General Discussion
I am glad you are still working in the background for the community. I understand how hard you and the others have worked and I hope the Town Council supports you in your bid to ensure that Dawlish gets the correct infrastructure etc it needs and not just housing. I believe only a Cat B making all sites go to committee is the way forward and this will allow some of the sites already passed to progress. Remember this plan is until 2033 and if all the sites come forward now and are not staggered we might be forced to have more. So keep up the good work and keep reminding the Dawlish Councillors of their responsibility to get the best for Dawlish. Another positive, the longer the delay the more time the Neighbourhood plan has to be adopted. This is the only way to keep monies raised from the Community Infrastructure Levy in Dawlish from being spent elsewhere by Teignbridge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@barbarawill68 Referring to your post 26/10/2015 at 20:24
Your comments about why haven’t I voiced an opinion on this site re DA2 and called for its delay show that you forget who started this post off in the first place, and who was amongst those that had leaflets printed and walked miles to inform residents of what was going on if the Planning Department and developers got their own way, a group of 4 residents who could see what was happening and did their best to alert the people of Dawlish.
I like a lot of people are being put out by the number of houses being forced upon the residents of Dawlish. As far as I can calculate at present the total number being built on DA2 assigned land is 951 and the rest of the applications as far as I can figure out is 789 that make a total of 1740. At an average used by TDC of 2.3 per house gives a population increase of 4002. This represents a 30.5% increase in the population of Dawlish and the surrounding area compared to the 2011 census.
For that we get no extra doctors surgery apart from an increase at Barton Surgery, our schools get classrooms on the school fields. On the plus side we seem at last to be getting an overhaul of the sewage system in the area. Let’s not forget the extra traffic that is going to hit the A379 in both directions because with all the grandiose plans for employment areas we can all for see what is going to happen to them. How much of Shutterton Park is empty and how many of the units behind Sainsbury’s have been occupied. And no just because I am not posting on Dawlish.com does not mean I have gone quiet and have given up opening councillor’s eyes to what the planning department and developers are doing with the local plan and yes all of these houses being built are going to affect me and everybody in Dawlish and the surrounding area. There is still the matter of SANGS to be sorted out and that without taking Farmer Weeks land.
The plan for DA2 was voted on by TDC councillors and approved, what the framework document gives us now is so different to what elected councillors approved and some of us are trying to get this put right and not by posting on Dawlish.com. I have said on this blog site at various times what I want to see is the plan that the council voted on not what the framework document says. I want a link road built first with all the services running off it, I do not want any more building traffic put on Elm Grove Road and I do not want any more houses built with access to Secmaton Lane. I also want better schools and doctors, including another surgery. Posting on Dawlish.com will not achieve this so we are embarking on other methods to get things changed to the benefit of the existing residents not the developers. We are not going to get this by posting on Dawlish.com all we do on here is wake up some of the Dawlish residents to what is going on in this area.
@Lynne as far as i am aware dtc cannot object to the langdon site per say as it is part of da2 what they may have a say on is the extension of the da2 area and they could also request it to be option b and not decided by a planning officer but by the planning committee also of course all of these applications must be delayed until after the council has approved the framework document.
On the original thread there were a few posts about when and why Secmaton Lane had become partially cycle and pedestrian only. This is what I have now been told.
"You have made an enquiry about when the closed section of Secmaton Lane came into force. Looking at the traffic orders for Dawlish it appears that the order was sealed on the 5th April 2002. Traffic orders can be seen at http://www.devon.gov.uk/trafficorderssearch .
Unfortunately with the number of reorganisations and office moves we have had since 2002 I am unable to locate the sporting documents. Talking to colleagues who were in the area at that time they remember the closure being proposed to prevent traffic accessing the A379 down an inappropriate narrow lane. Also at that time there was a program to create safe community routes for cycling and walking which this fits with."
Ken you mention a new surgery, well building 9 on the Langdon site has to be retained due to bats. This building is just off of the proposed new industrial road and has a lovely big carpark. With a pedestrian link it will be close enough for the new housing and will no doubt be serviced by the shopper bus. http://docimages.teignbridge.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=3598759&PDF=true&content=obj.pdf.
On Eyes of Dawlish there was a post some time ago, saying that Lloyds Pharmacy have taken over the Sainsbury's Pharmacies, so maybe one could be opened in Dawlish and this would mean less traffic having to travel into Dawlish itself. Just the pharmacy alone would take pressure of parking at Barton Surgery. I am one of the lucky ones I am close enough to walk there, but at times I have seen total parking chaos, especially in the Summer where people have been sat in their cars waiting for a space to come free. I am sure some people actually miss their appointments, so I cannot believe they want to expand the Barton Surgery without any designated parking provision within the scheme.
