This site uses cookies Learn More

General Discussion

18 Mar 2016 19:44

Here is how TDC are going to deal with the Gatehouse Farm 409 (see below), good luck to those on the route from Sandy lane into Elm Grove road.  All construction traffic from Exeter way will be sent up through Sandy Lane having to negotiate the pinch point by the tree.  The road has many potholes now so what will it be like with constant construction traffic.  This was never discussed with the people of Dawlish during the consultation.  I also see TDC are to take both Gatehouse and Langdon to Planning Committee on April the 5th, but what about the framework, is it ready?  I am guessing it is and this is being kept from the public, so what does it contain, probably not what is best for those who live in Dawlish?  All I can say is TDC have no regard for what the people of Dawlish want or need.  They are just thinking about the money they are to make from each house they build and couldn't care who it affects since it is not in their back yard!  As for the local councillors will they ask questions about what is in the Framework and check for any changes, as I do not remember the below being proposed in the consultation document I was given, if this has been added, so what else have TDC slipped in?  It appears the major developers with their Gentleman's Agreement have had Dawlish over again, profit before community!  Questions need asking, but I think our Councillors haven't got the backbone to take TDC on, so Dawlish will suffer in the long run.

The favoured approach will be to ban the existing right turn from Exeter Road west bound into Elm Grove Road. This will displace trips onto Sandy Land and Elm Grove Drive which are relatively lightly trafficked and allow the Elm Grove Road/Exeter Road junction to operate within capacity. The County Council will monitor the ongoing operation of this junction as development builds out and consider the need for a more significant improvement in future. This could include signalisation, however the banned right turn into Elm Grove Road from Exeter Road would remain. In order to future-proof the junction for this eventuality, the cycleway scheme currently being constructed will provide the ducting for a future signalisation scheme. This would minimise disruption if a further junction improvement is required in future. A signalised junction improvement will cost approximately £150,000. A potential future junction improvement would need to be funded from this development, as would the costs of the Traffic Regulation Orders associated with traffic management, including the right turn restriction. 

1 Agree
18 Mar 2016 20:23

This absolutly ill thought out and more than stupid scheme needs to be stopped NOW. The risk to walking school children and damage to private property and cars by construction lorries is just to high. The drivers of the triple axle dump trucks dont show any respect to local people or conditions as shown during the Sainsbury's construction when they were reported several times for speeding and dangerous driving, they just want to get the job done and make as much bonus money as posible. Why are our elected councillors not objecting to this.  

3 Agrees
18 Mar 2016 20:35

The councillors are either 1) in on it, 2) not keeping their eye on the ball, or 3) do not care about Dawlish and its community.  What is Cllr Rosalind Prowse et al doing about it?   Maybe we all need to ask them whilst they still have time to challenge this absurd idea to use Sandy Lane.  This is the soft option so that the developers can have their way and do not have to worry about the link road that the Councillors were stating needed to be done before more housing makes roads around this area even more dangerous.  When a child gets killed we will have to blame the Councillors, since they will have let TDC alter the roads for basically landowner and District council's greed.

5 Agrees
18 Mar 2016 23:24

From what i understand the drivers of these lorries get paid by the load its a recipe for disaster if there ever was one.

2 Agrees
Gary Taylor
Gary Taylor
19 Mar 2016 07:35

thank you for this link @Barbarawils68.


This document appears to spell out what many will have feared from the start - that despite all the concerns raised via the public consultation, in the press and at Dawlish Town Council, the building of the link road will be left to the various developers and not driven through by DCC or TDC. This will mean construction and other displaced traffic using Elm Grove Road, Elm Grove Drive, Sandy Lane, Exeter Road and the yet to be inaugerated Carhaix Way extension (note: not just for buses) for many years to come.


This is no mere inconvenience; it is a risk to life and limb. Having campaigned on this issue since before becoming a Town Councillor you can be assured the fight will continue.

19 Mar 2016 10:39

Holy sh*t. Dawlish is getting the Totnes treatment.

Dawlish only has one road (Exeter road - Teignmouth rd). Cannot change it just because some IDIOTS from a far say so. This has got to be the stupidest plan of all time. 

3 Agrees
19 Mar 2016 17:26

Have been contacted by a town councillor who doesn't have an account for this website asking me to let all know that this issue will be raised as a matter of urgency at next town council meeting in April. 

19 Mar 2016 18:50

If you wait for April it will be too late.  The Development Framework has to be passed before any of the DA2 sites can gain approval.  Why do you think the one at Hill Drive was turned down on prematurity.  This means that the Framework must be going to Committee on the 5th of April to be adopted and what's betting the other two sites in DA2 will be on the same agenda!  What is on the Gatehouse application must be in the Framework or else it wouldn't be down as part of their conditions.  So unless Dawlish hold an extraordinary meeting in the next few days they will miss the boat and it will be adopted and that will be planning law with no going back.  Like I said last year a friend went to the July meeting when the full Planning Committee was frightened into passing it to go out to public consultation, this time is serious as what is in the framework will be set in stone, that will be it, we will be stuck with it.  So if the worst fears are true and the Councillors do find this in the Draft framework, my concern is will TDC railroad them or will they find a backbone and stand up for the people of Dawlish.

19 Mar 2016 20:11

So......we shall have to wait and see what is on the agenda for 5th April TDC planning committee meeting.

Agenda goes out a week before 5.4.16. Right?


Suggest lobbying of our TDC councillors between now and then.

Hopefully Gazette will pick this issue up and run with it.  

19 Mar 2016 23:05

Our TDC councillors Hockin, Prowse, Clemens, Mayne, and Price are all old school players. They are party line towers and do little if anything to protect Dawlish or act in the best intrests of its people. They spend their time on council paid jollies voting for idiotic self interesting schemes like the Amber Coast, Sustrans stupid cycle paths now causing havoc around Elm Grove Rd, regenerating of the Strand thus wasting £1.75 million, and attempting to compulsary purchase peoples livelyhoods to get them around the planning laws regarding SANGS. They have a history of not replying to letters, emails etc from concerned residents and very rarely answer questions asked of them hence the large number of Freedom of Information requests made. Simple example question not yet answered, where did TDC get £13 million to buy the shopping mall in Newton Abott. Could it be from the £10 to £15 thousand pounds they get from every house built in Dawlish.

and people think they will help and stand against whats in the best intrests of the developers - No chance

19 Mar 2016 23:21

Maybe its time to take direct action like stopping these lorries 30 people in the road would do it that would catch there attention.

3 Agrees
20 Mar 2016 06:51

@FB - so..........a lot of people need to make a lot of noise (both literally and metaphorically) about this. I have also experienced e-mails not being acknowleged (not all the time and not by all councillors I admit but I agree there would appear to be one or two serial offenders).

However, I still suggest people contact their local TDC councillors (copying in all the town council ones as well so that then all know who has been contacted and by whom).

Letters to the Gazette as well (Barbrawils68?).

Someone to contact the local tv and radio stations? 

Noise and fuss to be made NOW (and not just by the 'usual suspects').


Suggest also e-mails to Dawlish County Cllr John Clatworthy as although TDC is the planning authority, Highways is Devon County Council's responsibiluity.

Here is Cllr Clatworthy's email address: 



20 Mar 2016 09:35

On the back page of the Town Crier now being delivered are all the email details for all our cllr'sand phone numbers

20 Mar 2016 10:53

But no email address for district councillor Ted Hockin so here it is:


Now, it just so happens that Cllr Hockin (unless he has moved recently unbeknown to me) lives almost directly opposite the Sandy Lane/Exeter Road junction.   

