The motion below is listed as item 15 on the agenda for the above meeting:
Maybe the SANGS should be located in the People's Republic of Cockwood?
A possibility. Depends I guess on whether any of those who own land there are disposed to sell any of it to TDC and whether TDC deem it suitable for SANGS.
Which brings me to the Redrow development and its Sangs requirement (which I know has been covered on a previous thread but it's also relevant to this one).
I will be intrigued to see where the SANGS required for the Redrow development turns out to be located given as not one of those Redrow houses can be occupied until the required pro rata amount of SANGS is in place.
Anyone know of any land being sold off recently?
Have just messaged Redrow Homes to ask what their contingency plan is, as they seem to be going ahead with the development regardless. Would be interested to know if any of the Secmanton Lane area developments also fall into the no SANGS no sale requirement. I feel some back handed, dodgy dealing is taking place somewhere along the line.
The Strongvox, Bovis/Cavanna and Barrat developments do not have a SANGs requirement.
Think (but not sure!) that this may be do to with when they were given outline planning permission (2008/9) whereas all other developments that have gained planning permission after 2010 which is when I think (think!) the Sangs legislation came into play, carry a Sangs requirement.
Will be very interested to see what Redrow have to say in response to your message.
The obvious answer is for TDC to use their own land between Strawberry Lane and Breakneck Hill as SANGs.
Great views up there - and it would protect it from future development by greedy landowners.
Oh hang on....I can see the flaw there already!!!!
Perhaps a FOI request for details of TDC land holdings/ownership in the Dawlish/Warren area might produce a solution for the Weeks family.
What about the old Pitch & Putt at Blackdown for example?
SANGS has to be in addition to publicly used green space that is already in situ.
Therefore the old pitch and putt area at Blackdown aka Sandy Lane Playing Fields would not be eligible as it is already a green space used by the public.
More info about SANGS here http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/sangs-guidelines-and-checklist-12-06-08.pdf
Have just received the message below (as presumably have all others who signed the "Save Warren Farm from compulsory purchase" petition electronically).
At the meeting of Dawlish Town Council this week, there will be a motion of 'no confidence' for the compulsory purchase of Warren Farm by Teignbridge.
Come along to the meeting on Wednesday 1st July at 7 pm in the Manor House, Old Town Street, Dawlish, and help the councillors make the right decision, and show support for farmer Richard Weeks.
http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/edit/uploads/1539.pdf (Agenda for the Town Council meeting on 01/07/2015)
From the same agenda:
1 Declarations of Interest – Members are reminded that they should declare any interest he items to be considered and are also advised that the timescale to alter their stated interests with the District Council’s Monitoring Officer is 28 days.
Ignoring the typo, I presume this means that Foden and the two leaders of the Cockwood Revolutionary Army won't be able to vote.
Cllr Taylor lives in the centre of Dawlish and represents Dawlish South West ward on the town council. How is he in any way connected to Cockwood? (which is in Dawlish North East ward)
Yes, Taylor does live there now. Quite what he's got to do with Cockwood is anyone's guess.
Well, as you are the one who has associated him with Cockwood perhaps you could tell the rest of us what you believe his connection to be.
The vote was recorded.
I understand it went thus:
For the motion: Wrigley, Taylor, Foden, Petherick (J), Petherick (L), Tamlyn, Lowther and Almond.
Against the motion: Clemens, Bloomfield, Fenne, and Fenne.
Abstained: Prowse, Payne and Mayne.
Could not vote: Price,
Nothing more than publicity seeking from Wrigley, as the motion will make no difference. However, the appeal decision re building a house on Warren Farm could make a difference, which is obviously the real reason why Weeks had put in the planning application.
I wonder if OurSoul is going to answer Lynne's question posted on 30 June?
Great to see the motion carried, disappointing to see councillors sitting on the fence ie abstaining!
Keep wondering Margaret. I've already stated that I don't know why he has such an interest.
Well you have made the connections between the councillors and Cockwood, you just need to explain to the rest of us what those connections are.
