Dawlish Discussion

On a different thread (concerning the retail unit presently being built at the Warren) I posed the following question:

"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 permission for all the new build housing? 

and with a bit of research (and to answer my own question) this is what I have come across. Note the bit about the Shutterton Park development and the monies payable by the developer for SANGS. I've highlighted it in blue. 

Extracts concerning the timing of the provision of SANGS from the TDC Report on SANGS options. May 2013

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=37826&p=0

Timing of provision (top of page 8)

5.8 There is also an imperative for early provision of SANGS in relation to planned

growth and phasing of development. The availability of the SANGS at the point

which new homes are occupied can help to influence choices over the use of

recreation space and therefore visitor patterns before these become established.

Timely delivery of SANGS can help ensure that development does not take place

without the potential impacts of new resident visitors being satisfactorily mitigated.

And

Staging of enhancement works

Where it is proposed to separate the enhancement works on a site into separate stages, to deliver incremental increases in visitor use, the proportion of the increase in visitor use arising from each stage should be estimated. This would enable the granting of planning permission for residential development to be staged in parallel to ensure that the amount of housing permitted does not exceed the capacity of SANGS to mitigate its effects on the SPA.

(see Appendix 2 – Natural England Guidelines for the creation of Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space (SANGS))

AND

Extracts 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.

6 JUSTIFICATION

6.1 There is a legal requirement to mitigate impacts on EU protected sites. Natural England has agreed a strategic approach to provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces to meet this requirement for development in the East and North of Teignbridge. The council has agreed the SANGS approach through the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Implementing these policies requires officers to commence work now.

and then in a report to the TDC Exec dated 22nd July 2014 and entitled:

Mitigation of Impacts on highest tier of wildlife sites  

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=41483&p=0

there is this:

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.

However, it is important that the identified mitigation measures are properly implemented/delivered. Without appropriate mitigation mechanisms in place there is a real risk that development might occur that would result in adverse wildlife impacts.

Without securing mitigation measures planning permission must not be granted for development and if granted the Council could be liable to legal challenge.

and then from a report (dated 9.12.14) entitled Infrastructure Capital Programme put to the TDC Exec  http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=42681&p=0

we have this: (my emphasis in bold)

Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS)

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

internationally important wildlife sites. In relation to the Exe Estuary Special

Protection Area and the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation the

impact from often unregulated recreational use is having a potentially

damaging effect on the wildlife interest of those sites. Accordingly, policies

and proposals in the Local Plan seek to minimise those potential impacts.

Such measures are of the highest importance, in accordance with the legally

enforceable priority attached to those nature conservation sites.

Alongside various measures to manage the sites themselves, the key

infrastructure associated with this protection is the provision of Suitable

Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) in order to provide an alternative

recreational draw for some of the users of the estuary and the Warren. This

approach is set out in the adopted Local Plan. Two such areas are proposed

within the Local Plan – the South West Exeter Ridge Top Park and the

Dawlish Coastal Park. Total cost within the three years 2015 – 2018 is

expected to come to about £1.5 million, depending on the land values

associated with its provision, which is yet to be confirmed. Of this, slightly

under £1 million has been provided for through s106 on permitted sites,

although this has not all been received yet, due to development not starting on

sites.

The IDP prioritises this infrastructure as “Critical”, and as a requirement arising from the Habitat Regulations it has top priority for local infrastructure provision.

more:

From report to TDC Exec dated 30.7.13.

Delivery of Alternative Recreational Greenspaces for Protected Sites  

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=38250&p=0

(My emphasis in bold)

2.7 Initial estimates of the cost of delivering the Dawlish Coastal Park is in the region of £2.5m1 and up to £5m2 for SW Exeter country park. In addition to CIL funds, once project plans are in place, officers can explore funding opportunities including via the LEP, Natural England, Defra, Lottery etc. As Dawlish developments are coming forward earlier and the Warren is under greater pressure than the Exe Estuary site planning for delivery of Dawlish will be the first priority.

1 IDP Cost estimate based on 20 hectares at no more than £62,000/ha, plus additional for other hard infrastructure, improvements and links.

2 IDP cost estimate based on assumption of £62,000 (per ha) capital costs and additional for delivery. Cost sharing with Exeter City Council to be confirmed. 

I wonder which land they'll compulsorily purchase to build the road to transport all these new residents and visitors. 

 I contacted Natural England the other day and asked them this:

What has to come first? New houses or SANGS?

this is what they said;

In answer to your question – SANGs must come first, as they are an avoidance measure for recreational pressure on Annex 1 ground nesting birds under the Habitat Regulations 2010 (amended 2012) for any additional new housing.

@Mcjrpc

It might be considered that the proposed link road between the new housing estate at Gatehouse Farm (DA2) and the roundabout on the A379 by Sainsbury's would be a rare case where Compulsory Purchase powers were in the public interest in order to provide essential local infrastruture (should the same road not come forward by negotiation) - but no.

It is apparent from the staff manning the DA2 consultation event today at The Manor (finishes tomorrow) that, due to a lack of communication between the various landowners (who each have an interest in development coming forward) the much vaunted link road has been downgraded to a distribution road.

This could mean all construction traffic having to access the first 490-home tranche of  the DA2 'Masterplan' area via Elm Grove Road. So yet more pain for Dawlish residents to bear in the interests of Plan Teignbridge and the developer lobby - unless TDC's Planning Committee (who have an exceedingly poor record to date on such matters) decide to ride to the rescue.

All assuming of course that SANGS (via CP or otherwise) does at some point materialise...

Someone else who also went along to the consultation tells me that there are plans for traffic lights at the junction of Elm Grove and the Exeter Road.

So, increased amount of traffic (building site traffic as well as increased residential traffic),going along residential Elm Grove Road.

Lots of traffic going along Exeter Road during the rush hour and all day during the holiday season. And there are to be traffic lights at the junction. There is a pedestrian crossing not so far from that junction. Will it be moved? Will there be a pelican crossing somewhere linked into the traffic lights?

Also, don't forget that in the plans proposed for the new cycle path (which will be on the opposite side of the road to the Elm Grove/Exeter Road junction) the plans show the path crossing Exeter Road a little further towards the town crossing over to the other side to get to Iddesleigh Terrace and then off down through High Street. How will cyclists/pedestrians get from one side to the other? By operating a pelican crossing I imagine.

Just think about it, especially in the height of the holiday season. That nasty,tight, hair pin bend coming out of the town, to be met almost immediately by a pelican crossing, to be met just a little further up by another pelican crossing(?) and traffic lights at the junction of Elm Grove Road and Exeter Road.

An 'interesting' highways experience to say the least.    

I can see the chaos now

They can plan all they like but if they hold the traffic up any more they directly interfere with their own very expensively "researched" policies.

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=33318&p=0

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=33318&p=0