20 Mar 2016 11:17

However, if this forms part of a Framework document for Dawlish, which it looks like it is, do not just rely on Dawlish Councillors, it is bigger than them.  All objections will need to also be sent to all the Teignbridge Councillors who sit on the planning committee.  If the Dawlish ones do not take up the case, the other Councillors need to know how Dawlish feels, since the whole planning committee will be voting to adopt the DA2 Framework in the future and not just those who represent Dawlish.  So it is time for family and friends to put pen to paper or email those involved in the process to let all involved in planning know Dawlish's views.  Therefore, I haven't got their addresses yet, but these are the people who need contacting:

1) Teignbridge Planning Department and the Chief Executive of Teignbridge

2) Everyone can still comment on the Gatehouse Planning Application

3) All the Dawlish Town Councillors

4) All the TDC Councillors on Planning

5) Devon County Council Highways

6) The MP Ms Morris or Richard Younger Ross might be a good thing


Basically everyone needs to contact all those who are dealing with this matter now, therefore preempting the meeting date it will be decided on, so no one can say they did not know how the people of Dawlish feel about this, give them no reason to deny knowledge on this subject.

1 Agree
20 Mar 2016 12:29

From TDC's website:


 Councillors Smith, Dennis (Chairman) 
 Kerswell, Avril (Vice Chairman) 
Austen, Beryl (Ind) 
Bladon, Geoff (Con) 
Brodie, Jackie (LD) 
Bullivant, Philip (Con) 
Clarance, Chris (Con) 
Colclough, Mary (Ind) 
Dennis, Charlie (Con) 
Ford, Amanda (Con) 
Fusco, Vince (Con) 
Johnson-King, Patricia (Con) 
Jones, Ann (LD) 
Orme, Jacqui (Con) 
Parker, Colin (LD) 
Pilkington, Mike (LD) 
Rollason, Dave (LD) 
Price, Graham (Con) 
Prowse, Rosalind (Con) 
Walters, Mike (Con) 
Winsor, Reg (Con) 
Haines, Mike 
Hocking, Mike 
Golder, Timothy 
Klinkenberg, Anna 
Matthews, Dave 
Thorne, Bill 
Cox, David 
Dewhirst, Alistair 
Nutley, John 
20 Mar 2016 12:35

Oh and just to point out that the TDC councillor who sits on its Executive Committee and who has responsibility for planning and housing is none other than our very own....... Cllr Humphrey Clemens.


20 Mar 2016 12:59

The person who appears in overall charge of producing the DA2 Framework is this person:


Simon Thornley  Spatial Planning & Delivery Manager  01626 215706


So maybe comments should also be directed at the source.

20 Mar 2016 13:19

I don't have a fb account so could someone who does please post about this thread and its content on Eyes of Dawlish.

Need to make as many as possible in Dawlish aware of what is being proposed but especially those who walk along, already drive along, cross over the roads, and live along, Sandy Lane and Elm Grove Drive.  


20 Mar 2016 13:36

A lot of people go to that area since there is Tennis, Football, Red rock, Leisure Centre, maybe a poster with my original post should be put up at these places.  Anyone any good at producing posters?  Some posters on lamp posts might help, I always read them just in case they are important!

20 Mar 2016 18:00

Now on Eyes of Dawlish.

Thank you. 

20 Mar 2016 20:05

A group of us last year had a meeting organised by the MP with all of the developers, Devon County Council Highways manager and TDC Planning to put a stop to building traffic passing the schools at certain times. The only peoply not to turn up were TDC Planning and they are the people responsible for enforcing the condition. At the meeting I showed a video of the heavy earth moving lorries going past the primary school at 15:42 on the 17th November with school children everywere. The builders all agreed that they would make sure that they followed the planning condition in future. Two weeks later and my colleague was collecting his grand children from Gatehouse primary and was passed by heavy lorries again passing the school at leaving time. The developers could not give a monkeys.




Unfortunately I cannot post the video on this site.

21 Mar 2016 07:42

Someone has now started a petition.

This is what it says:

 Rosemary Dawson’s petition:

Save Dawlish from over development and lack of town investment

Dawlish is a lovely seaside town which is falling victim to overdevelopment and ill thought out planning. Roads are pot holed, schools and Drs becoming over subscribed and no thought is being given to safety when allowing lorries to thunder through congested roads at school times. See update!

The latest lunacy is proposing construction traffic should be diverted down SANDY LANE ... With a tight blind corner by a playground and down an already damaged quieter residential street. WHERE IS THE PROMISED LINK ROAD? Dawlish is being crippled this year by three major events being cancelled, add to that the overdevelopment and lack of sensible town planning and investment and we are looking at this beautiful town disappearing from the Tourism map.


3 Agrees
21 Mar 2016 12:24

TDC and its councillors will not listen or do anything as they are in the hands of the developers. The public rate payers need to take direct action, a bit like the farmers do in France. There needs to be a well thought out co-ordinated action plan drawn up and the only way to do that is by way of a public meeting. If the five district councillors dont come on side then a parish meeting and a vote of no confidence is needed. Does anyone know how to do this and how to secure a venue would suggest the Red Rock centre as its local to the proposal. Come on folk, we need to do this. We already have enough new houses to satisfy local need and without massive investment in infrastructure we cant cater for anymore.

21 Mar 2016 12:35

@Lynne - petitiion currently unavailable as it is being checked to make sure that it meets the petition standards before being published, although 5 people have already signed it...strange.

21 Mar 2016 12:50

@Purrrrfect - I think 5 people have to sign it initially and then it gets 'authorised' or something like that.

Which would account for what you found. 

21 Mar 2016 14:05

One person who could organise things and is not a Tory is Richard Younger Ross, since he also helped out with Warren Farm and the Compulsory Purchase threat by TDC.  Why the Red Rock, why not the Football club since all the proposed traffic could affect them. The venue is large enough, they have a bar and are right next to the carpark for those who are not within walking distance or have walking issues.  He could also organise the press including TV and it will not do him any harm to be seen to support the community in Dawlish.

21 Mar 2016 14:33

Cllr Graham Price  

21 Mar 2016 14:42

@Barbarawils 68 - is there a reason you don't have a message facility at the bottom of your posts like the rest of us have?

1 Agree
21 Mar 2016 15:14
21 Mar 2016 15:50

Messaging facility?  How do you get that?

21 Mar 2016 15:54

If you put your cursor underneath any of our posts you should get three options Agree Message Report.

Only Agree and Report come up underneath yours.


21 Mar 2016 16:03

@Barbarawils68, you need to enable messaging in your user settings.

21 Mar 2016 16:04

That link that Roberta has posted will take you to the letter dated 22nd February 2016 from Devon County

Council to Teignbridge District Council concerning planning application reference 15/02468/MAJ. It is

in this letter that reference is made to the fact that there will be no right turn into Elm Grove Road from Exeter Road and that

therefore traffic should use Sandy Lane and Elm Grove Drive instead.


The same letter appears on the planning documentation for planning application reference 15/02700/MAJ

BarbaraWils 68 quotes from this letter in the very first post of this thread. 


15/02700/MAJ - Outline application for up to 200 dwellings, employment land, a 64 bed care home and accompanying new roads, cycle and pedestrian trails. (Langdon)


15/02468/MAJ - Outline application for up to 409 residential units, community buildings, employment space, extra care home unit, new internal roads. (Gatehouse)




21 Mar 2016 16:11

Hey thank you, I have got a message link now appearing under people's posts!  I didn't know you could message, so I have learnt something today.

21 Mar 2016 21:34

I Have received today an email from forwardplanning stating

The Planning Committee agenda and documents will be available on the Teignbridge District Council website on Thursday 24th, which includes the Dawlish Development Framework Plan. 

 so there we have it 7 days before the planning applications are approved the plan will be published with no public consultation allowed.  Note also the date 24th followed immediatly by Easter when no body will be available at TDC to answer questions. What price democracy   

21 Mar 2016 21:38

Also the DCC letter refers to the original figure of 860 houses when in truth the figure now stands at :-


  Sangs Calculation DA2      Dwellings     Likley Occupants
15/02018/MAJ 14   34
Dev Area 0 96   233
Dev Area 1 75   182
Dev Area 2 15/02468/MAJ 409   994
Dev Area 3 16/00540/MAJ 180   437
Dev Area 4 15/02700/MAJ 200   486
Dev Area 5 15/01577/MAJ 35   85
Total DA2 1009   2451
Original  860   2090
  149   361
  17.3%   17.3%
Redrow 350   851
Total 1359   3302


21 Mar 2016 22:13

That just about sums Teignbridge up and David Cameron was holding them up as a Council to look up to!  I am hoping that the press have got wind of this now and have time to talk to some of those residents who will be most affected.  Anyone heard anything from our TDC Councillors? or Dawlish ones for a matter of fact other than Gary Taylor? It is all a bit too quiet.  I don't know who is worse politicians or civil servants, or are they as bad as each other? From what they are doing to Dawlish they are both as bad as each other.