I know that you're no longer a councillor, but surely you're still keeping abreast of local affairs?
Just give us all a straight answer Mrs C!
You got what you asked for Margaret & Co!
If you don't know "the connection between the councillors and Cockwood" then thank the Lord that you're no longer representing us. You were useless in office and clearly likewise useless out of office.
As I said previously, pathetic!
Didn't take long, did it?
Actually it did "Elvis"... It took you ages before you posted on here again. And sure enough it wasn't a positive contribution, it was a post against me. Pathetic indeed!
Margaret, for the benefit of your bullying cabal and also us normal folk, are you admitting that you don't know the connections between the councillors and Cockwood?
Oh please, sing a different song and just tell us what you were talking about! Which bit of that don't you understand?
Good grief. Do you not know that certain Dawlish Town Councillors want to detach Cockwood from us? Come on Margaret, we all know that you're never here, but surely you must have heard about that?
Oh well, clearly you have reverted to type Mrs C and you are never going to substantiate your statement - again! Perhaps if you engage brain before mouth in future we will all avoid these useless exchanges!
Oh so you can't answer my question having demanded that I answer yours (which I did)? That explains why you resorted to insults. Good night Margaret.
I wonder how long it will take for Mrs C/Judith Chalmers/OurSoulofDawlish/OurSoul* to be banned from the forum this time around?
* plus any other names under which she posts
@OurSoul - when you say they want to 'detach cockwood' from dawlish, what would they hope to achieve by doing that?
@OurSoul/Mrs C, as I have said twice already tonight...........pathetic!
Come on Webmaster, prove you're not biased. Get rid of ALL these trolls, they're all only here to flame.
So Netiquette, we can no longer hold Mrs C to account for her dubious comments about identifiable people? It will be a sad day if that ever happens!
Years ago I kept a pub and an odious nasty little individual used to come in. He was rude to my staff, would make personal comments and was disruptive.
Eventually , I banned him.
Several months later , someone wandered in, sporting a pair of horn rimmed glasses, a beard and a cap.
I twigged who it was straight away, horrible, despicable, pathetic little moron, so I kicked him out again.
Take my drift webmaster?
@Netiquette, I'm not sure what they hope to achieve if they succeed with their plan. I recall reading that part of it is to do with giving the People's Republic of Cockwood their own say over certain planning matters. Wrigley would be able to answer your question in detail - drop him an email is the best i could suggest.
Hi, I thought I'd post on here as I read about Cockwood's break away parish proposal.
Cockwood Resident's Association, chaired by Cllr Wrigley, asked Cockwwod residents and those in Eastdon, St Marys, Cofton, Westwood, Middlewood in a poll whether they would like to;
i) Remain with Dawlish
ii) Join Starcross Parish Council
iii) Create an independent Cockwood Parish Council.
The reasons for leaving Dawlish were;
1) Dawlish's council tax was the among the highest in Teignbridge.
Leaving Dawlish would supposedly lower resident's council tax. Based on what evidence I do not know.
Emotive language was used to portray Dawlish Town Council as fiscally incompetent that created a 'them and us' scenario. Without doubt the town council is not without fault, but Cockwood Resident's approach was aggressive.
2) That being part of Dawlish, Cockwood would be negatively effected by new housing developments. I assume spoiling the character of the village and becoming a suburb of Northern Dawlish and house values.
Cockwood has so far had no new housing, Dawlish has had lots. House prices are infklated, no affordable housing exists and any new builds are just a result of people building their dream homes or splitting large gardens in two to make a tidy sum.
The village consists of an ageing population, young people who grew up in the village are forced to leave and properties on the market are increasingly bought by wealthier families and retirees from other parts of the country. That's just how it is now.
The breakaway does seem like nimbyism.
3) That Cockwood residents would have control of planning applications. As if this would have any impact upon TDC decision making. It might be worth looking at planning applications made by individuals in the last few years.
The change in use of part of Eastdon plantation woods from agricultural use (pig farming) into a dwelling is one case that should not be passed as it should remain as woodland. Would a parish council in a small village be able to offer the objectivity and impartiality needed?