So I am with you Ken, your side of town does need a new Surgery and Pharmacy, especially since not everyone has access to a car or the funds or physical ability to catch a bus. All I can say it doesn't appear like joined up thinking by any of the Council Departments or anyone else involved in providing services to the town.
I see from today's Gazette that Devon County Council have effectively scuppered any plans that TDC planners had for the Red Rock Centre to be a community centre rather than have a community centre get built in DA2 as per the original Local Plan.
So another TDC idea gone up in smoke. It is almost like DCC are trying to pull the rug from TDC all of the time. I have done some digging and it appears that the schools didn't want another school and to keep extra funding in house, the same goes for the Barton Surgery. However, Starcross Surgery are claiming they are due money from the DA2 allocation as it falls within their boundary as well, so how does that work (see Gatehouse Farm application)? Who pays who and what figure? £400 is needed per house for Barton Surgery, so are they going to half it with Starcross Surgery, very interesting how that one is going to work out if they both have a claim. Gosh it is getting messy, with all the twists and turns you couldn't make it up! As for the Red Rock, there is a vacant area set aside on the Redrow site just inside the entrance, they didn't have to provide the building, but did have to provide the land for one. Maybe that is plan B? Who knows?
Thank you Lynne regading partial closure of Secmaton Lane in 2002, that is PARTIAL. Remember it is only the middle which is actually designated, the rest is on road. Funny, I thought I would type in Little Week Lane since that is where the Devon County Council cycle signs direct everyone from the A379 and Secmaton Lane and here is something about it in 2003 as part of what is now Redrow. It clearly states the official footpath/cycleway provision was and still is Shutterton to Little Week Lane. The reasoning must have been that the bottom half of Little Week Lane was closed off when Little Week Road was put in and in its old entrance became the bus stop. Since Little Week Lane is a short road and mostly 2 cars wide with ample footpaths due to it skirting the estate, it was logical this was the best and safest route for the pedestrian/cycle route.
2003/4008/29/01 DAWLISH - LAND BETWEEN SHUTTERTON LANE & EXETER ROAD SHUTTERTON BRIDGE Outline application for a mixed use development comprising 163 houses, including affordable homes, a local food store and district centre, a pre-school nursery, a doctors' surgery and medical centre, a nursing home, a community hall, a public house and a range of business and industrial units, together with pollution control and flood alleviation works to Shutterton Brook and associated infrastructure and ancillary development works APPLICANT: Black Country Properties Ltd
The Applicants have identified a range of on- and off-site benefits that could be achieved through a Section 106 Agreement linked to a grant of planning permission for the development. They have indicated a willingness to contribute towards the costs of improvement works to Shutterton Industrial Estate and towards the costs of securing a footpath and cycleway link from Exeter Road to Dawlish Warren alongside Shutterton Brook. It is also proposed that contributions are secured for highway works in the vicinity including signage and landscape improvements between Shutterton Lane and Little Week Lane, a toucan crossing near Little Week Lane, footpath/cycleway provision on Exeter Road and the closure and diversion of Shutterton Lane, if deemed appropriate. The Applicants would also contribute to wildlife and nature conservation works in the Shutterton Brook corridor.
There is an article on page 5 of this week's Gazette headlined "Infrastructure must come first, say horrified councillors".
It is a report on TDC's Planning Committee's discussions concerning the planning application for a residential development adjacent to Hill Drive and Secmaton Lane and whether or not construction traffic should be allowed to use Secmaton Lane to access/egress the development site.
Dawlish councillor Rosalind Prowse is quoted as saying: "children had to walk along the lane and Sustrans was using it as part of a cycle network. Somewhere along the line is someone is going to get killed".
Well if Sustrans chose to go against Devon County Council who know the area and designated Little Week Lane as the safter option, then it is up to Sustrans to change the route to reflect DCC and not the other way around. The fact is it is not an official Sustrans route, if you click on the map key and then on the purple line it states that it is a 'local route - This route is not part of the National Cycle Network'. Therefore the Little Week Lane cycle route should take priority, since the point of Sustrans is to link various modes of transport and the bus stop is at the mouth of the old closed off lane! So maybe someone should query why Sustrans didn't follow the designated route and went freestyle. So if the lane is so dangerous maybe it is time to contact Sustrans and get it changed irrespective of if the Hill Drive site gets approved or not. Most of the issues appear to be chaining of drives, where some chains are so close to the road anyone who does walk the lane with a buggy or wheelchair couldn't pull off the road due to these obstructions if they want to. This makes it even more important that the pedestrian/cycle route is redirected into wider roads with plenty of visibility and pavements to segregate traffic and pedestrians.