All we can do is email friends and family with the news and ask them to pass it on.  If everyone tells two people a ripple effect will occur.  Remember to say about and they will then have the information about who to write objections to.  Remeber you can lodge your objections via the Gatehouse application as well, since it is that site that is triggering the change.  When the online petition is up and running can someone let everyone else know and we can pass that on as well.  However, it is the TDC Councillors that sit on the Planning Committee that have Dawlish Towns future in their hands, so they are the ones we have to convince to defer at least until another solution can be found.  All that will happen to DA2 Area 2 and 4 is that they will be deferred also on prematurity, the same as Area 5 and that is all we can hope for now.

21 Mar 2016 22:41

Sorry but area 2 and 4 will be passed on the 5th as will the framework plan. The reason is they will pass the plan first which will no longer make them premature, and it will not matter if all Dawlish Councillors object, and they probably will just to save face, the rest will vote in favour so the application will go ahead.  

From my research the only way forward is to apply for a high court injunction and that takes money.

22 Mar 2016 07:20

Not necessarily disagreeing with one word that Ken has written above but that still doesn't mean we should let 'them' do all this without us letting

'them' know what we think about what they are doing.   

Letters and emails to TDC planning councillors (see one of my earlier posts for names) I think might be a course of action.

Plus please get word of what is planned out to as many as possible. 



Question: Who is pulling the strings about all this? I know it is certainly not us the people of Dawlish. So who/what is it that is determining

this order of play (houses first followed by link road and not the other way around)?

Question: Is the tail wagging the dog?



22 Mar 2016 07:40

And another question (and FredBassett has already referred to this in one of his posts above) if TDC can find £13m or so to buy that shopping centre in Newton 

Abbott why can't they/couldn't they find the money to pay for the link road to be built before the houses and then claim the money back from the

developers over a period of time?


2 Agrees
22 Mar 2016 08:08

I believe three key players could get behind a campaign to defer a decision on the framework plan.

South West Water

The Environment Agency

The Education Authority

Also could the health and safety executive or other body not apply for a 3.5 Tonne vehicle weight restriction on Sandy Lane, on the grounds that its not a street or road and therefore wasent designed or built to take heavy traffic.

2 Agrees
22 Mar 2016 08:22

But do you really think, that even if they could, any or all of those bodies would wish to upset the apple cart?

Cos I don't.

22 Mar 2016 08:35

Question: If, in the absence of the link road, Sandy Lane/Elm Grove Drive becomes a way (the way?) of accessing/egressing these developments   

at DA2 (that's the Gatehouse/Secmaton area) then for how long will this be? 2 years? 3 years? 4? 5? longer?

Wonder what will happen re all this traffic when Carhaix Way eventually gets opened up to through traffic? Will it all go back and forth via C. Way

instead of/as well as?

Question: So, if the residents of Dawlish don't want it to be like this, and I'll guess that neither do our councillors, then why is all this

being imposed on us? So I ask again, who/what is determining this course of events? The developers? The landowners? TDC planners?   

22 Mar 2016 09:38


Councillors Prowse and Clemens can answer your question, and Cllr Cllatworthy the road situation, doubt if they will though

A) they are past council colleaques and aquanitances of past if not current land owners

B) both sit or have been on TDC planning recently

C) Cllr Prowse is on the commitees responsible for Dawlish framework, Sustrans, Amber Coast and probably others that have an involment

failing that Simon Thornley has the project leadership.

At the end of the day TDC planning have the final say.

Just to add a further point rang Barton surgery at 8.30 am this morning and guess what - No appointments available today, so might be worth asking them for a mission statement as to how they are going to cope with another 3500 patients.

22 Mar 2016 09:42

Deadline for letters to the Gazette for publication in next Weds edition (Weds 30th) need to be submitted by this Thursday (24th) by 12 noon.

22 Mar 2016 09:49

From the Dawlish Gazette article after the Planning Meeting on July 28 last year it appears it is TDC, since the document contained changes that the landowners had not agreed on, that's why there were calls for further landowners meetings to make sure the TDC changes were even workable.  So what the community got basically was not agreed by the landowners and therefore could be found unsound if it could not be achieved.   It is meant to be a document that, as it states needs 'meaningful engagement with all stakeholders', but TDC are not engaging, they haven't asked the community regarding the road changes and with what happened last time there is a chance the landowners will receive this new draft with amendments they were not consulted on either going on track record.  So what sort of document to inform the future development of Dawlish will it be if no one is happy with it just TDC who none of them probably live here. 


Lynne is correct make as much noise as possible, tell everyone even if they do not live in Dawlish and get them to object.  The Councillors on the planning committee come from all over the area, it is not just a Dawlish area problem, we depend on tourism, so it affects all those who visit as well.  So keep the pressure on, it might just make a difference.

22 Mar 2016 11:29

In addition to writing to councillors (which ought to be done so that it's on the record),  try phoning them too.    You can learn a lot about their commitment to an issue from what they say rather then what they write.  If their phones are ringing on a regular basis the only way of ducking it is to hide behind an answerphone, either way it invades their space whereas ignoring an email is easy.  Take notes when you talk to them and if they don't return a call, leave a follow up message saying you will be feeding their lack of response to public forums.  

By ward (click on the names under the photos and you will get their contact details:

By name:

22 Mar 2016 12:57

There are also the people at the top who are potentially kept in the dark, as noted before on another post.  So maybe multiple calls to this lady pointing out the failings of people within her organisaion might not go amiss.  They always say the buck stops with the head of the organisation and so she is ultimately responsible.


Nicola Bulbeck
01626 215100


Below her is another who needs to know how the public feel, he is the line manger for the department that has thought up this mad idea relating to road changes:

Phil Shears - Deputy Chief Executive & Business Lead Strategic Place, 01626 215804
Economy & Regeneration, Spatial Planning and Delivery, Development Management, Housing, Revenue & Benefits, Customer Services

22 Mar 2016 14:55

You want a public meeting, well there is a Dawlish Town Council Planning Meeting on Thursday 24th of March 2016 at 7pm.  This is bound to be an emergency item on the agenda, so as many of the Dawlish residents that can make it need to attend.  

22 Mar 2016 18:22

Re the petition - it was rejected. Here's why


We rejected the petition you created – “Save Dawlish from over development and lack of town investment”.

It’s about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for.

We can't accept your petition because the UK Government and Parliament aren't responsible for the issue you raise. This would be the responsibility of your local council. You could raise your issue with a local councillor, who represents you. You can use this page to find out who your local councillors are, and how to contact them:

Click this link to see your rejected petition:
View your rejected petition

We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards:

If you want to try again, click here to start a petition:

The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament



1 Agree
22 Mar 2016 19:27

How about   Action 38 Degrees they have fought lots of battles for local causes and won most of them.

1 Agree
22 Mar 2016 21:33

Graham Price has a copy of the Framework Plan, I have asked Nicola Bulbeck why it cannot be released now for public comment. I will advise of her reply 

23 Mar 2016 08:41

From TDC's website:

"The site of the old Carlton Theatre in Teignmouth is undergoing a major transformation after Teignbridge secured funding to replace the old building with a new community arts and enterprise centre.