Would meetings take place in the pub?
On joining Starcross - no consultation was carried out with Starcross residents prior to the polling of residents in the Cockwood area. For a short period Cllr Wrigley was a parish councillor for Starcross, whether you think councillors should live in the village or town they represent is for you to decide, I know what I think on this matter.
The Cockwood Resident's poll was not a clear indication of public opinion. One polling form was sent to each household. So presumably it was based on one house one vote, so perhaps only the head of the household was allowed to vote. The patriarch perhaps?
Not everyone owns a house either.
Or did they really want an accurate poll at all?
So the initial polling could not have gained all the views of those of voting age in the area.
My polling form was not collected.
Following the poll, a petition was the next step.
The last we heard from Wrigley and co was that there was 'widespread support' yet other members of the Residents Association were claiming they needed more signatures.
So the social media campaign and reality seem very different indeed.
I've not heard a thing for months, it needs clarification - especially as the architect of the break away movement is now a Dawlish Councillor representing all of us in the Central and NE ward.
The question remains is he working for all of Dawlish or just in the interests of Cockwood Residents Association's break away plan?
In any case the Cockwood Resident's Association is not an elected body, it has no remit to seek to replace democratically elected representatives with a smaller parish council.
I cannot find a list of their committe members or constitution, they do not publish their minutes online and the only contact is Councillor Wrigley.
Nobody in Cockwood voted for them. It's polling and petitions do not represent the views of all those in the Cockwood area. Many of whom resent their emotive, unbalanced anti-Dawlish, scare-mongering rhetoric.
I wouldn't want to see the Cockwood Residents Association in charge of planning or any other matters of importance,
And I feel they've just driven a wedge between Cockwood and Dawlish, it doesn't portray Cockwood residents in a good light.
It seems the independence project has been shelved, but it needs resolving. Maybe they can't admit it was a failure and a minority view. Maybe a vanity project.
As suspected behind the scenes dealing going on between Redrow Homes and Teignbridge Council. Here is their response to me asking what their plan was if TDC fail to secure Warren Farm for SANGS "We can confirm we're currently in discussions with Teignbridge District Council and suitable plans will be put in place to cover the requirements of the s106 at Warren Grove."
Anyone fancy doing a FOI request as to the nature of these discussions and what the suitable plans consist of.
If you had a brain you would have worked out that the reason they are going ahead with construction is that they have already struck a deal with TDC. Why dont you TROLL off
No need to be so nasty Fred. They've said to you that they are "currently in discussions" (present tense) and "suitable plans will be put into place" (future tense). So how can an FOI request be made - at this point in time - about something that hasn't yet happened?
So yes, I do have a brain thanks. Keep on trucking eh?
The FOI application can request all letters, documents and emails linked to the discussions about the proposals and would be a legitimate request. The information in itself should reveal what has or, more importantly, has not been discussed. Often the omissions tell us more than the admissions.
To follow on. Redrow homes will not provide details of any extra land they will be providing for SANGS and Ted Hockin is not responding to emails on the subject. This is going to turn out to be a fiasco just like the s106 demands that the Sainsbury's development failed to deliver until TDC gave in to the ammendments requested by the developer.
Want to put that in a letter to the Gazette, Fred?
Also - try contacting Humphrey Clemens. He is not only a Dawlish Teignbridge councillor (albeit for Dawlish South West ward) but was chair of TDC planning committee 2011-2015 and is now an executive member of TDC council with the portfolio for housing and planning. So will be for him to make sure the required amount of SANGS for all this new development gets delivered with the first lot of SANGS being to offset this first phase of the Redrow development.
See what HC has to say.
Walking along the back lanes from Kenton to Starcross this morning, I noticed that Farmer Giles has a lot of fields for sale through Kivells (the fields had lot number on them, so I assume either for sale or for auction). Maybe this is something that Farmer Weeks would consider purchasing with his windfall? Prime agricultural land and far nearer to his family home than Warren Farm is. It's just a thought, but feel free to abuse me.
see page 2 of this week's Dawlish Gazette
Pleased to read Taylor and particularly Wrigley being called out for what they really are. Egotistical bullies. Makes me wonder whether Wrigley also posts on here under a pseudonym.
