General Discussion

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/humans-before-houses-build-the-link-road-first

please sign and share with friends, facebook, twitter.  

Currently at 135 of 200, definetly worth signing. 14:20 hrs stands at 185.

and @ 07.34 BST it is 267 of 300.

Keep it going.

All those parents with children at DCC consider your child attending the leisure centre to have there PE lesson and HGV drivers being paid by the load and in a hurry racing along Sandy Lane and Elm Grove Drive TDC are putting your child at risk.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/3-5-tonne-weight-limit-for-residential-areas-of-dawlish

This one also now works and allthough it wont change the plan to use Sandy lane it will restrict the vehicle size to something like a transit van which is totally useless when you have to move 1000s of tonnes of materials and equipment. Please sign

Leatash is correct to point out that the students at DCC use the leisure centre and thus will hve to cross Elm Grove Drive and Sandy Lane to access it.

As DCC draws students from around the Dawlish area such as Starcross, Kenton, & Exminster those parents living outside of Dawlish need to be made aware of the proposal to increase traffic including building traffic along EG Drive and Sandy Lane.

So if you are, or know of, parents who have, or will have, children starting this September at Dawlish Community College and you/these parents live outside of Dawlish then please draw their attention to all of this and ask to them to lodge their objections with the following:

District Councillor for Kenn Valley Ward

It is also worth noting that students going to PE there have no adult  supervision so are all over the place many with earphones and mobiles and unaware whats going on around them.

A very valid point leatash regarding informing parents et al from outside of Dawlish who are also affected by this proposal.  It is a shame the schools are closed for Easter, however, I think that is why TDC chose a holiday time to drop this onto the community.

Can everyone facebook, tweet  friends/family etc to bring the numbers up.  Dawlish needs as many people to sign up as possible, only then will TDC see how much the residents object to the DA2 Development Framework changes.

Now on 500.

Keep going.

Now on 558. 

Keep on going.

Petition can be signed up to 5.00pm Monday 4th April

All please note that I am now away with friends, but I had a friend make up and put a paper petition in Marine Stores, Exeter Road.  They are to ask all customers to sign today as the Planning Meeting is tomorrow morning.  If anyone else wishes to pop in I do not think they will mind, as it is only today.  Therefore tell friends who have no access to a computer where to go.  The friend is to pick up the petition at 8pm tonight and will ensure it gets to the meeting.  Therefore tell anyone who has not signed to either do the epetition of the paper one now available..

@ this time signatures on epetition stand at 590 and I know there are more that have

been collected on paper copies.

Off to the bun fight (TDC planning committee meeting) this morning. Will endeavour to give

report on goings on when I return (on the other hand I might need a stiff drink or two). 

Just back from TDC planning committee.

And the outcome was...........the draft Supplementary Planning Document that contained the proposal re accessing the building sites via Sandy Lane and Elm Grove Drive was deferred for

further consideration and other options to be put forward by the planners. This document though will return to planning committee sometime in the future so we need to keep the pressure on.

Gatehouse planning app 15/02468/Maj - deferred

Langdon planning app 15/02700/Maj- approved.

And now as I have brain ache I'm going to have a nice cup of tea, a huge cream cake and a lay down in a darkened room. (the stiff drink or two might come later).  

PS I understand that BBC local tv news was carrying a feature about this matter lunchtime today. So i guess they will do the same but with more update details on the early evening news.

thanks for confirming @Lynne.

I am having my stiff cup of tea now, after being told that by the oposition that my statement on sewage was wrong because they are going to spend a large amount of money building a collection tank for the sewage which can be pumped away in an even steady flow. That is down a 6 inch diameter pipe that is taking all of Bovis / Cavanage and Strongvox. So that will not be a problem just like the existing system is not a problem. It must be our imagination when we came back to the odour from the shutterton pumping station.

Anyone else see a looming irony concerning this sewage problem potentially having an adverse affect on the beaches and quality of the sea water and thus the tourist industry.

Dawlish Warren to lose its blue flag status? 

Hi Ken. funnily enough I am also just sitting down to a stiff cup of tea!

I am very pleased Teignbridge have listened to our concerns today, but it is the Dawlish public who should take a bow. Without their massive support - almost 600 on-line signatures and 200 more on paper - the chances of having our voices heard would have been far lower.