Teignbridge is putting £2.5million of its own money, plus £1.75million from the Coastal Communities Fund and over £500,000 from Arts Council England (ACE), into creating a new building with a 210-seated auditorium, work hubs, a café, function bar, gallery space and a box office. This exciting project will promote sustainable economic growth and increase jobs, while helping to boost skills that will benefit the whole area."


So, if TDC can find £2.5million for Teignmouth out of its own money (whose money?) then why can it not find the funds for

the Sainsbury's roundabout link road? 

23 Mar 2016 09:13

23 Mar 2016 10:02

Right! Absolutely **** all about this issue in today's Gazette.


Letters need to be submitted by 12 noon tomorrow (Thursday 24th) (but suggest you submit before that 



23 Mar 2016 10:44

@FB Tried the 38 degrees link but without success

1 Agree
23 Mar 2016 10:47

I contacted the Dawlish Gazette on Tuesday and was surprised no one else had spoken to them.  His response was that they did not know about what was going on.  He whilst on the phone looked at and told me that the deadline had been passed for putting anything in.  He is aware of the concern to put it lightly from residents, so is aware to leave space for lots of comment and I also told him to interview residents who I bet some do not even today know what is to happen.  It is bad when the local press do not keep their eye on the ball, all they have to do is monitor which is an brilliant base of local knowledge and where major issues often are first highlighted.


Therefore as Lynne said get writing, also remember tomorrow at the Manor House is the Dawlish Town Council Planning Meetiing, it starts at 7pm.  These are our representatives and so as many concerned residents or visitors if they feel strongly about this need to attend.

2 Agrees
23 Mar 2016 11:10

I contacted the Gazette by email on Monday drawing their attention to this thread and I know that at least one other did the same.

I wonder if they know that the agenda for the next TDC planning meeting on 5th April should be in public domain tomorrow. Should be stuff

in it for next week's Gaz.  

2 Agrees
23 Mar 2016 14:46

I took a look at the 38degrees petition and it doesn't address the issue, which is the uplift in all vehicles which will be directed up Sandy Lane when they cannot turn right into Elm Grove Road.  This uplift as the houses are built out will only increase, especially if the link road is years in coming.  It is a shame Cllr Alison Foden has not set up a petition, the same as she did in regards to Warren Farm and the SANGs, she summed up the point well and that is why there was a great response with people signing it.

23 Mar 2016 14:46

extract from e-mail I sent out on Sunday to all Dawlish councillors

"DCC Highways department are suggesting that there should be an increase in traffic, including heavy site traffic remember, along Sandy Lane where there will be children attending the Red Rock Centre, people and dogs using the Sandy Lane Playing Fields and Dawlish Community College students crossing on their way to and from school.  And if all that wasn’t bad enough Sandy Lane is already notorious for its potholes. How many more will manifest themselves with all this additional, and heavy traffic I wonder? Not that the road surface in residential (yes, residential) Elm Grove Drive is anything to boast about either and  I wonder what the residents along there will think about these recommendations from DCC’s Highways officers/planners for all this proposed extra traffic?    

And why is all this being suggested? Simply because the Sainsbury link road into DA2 is not in situ."


23 Mar 2016 14:53

The point is Lynne has anyone responded or is it deathly quiet?  Also did you send this to all the District Councillors, since they are to make the Decision?

23 Mar 2016 15:56

Yes I have had responses.

And I intend emailing something out to all TDC councillors who sit on TDC's planning committee after I have had chance to

read whatever may be on the Agenda for the TDC Planning Committee due to be held 5th April. 

23 Mar 2016 16:11

23rd March - Communication between Teignbridge and Gatehouse re report for committee meeting and time extension.



Further to your request for an extension please see attached a letter confirming determination to 12thApril 2016 as requested.






From: Nick Davies [] 
Sent: 18 March 2016 17:39
To: Mike New <>
Cc: Ian Perry <>
Subject: RE: Gatehouse 15/02468/MAJ




I have just authorised the report for Planning Committee on 5 April 2016, I have attached a draft copy for your information.


The updated plans you have just submitted will have to be reported on the Update Sheet that will be provided to Members on the Friday preceding the Committee Meeting.


As we have met our commitment to report the application to the 5 April Committee, could I ask you to formally agree an Extension of Time for determination of the application until 12 April 2016.  This will give us a few days after Committee to consider the implications of the Committee resolution.  If the recommendation is accepted by Committee I would envisage that we would then need to agree a further Extension of Time to allow for the Section 106 Agreement to be completed.


In the first instance though I would ask you to confirm acceptance of a determination date of 12 April 2016.


I look forward to your confirmation that this is acceptable to you.


Nick Davies

Business Manager - Strategic Place

Direct Line 01626 215745


23 Mar 2016 17:27

I give up, no matter what you try its never good enough for some people

23 Mar 2016 17:41

I have sent my letter to the Gazette by email for publication next week and as of 17:27 today I have not received a reply to my email to Nicola Burbeck but I do know that it has been recieved by Teignbridge District Council mail server. I have also received my letter from  TDC asking if I wish to speak at the planning meeting and I will confirm on Thursday next that I do.

23 Mar 2016 17:47

FredBassett you are very valued on here and thank you for all you contribute.  I just felt that having a 3.5 tonne limit on these road would be uninforceable, and certain vehicles say the recycling/refuge lorries might be over that weight.  As for building lorries, if there was a weight restriction they would just send in the same materials, spread over more smaller lorries, they would get around it somehow as they always appear to.  So once again you are appreciated and I look forward to any other information you can find to help those in Dawlish fight this stupid and dangerous idea that they are proposing.

23 Mar 2016 18:12

The agenda and reports for the 5.4.16 TDC planning meeting are now publicly available

Click on this link


(oh and I've given the Gazette the link and received an acknowledgement from them - so they do know

about it ).   

23 Mar 2016 18:28

Online petition can also be started on  CHANGE. ORG any volunteers ?

23 Mar 2016 20:00

Thanks Lynne for doing that.  A friend came up with a good idea, lodge a complaint because the public were not consulted on this particular issue and therefore they have not taken into account the views of the public on this particular aspect of the Draft Framework.  So each and every one of us has not had the ability to voice our concerns or make representation.  The council can alter the document in relation to feedback from the community, but this was never on the table.  Anyone know of planning law in relation to this happening, could Dawlish legally challenge them?


Ken thank you for standing as a speaker, but I didn't know you could stand and make comment on the DA2 Draft Framework Document or are you speaking in relation to the Gatehouse development proposal?

23 Mar 2016 21:20


I plan to speak on the Gatehouse development on the grounds that they are leaving the sewage issue to discussions between SWW and the developers, unless the link road is built first there is nowhere for the sewage to go except to be connected up to the Bovis / Cavanagh pipe and that means more sewage down Secmaton Lane. That in turn means that the pumping station capacity will be so exceeded because we have been told that there is no capacity left in the pipe from the pumping station up to the Warren.


Dawlish could apply I think for a judicial review on the grounds of ignoring advice and comments on access from Elm Grove Road and the health and safety issues.  I cannot find anything under the Localism Act that the town council can take legal action in order to protect it's residents but no doubt the council solicitor could be asked for an opinion. I also think that the Framework makes it almost impossible for a Neighbour Hood plan to be drawn up. This means that Dawlish will lose a significant allotment of CIL monies and the rest of the CIL will be taken by others ie. DCC Education, Highways, So therefore there is no benefit to Dawlish for an extra 1009 houses except perhaps longer waiting times at the doctors or more of a fight to get school children into a "local " school and more congestion on local roads.

24 Mar 2016 14:17

Would appear that either TDC have a problem with their e-mail server, or the civil servants and councillors who's wages and expenses we all pay dont wish to communicate on the subject of the Dawlish framwork plan.

Or maybe there all at college learning basic maths, so that next year they can at least calculate the council tax correctly. More likely to be at a free lunch put on by the underhand developers wishing to concrete Dawlish though.