Having read the story in the Gutsache about the feuding councillors I would like to support the abandoning of the neighbourhood plan, as having attended one of the original meetings it bears no resemblence to what the people of Dawlish wanted. Also fail to understand cllr Prouse's objection to the immoral comment under the current activities of TDC in Dawlish
How do you know what the people of Dawlish want?? You keep coming out with all these unsubstantiated soundbites but never the facts to back them up.
Read the comment you thick brick I was at the original meetings when the all questionairs and ideas where put on the table by the interested groups present. Really is time the webmaster took you down again TROLL
No need to be so abusive yet again! You've no idea what kind of progress has been made in the Neighbourhood Plan do you. You're basing your attitude on one meeting many moons ago. Time for a Yorkie...
I haven't read the Gazette, what's on page 2 and how have Councillors Taylor and Wrigley been called out? Is it about Weeks or the Cockwood Fiefdom plans?
Not about the People's Republic of Cockwood but this vote of no confidence that wasn't a vote of no confidence. Wrigley abused etiquette by slagged off Clemens and falsely accusing him of not declaring an interest. Taylor weighed in by falsely claiming that Clemens had given away confidential information about the value of Weeks' land. Prouse then laid into the pair of them over their duplicity in wanting to be part of the Neighbourhood Plan steering group, but then between them plotting to destroy the NP.
You all have had fair warning about this pair. It's Foden I feel sorry for though, as she's being used by them purely for their own political gain.
Thank you, I'll buy a copy of the Gazette tomorrow. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you refer to their own political gain, I think it's an affront to my village and now Dawlish that one of them thinks they can speak on our behalf, using us like pawns.
Not surprised by displays of a nasty temper.
I am sorry you feel that way about Martin Wrigley and me, OurSoul (and Woodcock) - but your comments could not be further from the truth.
By the way, the auction sale signs you see in the fields does not refer to the land as you suggest, but to the crop.
Say no more.
Shame about the signs not relating to the fields - would have been the ideal solution for Farmer Weeks.
It's unlikely that you or Wrigley would fess up to your political aspirations, so obviously you're going to say that anything to contrary is untrue.
Its a shame that you won't say any more on here. But there you go.
@ Soul of Dawlish/Gary Taylor,
Which comments are further from the truth?
Is your colleague 'working hard' for Dawlish as a councillor, yet simultaneously trying to form a beak away parish for Cockwood?
This needs clarification, why the silence?
For how long were Wrigley and you on Starcross and Kenton Parish Councils, respectively?
6 months max? Attending how many meetings?
It would've been a meteoric rise to become District Councillors.
So you can see how people may perceive political aspiration as being the main obejective?
Or is an intensive course in local politics acceptable these days?
The conduct is a real concern, how will you both work constructively with your colleagues on the council over the next few years? It's only 2 months since the election!
How to make enemies and influence nobody, just doing it now with a the 'Cllr' title.
"Meteoric rise to become district councillors"
Do you mean like one of the Dawlish Tory councillors who was elected last month to both TDC and DTC and who, to the best of my knowledge, has never been a councillor before?
I have never understood this knocking people who are politically ambitious - whatever party they represent. Of course they are ambitious - to be politicians and to see policies they support put into action. What else can those standing for political office possibly be but ambitious?
If political ambition is combined with real concern for the community it is not a problem. To give but one example of many; If someone became a councillor after years of meaningful service to their community I would get it, regardless of their political affiliation.
When suddenly becoming the voice of the people is completely out of character and sharply contrasts previous actions I am critical of it.
So.....people shouldn't stand for election to councils unless they have done years of meaningful service to their community?
Just putting aside how 'meaningful service' should be defined, if we are talking years of it then I guess that would rule out many of the younger generation. What are you suggesting? Gerontocratic councils throughout the land?
