General Discussion

There is a TDC planning committe meeting on the 28th of this month.

This link should take you to its agenda http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/article/21630/28-July-2015

Note agenda item 8.

Within those four links shown at agenda item 8, are documents which, amongst other things, say the following:

“a. Temporary SANGS

Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) is needed to relieve

visitor pressure on the Dawlish Warren SAC and the Exe Estuary SPA and

RAMSAR. SANGS is required in association with the implementation of

DA2 in order to meet its HRA requirements.

In order for the development at DA2 to progress a Temporary SANGS may

need to be provided ahead of the provision of the Dawlish Coastal Park

(DA7). As such, the SPD makes provision for a temporary SANGS to be

provided adjacent to the site (see section 3.8 of the draft SPD for further

details). This temporary measure will enable the timely delivery of the

development whilst mitigating the impacts identified in the SA/SEA and

HRA of the Local Plan.

b. Multipurpose building

Policy DA2 requires the delivery of a multipurpose building capable of

incorporating health and early years’ facilities. Through more detailed

assessments of need undertaken as part of the preparation of the draft SPD

it has become apparent that the health and early years element of the

multipurpose building can be better met through support for existing

facilities in Dawlish. In response, the SPD promotes the use of financial

contributions secured through S106 payments to support the existing facility

at the Red Rock Skills Centre and the Barton Surgery rather than provide a

bespoke facility.

c. Employment

Policy DA2 requires the provision of at least 3ha of land for employment

development. 3 hectares of employment land will be located in a single

area within and adjoining Development Area 4. In order to improve

deliverability of the employment land and access to the north of the site, the

employment land is shown partly inside the settlement limit with further

phases outside the settlement limit and with a separate access to the A379.

Provision in this location will enable clustering of business uses, economic

uses, economies of utilities provision and servicing, and minimise impact on

neighbouring uses. Development Area 4 is the most accessible part of the

DA2 allocation allowing commercial traffic to access directly off the A379.

Seeking to provide all of the employment land within the existing site would

necessitate complicated financial arrangements between landowners and would make its provision much less certain. “

1. Why can't the temporary SANGS become permanent? is it because that land is designated for a later phase of the development?

2. What a surprise. Not. Though if it helps keep Red Rock open, then at least that's something.

3. What are the physical impacts of this? I don't know where DA4 is. 

If you look at that second link at agenda item 8 at page 12 it says of development area 4 that

"Development Area 4 is the most 

The comments below have been circulated to members of the TDC Planning Committee and to Dawlish Town Councillors and are now available to members or the public and the press in advance of this morning's meeting:

Re Planning Committee Meeting 28th July 2015, Agenda Item 8

DA2 & DA6 Draft Development Framework Plan

27/07/2015

To all TDC Planning Committee members,

I am writing in my capacity as the newly elected representative for Dawlish Town Council to the North West Secmaton Lane Development Framework, to express my concern about the above agenda item relating to Plan Teignbridge policy areas DA2 & DA6, which has now come before you with a recommendation for approval for consultation.

My particular concern is in relation to the proposed displacement of 2.3 hectares of employment land (out of a total allocation of 3 hectares) to a more remote site, outside of policy area DA2. This proposal comes despite DA2 already having been increased by 8 hectares for the purpose of providing 3 hectares of employment land, during the Local Plan Inspection in September 2013.

Classed as a Main Modification (MM4), this increase was subject to an additional consultation period prior to the adoption of Plan Teignbridge in May 2014. During this consultation period, Dawlish Town Council, having debated the possibility of a subsequent reduction in the amount of the employment land in favour of further residential development, wrote to the Plan Inspector stating “that they had serious concerns regarding the increase of 8 hectares in this version of the Local Plan”.

It would now seem these concerns were justified, because although a figure of “at least 860 homes” still appears as a reference point within much of the text, the table used as a calculation for the temporary SANGS (p15) shows a new total for DA2 of 916 dwellings.

These additional 56 dwellings would be accommodated through the reallocation of 2.3 hectares of land previously set aside for employment.