Come on guys at least have the guts to answer peoples e-mails, Mr Christophers your staff are a disgrace


2 Agrees
24 Mar 2016 16:12

Are TDC answering the phones other than the main reception? Or are they ignoring them as well?  


Oh another thing, I was at Sainsbury's today and heard chainsaws again from the wooded area behind the bridge, no fire smoke this time.  I don't know whose land it is on, all I know is that it was coming from the land directly behind the bridge in the wooded area, but from the carpark it is difficult to see the exact position.  Has anyone seen a TDC Posters advertaising works in this area?  The reason I am asking is last year there were signs saying that all of the DA2 was to be covered by an area tree preservation order, so anyone who wanted to do tree works would have to get permission from the Teignbridge Tree Officer.  I tried to phone the Tree Officer, but no one was answering the phones and after three attempts I gave up.  So they might be ignoring the phones in general.



24 Mar 2016 16:24

The TPO I Believe appliies only to the DA2 area and not over the other side of the A379, as regards phones I believe that TDC knock off early as its a bank holiday tomorrow.


24 Mar 2016 18:56

Oh that explains why no one answered. I am leaving for work now, can anyone who goes to the Dawlish Town Planning Meeting tonight let those who cannot make it know what is going on.  Thank you. Just realise the time must go else I will be late! Bye!

24 Mar 2016 21:12

Re - DA2 framework document. Just recieved the following via a customer from Simon Thornley. Confusing or what.


Thank you for your email to Nicola Bulbeck, she has asked me to reply direct to you in relation to the DA2 Development Framework Plan issue.


Firstly, thank you for your interest in the matter, and I hope that I can answer the points to your satisfaction.


You ask for a full copy of the DA2 Framework Plan to be placed on the website. 


I can confirm that the document is on our website – see item 9 of the Planning Committee meeting on 5th April.


You refer to a potential deferment of the planning committee to give the people of Dawlish more time to consider how it will affect them personally and comment as required, and ask for an official statement as to why the plan has not been offered for consultation.


However, the framework plan has already been subject to public consultation.  A draft framework plan was considered by Planning Committee at its meeting (a meeting held in public) on 28 July 2015, who agreed that it should be published for consultation.  Consultation took place between 4th September and 16th October of that year.  88 responses were received to that consultation.  Since then we have been considering the comments,  including carrying out or commissioning further investigations into the issues raised.  As a result of that consideration, the document has been redrafted by planning officers in a number of respects, to prepare a final version for adoption.


The planning committee is meeting on 5th April to consider the recommended final version of the document, which takes account of all of these comments.  The papers to planning committee include a full summary of those comments and an officer response to each one. 


Indeed, the urgency of the situation would make a deferral counterproductive, in my view.  At the same meeting, the planning committee has before it two planning applications covering the main parts of the site, which are already a number of months past the length of time the government expects such decisions to take.  While the applicants have agreed to extensions of time thus far to consider the implications of the framework plan, it will be open to them to appeal against “non determination” should any decision on their applications be deferred beyond those agreed time extension.  It is therefore increasingly important that the planning committee have an agreed framework against which to consider these and other applications which come in on the site.  Deferring the decision as requested would leave us open to decision by appeal and potentially a less coherent and lower quality development of the site.




Simon Thornley

Business Manager Strategic Place

Teignbridge District Council

Forde House

Brunel Road

Newton Abbot

TQ12 4XX


24 Mar 2016 21:41

More details tomorrow (am tired now and fancy a glass or two of vino) but just to say that the Dawlish Town Council planning committee meeting was attended by as many

members of the public (4) as councillors. 

To be fair to the town councillors though it seems they are as appalled as we are as to the proposals put forward by TDC

re Sandy Lane and Elm Grove Drive.


It is TDC that is the problem.

Who controls TDC? The officers (in this case the planners) or the councillors?

The council is Conservative controlled.

And given that as far as I am concerned if the political will was there to find the money, even if only for a basic service road,

the money would be found, then it is up to to the Conservative councillors at Teignbridge council, all of 'em, to find the funds for the road!

(and just in case anyone thinks I am being anti-Conservative, I am not. I would be saying the same thing if TDC was Lib Dem controlled, Labour 

controlled, UKIP controlled etc etc. Them wot's got the power are the ones that can resolve problems - or not!) 


25 Mar 2016 13:07

I Spoke to Planning Aid England and they have said to ensure the Framework is safe, since alterations have happened it is appropriate to take it out to a second round of public consultation, though not neccessary if they want to take a chance it will be found unsound.  This is also noted below in a document published by the City of Worcester.

2.4 Whilst an SPD can be adopted after a single round of consultation as we are now planning to consult on the CIL Draft Charging schedule, it is recommended that a further round of draft SPD consultation is carried out. Consulting on a revised draft SPD which now incorporates changes resulting from the first round of consultation will also make the final SPD more robust and mitigate against any legal challenge against its final adoption being successful. 


3.5 An alternative would be not to consult interested parties a second time but to instead prepare a final version of the SPD for adoption. While this course of action would not breach planning regulations it is considered that the final version of the SPD will be much more robust should it face any legal challenge if it has been the subject of two rounds of public consultation. Republishing this SPD at the same time as the CIL Draft Charging Schedule is considered to be helpful to the process of adopting a Worcester CIL. 

The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England)
Regulations 2012 


Supplementary planning documents Application and interpretation of Part 5

11.—(1) This Part applies to supplementary planning documents only.

(2) In this Part—

“adoption statement” means a statement specifying—

(a) the date on which a supplementary planning document was adopted,

(b) if applicable, any modifications made pursuant to section 23(1) of the Act,
(c) that any person with sufficient interest in the decision to adopt the supplementary planning document may apply to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review of that decision, and
(d) that any such application must be made promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the date on which the supplementary planning document was adopted; and “consultation statement” means the statement prepared under regulation 12(a)
Therefore TDC can try and adopt it, but they leave themselves totally open.  As for the comment made by Simon Thornley:
While the applicants have agreed to extensions of time thus far to consider the implications of the framework plan, it will be open to them to appeal against “non determination” should any decision on their applications be deferred beyond those agreed time extension.  It is therefore increasingly important that the planning committee have an agreed framework against which to consider these and other applications which come in on the site.  Deferring the decision as requested would leave us open to decision by appeal and potentially a less coherent and lower quality development of the site.


However, whilst talking to Planning Aid England I asked about the site who had been turned down and what happens if they go to appeal.  I was told that once this Supplementarty Planning Document is approved then this has to be taken into account at any appeal and will inform thier judgement.  Therefore, if this is the case even if the two sites go to appeal then they will still have to abide by the proposed document when actually adopted.  I have looked at Area 5s Heads of Terms and TDC was ensuring they agreed to items contained within the emerging Framework to gain planning approval, so if the Landowners do not accept the Heads of Terms they do not get planning permission. So my thoughts are if this document is delayed and the Area 2 and 4 landowners do appeal this would allow TDC time to go back out to public consultation and get a document approved generally by all.  If not they could find they are challenged and forced to make the amendments required to make it acceptable.  If this is so Mr Thornley's argument doesn't stand up.

25 Mar 2016 17:25

Further research shows that now that TDC have offered a time extension to Area 2 and 4, if it goes to appeal it looks like they could claim costs against the Council if they are refused and for such large sites that could be quite a large sum. We know TDC are pushing it through, but is it for themselves or are the landowners behind it also?  From the Public Consultation comments there are still issues and the landowners want to work with the community since they would not be highlighting potential problems, as per the below:

Wadderton Park Ltd on behalf of the NHS (Area 4 Langdon Hospital)

As drafted there is nothing to stop the entirety of areas 1, 2 and 3 and 5 as well as all the permitted development being developed and all with access only to the south via Elm Grove Road/Sandy Lane. As highlighted previously we would expect this to be technically and politically unacceptable.


One thing I have noticed that there are no comments from Area 5?  Isn't that odd, so we do not know what their concerns are?