Am I misunderstanding something here or is it being suggested that people's private driveways should become public refuges for pedestrians and cyclists.?
No, but those on the lane have stated that they have put chains accross their drives to stop cars passing using their drives (see Hill Drive planning application) and but they have left room for pedestrians. Even the house opposite Little Week Lane in Secmaton Lane appears to have a section designated for passing, as the shape is designed as a pull-in. Field gates are generally used as refuges and passing places and until recent years the drives along Secmaton Lane I have been told were unchained, but they are not now. I guess it is a form of protest relating to the Hill Drive application, but must be affecting all users.
"but must be affecting all users and can only lead to the lane being less safe."
So some might say that is even more reason then that the lane should not be open to site traffic. Admittedly other heavy traffic may need to use it every now and then (eg delivery vehicles) but I think "every now and then" is the operative phrase.
I have walked the lane 6 times since I first posted and the lane users are aware of the traffic and visa versa, so far as I can see there is no conflict that is visible. I cannot see how having the site access on the corner, so close to the main road where it is wider will cause that much impact. This was also the view of the Highways Officer if I am not wrong. What I have seen of the site plan, the hedge is going and it will be 2 cars wide at the entrance, also there are at least 2 car passing splace between the corner and the main road. Lawn Hill and many other roads in Dawlish are narrower including some up the avenues, so are they to be pedestrianised?
Sustrans used all of the lane because at the end of the lane is the crossing point on the Exeter Road, and there is no designated cycle route from Little Week exit to Exeter Road along to the crossing point. The residents of the lane were upset by the statement in the application that implied peoples drive ways could be used as passing places. Are residents supposed to have heavy lorries damaging their drives in order to satisfy the building of these houses.
As for Devon Highways they in their comments stated :-
Policy DA2 of the local plan requires a comprehensive landscape and design led masterplan
for the strategic site allocation, produced with meaningful input and engagement from
stakeholders. This work has not been completed to date and it may be reasonable to expect
that a masterplan would not include a vehicular connection onto Secmaton Lane.
One option which may help to address what was envisaged for the DA2 allocation would be to
provide an access onto Secmaton Lane in the short term, but in the longer term to allow for a
vehicular connection onto the rest of the DA2 allocation. The access onto Secmaton Lane
would need to be converted to a pedestrian / cycle access when an alternative vehicular
connection is made. It would be unlikely to be acceptable to keep this as a vehicle route in
the future that would connect to the rest of the allocation. The Highway Authority would
support this, but it would need to be ensured that there is a mechanism to convert the
vehicular access to pedestrian / cycle only and that roads are taken to the boundary to enable
them to connect to the rest of the allocation in the future.
So let the residents and users suffer the disruption and danger of building the houses and then at some time in the future change the access point to be the link road. In addition to this what about utility access, sewage we already know cannot go into the lane, there is no water pipe in the lane opposite the field, there is gas in the lane and we already know that electricity cannot come from the lane as Western Power have already said there is insuffient capacity. So do the residents have to put up with wholesale disruption to there lives whilst all of these services are put in. Or should they come from the link road as common sense says they should.
In addition no matter how much of the bank is taken down the exit from the field will still be at a blind corner the applicant does not own the land past the telegraph pole on the corner, or are you suggesting that TDC puts in another compulsory purchase order to buy the owners land and make the corner wider.
For balance and the avoidance of doubt, below are my personal (and publicly available) comments made to Teignbridge in August last year in respect of the 35-home application at Secmaton Lane (DA2 development area 5) ref 14/01577/MAJ:
'This Dawlish application site falls within the newly adopted Local Plan area DA2, to the north-west of Gatehouse Lane. The site is on a prominent northeast-facing slope and is visible from the A379 when approaching Dawlish from the north.
Local Plan policy DA2 states that the urban extension shall:
a) include a comprehensive landscape and design led masterplan - with meaningful and continued input and engagement from stakeholders;
and:
b) create a high quality landmark development for the gateway to the town.
