Only happened to notice the application sheet being blown around on a lamp post outside 64 Meadow Park on a walkabout this evening. The application sheet had the 24-07-15 as the post date and the end date for objecting to the proposal was today!
Two previous applications for the same site for 2 dwellings has been refused twice before. The only other notice was at the end of Upper Longlands below the propsed development.
This application was published through all the appropriate channels (including the Gazette) a few weeks back. All neighbouring householders also received notification through the post.
It's not too late to put a comment on the website.
Mrs C - not everyone and to few notices placed.
Well i knew about it and i live the other side of town.
The Town Council is recommendating refusal.
I see from the planning docs that it is presently delegated to a planning officer to decide
whether or not approval is given.
This could be changed though and it could go for a committee decision if a local cllr calls it in.
Not too sure which ward this area is in (political boundaries sometimes are beyond logic) but I'd hazard a guess
at it being Dawlish South West ward.
So.........if anyone wants to go down that route suggest they contact Cllr Prowse or Cllr Clemens (the Dawlish South West ward councillors on TDC).
Lynne, the application states that it's in Dawlish Central and North East.
Thank you.
Obviously I haven't woken up properly yet!
So......it is in Central and North East ward in which case these are the councillors to contact:
Graham Price - grahamprice328@btinternet.com
Lisa Mayne - lisamayne1@hotmail.co.uk
Ted Hockin - ehockin@talktalk.net
Cllr Graham Price has requested that this planning app. goes to the planning committee for them to
decide rather than the decision be taken by a TDC planning officer.
If I'm reading this right (and it's a very scrappy note) it appears that he's recommending acceptance on the grounds it's outside the town on a piece of 'undeveloped coast' - no mention of the access problems which plague this area.
@Cassandra - I think he is saying that the application should go to committee to decide.
As Cllr Price is, I believe, a member of TDC planning committee he would not, at this stage, be making
any public pronouncement as to what he thinks of this planning application. Whether he is in favour of it
or otherwise. To do so would mean he had indulged in predetermination - the bain of planning committee councillors (we had quite a
discussion on predetermination on the threads concerning proposed the Warren Farm SANGS).
That said - I note Cllr Price's reason for requesting that this planning application goes to planning
committee ie that, as I understand it, this planning application contravenes the Local Plan.
But please note that all the above is merely me surmising. The person who would really be able to
answer your query would have to be Cllr Price.
Scroll down this link to see who sits on TDC planning committee.
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=43969&p=0
In that case we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Thanks for the e-mail addresses & info anyway.
(anyone else having problems inputting -I type @ 60 wpm but on here it's more like .06 wpm)!
@Cassandra - if you look at the top of the form that Cllr Price has completed asking for this
planning application to go to planning committee, you will see that the planning officer in charge of the planning
application is recommending approval.
So......if Cllr Price was happy with the planning officer's recommendation why would he (Cllr Price) ask for
the decision to be made by planning committee members instead?
@Cassandra i have same problem driving me mad, cant even copy and paste
Now that the relevant judicial body has confirmed that all housing developments of 4 homes or more must include an element of affordable housing, I personally find Mr Stones attempt to bypass this by putting in applications for smaller "developments" to be of a greater concern. The first two houses will be followed by an application for a further two houses by an application for another two houses, etc, etc, until that land is filled. I'm not against the land being built on, but I am
against Mr Stone circumnavigating laws on affordable housing.
I have same problem, sometimes i cannot correct mistakes i made delete button wont work etc. etc.
From the affordable housing section in the Teignbridge Local Plan (my emphasis in bold).
Thanks Lynne. Hopefully this is regarded as a phased development (if passed) and therefore will include affordable housing within a subsequent phase. I'm not going to argue about the rights and wrongs of the application per se, other than to say in response to some of the neighbouring objectors that the land was always earmarked for development and this was known when the original houses there were built.
But the question is: is this land earmarked for development now?
Does the local plan identify this area for housing development or not?
Surely it should be the present Teignbridge Local Plan's policies that will decide the fate of this planning application not what was, or what was not, earmarked for development sometime in the past.
And should, for any reason, the present Local Plan not decide this planning application's fate, then I for one would like to know just what the point of the Local Plan is cos I thought it determined what got built (or not) and where (or not).
A significant extension to Meadow Park (Policy DA3) was considered for inclusion in the Teignbridge Local Plan prior to the deletion of the policy from the LP Submission Document in 2012. According to the LP Representations Summary Document of 2013 there were no supporters of the policy.
The Local Plan - or Plan Teignbridge as it is now officially known - having passed through public examination in September 2013, was adopted on 6th May 2014 without policy DA3.
The land in question here would have formed a small part of deleted policy DA3, which is now zoned as Undeveloped Coast and falls outside of the Dawlish Settlement Limit. If development is allowed, an unwelcome precendent would be set for further development in such areas.
This application was considered at a meeting of the Dawlish Town Council Planning Committee on 6th August, resulting in a recommendation for refusal on the above grounds. At the request of the Committee, Cllr Price (who is also a DTC PC member) agreed to 'call in' the decision to the TDC Planning Committee, but this will only take place if the TDC Planning Officer is minded to approve the Planning Application under delegated powers (DEL).
Gary Taylor
Thank you for the clarification Gary.
Thank you Gary, that has made the position clearer.
Well now, I thought the situation was much clearer until I had a conversation about this planning application
with someone I know who, pre retirement, was involved with housing and planning.
Now, this person does not in any way see themselves as being the font of all knowledge re Local Plans and planning
apps for new housing etc but this person has pointed out that, the Local Plan notwithstanding, there may be occasions
when a planning application will be granted even if, on the face of it, it flies in the face of what the Local Plan says.
So......a planning application to build two semi-detached houses on a plot of land that is vacant and adjacent to
other housing, and even though that plot of land is not designated for development in the Local Plan, if the application does
not necessitate any further infrastructure (like a new road) then that planning application could be granted permission as it is
simply completing the amount of housing in that particular road.
So......if what I have been told is correct then it is possible that the planning officer concerned will recommend approval.
In which case the planning application will go the planning committee to decide.
I think this is one to watch.....
I don't think there would be so much of a problem if one of the original conditions of development had been the provision of a new road into the estate, possibly from the Exeter Road side.
Please 