8. What are the incentives to agree an extension of time?

Our continuing work on helping councils to improve their planning performance  gives a strong indication that the development industry appreciates a clear service offer from councils and is willing to accept a longer time scale to work through legitimate issues if it is made clear as early in the process as possible thereby avoiding late surprises.

For LPA's an agreed  extension of time  means that provided the new, agreed deadline for issuing a decision is met, the LPA will have been considered to have met the requirements government's performance requirement. Additionally, where an agreement for extension of time has been reached between the LPA and the applicant, the provisions of the planning guarantee do not apply. 

For applicants, the advantage lies in the flexibility that an agreement gives, where necessary, to resolve outstanding issues rather than risk refusal of the application. It also provides the assurance of a clear timescale for eventual determination. 

Both councils and applicants have expressed fears that the other party will use the negotiation of an extended period to excuse poor performance or to exert pressure to accept poor quality development.  The government's response (para 46 of the response document June 2013) is to stress the advantages of a willingness to accept to both parties but to also open the door to such matters being taken into account by inspectors considering  an award of costs at appeal if the application were then to be refused.



25 Mar 2016 17:32

@Barbarawils68 - who owns the land in area 5?

25 Mar 2016 17:41

I will have to look at the planning application in relation to the site at Hil Drive which was refused last November.

25 Mar 2016 18:04

Have just checked.

It was October 2015 planning committee. This is what it says

DAWLISH - 14/01577/MAJ - Land Adjacent To Hill 
Drive, Secmaton Lane - Outline - Residential 
development (all matters reserved for future 
APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs M Willey, Ms K Willey and Ms A Peattie


25 Mar 2016 18:24

and here are the minutes of that meeting relating to that planning application (apologies that they are so long.)

I have highlighted certain parts. Note that the portfolio holder for Housing and Planning is one of our Dawlish district councillors

- Humphrey Clemens. Note how long he states it may be before the link road is complete! 


DAWLISH - 14/01577/MAJ - Land Adjacent To Hill Drive, Secmaton Lane 
- Outline - Residential development (all matters reserved for future 
The Committee noted the following further information: the receipt of two 
additional representations of objection, but which did not raise new issues; 
Members had been circulated information by email: photographs of Secmaton 
Lane from an objector, and the opinion of Dawlish Town Council to the DA2 
consultation; the application was in outline for the principle of residential 
development only with all matters, including the access, reserved to the future 
reserved matters application; and the recent planting of hedges across the 
land is irrelevant to the current application and would be dealt with at the 
reserved matters stage. 
 Public Speaker: Objector, Mr R Anderson – Objectors did not object to the 
principle of development on the site but to the uncoordinated way in which the 
DA2 area and the current area of land is coming forward; access off 
Secmaton Lane would result in dirt and noise pollution and safety risks to 
pedestrians, the disabled and cyclists when the lane is being used to 
encourage these activities; there is no immediate need for this development 
with new homes being built and the imminent Redrow development; 
premature until the results of the public consultation on the DA2 Framework 
Policy are known; development should be sympathetic to the landscape and 
surrounding buildings and be single storey or dormer bungalows; current 
development is not meeting the need for housing for the elderly; developers 
are providing 2 to 3 bedroomed houses to maximize profit; additional pressure 
on the sewerage system and increased risk of flooding; a detailed flood risk 
assessment should be submitted; 
Public Speaker: Objector, Mr Parker – Objected on the grounds of Highway 
safety; Secmaton Lane is unacceptable to be used to access the site because 
of its single track; no passing places; unacceptable visibility splay; and the 
heavy volume of pedestrians and cyclists, who have been encouraged to use 
the Lane with the closing off of the Elm Grove Road end to vehicles; the Lane 
is part of the Sustrans national cycle network; the site must be accessed off 
the new Link Road; no guarantee that the access onto Secmaton Lane would 
be temporary; at the time planning permission was granted for 10 houses 
near the far end of Secmaton Lane the Highway Officer advised that the 
capacity of the lane was to serve only a further 5 dwellings. The current 
proposal has intimated at least 30 dwellings. 
 Public Speaker: Supporter, Mr S Anderson – The site sits between three other 
areas of land which have permission for residential development, land at the 
Deodar and 2 others to the south, all of which have been granted vehicular 
access off Secmaton Lane; the precedent of access off Secmaton Lane has 
already been granted; the site is a minor and peripheral part of the overall 
DA2 allocation; the reasoning as to why the site can come forward prior to the 
completion of the DA2 Framework is set out in the officer report; there is no 
justification for the decision to be withheld any longer following the 
application’s initial submission 16 months previously; it would be low density 
and high quality design; the Highway Officer accepts the access off the lane in 
accordance with previous approvals; the site is within the first 140 metres of 
the Lane which includes just 10 dwellings; the access would provide a much 
needed passing bay with a good visibility splay; and drainage concerns can 
be addressed with conditions. 
 Comments raised by Members of the Committee included: the site is suitable 
for development but the application is premature without access from the Link 
Road; access from Secmaton Lane is not acceptable to serve any further 
development and is not suitable for construction vehicles; premature pending 
the results of the public consultation on the DA2 Framework; the lane has 
been promoted for cyclists and pedestrians; it would be the main walking 
route for children from the Redrow development to schools; and Dawlish 
Town Council have raised objections. 
In response to comments, the Business Manager advised that the 
development of DA2 would fund the Link Road from developer contributions. 
There would be no link road without development. 
 It was proposed by Councillor Price and seconded by Councillor Prowse that 
the application be approved but with a condition stating no access from 
Secmaton Lane. 
 The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing advised that the Sustrans cycle 
route includes Little Week Road; and access is a reserved matters issue. 
 An amendment was proposed by Councillor Clarance and seconded by 
Councillor Ford that there should be no development until the vehicular 
access to the Link Road is constructed. 
 The Business Manager reiterated that the development of the DA2 allocated 
sites would fund the Link Road from developer contributions. There would be 
no link road without development. There is no objection from the Highway 
Engineer to support a highway reason for refusal. 
Additional comments from Members included: what assurance is there that 
the temporary access off Secmaton Lane would be closed to vehicles 
following the development of the Link Road; the housing for elderly people is 
not being developed; and smaller properties are required. 
 The Business Manager advised the options open to the committee as follows: 
• Accept the officer recommendation as set out in the report circulated 
with the agenda. 
• The proposed amendment of no development until access is provided 
from the Link Road. This was an unreasonable condition and would 
probably result in the Applicant appealing on non determination 
Refusal of the application on the grounds of: the application is 
premature ahead of the outcome of the DA2 Master Plan public 
consultation; and there is no certainty that the Link Road will be 
developed and therefore the temporary access onto the single 
vehicular width Secmaton Lane, promoted as a pedestrian/cycle route 
would be permanent and be unacceptable for reasons of highway 
• Subject to the Applicant’s agreement to an extension of time, defer 
consideration of the application until the outcome of the DA2 Master 
Plan public consultation. Should the Applicant not be in agreement to 
an extension of time, the application be refused for the reasons above. 
The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing advised that the land for the 
Link road was in different ownerships. Access from the site the subject of the 
current application was roughly in the middle of the Link Road route. This 
section of the Link Road required a bridge. It was anticipated that it would be 
some ten years before the Link Road would be completed. 
A second amendment incorporating the fourth option above was proposed by 
Councillor Dennis and seconded by Councillor Fusco as set out below which 
was carried. 
Consideration deferred pending the Applicant’s agreement to an extension of 
time to defer consideration of the application until the outcome of the DA2 
Master Plan public consultation. Should the Applicant not be in agreement to 
an extension of time, the application be refused for the following reasons: PLANNING (20.10.15)
1. The application is premature ahead of the outcome of the DA2 Master Plan 
public consultation. 
2. There is no certainty that the Link Road will be developed and therefore 
the temporary access onto the single vehicular width Secmaton Lane, 
promoted as a pedestrian/cycle route would be permanent and be 
unacceptable for reasons of highway safety. 
(20 votes for and 1 against) 


1 Agree
Gary Taylor
Gary Taylor
26 Mar 2016 12:25

For once, I find myself in agreement with The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing; Teignbridge District Councillor and Dawlish Town Councillor, Humphrey Clemens. If the Link Road is built by the developers (and there appears some uncertainty about that) then I believe as he does that "it would be some ten years before the Link Road would be completed".