While the DA2 masterplan has yet to be completed, DA2 policy requirements are sufficiently clear to enable suitable development proposals to come forward for this gateway area site. This outline application however, falls far short of the high standard expected.
There are 3 key points I would like to raise: access, density and landscaping.
Access:
The proposed access to the site is via Secmaton Lane, a quiet no-through road popular with walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. The lane is part of the Sustrans cycleway network, linking to the recently created footpath/cycleway to Dawlish Warren. It would appear that due to external factors this site will not benefit from access to the proposed DA2 link road, therefore the application can only be judged on access via Secmaton Lane alone. Last year, permission was granted (ref 13/02135/MAJ) for just 10 homes on a 0.81hectare site with access from Secmaton Lane, some 100 yards to the south of this application. Minutes of the relevant Planning Committee meeting show that approval was given following advice from the Teignbridge Business Manager, Mr Davies, that "the highway situation restricts the number of houses to be developed". It is clear that this restriction has neither been taken into account by the applicant, nor seemingly by the planning officer giving (non-binding) pre-application advice.
Density:
As mentioned in "Access", the applicant has received pre-application advice on density. This advice appears to have led to an increase in the number of homes proposed for this 1.6 hectare site from an initial 23 executive homes, to a far higher figure of 35 homes. This figure represents a density uplift of over 50% to that initially proposed - or over 75% when compared to the density of the nearby 0.81 hectare site detailed above. While the affordable elements of such a scheme may be welcome elsewhere, such a high density in this prominent location would have an adverse effect on the setting and character of the area, incompatible with DA2 policy for this Dawlish gateway.
Landscaping:
As the applicant has pointed out, there is a question mark over the delivery of the Local Plan strategic requirement for SANGS at Warren Farm. Even if this matter can be resolved, there would remain a need for additional local public open space (POS) as a consequence of this application. To ensure delivery, this POS should be included within the application site. A suitably generous POS provision on the upper slopes of this site, in conjunction with suitable planting and landscaping, would enhance the appearance and appeal of this Dawlish gateway, to the benefit of local residents and visitors alike.
I would therefore ask this application is either REFUSED or DEFERRED, with a view to bringing forward a far more acceptable scheme for this gateway site in the future.'
Gary Taylor
And finally this information regarding the Redrow site, Shutterton Park (aka Warren Grove) which was raised during public discussions after the DTC Plannning Committee meeting at The Manor House last Thursday:
A Redrow representative addressed those present to advise that its plans for an on-site care home (part of the outline planning application won on appeal in 2013) have been dropped. It was also announced that the planned delivery of 30% Affordable Homes was not viable, following recent government changes to right-to-buy and AH provision.
After some dialogue on their alternative plans for the affected second phase of their site (closest to the Sainsbury's roundabout) Redrow have suggested they return to the next Planning Committee meeting to present / discuss further options.
It should be noted that Shutterton Park is a 'windfall' site and is thus not constrained by the strategic allocation for housing found in Plan Teignbridge.
Gary Taylor
What Redrow meeting is this? Is it public?
BTW I understand that in the first phase of their development comprising 90 dwellings only three will be two bed houses ( 2 x bed I see as starter homes). Is the demand for two bed
starter homes so low then that they only feel the need to build 3?
I also understand that one of these three 2x beds has already been sold, back in July, off plan. The price?
Brace yourselves
Only a mere £204,955.
Another care home bites the dust then. If Redrow are allowed to reduce their affordable provision, then all the other major applications that have planning permission will follow, as it will set a precedent.
Thank you Gary for your clarifications:
'For balance and the avoidance of doubt, below are my personal (and publicly available) comments made to Teignbridge in August last year in respect of the 35-home application at Secmaton Lane (DA2 development area 5) ref 14/01577/MAJ:
Last year, permission was granted (ref 13/02135/MAJ) for just 10 homes on a 0.81hectare site with access from Secmaton Lane, some 100 yards to the south of this application. Minutes of the relevant Planning Committee meeting show that approval was given following advice from the Teignbridge Business Manager, Mr Davies, that "the highway situation restricts the number of houses to be developed". It is clear that this restriction has neither been taken into account by the applicant, nor seemingly by the planning officer giving (non-binding) pre-application advice.'
The highways advice on the 13/02135/MAJ stated the following:
'We have now had further clarification that, from a highways perspective, the maximum number of dwellings which could be accommodated on this site before there would be a highways objection would be 15. On this basis, whilst the site is large enough to accommodate 24 dwellings, in reality it is unlikely that more than 15 units would be acceptable.'
