing they are acting for the good of Dawlish and abstain from decisions that benefit themselves that's fine by me. We need people with commercial insight otherwise you end up with parochial types trying to hamper progress. If however Fred or Margaret are suggesting that there is a conflict of interest in how they conduct themselves then they should make it clear.
@leatash. funnily enough no. i'm all for renewable energy but think siting them in an area of natural beauty is not the best place to have them. i suppose it depends on your aesthetic values.
Solar panels should only be on roof tops, and it should be law that all new builds have to be built with them installed.
I see from today's Gazette that the success of the Dawlish Warren promotion was supported by a grant from Dawlish Town Council.
Also from the Gazette :
Councillor Alan Connett decided the solar farm at Ashcombe should not be referred to the planning committee. I guess living in Exeter means it's not in his back yard.
@Webmaster - why all these deleted/hidden posts? Isn't about breaking the rules not whether you dislike soneone or their opinion.
As per the Teignbridge website:
|
Address: |
96 Monks Road |
|
|
Not as bad as the LibDem councillor representing Newton Abbot whilst living in France!
Oh, he's moved then. Didn't realise.
And isn't it a Conservative councillor on Devon County Council representing a ward in Newton Abbot who lives in France?
@Mcjrpc, posts are automatically hidden or removed depending on how many people report the post using the 'report' facility. I lowered the threshold a week or two ago. JC's posts are just reported by more people than others.
So it's a numbers game. Have you reviewed the content and decided it's in breach of the forum rules? Have you reviewed the complainants to decide if it's just a grudge match? Out of Interest what's the threshold -3!?
@Mcjrpc, I've been experimenting with the thresholds and did make them quite low. I've since increased them and uncensored many posts. When I checked JC's posts he/she was just trolling. I did not see any value in his/her posts, so I left them censored.
So the other trolling, aggressive, hateful, irrelevant posts that appear here are fine because less vengeful users didn't press the 'report' button. Lesson learned.
As it is your site, you run it and make the rules, then as this is a free country, if certain others don't like it, then there is nothing to stop them from leaving (their sarcastic remarks won't be missed) and start up their own website discussion forum.
Carry on that man.
Just replying in kind - it's a free country isn't it? As you and your kind are always keen to point out. x
