General Discussion
If the report in the Gazette on the recent council meeting is to be believed, what a sorry state of affairs.
Whilst on on the subject of the Gazette, could someone please explain how the figures printed in the article about the pavilion consultation differ so greatly to those initially announced. I just want an objective explanation and no bitching please. Thanks.
The comments made by Cllr Clemens were his opinion. I have to say that I think he rather overstated the case. It made it sound like Prime Minister's question time, I'd say it was more of a debate. I'd rather councillors express themselves than sit quietly.
There were lots of numbers being considered, which must have been a nightmare to summarise in a few paragraphs in the newspaper. The figure of 261 responses referred to is just that for Question 6 from people who chose to complete paper versions of the questionaire. In addition to that there were 382 responses to that same question from people who completed the online questionaire. Those were listed on a separate page of the report prepared by the working party.
What was decided in the end was that both of the anlysises presented to the meeting (The report from the working party and the alternative report prepared by Cllr Vickery) would be passed to Teignbridge along with all the raw data. This information, together with the expert opinion considered through the planning process, the Planning Officer's recomendations and all the public responses to the planning application will be a valuable resource for those who in the future take on the task of devising a new proposal for the Lawn.
Neither Bob Vickery or myself will be involved in drawing up any new proposals for a replacement bandstand or play park on the Lawn. I genuinely hope that those who take on this task will find a way to devise new plans that we as a community can unite around. Whatever our opinions about how to get there, we all want Dawlish to thrive
Thanks Michael. So it's clear then that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I assume that Councillor Clemens was indulging in a little bit of anti-independent electioneering. Ever the was with party politicians...
In fairness, no he wasn't. The remarks weren't directed at any particular councillors and the talking across one another etc and not addressing remarks through the Chairman was by no means exclusive to one sector of the council.
It happens sometimes that a meeting is about issues that councillors become passionate about. I remember one very similar occasion in February 2011 when there were no Independents and the party councillors got very energised over an issue related to the ill fated Transfer of Assets. I was sat in the public gallery on that occasion and remember thinking how good to see councillors getting so animated. It's good to care that much.
I think the only thing that happened that might be described as rude was when one councillor started talking when Cllr Harrie Burrowes was already speaking. She very politely remonstrated with that person, who immediately desisted.
Otherwise it was just people being very animated and breaking the rules by standing up and addressing points to each other rather than to the Chairman. I don't have a problem with that as I think we are elected with an expectation we will be passionate about our community, and 19th century debating club rules can stiffle that.
I think we all need to remember that the expert opinion of the planning officer was that, despite all the objections, he was minded to approve the planning application for the Woodlouse. So..........we may well yet end up with that monstrosity being built on our lawn if the planning officer gets his own way...........and they usually do!!
Except of course that the Town Council withdrew the application. The importance of the PO report is that it dealt with issues such as building in an area that has a theoretical risk of flooding. We have a much greater understanding of such issues now, and that has to be good. She also made comments that were critical of the proposed location of the play park, and perhaps that might also be welcome to those who disagreed with the proposals
The key thing is that the proposals are off the table now. Margaret is one of the people selected to draw up a new plan and it great that she and her colleagues on that working party have so much information available to them.
@MC if I remember correctly, in the Council meeting last August the Mayor offered me his place on the already established town centre working group, which is convened and chaired by TDC. I accepted the kind offer as I wanted to be involved in the work but that group has not met since that time and indeed has not met since February or March last year.
The working group is convened by Teignbridge, the fact that it has not met for almost a year demonstrates how low a priority improving the Lawn is for them, That was why it fell to the Town Council to seize the opportunity of the CCF funding scheme last year, and why we had to work so hard to get a scheme drawn up in weeks
I hope TDC can be persuaded to give this a higher priority, and thank goodness they will now have a lot more information to guide them following last years work than the Town Council had last March
Perhaps the plans that TDC had drawn up for the lawn at that time but were put on hold due to the CCF bid will now be implemented, that would be good for Dawlish.
There were no plans in any meaningful sense of the word. Sketch might be more accurate
I'm afraid the suggestion that anything more than that had been done is inaccurate. No technical reports. No architectural drawings, no environmental assessments. Nada
However, if TDC can be persuaded to ever convene the working party, those involved can take those very basic drawings and all the data gathered by the Town Council and move forward. It does however require the District to see our Lawn as being a priority. That does seem to be the problem here ......
I can only go on what was reported at the council meeting last August by a councillor who sits on the town centre working group. He was very clear about how well developed the TDC plans were for a replacement bandstand.
May I ask if he was that clear, then why wasn't it recorded in the minutes of that meeting? Or if his report was accidentally missed off them, why were the minutes approved during Septembers meeting (by those in attendance, obviously)? Thanks.
I saw the sketch plan, it might best be described as a pretty picture showing a generic bandstand in the same location as currently. A location plan rather than detailed design proposals.