It is notable that not covered within the calculation for Temporary SANGS is the land required to mitigate the effect of the 350 houses to be built at the ‘Warren Grove’ (Shutterton Park) site. I understand that the S106 agreement that formed part of the successful appeal documentation for that development allows for the developer to provide 6.24 hectares of permanent land for SANGS in the event of the Coastal Park at DA7 not coming forward, which is to be welcome.

I am also concerned as to the suitability of the newly proposed sites (total 2.3 hectares) for employment land. Currently used for agricultural purposes, this area has a noticeable south-west facing slope not unlike the steeper elements of the land previously considered within DA2. We are told these new sites would be able to accommodate larger businesses that may wish to relocate in Dawlish, however a more suitable provision for larger businesses already exists on far more gently sloping land to the rear of the Sainsbury’s store, which although having received approval for units of various sizes some years ago (08/01471/MAJ) remain only partly developed.

A further concern is the suitability of the proposed existing access point for employment and related construction traffic, with highway safety yet to be discussed with DCC. Furthermore, if this secondary ‘employment road’ is also planned to be used to provide access for residential and general construction traffic prior to the completion of the link road (which may be not before 2026 given the phasing formula suggested) then further road safety measures will almost certainly need to be considered.

Finally, given the considerable burden of new housing already placed upon the town (one of the largest increases in Teignbridge over recent years) any proposal that would usher in additional dwellings beyond the numbers already set in Plan Teignbridge is likely to have a negative impact on public sentiment, with unwelcome consequences for the delivery of the newly relaunched Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan.

I would therefore suggest that the Draft Development Framework Plan before you is premature and should be referred back to TDC Planning for further consideration by landowners and all other stakeholders.

Thank you for your consideration.

Gary Taylor

Councillor, Dawlish Town Council

North West Secmaton Lane Dawlish Development Framework Representative

Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group member

Tuesday's vote on a recommendation that the document is approved for consultation with a view to a final version being approved at a future Executive as a Supplementary Planning Document:

18 present, 18 for.

Gary Taylor

@SoulofDawlish: of those 18 that voted in support of the recommendation were any of them Dawlish TDC councillors? (and if so, can you tell us who they were please)  

Dawlish TDC Councillors Price & Prowse.

Gary Taylor

Thank you.

Would I be correct in thinking that this recommendation will now go out for a 6 week or so public consultation period?

Or would I be more correct in thinking that this recommendation will now go out for a six week or so public information period? ( but under the guise of consultation).

Cynical? me?

You would be correct - and starting in August. Cllr Prowse did speak out against a consultation period starting during the summer holidays but was overridden by TDC Officer Simon Thornley.

Gary Taylor 

I was idly wondering to myself why the urgency re this informa, sorry, consultation exercise and then I remembered that before even one of those Redrow houses can be occupied (first houses ready for occupation late 2015/ early 2016 I understand) the required amount of SANGS has to be in place, somewhere.

I was wondering therefore if this 'somewhere' might be where the temporary SANGS is planned to be up by Langdon Hospital? And if that were to be the case then there would indeed be an urgent necessity to get all the box ticking public consultation etc etc done so that the temporary SANGs can be in place by the time the first tranche of the Redrow houses are ready to be occupied.   

Having read the mutiple pages of absolute dribble relateing to the Shutterton Park development and its requirements under section 106 etc. It seems fair to say that as with the previous Sainsburys/Millwood fiasco TDC planning dept and the elected councillors voting at committee meetings are totally out of their depth and will go along with anything that Redrow and its developers want to ammend or get out of providing.  

A public vote of no confidence is urgently required and the planning committee need to be replaced by a panel of qualified experts to ensure facilities, roads, SANGS, employment units and upgrades to sewerage etc are in place before a single house is built or sold.

If any Dawlish Town Councillors agree and know the proceedure for doing this then please get in touch as I am willing to spend time on this in order to save our town

Public vote of confidence? Really?? You've just had an Election, so I think that indicates where people's confidence lies. Sadly. 

And as for your campaign to save our town, you're having a laugh aren't you? Based on your previous rants on here and on FB, you couldn't care less about Dawlish. You had a chance to stand for election at the aforementioned Elections, but I failed to see your name on the voting papers. 

A serious question. Why do you think that building these homes would destroy our town?

