General Discussion
For those that have an interest, Mr Stone has lodged an appeal against the planning refusal for the 2 dwellings he wishes to build on the steep bit of land at the end of Meadow Park.
I would like to post a copy of the letter I rec'd from Teignbridge planning, but I keep getting an error message when I try to post- '500 internal server error' maybe the webmaster may know what's wrong.
this link should take you to the Appeal documentation
http://gis.teignbridge.gov.uk/TeignbridgePlanningOnline/Results.aspx?Type=Appeal&Refval=16/00018/REF
click on Associated Documents (see bottom left hand side).
It would seem that the appeal Mr Stone lodged has been dismissed for the 2 semi's at the end of Meadow Park. The decision was made on the 13th May 2016. Hoorah!!!!!!!!!!!!! When will it sink in that stone is flogging a dead horse trying to build here.
I don't know that area well but is this where he wanted to build https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.5842314,-3.4745779,3a,84.7y,107.15h,87.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1vbc5wk8xmNRowE2TYz11A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?
What are those sheds/dumping ground? Does it look like that now?
Purrrrrfect, the piece of ground in question (a small part of the old 'works' site) is in an area of Undeveloped Coast and now carries a high degree of protection against development. A 'greenfield' approval there would create a worrying precedent - however the appeal for these two dwellings has yet to be decided. Fingers crossed the appeal will be dismissed.
What has been refused is the planning application for converting the exisiting buildings on another area of the site, as referred to by S above. These structures might have been allowed to have been developed under 'Prior Approval' legislation, but it would seem the evidence supplied by the applicant did not stack up. Documents below refer.
Decision Notice - 16/00762/NPA:
Location: DAWLISH - Land At NGR 295737 77112, Meadow Park Proposal: Application for Prior Approval under Schedule 2, Part 3 Class P of the GPDO for change of use of a storage or distribution building (Class B8) to a dwelling Teignbridge District Council hereby confirms that prior approval is refused...
Officer Report:
... Conclusion: There is no evidence of authorised or lawful B8 use and therefore this proposal does not constitute permitted development in line with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class P of the 2015 GPDO (as amended). It is also worth noting that the proposed site and its curtilage do not connect to the existing site access point and represent an unusual island proposal within the red lined site plan such as would make delivery of the proposal difficult. It is not clear how the relationship to the wider site would be managed in due course. Recommend refusal.
@Gary Taylor - my interpretation of the document below is that the appeal for the two dwellings has been dismissed. i wasn't aware that stone had appealed the refusal for the change of use of the land next to the two dwellings. There are no appeal actions showing on teignbridge plannings website for this parcel of land, just the refusal last year.
https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3143941&CoID=0
That's a good result, Purrrrrfect.
The news has now been posted on the TDC website and is copied (unformatted) below:
Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 May 2016 by H Baugh-Jones BA(Hons) DipLA MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 May 2016
Appeal Ref: APP/P1133/W/16/3143941 Meadow Park, Dawlish, Devon EX7 9BS
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Terence Stone against the decision of Teignbridge District Council. The application Ref 15/01814/FUL, dated 23 June 2015, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2015.
The development proposed is one pair of semi-detached dwellings at Meadow Park, Dawlish.
Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would be an acceptable form of development in the undeveloped coast.
Reasons 3. Policy EN2 of the Teignbridge Local Plan (2014) (LP) seeks to protect, maintain and enhance the character of the undeveloped coast and sets out that development will be regarded as inappropriate except where it has regard to the Shoreline Management Plan and where it would constitute a minor alteration in accordance with LP Policy WE8; or is required for the purposes of agriculture or forestry; or requires a coastal location. The policy is in broad alignment with paragraph 106 of the national Planning Policy Framework that seeks to reduce risk from coastal change by avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas or adding to the impacts of physical changes to the coast. The development plan has been relatively recently adopted and therefore forms the starting point for my decision.
4. The appeal site lies at the end of a line of dwellings along Meadow Park within a residential area. It is a steeply sloping site that forms part of the hill that rises out of the town and occupies a prominent location immediately beyond the built extent of the settlement.
5. The appellant refers to the site forming part of a larger area that was promoted for development through the local planning process. The evidence informs me that the examining Inspector considered that development on the larger site would have had clear adverse visual and landscape effects because of the highly prominent position above existing development. Appeal Decision APP/P1133/W/16/3143941 2
6. I accept that the proposal would represent a relatively marginal change on the fringes of the settlement boundary. Nevertheless, the appeal site forms part of the larger area considered by the examining Inspector and notwithstanding that under the previous development plan, the site may have been partly within the settlement boundary, the boundary has now been drawn such that the site falls within an area of undeveloped coast. The proposal would therefore result in a minor erosion of the undeveloped coast.
7. I also accept that the topography of the surrounding land is such that the site would be reasonably well-contained. However, this is not sufficient justification for the piecemeal development of the undeveloped coast.
8. Consequently, given that no evidence has been put forward to suggest that the proposal would accord with the exceptions set out in LP Policy EN2, the development would be an unacceptable form of development within the undeveloped coast, which the development plan and the Framework seek to avoid. Conclusion
9. For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal does not succeed. Hayden Baugh-Jones Inspector
@Gary Taylor - as i stated the appeal for stone's 2 semi's was dismissed, it had nothing to do with the change of use application on the old work site. it might be an idea to check your facts before posting, just a thought.
I checked the TDC website on the 18th May and gave the information available at that time. The old work site application documentation, 16/00762/NPA had just been refused, however on the time and date of your original posting no information on the adjacent appeal site 16/00018/REF (15/01814/FUL) was listed.
My response was as much about adding information to the thread as it was in answer to the question raised by S regarding the sheds. You seem to know the site better than I do, perhaps you can give S some more background?
@Gary Taylor - there's no question on this thread about sheds from s! the thread was specific to the 2 semi's stone had put in an appeal for. the info i gleamed on the appeal decision about the semi's was from the planning inspectorate website as can be seen from the link i placed on my post of 19th may 2016 08:58 they were tasked with the appeal decision. it would seem you have posted your reply to helping s on the wrong thread.