The above shows there would have been a restriction if more than 15 were applied for, which made me wonder why? So I had a look at next door where they eventually gained planning for 3 houses. The site access is now via Hill Drive, but originally it was via the farm track, but an access issue lead the owner to change their exit point. Here is what was written on their Highways report:
'The Highway Authority would recommend that there is a need for a condition which will enable the applicant to submit access drainage details. With respect to access onto Secmaton Lane the Highway Authority has no objection noting the guidance set out in the Manual for Streets 2007. This allows cross road situations. Furthermore the National Planning Policy Framework specifies that impacts on the highway must be severe to warrant refusing applications. The Highway Authority notes that vehicles speeds past the proposed access point are in the region of 15mph 85th percentile, and therefore it can confirm that the 2m ‘x’ distance x 17m ‘y’ distance x 17m ‘y’ distance 1.05m height visibility splay can be achieved to the middle of the road as demonstrated on drawing 1214-PL02. Visibility can be taken to the middle of the road as Secmaton Lane at this point is single track.'
So there is your number restriction, it is because the site is forming a crossroad, also for visibility Highways have used the middle of the road as part of the visibility splay, taking the point 2m back from the middle of the lane. The difference therefore is the Hill Drive site are to relocate their bank and so the vehicle visibility will be as per any normal road set 2.4m back, therefore no vehicle will be in the road before full visibility is acheived. So even though at the site entrance it is classed as a single track, it is being treated the same as if there was two way traffic, as it appears the access will also form a turning area and pull-in. Therefore, you cannot draw a comparison regarding numbers or access in relation to the two sites on this evidence.
Some of the comments on this post have made me wonder how many starter homes there are on the streets that we all live on. I've looked up my postcode on Zoopla, and they estimate that a 2-bed home should be valued at £211,000! That's the reality that first-time buyers are facing today. I wonder what the estimated valuation would be for the postcode that YOU live in? You might be surprised and it might make you think differently about the cost of brand new starter homes.
@Morty Vicker: and whatever the cost surely the issue is whether or not those starting out on the housing ladder can afford to buy.
@Barbarawils68 - the only form of 'affordable' (affordable?!) housing this government is into is that of a 20% discount for first time buyers on starter homes. look at what i have been posting on these threads.
@Lynne i think that you're either missing or evading the point i'm making, which is that the price of brand new starter homes is no different to the cost of similar houses in the streets that we all live in. i'd guess that you, like everyone else, wouldn't be willing to put your home onto the market for far less than the market value, so why should home builders?
@Morty Vicker i think that you are missing the point that I am making which is that the price of brand new starter homes, if they are no different to the cost of similar houses in the streets that we all live in, is way, way, way, out of the reach of many, many, many young couples.
Click on this link http://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2015/sep/02/unaffordable-country-where-can-you-afford-to-buy-a-house
And then place the cursor just below Exeter so that Dawlish shows.
You will see that the median house price in Dawlish in 2014 was £185,000
This is 7.4 times your salary if you earn £25,000 pa
And is 13.2 times your salary if you are on a minimum wage of £14,000pa
@Lynne. Are you willing to sell your home for a lot less than its valuation and likewise are you expecting others to do the same? If not, who should be subsidising the buying of brand new homes, or are you saying that the minimum wage should be three or four times what it already is?
By the way, home prices have gone up significantly since 2014.
The point is that affordable housing should be 20% less than market value and its not, the second point is that a percentage of new builds should be affordable and there not, third point planning was granted on the understanding as per goverment guidelines that a percentage will be affordable for local residents ie: first time buyers in Dawlish or am i also missing the point Lynne
@Leatash and @Lynne. The site plan for the 106 homes being built by Redrow as phase 1 clearly shows the number of affordable homes, and these are clearly different homes to the 2-bed "Ledbury" home bought off-plan for £204k.
My original point remains.
Okay my understanding of the situation is this:
According to Gary Taylor (see his post 3.11.15 @ 11.53) Redrow have said that " A Redrow representative addressed those present to advise that its plans for an on-site care home (part of the outline planning application won on appeal in 2013) have been dropped. It was also announced that the planned delivery of 30% Affordable Homes was not viable, following recent government changes to right-to-buy and AH provision."
I'll continue on here as the font size is playing up again.
So, we don't know how much affordable housing Redrow will now be able to provide.
Affordable housing (at the moment!) is housing available for rent for no more than 80% of market rent or intermediate housing such as shared ownership.