@OurSoul

What sort of idiot are you really. I dont even use facebook.

People who stand and get elected to council loose the right to freedom of speech thats why myself and others dont stand

As for your last statement well that just shows how detached from reality you really are. Where are all the new people going to work and how are they going to get there. Where are their kids going to go to school. How many NHS spaces are there at our doctors, dentists etc

Go on know it all answer these questions because like Millwoods, Barratts, Bovis, Strongvox and others before Redrow arent going to provide any infrastructure to support their housing and the elected likes of Prowse, Price, and others wont do jack to stop them.

As for SANGS at Langdon great choice. Families having a picnic whillst being watched by convicted mental health criminals ideal

I did wonder how long this particular thread would take before it degenerated  into a slanging match with the usual catalyst at the helm?

1. You do use Facebook. Not sure why you deny that, but there you go. 

2. Freedom of speech is just a smokescreen for your preference of being a keyboard warrior rather than a doer. 

3.  I can only assume that all these new homes will remain unsold, based on your theory. Just like you theorised when every other recent development in Dawlish was built...

4.  I'm not any kind of idiot. Or an idiot full stop.  

5. Keep on trucking. 

Oh "hi" Elvis. I missed your invaluable contribution to the debate. Come on, tell us a joke - after all you admitted that you're only here to have a laugh and not to debate. 

This thread started 9 days ago. Did your wondering expect it to take that long? Unlike my posts here, you've not had anything worthwhile to contribute - just the usual vote-winning pop at me. 

There's  only one joke on here.

1/10. Very poor.

Maybe you could sing us a song instead? Blue Moon maybe?

Mean Woman Blues,  much more appropriate. 

@ Mrs C, your post  at 16.14 point 2 made me laugh, for what are you? Point 4; yes you are! 

Oh here comes Margaret! Believe you me, I'm a doer - whilst you're a quitter and Dave Cliffe is just a keyboard warrior. 

And no, I'm still not an idiot.  But if I was, then that would make your bullying even more contemptible. 

I repeat my question (about this topic!): Why do you haters think that building these new homes "destroys" our town?

Hey IDIOT see you still havent answered my questions and here's another one quess who campaigned and won the battle to get the industrial units built behind Sainsbury's. Wasent you was it IDIOT

How exactly are you a "doer", Mrs C?  I think you should enlighten us all.

I think it was a typo burnside, it should have been dour.

That's more like it Elvis! 😎

@ Mrs C, So........... You say you are a 'Doer', well what is it exactly that you do for Dawlish?

Also, you describe me as a quitter; would you use the same adjective to describe the two councillors you fully supported on this forum and have also stood down?

Dear Margaret, I do plenty thank you. Unlike some, I just have no need to advertise it in order to try to make me look good in the eyes of the public. 

With regards to you quitting because you knew you were going to lose at the Election, in contrast the gentlemen you refer to didn't quit, they retired and announced as much well in advance. 

I'll attempt to bring this back on topic yet again. How are these new homes going to destroy Dawlish? Is anyone who is using this rhetoric capable of answering this serious question?

 Yes OurSoul, I am here  here for fun and there is precious  little  of it  on this site.

I  don't  believe in getting worked up and debating things that are absolutely out of people's  control,  I  also don't  like some people on here taking the view that if your view is different to theirs, then you are an idiot or worse.

On this occasion though as a strictly one off and at the risk of being slagged off  I will give my view.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the new homes will destroy Dawlish,  but I  don't  believe it will be benefical.

FredBassett hit the nail on the head, the interstructure here is woefully inadequate  to take all these families and  we all know  the employement situation.

And still the king of rock and roll.

Thanks Elvis. You are right that the infrastructure isn't as adequate as it should be. It's not wholly inadequate in my opinion but still isn't as good as it could be. 

I share people's concerns re additional traffic - the biggest single impact will be upon the roads. Houses are needed, will be built and will be sold and occupied - there's no getting away from that. A bypass might be the solution to the roads dilemma, however the lack of through traffic itself might lead to the destruction of Dawlish.  

I didnt vote Tory, so the lack of school and medical resources is for others to answer. 

I wonder just how much of the housing to be built will have the 60+s in mind?