But while Cllr Clemens is uniquely placed to act to bring about change, he has chosen to sit on his hands.


It is intolerable that the lives of residents and school children are to be placed under a continued and increased threat while developers' trucks and delivery vans are diverted through residential street and past school gates. However, while a precendent for the construction of development access roads by Teignbridge has already been set and while the District Council is happy in 2016 to speculate with £13 million of taxpayers' cash for the purchase of commercial property in Newton Abbot , it appears it cannot find a far smaller sum to invest in the security of its residents in Dawlish.


We are told development at DA2 will provide the housing needs of Dawlish for future generations. It is time then for the those with power to match their fine words with deeds.



4 Agrees
26 Mar 2016 13:41

You know this business about the developers forking out for the link road as and when they build a certain number of houses

well.........suppose the housing market crashes between now and a few years time? 

Housing market crashes aren't unknown are they?

So.......if the house building stops, the monies for the link road stops, so the road wouldn't get built at all or there would be a huge

delay in getting it finished.?frown


Just saying............

2 Agrees
26 Mar 2016 14:32

Yes you are correct, last time was in 2008 which led to a serious contraction of housing building.  Those who produced materials for the industry reduced production to the bare minimum and when the industry did pick up it took years to increase production to meet the demand, so I found out online.  So if the building bubble bursts again or demand lessens due to over production of housing in a particular area, it could end up years beyond the suggested timeframe.


26 Mar 2016 22:00

This is just becoming a round and round joke now TDC planning either tell the developers once and for all, no houses until the road is built and the new sewarage system is commisioned or they risk losing their jobs. Why should we pay their wages if they arent acting in our best interests. Have mentioned before that  Nicola Bulbeck, Jeremy Christophers, Simon Thornley and others need to be replaced but our councillors never take any action to drum up support for a vote of no confidence in their leadership.

Has anyone had an answer yet as to where TDC have found the £13 million to spend on the shopping mall or will the answer come next year via massive council tax rises.

26 Mar 2016 22:09

I think that is what is likely to happen is that the middle site will sit on the land for 10 years after the others have been built so the link road will be without the middle bit. . I witnessed this many years ago in Bracknell sites started a few houses built and then nothing for 4 years then just as we moved the sites started again. If anybody wants to see what a planning disaster looks like visit Bracknell.

More than that if area 5 is given the go ahead then Secmaton Lane could get an extra 52 Vehicle movements per day ( that 13520 per year based on a 5 day week) is that safe on a single track lane.

27 Mar 2016 07:51

Could TDC put a Compulsory Purchase Order on that middle site do you think? 

27 Mar 2016 08:24

I believe if the develpers were forced into building the link road they would abandon building any houses they dont want to risk huge amounts of capital they may never get back and i bet TDC think the same no new housing no dosh in there account.

27 Mar 2016 10:54


Works now please sign, at least if sucessful they wont be able to use theses roads for anything bigger than a transit pick up thanks

1 Agree
27 Mar 2016 16:27

FredBassett, I am sorry I can't see how the petition you are promoting is workable.  Who would monitor and enforce it?  This petition basically does not address all the points which the residents of Dawlish are concerned about.  Cllr Alison Foden has addressed these points fully in her petition titled: HUMANS BEFORE HOUSES - BUILD THE LINK ROAD FIRST.  This is why her petition is being spread far and wide and even now less than two days in she had already aquired over 300 plus names.  So it is important her petition is supported and the word spread as quickly as possible since the 5th of April is not far away.




27 Mar 2016 17:05

The two are totally seperate issues with the only connecting reference being the link road. The trouble with Alisons petition is that on April 5th DA2 will be passed without question by TDC as they have to much to loose by rejecting it and there will be no insistance on developers to finance a new road which will make it dead in the water. By placing a vehicle weight restiction on every posible access to the DA2 sites then the developers will have to form a new access route which could then be adopted by the council at a later date and made permanant. As for enforcing it thats simple local residents with their mobile phone cameras and a  quick email to the police or DDC showing the reg no of any infringing vehicle. What is the problem with the two petitions running together when the issues are not the same

3 Agrees
27 Mar 2016 17:44

Well as to putting a restriction on every possible access you need to read the plans again, Henty Avenue has no connection with DA2.  As for local residents taking photos on their mobile phone cameras and reporting it, have you got the team all ready or are you assuming people will take this on with their busy lives.  The fact is DCC have no issue with either Elm Grove Road or Sandy Lane being capable of taking this traffic else it would not have been agreed with TDC.  As for Secmaton Lane there is no issue with that either, else they would not have passed the 3 and the 10 in the last few years.  Do not forget Secmaton Lane is the emergency vehicular access for Dawlish, as shown in the Dawlish Parish Neighbourhood Plan documents.  Why do you think it was opened up and widened when Secmaton Bridge was removed and upgraded?  If there was an accident between Dawlish Warren Road and Sandy Lane the bollards would be removed and all traffic sent along it for as long as the road is blocked.  Contact DCC if you do not believe this, because it is true, I have checked. 

As for two petitions running side by site there is no issue, the people will make their own minds up if it reflects their views on the subject and that is their right to do so.

27 Mar 2016 21:13

@Barbarawils68 the reason dcc & tdc allowed the building of the 3 and 10  in the lane was i believe a sweetner prior to the local plan being agreed. in 2004 a planning application for one additional house in secmaton rise was turned down by both tdc and dcc on the grounds that the lane could not support anymore traffic. this decision to refuse was upheald on appeal in bristol, when we used this with devon county council as objection to the 10 we were told that the law had changed and that there was no reason that dcc could refused. the process has started to make dcc very aware that they have a responsibilty for peoples safety, and that responsibilty exists in law.

In truth I believe  the building is being allowed because TDC is trying to keep the landowners on side for the DA2 area.

To say that Secmaton Lane is the emergency route into and out of Dawlish is nonsense the volume of traffic now using the Exeter Road could never use the Lane there is very limited passing places, including residents driveways, for vehicles. If DCC believe this then it shows what a terrible organisation they are,  

28 Mar 2016 11:28

This morning I lodged with TDC planning department 2 x objections on the grounds of traffic access/lack of link road to planning application

15/02700/Maj (200 dwellings, care home and employment land at Langdon) and 15/02468/Maj (409 dwellings,

extra care unit at Gatehouse). I explained about the safety and environmental issues arising from the DCC

Highways proposal that right turning traffic, including heavy plant traffic, from Exeter Road should go along Sandy Lane and Elm Grove


Anyone else fancy doing the same?

I think the point(s) re the link road etc need making in as many different ways and as often as possible


30 Mar 2016 13:10

TDC have now placed this online - Dawlish Link road options report


"It is understood that the findings of this work will be considered by members at the same 
meeting as the initial planning applications and the Draft SPD". ie at the TDC planning meeting 
on Tuesday 5th April 2016.
30 Mar 2016 16:33

Okay, so.......the route of the link road goes over parcel 4 (NHS Langdon land), parcel 3 (Secmaton Farm land)

and parcel 2 (Gatehouse Farm land).

As the report points out, both parcels 2 and 4 can be developed independently of parcel 3. But......remember the link

road has to cross parcel 3 in order for it to connect Sainsbury's roundabout with Secmaton Lane/top end of Elm Grove Road.

So.........if for any reason parcel 3 (Secmaton Farm land) didn't get developed then the parcel 2 (Gatehouse Farm) bit of the link road and

the parcel 4 bit of the link road (on NHS Langdon land) wouldn't meet up, would they.  