There is presently going through parliament the Planning and Housing Bill which, amongst other things, will effectively alter what is defined as affordable housing as it will take away the right of local planning authorities to insist, via S106 agreements, for a certain amount of affordable housing as I have defined it above.
At the same time, and in the same Bill, the government wishes to see local authorities require builders to provide a certain % of starter homes available for purchase for first time buyers at 20% below the market price.
So, the government is redefining what is termed affordable housing. My point is that even with a 20% discount on the price, although home ownership may become possible for more, it will not become possible for all.
The government is into home ownership in a big way (RTB extended to HA tenants for example) so it is to them, via our MP, that you should really be addressing your concerns about home buyers being subsidised.
@Morty Vicker you wrote: "The site plan for the 106 homes being built by Redrow as phase 1 clearly shows the number of affordable homes, and these are clearly different homes to the 2-bed "Ledbury" home bought off-plan for £204k."
Lets face it hardly anybody local will be able to buy any of these houses. As they are advertised Countrywide it will be people from outside that will buy, your "Escape to the Country " types.
******* font!
@monty vicker as you have sight of the redrow phase 1 plan please can you let us know
1.the total number of affordable (ie for HA rent and shared ownership) homes within phase 1
2. how many are houses, how many are flats
3. how many are two beds, how many three
Also I was under the impression that it is a TDC requirement that affordable homes and owner occupier homes on the same estate should be indistinquishable from each other. Your posting implies that this is not the case.
The meeting on Monday as I understand it, is an open meeting, however due to the late call on the date only Councillors and members of the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group have received invites to date.
I am sure any member of the public who would wish to comment or contribute would also be welcome - but watch out for the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan talent scouts!
Gary Taylor
Not sure that I can make the meeting.
To whom do I submit my questions?
Here's the link to the Redrow Warren Grove site.
https://www.redrow.co.uk/developments/warren-grove-dawlish#section-1
Lynne I have checked their first phase information within their Design and Access Statement and this is below in bold. Where did you get your information from, as your figures do not match theirs? Can you point me in the right direction please?
What Redrow meeting is this? Is it public?
BTW I understand that in the first phase of their development comprising 90 dwellings only three will be two bed houses ( 2 x bed I see as starter homes). Is the demand for two bed
starter homes so low then that they only feel the need to build 3?
I also understand that one of these three 2x beds has already been sold, back in July, off plan. The price?
Brace yourselves
Only a mere £204,955.
15/00258/MAJ Land At Shutterton Lane, Dawlish, Devon Jan 30 Design and access statement page 25 shows:
First Phase Schedule Open Market: 74
Affordable:
TWE 2 Storey / 4 bed 3
DAR 2 Storey / 3 bed 4
TAV 2 Storey / 2 bed 17
1BF 1 bed apartment 8
Total affordable Housing 30% 32
Total 106
Housing and Planning Bill 2015-16
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/housingandplanning.html
Regarding starter homes - the bill has gone through the second reading on the 2nd of November and is to go to committee.
You could submit questions via Dawlish Town Council at Reception@Dawlish.gov.uk. If staff are unable to pass them on in time for the meeting they can be forwarded to interested parties later for consideration.
Gary Taylor
Correspondence I had with Redrow that's why you can't find it.
I asked how many two bed homes they would be building in their first phase. They got back to me, I presume, giving me the open market number being provided (3, with one already sold)
On the affordable provision requirement - it may be that what was originally agreed with TDC has now been amended - downwards.
From Gary Taylors posting of 3.11.15 " It was also announced that the planned delivery of 30% Affordable Homes was not viable, following recent government changes to right-to-buy and AH provision".
From what I understand it was a meeting for councillors only to attend. Nothing formal, just some representatives from Redrow in the Manor House for a couple of hours to answer questions from any of the town councillors.
As it happens I submitted some questions and one of the councillors very kindly posed them for me. I will collate my questions and the answers that were sent back to me and then post them on here for all to see.
(By the way it does look as though 106 dwellings will be built in phase 1 so that info I was sent in my personal correspondence with Redrow about a week ago when I was told it was only 90 doesn't seem to be have been correct).
Questions for Redrow (Answers in red)
Phase 1 (10 questions)
1. How many dwellings in total will be built in phase 1? 106
2. Of these how many will be open market dwellings and how many affordable dwellings? 74 open market, 32 affordable
3. Of the open market dwellings how many will be two bed, how many three, how many 4+ beds? Approx 29x 2bed, the rest 3 bed
4. Please can you give an approximate price for each type of open market dwelling. Not available at the meeting. But showroom on site will have details.