Dawlish has quite a number of folk in that age group (have seen figures somewhere but can't remember where right now).

Anyhow, a 60+ population will have a demand for housing that will suit them in their later years. Like single storey accommodation (for when going up and down stairs become an impossibility)

Doesn't matter if the 60+ housing provision is market rate or 'affordable' - there will still be a demand for it.

I know that a 50 bed extra care home is part of the plan. But not all 60+s will need that type of accommodation.

That 50 bed extra care home will also make up a part of the 'affordable' homes provision (there is a target that of the "at least 860 homes to be built" 25% should be 'affordable').

I understand that GP provision will be provided via the expansion of Barton Surgery. A contribution by the developers of £400 per dwelling will fund this expansion. Question: how can Barton Surgery expand? It has already gone downwards. So will it now start to go outwards onto the car parking area(s)? Will there be funding available from the NHS budget to pay for the staff salaries etc?

Just some thoughts and some questions.   

PS - It is recognised that both Gatehouse and Westcliff primary schools will need to expand. 

@Mrs C

The two gentlemen in question did not publicly announce their electoral intentions "well In advance", maybe you are privy to something the rest of us are not.  It only became apparent once the nominations closed.

I keep hearing" the employment situation here", but to get a mortgage do you not need to be employed if i am correct in my assumption then the folk moving here are already in employment.  Yes there are things wrong we could do with more Doctors, School places, and a new sewage system not to mention a new dual carriagway linking Dawlish with the A38 there will be problems but it's all out of our hand's and when it all goes wrong and it will you can all say "I TOLD YOU SO" 

You keep saying you are a 'doer' Mrs C but provide us with no evidence of anything constructive you have done! Unlike people like Fred, who do stand up and campaign yet you accuse him of being a keyboard warrior! 

Some excellent points there Leatash. 

If small town councillors can get this worked up with their petty rivalries god help us all.   Get over it, it's history, find something new to make yourselves relevant.   Has the webmaster quit?

@Netiquette

Why would you think the webmaster should be concerned with this thread?

Hi Netiquette. I've been advised that the best way to deal with reaction-seeking trolls is to ignore them. That is advice that I've somewhat belatedly taken and is advice that's proving to be wise, given the fury that it's causing the pair of them. Therefore Webmaster doesn't need to deal with them as the two trolls are doing a fine enough job of hanging themselves out to dry. Thank you for your support though. 

Not fury Mrs C, just wry amusement at your many contradictions and blatant lies.

Keep it up, dear.

I understand  that there is a spare slot at the bandstand  during carnival  week. 

I think a good idea would be for the, "at each others throats brigade", to have it out, there and then.  Charge admission with all proceeds going to " Victims of internet trolling charity".

Great idea Elvis, I just hope it's not going to be a Pie Eating contest though...

Sorry,  you have lost me Mrs C, you will need to explain your comment above!

Maybe the reason we have so many problems in Dawlish is that this pettiness spills over into the council chambers.

Aren't they in the process of suing each other for slander?

Tell us more please Woodcock. This sounds fascinating! Who are the "they" and what was the alleged slander?

Our Cuncillors. It was in the Gazette a few weeks ago, we discussed it on here. Wrigley upset some of his colleagues. Maybe the threats to sue weren't folllowed up.

Oh yes that's right! I guess it came to nothing - all hot air sadly. 

Any chance of you explaining your comment anytime soon Mrs C?

Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.

Well put Leatash. 👍

It doesn't change the fact, Mrs C, that you have spouted some nonsense and nobody has a clue what you mean.  Care to explain your post?

Which post?

3rd August 10.48 posted by Mrs C aka OurSoulofDawlish/OurSoul.

TBH this poster has had so many usernames on this forum it's hard to keep track.

Seems Mrs C changing her username is the biggest thing to happen in some people's lives.  Call the police! 

Thanks Burnside.

I read the post.

Why is Mrs C.Our Soul changing their username so important? I agree with Mcjrpc, life must be dull for some.

This forum seems to be unique in that it allows members to change their username at will, it certainly makes for confusion.  Still waiting for clarification from the poster who currently calls themself OurSoul to explain their bizarre post.

