General Discussion
At the next TDC Planning Committee to be held on Tuesday 28th April this will be an agenda item.
As I understand the situation, for this development to actually proceed to having houses on the ground (as opposed to being just on plans) TDC must have the required amount of SANGS (suitable alternative green space) in place.
The S106 legal agreement attached to this development makes provision for either:
A/ cash towards the purchase and maintenance of SANGS at Warren Farm, or:
B/ 6.24 hectares of land for SANGS elsewhere, should Warren Farm not be deliverable.
Cllr Clemens seems to have taken it upon himself that it is plan A, or bust. Wonder what the Teignbridge legal team will say on 28th?
for info:
Re: Planning reference: 15/00258/REM
Objection:
This Reserved Matters planning application is in connection with a new housing development that requires SANGS mitigation. There is presently no SANGS provision in Dawlish (or if land has been acquired for SANGS that information is not yet in the public domain). As far as I am aware the owner of Warren Farm which is where TDC wishes to have a SANGS still does not wish to sell that land to TDC and unless he has a change of heart I can only see further delay with regard to ownership changing hands.
I spoke with someone from Redrow Homes this morning who stated that Redrow's schedule is for the show home to be built by the end of this Autumn and the first of the houses to be available for occupation by end of this calendar year. As I understand it an element of SANGS needs to be in place no later than by the time those first houses get occupied.
Background: The original planning application for this development (12/03797/Maj) was refused but was Appealed and the Appeal was upheld. See 12/00061/REF. This is what it says at 10.7 on page 32 in the Appeal Decision Notice dated 10th September 2013.
"10.7
In addition, the s.106 Agreement makes provision for financial contributions toward the acquisition, maintenance and management of SANGS, to mitigate the impact that recreational use by future occupiers of the proposed dwellings might otherwise have on the SPA and SAC. The total of the contributions would be calculated in accordance with the JIA. The Council has identified the Dawlish Coastal Park as its preferred site for the provision of SANGS, but since there is some doubt as to the timetable for its delivery [8.41], the s.106 Agreement contains provisions to ensure that the phasing of the development, and occupation of the dwellings, would be in step with the delivery of commensurate amounts of SANGS. As an alternative, if the Council were unable to acquire and provide its intended SANGS in time, the S.106 Agreement makes provision for the owner of the appeal site to provide SANGS on other land, with the prior approval of (and for eventual transfer to) the Council. The phasing and occupation of the development would again be linked to the delivery of commensurate amounts of SANGS."
Also note this:
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."
End of objection submission.
Lynne, I think you are right - but I would be cautious about hanging my hat on the timing argument due to potential precedents.
There are other sites in Dawlish (other than at Gatehouse Farm and Shutterton Park) that have already been granted planning permission on the basis that SANGS will be coming forward. TDC's May 2013 SANGS report shows 638 houses with consents and 900 to be delivered via the Local Plan. This would have placed a requirement of 27.4 hectares for SANGS on Dawlish. The successful appeal against refusal of permision at Shutterton Park for 350 homes in September 2013 however added a requirement for further 6.24 hectares, bringing the total requirement to 33.64 hectares.
Despite this clear uplift in requirement, Teignbridge refute that there would be a SANGS shortfall, pointing to the other Green Infrastructure available nearby. The fact that legislation dictates that SANGS must be provided over and above any GI space. seems to have escaped them. Meanwhile the amount of SANGS to be provided at Warren Farm has shrunk from "up to 26.2 hectares" in May 2013 down to "around 21 hectares" in December 2013...
Clearly, the single Dawlish SANGS mitigiation area at Warren Farm will not be provided any time soon. Therefore the timing of the commencement of the Shutterton Park scheme would appear to be the trigger for "Plan B", with the developer to provide SANGS on other land. This may dent TDC's apparent quest to use SANGS funding as a cash cow - however, crucially, it would help redress the SANGS shortfall to the considerable benefit of those living in Dawlish. While it is to be hoped that improvements to design - and more especially safe passage alongside the A379 between St Marys Cottages and Sainsbury's - can be acheived at Shutterton Park prior to detail approval, perhaps, just this once, the arrival of the bulldozers will be welcomed?
It seems to me it has to be plan B as well. How can it be anything other than that when I imagine Redrow are chomping at the bit to get on with house building but they can't do so until there is the required amount of Sangs in place or definitely on the way to being in place? And as it seems there ain't gonna be a Sangs at Warren Farm any time soon then there has to be the required amount of Sangs somewhere else.
But hey! What do I know? I'm only a member of the electorate and a Dawlish resident. That meeting on the 28th though should be interesting...
Yes, and the rules of 'purdah' will apply.
"The pre-election period regulates the conduct of public bodies in the weeks preceding an election. It calls for caution over decisions which could have a bearing on matters relevant to the election, decisions for action with a long-term character (including appointments), and policy decisions on which the newly elected body could be expected to take a different view."
TDC take note.
Just been looking at the committee report. Thought I'd post on here this bit