5.. Of the affordable dwellings please can you indicate below the type, and numbers within each type, of affordable dwelling:
a) how many flats? 8 x 1 bed apartments
b) if two and three bedroom flats being built then how many of each type?
c) how many houses? 24
d) if two and three bedroom houses being built then how many of each type? 12 x 2 bed, 12 x 3 bed
e) any bungalows? No
6. Of the affordable dwellings please can you indicate how many, and of what type, will be available for affordable rent (ie up to 80% of market rate) and how much available for intermediate housing (eg shared ownership). 70% affordable rental, 30% shared ownership
7. I understand that you are not now able to provide as much affordable housing (30%) as was originally agreed and that this is due to central government policies negatively impacting on housing associations’ finances. Can you elaborate on this please? And also let us know the new % of affordable housing that you/the HA’s are now in a position to provide on phase 1. 30% affordable as originally agreed will be provided.
8. TDC’s policy is that affordable housing and open market housing should be indistinquishable from each other on new build estates. Will that be true of yours? Or will the affordable housing be sited separately, and away from, the open market housing? When will the affordable housing be built in relation to the open market housing:
a)affordable will be built first
b open market will be built first
c) % of both will be built at the same time
Affordable and open market dwellings will look the same. The affordable will be built in phases 1 and 2 but scattered about within the phases.
9. When do you envisage phase 1 being completed? Within 2 years – depends on sales
10. I understand that the SANGS for phase 1 of this development will be on site. Can you say exactly where on your site the SANGS will be? When will the SANGS be open to the public (approx date please), and how will the public be able to access it? Phase 4 will be converted into a temporary SANGS.
Phase 2 (6 questions)
1. When do you envisage you will start on this phase? Phases 2 & 3 may be accelerated and built together. Approximate start in 18 months time.
2. I understand that the care home that was scheduled to be built during this phase will now not be built. What do you intend to build instead? affordable flats. This will be about 23% of the affordable requirement
3. How many dwellings do you intend building in phase 2? 39 (was 49 originally?)
4. Given central government’s policies towards the provision of affordable housing which have already negatively impacted on your ability to provide affordable housing in phase 1, how do you envisage your ability to provide this type of affordable housing (affordable in this instance = rental at no more than 80% of market rate and intermediate housing such as shared ownership) in phase 2?
Not known -to be determined
5. How do you see what the government is proposing in its Planning and Housing Bill impacting on this and any other further phases of this development? For example, in the Bill it states that local authorities will no longer be able to insist, via S106 agreements, for a % of housing for affordable rental (ie no more than 80% market rent) and intermediate housing (eg shared ownership). Instead local authorities will be able to require that a % of new build housing gets offered to first time buyers at 20% below market price.
Not known – to be determined
6. Given then what is proposed in the Planning and Housing Bill (that affordable housing’s definition gets altered to being housing offered to buyers at a 20% discount) do you have any thoughts on how the housing needs of those not able to buy (irrespective of any discount) could be met on this or other future developments?
Not known – to be determined
I see Gatehouse Farm's application (15/02468/MAJ) for outline planning is again before Dawlish Town Council on the 19th November 2015. I wonder if they will defer it again since the public consultation results are not back? There's talk of the results being out in December or January 2016 I think, has a confirmed date been given yet, anyone know?
The hedgerow between the Exeter Road and the pathway just up from the junction of Secmaton Lane and the A379 and which goes up towards Langdon Hospital has been given quite a severe back and sides. Has that happened before at this time of year or is it the first time it's happened?
I believe severe hedge cutting is done on a 3 year cycle, with trims in between. You will probably find it is nothing out of the ordinary, since it is a quieter time of the year and all the catch up jobs are being done.
Not, strictly speaking, a north west of Secmaton Lane issue, but as we have already been posting about the Redrow development out at Shutterton on here I thought I might as well continue.
For those with a planning/legal bent. You might like to take a look at the Deed of Variation document dated earlier this month and to be found on this linkhttp://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Application&Refval=12/02281/MAJ
(click on associated documents underneath the map) concerning the provision of Sangs which was and is a planning requirement of this development.
I belive the Gatehouse Farm application is before Dawlish Town Council again tonight, can someone pleae let everyone know what the outcome is? Maybe Gary Taylor can update us all, since he will probably be there.
I will do my best, Barbarawils68.