You want clarification on a comment about a pie eating competition?  Seriously?

Woodcock, it's ridiculous isn't it? As you're a new member of this forum, I'll recap my account/username history for you. I trust everyone reading this nonsense understands the difference between "account" and "username". 

1. Mrs C.  

2. A certain female councillor (now ex-councillor) put forward the notion that no-ones opinion was valid unless they used a real name. My frivolous nature caused me to change username on the same account to Judith Chalmers, to demonstrate the pointlessness of her notion. 

3. The Mrs C account was bullied off. 

4. The Judith Chalmers account was created and subsequently bullied off. 

5. The OurSoulOfDawlish account was created. The choice of account name was a frivolous take on that of a certain male (now) town councillor.  I later decided to shorten the username of this account to OurSoul to prevent confusion. and to provide a comedy prop to certaIn forum members. 

6. At no point have I denied any of this. 

7. Some people need to get a life. 

8. Oh yes. On topic. Why will building these developments destroy Dawlish?

10. What happened to number 9?

There you go again Mrs C, telling blatant lies (points 3 & 4).

You were not "bullied off" the forum, but in fact banned twice by the webmaster due to the poisonous effect you were having on the forum.

Why do you persist with the lies, is it some kind of personality disorder?

You're doing pretty well with the posion yourself Burneside.   I've not been on this site for long but you and a couple of others seem to be the bullies round here.   Why don't you put a sock in it.

No, A Frame, not a bully, I just refuse to sit back and let that poster get away with peddling lies and crap.

This is what I have to put up with A Frame. The bullies don't like people standing up to them and go crying to the Webmaster when they do. The bullying of Margaret, Bernard and co caused those two accounts (points 3 and 4!) to be banned. I've never denied this. 

How will these housing developments destroy Dawlish?

That's my point Burneside.  You lot are obsessed with bringing down this one poster.   You don't do that with other posters, that makes you bullies.  

I'm sorry my post has gone off topic but I come on here to find out what's happening in Dawlish and I am sick of the same few people ruining it.  Put your egos away. 

What screwed-up logic you have, Mrs C.  I am quite sure the webmaster would ban the bullies, not the person being bullied.  But of course there was no bullying was there, just other forum members challenging you, which in your warped imagination counts as bullying.  

So.................I still don't understand Mrs C's post re the competition and wonder if he/she will ever explain instead of deflecting all the time. 

Did anyone say they would destroy Dawlish, OurSoul?

Additional housing would certainly help destroy the countryside around the town while adding further pressure on the creaking infrastructure within it (as Fred Bassett indicated on 31st July). These additiional houses (91 at the last count) come on top of the strategic housing allocation already 'set' in the local plan, therefore surely the question perhaps should be: how will this increase benefit Dawlish?

Extra SANGS? Improved accessibility? Additional community facilities? A joined up road network? Well paid full-time jobs? These are the type of things that could at least mitigate the effect of additional housing and help preserve the character of our town.

Are you not prepared to fight for them, like Fred?

Gary Taylor

And just to prove my point, here comes another one.

As we've seen before, the Webmaster is pretty clueless when it comes to dealing with bullying, so don't think being on here is a sign that you're not one.   What a joke.

SoulofDawlish - who is Fred?

Gary, it was said that Dawlish needs saving. Building these homes will not destroy Dawlish, it doesn't need saving from these homes. I've already said that I agree that the mitigation is needed re infrastructure - that's what should be fought for, not the cancellation of building.  Your comment re well-paid full-time employment is a joke surely?

Previous housing developments haven't destroyed Dawlish have they? We're all still here and have survived without the likes of you trying to save us. These latest new homes will all be built, sold and occupied because there's a need for them. The same is happening all over the country because there is the need. 

Oh and Dave isn't fighting "for" anything, as usual his fight is "against" something. 

As you are still around Mrs C how about answering my question?

@A Frame.  a quick google brings up this.  lol

https://www.facebook.com/EODawlish/posts/633341913357637

https://www.facebook.com/EODawlish/posts/512270032131493

Never mind all that Netiquette, enjoy the row that's  going on.

There's no row going on Elvis. Just two trolls called M and B who are trying to bully me into one. They're being ignored and they absolutely hate it. 