When we discussed with TDC making a bid to the Coastal Community Fund they stated that they were not able to do so. The plans were nowhere near the level of detail required, nor had there been the required public consultation. There was no officer time available to solve either of these problems because all were fully commited on the Carlton Theatre project.
I'm afraid that the other councillor you referred to was suffering from an excess of enthusiasm in describing what TDC had prepared as a plan, and you will recall I challenged him when he made the statement. Incidentally he took the same plan to a meeting of the Chamber of Trade and Cllr Stuart Barker (Deputy Leader of Teignbridge) was pretty annoyed that people's expectations had been risen over what was still very much just a possible solution with much work still to be done.
Being positive, there is no reason why the working party that Margaret is a member of can't now take the very basic work done by Teignbridge so far, add to that the detailed technical information derived from the town council plan about environmental factors, the huge amount of consultation data derived from the council questionaire and the planning committee responses, and come up with a new detailed plan that is sufficently detailed to put before the people of Dawlish and potential funders. There will also need to be the necessary work done to commission technical design work up to the required standard to prove the project is feasible.
But first, you have to persuade Teignbridge to have a meeting, ............. and one year on that is still not forthcoming
Who are the members of this working party? And why these oblique reference to other councillors without naming them? Is it a secret?
If I'm reading minutes correctly, the "other councillor" was Terry Lowther. If I'm not, apologies to him.
The 'working' party membership list is posted on this forum somewhere. However it would appear that one member of it lacks the degree of knowledge required in order to make me feel comfortable that our Lawn is in safe hands.
Just to clarify the position. I am not formally a member of the town centre working group as since the Mayor's kind offer the group have not met so I have not been formally accepted onto the group. I actually do not know who the other councillors are on the group, I am assuming MC must be one of them to be so well informed.
That's very funny, I'll take a screenshot before it's deleted.
I know it's off topic but I have a set of pans for sale. Teflon coated.
Excellent, that's just what I'm looking for right now, how much are you asking for the set? I can collect them, of course.
Free to you Burneside, my treat. Let me know when you're coming, I'll lock the cat in the bedroom. 
http:A//i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/134448503/teflon_dog_bowl.jpg
To put one question to bed with an answer.
The Dawlish Town Centre Working Party (DTCWP) was set up by Teignbridge District Council (owners of the Lawn) with Cllr Stuart Barker (TDC) as chairman.
We met for the first time on 31 July 2013 and notes were taken by Joe Walsh, a business and marketing student.
There was representation from Teignbridge, four councillors, Stuart Barker, Ted Hockin, John Petherick and Rosalind Prowse; from Devon County Council, our councillor, John Clatworthy; from Dawlish Town Council, two councillors being the Mayor, Cllr Terry Lowther, and myself; from the Dawlish & Teignmouth CIC, Emma Kay; from Dawlish Chamber of Trade, four, Bob Bowen, David Force, Neil Saxon, Pete Wilson; additionally, there were TDC officers, Tony Watson (Service Manager, Economy & regeneration), Michelle Taylor (Marketing Officer), Sue Edwards (Environment Standards Officer), and Pete Briscoe (Regeneration Project Officer).
During that first meeting a number of potential projects were discussed and a Lawn Enhancement Working Group was set up under the guidance of Pete Briscoe, comprising, Pete Briscoe, Emma Kay, Linda Petherick, Rosalind Prowse, Terry Lowther, Margaret Tucker and Bob Vickery.
The Working Party met again on the 5th September 2013 and 5th December, and the Working Group on 21st October and 21st November. Progress stalled at 5th December 2013 and there were no further meetings until March 26th 2014. This was called at the request of Dawlish Town Council to seek support for a bid to the final round of the Coastal Communities Fund.
At the Town Council meeting held in August 2014, the current Mayor Cllr John Petherick offered his seat on the DTCWP to Cllr Margaret Swift who had asked about representation on the WP. Some changes of representation had also occurred among Chamber of Trade members.
The DTCWP has not met since 26 March 2014, and TDC show no signs of interest in so doing. Nothing is likely to be done until after the elections on May 7th when various representatives may no longer have seats on TDC or DTC.
One final word on this topic....... perhaps.........
THE 20TH CENTURY
Dawlish has
increased in population to around 13,000. There are many more houses in Dawlish but in many ways not a lot has changed – but perhaps that is why we like it. Big industry has passed us by and the change in shopping has altered the look of some of our streets, but for nearly a hundred years tourism is our biggest business. As locals we still love our beaches, our Carnival with the Red Arrow displays, our churches, our black swans on the Lawn 
that so many tourists remember with pleasant memories.
Reference - archives on the internet
It's ironic that the website that this is copied from hasn't been updated since the last century...
Margaret, could you please explain for us thicko's why you've pasted that text into this particular thread? I genuinely don't see the relevance. Thanks.