Gatehouse Farm (15/02468/MAJ) was one of the largest planning applications to have ever come before the Dawlish Town Council Planning Committee, both in the number of houses and in the size of the application file. Including the address from a member of the public, the debate on the application lasted almost an hour.
While the wording of the resolution will have to wait until the minutes have been prepared, I can report that there were notable concerns about: access and the infrastructure timetable (link road, sewerage and drainage); the delivery of Affordable Homes and the extra care unit; and the suitable provision of landscaping, public open space, PRoWs and wildlife corridors.
It was felt by some initially that the application should have been deferred once more (with a decision by Teignbridge regarding the NW Secmaton Lane Draft Consultation yet to be taken) however it was accepted that it was preferrable to make the feelings of our Planning Committee known to Teignbridge without further delay.
Let's hope someone there is listening.
Gary Taylor
Was a vote taken on this planning application?
If so, can we have details please (like who voted which way and for what)
Thank you Gary, I like Lynne and many others will be interested in the detail. Also did anyone make sure it was put forward to go to the full Planning Committee and cannot be done under delegated powers by the Planning Department?
Regarding the Hill Drive site in Secmaton Lane which was deferred on the 20th October 2015 at the Teignbridge Planning Committee Meeting. Would anything change the Dawlish Town Council's views over the site using Secmaton Lane as a temporary basis, or is DTC not for turning on this issue. Someone said the owners could withdraw the plan and resubmit, but that could leave it to be decided under delegated powers wouldn't it? Would DTC step in and issue a Cat B request and make it go back to TDC Planning Committee? From there I guess the Dawlish/Teignbridge Councillors would stop it again for the same reasons? What is DTC's view on this, anyone know?
Yes a vote was taken - and was carried by all those present and voting.
That a major planning application (MAJ) for 409 houses could be decided via delegated powers (DEL) by a single planning officer simply beggars belief. I have been assured however that this application will be 'called in' to the TDC Planning Committee (via a Cat B request) by a TDC Councillor sitting on Dawlish Town Council. For information, most planning applications can be 'called in' by the relevant TDC Ward Councillor (or by the Chairman of the TDC Planning Committee) if it is considered to be in the public interest or of sufficient concern to ward residents.
As for Dawlish Town Council's view on other planning applications, this would be a matter for its Planning Committee at the point when it sits to debate such matters, given that its members would be presented with sufficient relevant information (including related representations) to allow a fair and representative resolution to come about.
Gary Taylor
Click on this link http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Application&Refval=15/02468/MAJ&MN=Y
then on associated documents and you'll find what was minuted about this application at the last town council planning meeting.
Regarding the Hill Drive, Secmaton Lane application, it appears that the owners will not defer leaving the council no choice but to refuse. Also a friend drove up Secmaton Lane today and said there were people with clip boads including someone that looked official, anyone know what that was about? Was it another site visit to do with the application?
An excellent piece on the growing sewerage problems affecting Secmaton Lane on Simon Bates's Radio Devon programme this morning . Residents John Pollard, Roger Anderson and Margaret Cloak were recorded talking to the RD reporter about the issues, followed by a SB interview with Cllr Martin Wrigley.
South West Water did not wish to appear on the programme but sent a statement saying they are "working to resolve the problem" but that there is "there is no quick fix" as they need to do computer modelling before they can move ahead.
MW pointed out that the modelling will need to account for the 1000 extra homes planned for the area and having heard that the other vital piece of infrastructure, the link road, is also likely to lag new building, Simon Bates wanted to know from MW "where does the buck stop?"
Teignbridge District Council, Devon County Council and South West Water - are you listening?
Gary Taylor
There is a town council planning committee meeting on Thursday 10th December. Amongst other planning apps being considered is this one:
Sewage issues in Secmaton Lane covered by BBC spotlight on lunchtime news today.
May do same coverage again on early eveing news?
I get floodwater into my home 4 or 5 times a year and i live in Dawlish, why because the sudden downpours we now get The sewers just cant cope with a huge amount of water that normally falls in a very short space of time. Now we are not unique this is going on all over the country flash floods that overwhelm the sewege systems and its not going to get better it will get worse as the climate changes. The question is does South West Water have the manpower, money, to keep up with a changing climate and a huge increase in population i think not and flooding is something we will have to learn to live with. Now i have invested in flood protection flood gates for doors air bricks etc but i except i will have to upgrade as things deteriorate thats just the way it is i choose to live where i do and i work round the problem.
This thread has been closed.