@OurSoul - i have to disagree i think the new developments are currently ruining dawlish.  have you not noticed the odour which seems to be a permanent occurence.  our sewerage systems are not coping.  infrastructure never seems to be put into place first, it's all a back peddling mess afterwards.  you've got to laugh that the department is called 'planning' as that often seems to be the last thing they do is plan.

I guess DCC ought to be glad they are losing a number of children to both Teignmouth and the new Engineering school in Newton.  This, at least, will make way for any new influx of children.

God forbid if any older people move here and then need to move into sheltered accommodation.  That's all being closed and services to 'warden' controlled properties are cut.

Flo I do agree with you about the infrastructure. But the homes themselves are needed - just like every other housing development that has occurred in Dawlish over the last 50+ years. All those developments, and the town is still here! :-)

So another 90-odd houses on top of the 860 already allocated in Plan Teignbridge (not to mention the 350 'windfall' allocation at Redrow's 'Warren Grove') not enough for you, OurSoul?

You may be happy with an even greater sea of concrete forming around Dawlish, but many will be alarmed at such a prospect - especially after having been told by Teignbridge Councillors that by supporting the Local Plan for the District our countryside would be safe from opportunist development.

It's a free country so if you want to give succour to the greenfield development lobby, that is your prerogative. Mine is to resist.

Gary Taylor

It's not a case Gary of it not being enough for "me". There is a need for these homes right across the country! Just because a tiny percentage of them are being built on the outskirts of the town that you've very recently moved to, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be built.  Are you saying that the homes that these new houses are being built next to shouldn't have been built either back in the day? Should Dawlish have remained the two horse town it was a century ago? 

And to use sensationalist phrases like "sea of concrete", isn't very becoming of someone with your political aspirations. Or maybe it is...?

OK, Mrs C is determined not to explain her weird comment about  a pie contest so I can only assume there were nasty undertones, which is not really that surprising. So.............should there be a pie contest I admit defeat now, Mrs C would win hands down! 

If you really don't want to explain your weird posts then don't make them in the first place Mrs C. 

@Elvis It's like having your demented deaf granny sitting in the corner shouting Feck!

I don't like all this housing development either but then I'm a NIMBY.  Now I'm in Dawlish I don't want anyone else to be able to move here and crowd me out. 

And that's the nub of it Netiquette. 

It may seem like a tiny percentage compared to the national need, however in terms of District numbers it is only Exminster which has had a greater percentage of new housing to bear.  For the record, Teignbridge will easily exceed its national share of housebuilding through its 'Growth Point'-based strategic allocation in Plan Teignbridge. That is "at least 12,400" houses (plus windfalls, etc, etc) versus the 20-year census projections of just over 10,000.

You infer that previous housing has not destroyed Dawlish - and yet you have recently made some pretty derogatory statements about the appearance of housing in Dawlish (in your alter-ego, Judith Chalmers)  as "boring", "soul-less" and "pebble-dashed monstrosities". Hardly a ringing endorsement of high-density Dawlish vernacular architecture.  

Do you think that through the lens of time today's rather cramped housing developments will be viewed any more favourably?

Gary Taylor

This business about 'complicated financial arrangements between landowners' and 'gentlemen's agreements' with the developers (see today's Gazette report page 32). 

Just wondered if the names of these landowners and developers are in the public domain?  

@SoulofDawlish -  there's a big difference between the principle of housebuilding and the appearance of them. 

In a post of mine a few days back I mentioned the need for bungalows in the new developments.

Te dah! Here's one (don't know how many more there will though)

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-49862092.html

Gary. Are you not aware of the new homes development at Alphington that falls within the District boundaries? Far greater numbers involved than what's happening in Dawlish.

I stand by my opinion about those homes that were built on Little Week Lane some thirty plus years before you moved to Dawlish. They look awful but they haven't destroyed Dawlish!

Are you saying, Gary, that those homes shouldn't have been built?

OurSoul, I am aware of the planned new development at Alphington. It came before the TDC Planning Committee last week as "Exminster - 15/00708/MAJ - Land at South West of Exeter". On this matter at least we can agree.