I'm not opposed to younger people standing for election, My point is about people who stand for election who suddenly model themselves as the people's champion, when many of us graced by their presence find it hard to recall them ever being community spirited, however distasteful disputes like the one reported in the Gazette... normal service resumed!
It takes a special person to make such an impression.
Nothing wrong with ambition, it seems the motives are being questioned; Who is being represented and what is the priority?
The people of Dawlish? A small clique of people in Cockwood? Just Mr weeks and family? or something else?
Gerontocratic councils, really? Off on a tangeant there..
Ironically isn't that what we have anyway, I'm sure young people would show a lot more maturity than some of our current representatives. Little wonder they're so disillusioned with politics. Some great role models out there.
I'm not suggesting an age bias and it's not the real issue here anyway.
I can't comment on the Tory Councillor, do they have other political side projects that represent a conflict of interest with their core duties?
I understand that you're closely linked to the Warren Farm campaign, and you'll therefore defend any scrutiny of supporters of that campaign.
Warren Farm is not the only issue of importance.
Just been reading through this thread. It's gone off topic (so what's new?) but would just point out that whilst I have no idea of who is what on Cockwood Residents Association, who it represents and why etc, Cllr Wrigley was democratically elected only 5 or 6 weeks ago to represent Dawlish North East ward (which includes Cockwood) on Dawlish Town Council. Did no-one in Cockwood vote for him then?
Lynne, I'll start another thread. Who knows who is on the CRA, who it represents, etc. It's hard to find any contact other than Cllr Wrigley.
yes he was democratically elected, but if he now is fully behind Dawlish then surely continuing the break away parish campaign is conflict of interest as he now serves all those in the Central and NE ward.
Which hat does he wear? Chair of CRA which was anti-DTC or Dawlish Town Councillor?
He can't wear both it is a conflict of interest.
Dawlish Central and North East ward is a Teignbridge District Ward. It returns three District councillors. These were elected in early May. All three are Conservative and are Cllrs Mayne, Hockin and Price.
Dawlish North East ward (which includes Cockwood) is a Dawlish Town Council ward. I believe it returns three Dawlish town councillors. Cllr Wrigley is one of those councillors.
If you want to know Cllr Wrigley's thoughts on all the issues you have raised on here why haven't you asked him?
Seems Dawlish North East ward returns 4 councillors to the town council.
|NORTH EAST WARD|
Pauline Bloomfield 50 Cofton Hill, Cockwood EX6 8RB
Conservative - I am a Devonian and have lived in Cockwood since 1969 where, with my husband Roger bringing up our two sons, Charles and Simon. Over the years I have been involved with various local associations. I am currently President of Cofton Womans Institute. I have been a Town Councillor for the past four years and have enjoyed trying to help update and promote Dawlish for the future.
Lisa Mayne *
Conservative - I am now retired but before my husband’s death we ran several businesses at Dawlish Warren over the last 30 plus years. My two daughters are now grown up and I feel I have plenty to give to the council.
Linda Petherick Newhouse, Penfield Gardens, DAWLISH EX7 9NQ
Independent - I have lived in Dawlish for 8 years, I came to live here with my husband who was born in Dawlish, he wanted to return to his home town. I have three children, 2 daughters and one stepson and a little grandson who brings us all a lot of joy. My working life has been spent as Community Fundraising Manager for the British Red Cross raising money for the work they do at home and abroad, I then moved to Dawlish and for the first few years I worked as Head of Fundraising at Hospiscare. I then worked for a local estate agent part time for a while and I now work for The National Federation of Occupational Pensioners campaigning and lobbying for better healthcare, transport and pensions for the older generation. I was so pleased and honoured to become a town Councillor and I will work hard for the community of Dawlish.
From the minutes of Dawlish Town Council meeting held Weds. 6th June 2015
Thanks Lynne, all very vague isn't it.
We know Cllr Wrigley has a 'strong preference', if it refers to the poll, then that was a sham. I wouldn't mind if CRA and the whole process were democratic, they're not though.
If he hasn't got enough signatures by now will he?