This is what the report says: (my emphasis in red)  

1.2.11 It must be noted that the construction of the road through parcels 2 and 4 on an agreed route 
to the mutual boundary of each of the land ownerships with parcel 3 is necessary for the 
delivery of parcel 3, but is not sufficient to ensure that the development of parcel 3 proceeds. 
Once the prerequisite of the road to its boundary (from either of the other parcels) is met, the
promoters of parcel 3 can proceed or not, and in their own time"  


30 Mar 2016 18:29

Also where is the costing for upgrading the Hospital Road?  Why is that not in it?  That will not be cheap and could further impact on Area 4 since it needs to be up to Highways standards for the employment land!


30 Mar 2016 18:55

Because the report is concerned with the costings and delivery etc of the link road only?

30 Mar 2016 19:52

TDC have included 2 bridges not within the Draft Framework which went out to public consultation, I have checked.  Therefore, my question is where is the cost for upgrading the Hospital Road in Area 4?  This will be expensive, so might they hide the fact, since it could impact on area 4s deliverability and therefore by not including it TDC can say all is ok and let both sites be approved and sort it out later?  


Do not forget if Area 2 and 4 get deferred due to no framework in place they will go for non-determination and this could cost TDC for delaying them.  This could be why TDC have chosen to not give all the information, since this will increase the infrastructure costs and therefore inpact on viability and therefore deliverability.  Being economical with the truth has happened before, they falsely ticked a box stating that there were no smells or main roads that could affect the proposed Coastal Park in the Footprint Ecology Report, knowing full well it was next to the Sewage Works and the main road to Dawlish Warren.  Gary Taylor knows all about that one.


Anyway here is the table that the information should have appeared in, yet it is strangely missing!  Wonder why?


Table 3.7 summarises the strategic infrastructure costs discussed that have been used in this appraisal.

Table 3.7: Strategic transport items costed in the appraisal

Infrastructure                                                         Total Cost                                     Paid by whom

Link road                                                               £6,000,000                                    See following section

Link road bridge                                                    £1,000,000                                    As set out in table 3.6

Bridge in Dev.t area 2                                             £700,000                                    Paid in full by development area 2.

East-West stream bridge in Dev.t area 3                  £500,000                                   Paid by development area 3 (79%) and 5 (21%).

                                                                                                                                Based on number of houses

Northern Junction                                                  £600,000                                       Paid in full by development area 4.

Southern Junction                                                  £100,000                                       Paid in full by development area 2. 

31 Mar 2016 08:20

So what happens if parcel 3 does not get developed?

What might need to happen in order for that to be achieved?

What would be the consequences if it wasn't developed? 

This is covered from 2.4.2 through to 2.4.11 of the report.


Gary Taylor
Gary Taylor
31 Mar 2016 09:37

This latest report puts the uncertainty of bringing the link road forward via the separate development of each land parcel  into context in unusually plain English: 


'Horses and water come to mind' it states bluntly in para 2.4..2. And this from an author who has yet to meet the parties involved.


Interestingly, para 2.4.7 touches on the idea of 'compulsion' - but such a notion is swiftly ruled out:


'This approach would currently seem to be a major diversion of the Council's resources that could not be justified' the report says. What a shame such advice was not considered for the Coastal Park.


The one ray of hope to be offered appears in para 2.4.11:


'A fourth alternative [to the proposed position described above in 2.4.2] which could be worthwhile it it were accepted by all of the landowners would be for the three main developers to jointly procure the link road through one contract... increasing the certainty of the delivery of the road for the Council. It may be that the Council could assist the three developers by testing the feasibility and its procurement in this way...'


Cynics may well wish to reach for another farmyard analogy at this point - yes, pigs might fly - but this alternative is one which I would hope is given serious consideration on Tuesday.

31 Mar 2016 16:03


Langford Development Area (DA2), Dawlish Link Feasibility and Bridge Study - Draft Engineering Design Group Devon County Council


DCC can't even get the name of the site correct being Langdon not Langford.  Anyway here is a new document and its web link.  The document text is coloured for ease, there are still a lot of unknowns regarding Area 4 and here are some issues below:

9 Construction Risks

 9.1.1 Flood risk

Since the risk of flooding in the area is high, the risk of construction being stopped due to high water levels is increased. Firstly, in terms of health and safety the contractor cannot permit employees to work in such a location when certain flood levels are reached. Secondly, some construction tasks cannot be completed when an excessive volume of ground water is present. For example: pouring concrete foundations would not be possible.

9.2.1 Ecology

Due to the area in which the proposed bridge is situated and the density of vegetation present, there is the risk that protected species could be effected by the construction. If, after an ecological survey is completed, such species are found to be living within the vicinity then this may have implications for the project programme.

9.3.1 Existing services

The main risk for the scheme will arise from overhead HV (11kV) Western Power Distribution lines which are situated in the vicinity and cross the fields either side of the proposed bridge. Depending on the type of structure chosen for the bridge, the utilisation of a crane may be required in order to lift in certain elements of the structure. As the crane will be working in close proximity to these power lines, an assessment of the situation will need to be undertaken to determine whether the lines will need to be taken down/diverted in order to satisfy health and safety requirements. Discussions with WPD will therefore be required at an early stage prior to confirming the structural form.


In the bat survey's for the 10 at Secmaton Farm and Hill Drive, Secmaton Lane there are Greater Horseshoe bats noted.  In 2008 when the site was screened for deliverability Teignbridge Local Development Framework Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment it was noted that 'Four of the hospital buildings are Lesser Horseshoe bat roosts and the surrounding area provides bat habitat. These would need to be accommodated in any development scheme.  


Therefore, unless there is a site by site bat survey it is unknown what protected species are within the DA2 allocation and how that could impact the development as a whole.  So if this is the case the DA2 Framework is based on shifting sands and no one knows exactly what is achievable, due to lack of sound evidence and in my view this makes the document unsafe.

31 Mar 2016 20:19

Planning Agendas now available for the Gatehouse and Langdon sites due to be considered for approval on 5th April at TDC planning meeting.




The application is part of a Strategic Allocation


Subject to:


18.Cost of Traffic Regulation Order for works to ban right turns into Elm Grove Road - £5,000


Transport description

3.36 The favoured approach will be to ban the existing right turn from Exeter Road west bound into Elm Grove Road. This will displace trips onto Sandy Land and Elm Grove Drive which are relatively lightly trafficked and allow the Elm Grove Road/Exeter Road junction to operate within capacity. The County Council will monitor the on-going operation of this junction as development builds out and consider the need for a more significant improvement in future. This could include signalisation; however the banned right turn into Elm Grove Road from Exeter Road would remain. Contributions for a future signalisation are sought but there is no firm evidence that it is needed as a result of this development and cannot therefore be considered to be an acceptable contribution under the CIL Regulations.


NHS – The site will cause capacity issues at Starcross Surgery which includes this area. They would look to apply for a Health Tariff to off-set against the cost of increasing capacity



3.44 At the time of writing an independent assessment of the viability of the scheme was being carried out. The applicant has raised concern that the triggers on the delivery of their section of road, contribution to the bridge and the difficult ground conditions mean that it would be unviable to provide all of this and the other obligations.

3.45 The recommendation is set out in accordance with policy but depending upon the outcome of the independent assessment this recommendation may change in terms of level of affordable housing or other obligations and triggers. 



3.46 On the basis that the proposals are consistent with the DA2 Framework Plan, and taking into account the matters discussed above and the representations received, it is considered that planning permission for the proposal should be granted in line with the recommendation outlined above or other recommendation as may be considered appropriate following consideration of the viability work. 

31 Mar 2016 20:32

Planning Agenda Langdon Hospital 15/02700/MAJ



The Site is part of a Strategic Allocation


Subject to the applicant entering into a prior Section 106 Agreement to secure: 



However nowhere in the report does it mention about:

Protected species


 The main risk for the scheme will arise from overhead HV (11kV) Western Power Distribution lines which are situated in the vicinity and cross the fields either side of the proposed bridge. 

31 Mar 2016 21:37
Comment This thread has been closed.