But you know as well as I do that FredBassett's offer to help "save our town" was not meant in the existential sense. Of course Dawlish has not been destroyed by previous development - but few would argue that better planning and higher-quality architecture would not have helped make Dawlish an even more attractive place to live and to visit.

Gary Taylor

So are you suggesting that you're happy with the new developments being built, as long as their execution is better planned and that the structures meet certain architectural standards? Now we're getting there. 

@OurSoul

After a long battle alongside other local groups concerned with unwarranted encroachment into our countryside (refer census numbers above) I conceded upon the adoption of Plan Teignbridge in 2014 that the housing allocation for Dawlish at DA2 could not be rolled back.

Happy? Not the word I would have used.

The respective draft NW Secmaton Lane development framework document which is the subject of this thread, will now call for some 90+ additional homes to be built in an area currently zoned in Plan Teignbridge for employment. The knock-on effect of these changes is to increase the development footprint further into the countryside around Langdon Hospital.

To this increase I have a fundamental objection, however I am also concerned about a number of other matters, which will be aired more fully at tonight's Dawlish Town Council Planning Committee meeting, to which attendance by the public is welcome. 

Perhaps you will be there?

Gary Taylor

You know what Gary, had I not finished work at 8pm, I might well have been there. I'm sure that it'd be very enlightening. 

Yes, it's so frustrating missing council meetings due to work committments isn't it! 

Nice one Margaret! 

Elvis, I could also say that I wasn't vain enough to put myself forward to represent the interests of the town despite knowing that I was unable to do so. Nice one indeed. :-)

I'm sure though that the Friends of Dawlish Station meetings will all be arranged around M's diary...

Thanks Elvis!

Actually Mrs C the truth is that Michael Clayson, and other independents, asked me to stand despite knowing my work commitments. Having been elected I did the best I could and, quite frankly, had some notable achievements.

Friends of Dawlish Station is a fantastic group of people who meet whenever they need to regardless of whether I am available or not! 

Elvis, it doesn't matter whether Michael Clayson knew of her unavailability for meetings. Sadly, the people she purported to represent weren't aware prior to us going to the polling station. Though we would have known had she had the nerve to stand a second time...

@Mrs C, as Michael Clayson was the 'leader' of the independents it did have a bearing on my decision to stand. It is well documented on this forum that I did not stand this time because of my work and caring commitments. What was your reason for not standing? Maybe you are just another keyboard warrior! 

Irrespective of their achievements (if any for some) whilst in office, am I right in thinking that some (if not many) 'Independents' who stood under the Voices for Dawlish flag originally in 2010 were in fact Labour supporters who knew they had not a cat in hells chance of getting in (at that time) if that was declared?

I look forward to the time Huw when would-be Conservative candidates have to run as Independents in order to get elected.

Gary Taylor

Says a representative of the party that was, as predicted, annihilated at the last election. 

"It's not not the number of candidates, it's the number of winning candidates."

#Post100

Yes, the Lib Dems were annihilated at the last election.

But........ even with that tide (a tsunami some might say) of anti Lib Dem sentiment amongst the electorate in May, two people standing under Lib Dem colours nontheless got elected to the town council. (and the same two didn't do too badly, vote wise, in the district elections either).

And why do you think they got elected to the Town Council? Because the electorate were fooled into wrongly thinking that as a Town Councillor they could have some impact on decision-making re. the future of Farmer Weeks' business, perhaps?

So, more votes were cast for those candidates that represented the party who are in control of TDC and which wants to create the SANGS at Warren Farm.  Assuming of course that people voted for candidates because of that "issue". ;-)

I do not know the way people voted, or why, any more than you do.

All I know is that the two Lib Dem candidates (who are now two Lib Dem town councillors) , vote wise, appear to have swum against the electoral tide.

@All - anyone still reading this extremely long thread? I'd be amazed if you are.  

@Lynne, i'm still reading but i've usually forgotten what i'm looking at by the time i scroll to the bottom!

I'm really interested in (b) of your original post and what that actually means if anyone knows.

@flo

b) means, as I understand it, that the proposed community centre which is scheduled to be built somewhere within the new build housing developments will now be scrapped and instead it is proposed that money to the tune of £1000 per new dwelling will be provided by all the developers towards keeping the Red Rock Centre going.      

Thank Lynne  Blimey that's a lot of money.  I do hope this helps keep the Red Rock open but I also hope it doesn't change too much in purpose.

@Lynne

In Dawlish NE perhaps the 2 Lib dem Councillors are swimming against the electoral tide, but overall in Dawlish aren't there only 3 Lib dem Councillors? So this reflects their poor national Lib Dem result.

Perhaps the Warren Farm campaign did work then, after all they had little else to campaign on.

They're now campaigning for an alternative SANGS, but won't that just affect another farmer in another part of the surrounding countryside? and won't he or she have the same grievances as Mr weeks?

I agree with Our Soul, the electorate were fooled. Why did Mr Weeks appeal to the Chair of the Cockwood Resident's Association to save his farm and not an elected representative? The Warren is not part of Cockwood. It's all a bit pally, definitely mutually beneficial.

Wrigley wants to remove Cockwood from Dawlish, the 1274 votes for him didn't all come from that village as he's simply not that popular thereabouts - and that's an understatement!

@Woodcock

Alternative SANGS - the issue as far as I am concerned re Warren Farm is that Richard Weeks has made it clear to TDC that he has no wish to sell his land. It may be that another farmer or 'farmer' some where else may not have that problem. Or indeed that alternative SANGS land is land that is not used for farming (is the land around Langdon Hospital used for farming?) or that possible SANGS land is not used for farming because it is unsuitable to be farmed..

I also understand that in other parts of the country where SANGS have been/are required the landowners/developers have provided the land for SANGS and not a farmer who has nothing to do with the development(s) concerned. (A real farmer that is as opposed to a 'farmer' or 'farmers'). Why wasn't the Dawlish SANGS provided the same way? 

I understand Richard Weeks went to Cockwood Resident Association for help after his appeals to our MP and our local district councillors fell on deaf ears.  Warren Farm may be a couple of miles or so from Cockwood but I think you'll find that Mr Weeks and his family live quite near to Cockwood.,

We have two Lib Dem councillors on the town council. Cllr Wrigley who represents Dawlish North East ward and Cllr Taylor who represents Dawlish South West ward. Both these two stood for election in the district ward of Dawlish North East and Central for seats on Teignbridge District Council but were unsuccessful. The results of that election I have posted above.  

I'm going to start a new thread - this one is getting ridiculously long.

I'm getting sick of hearing about the plight of poor landowners, how come we never hear about those who are really suffering under the Tories?

Do the Lib Dem councillors represent anyone other than a local farmer, a few Cockwood separatists and gardeners?

It's all so very middle class.

"Extra SANGS? Improved accessibility? Additional community facilities? A joined up road network? Well paid full-time jobs? These are the type of things that could at least mitigate the effect of additional housing and help preserve the character of our town."

I think Woodcock that your view of the people we strive to represent is a particularly narrow one.

Gary Taylor 

SANGS are just parks in amongst urban sprawl, the South Devon coast is just becoming a conurbation.

SANGS don't necessarily mitigate the impact of developments on the wider area. For example  sewage problems at Shutterton will not only effect the bird colonies and marine life in the Exe Estuary, if exacerbated by further poorly planned development this will result in poor bathing quality at the Warren and will damage the tourist trade.

What well paid full-time jobs? At best Dawlish might get another supermarket.

Additional Community facilities? Accessibility? Safeguarding existing services will be hard enough.

Will Dawlish resist even greater austerity and cuts to public services in contrast to the rest of the UK?

The only people I know who have benefited so far in terms of employment from the new developments are those in the building trade who've been called out to fix the various problems associated with the new dodgy homes, that are already failing the occupants.

Few politicians are aware of the shoddy practices of the construction industry. That would be something worth campaigning on.

A joined up road network? One without potholes would be a start.

If my view is incorrect then tell me how your colleague can fairly represent all of those in his ward while simultaneously campaigning for a break away parish for his village of Cockwood, where one of the aims is to pay a lower rate of council tax than those in Dawlish.

Doesn't this represent preferential treatment? Seems pretty narrow to me.

Yellow suits the Lib Dems