While I am disappointed that the Langdon application got the nod at this point in time, in a more positive light it may pave the way for an earlier completion of the link road, as a third of it now looks assured. If we could just get two Dawlish brothers to shake hands on a deal, the remainder of the link road could be built much quicker than feared. Failing that, if TDC and DCC were so minded, only two thirds of the total cost of the link road (and associated infrastructure) would need to be found in order to build it up-front.

Cause for some optimism? I hope it lasts!

From the Gazette

http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/article.cfm?id=101544&headline=Councillors%20put%20Dawlish%20Development%20Framework%20Plan%20on%20hold&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2016

@Gary Taylor sorry gary yes the people of dawlish must take a bow especially those who stood up and led the online campaign well done to them. the dawlish councillors also did well in putting forward their questions and in noting that the residents  in dawlish have had enough of being held to ransom by some developers.  now perhaps the planning department will carry the message back to the developers if they havent already and get them to get on and deliver what is needed a link road starting at the a379 and all of the proper infrastructure built before the houses.

But most of all can the message get back to central goverment that the planning system that they supposedly fixed with the re write they did is more broke now than it ever was. Communities have to fight an uphill battle against developers, planners and some local politicians who seem intent on just building houses regardless of local need.

Now on 600 signatures.

How does the DA2 development framework down for executive on May 17th effect the site access issues re: Sandy Lane etc?

Bit thick on this subject as to the immense amount of official documentation. Does the potential outcome of this meeting rubber stamp the Sandy lane access to be the one for the distant future?

From what I have read the Sainsbury roundabout access would only go forward if the numerous developers across the seperate sites achieve a specific number of sales per plot. In other words if the developers don't sell enough dwellings then they WON'T be building the access road anytime soon. I may be wrong, but that's my interpretation of the situation.

Can anyone explain what will happen at the exec meeting in simple language?

The only agenda I can find is for the next TDC Exec meeting due to take place on April 12th.

https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/article/22204/12-April-2016

The DA2 Supplementary Planning Document was originally going to be discussed at that meeting but it

got deferred at the TDC planning meeting on Tuesday so that alternatives could be looked into concerning how, and

over what time scale etc, 'the road' could be put in.  

See my comment on BarbaraWils68's new thread about the May 17th meeting.   

After the TDC planning committee meeting on Tuesday I checked with one of the planning

committee councillors that was I correct in thinking that the DA2 SPD would have to come back to the

planning committee at a future meeting before it could go to the Exec. The councillor said that was the situation as far

as they were aware.  

Anyone know any different?

Here is the minute of Tuesday's TDC planning meeting referring to the DA2 Supplementary Planning Document

  Detailed minutes of this meeting will be available

on the Council’s website at a later date

1. Development Framework Plan – DA2 (North West Secmaton Lane) and

DA6 (Green Infrastructure), Dawlish

 Consideration deferred to enable further work with interested parties, in

particularly in relation to the delivery of the Link Road in its entirety.

(13 votes for and 1 abstention) 

Thanks for the info, but not the much wiser. Does that mean the link road will or will not be in the 17th April exec meeting?

Presumably if there are no details to be had about the meeting on the 17th April, agenda that is, then no one can be the wiser I suppose!

Good question, BEE9.

You might expect that with the Portfolio Holder for Planning & Housing, SW Dawlish Teignbridge and Town Councillor Humphrey Clemens, having declared the result of Tuesday's TDC Planning Committee Meeting as 'probably the right decision for Dawlish' at the following day's Town Council Meeting, the other members of the executive would think very carefully before taking any further action to upset Dawlish residents - but it would be wrong to be complacent about such matters.

Since your posting it would appear unlikely that the matter will go to Exec before it comes back for approval by TDC Planning. Whether this would be early enough for a decision to be taken before the Exec Meeting on May 17th would seem a tight deadline.

What is hoped will also be considered is that with outline permission now having been granted for the Langdon site, the momentum for development could now switch from west to east. With 200 now approved for Langdon and with a 'goody bag' of benefits (a 64-bed care home, employment, SANGS, etc - PLUS a third of the link road starting at Sainsbury's) it would be difficult to imagine why this scheme could not now come forward as the lead development site. The whole of the DA2 site 20-year Local Plan allocation comprises space for 'at least' 860 houses, so there is a four year supply at Langdon. In this context, TDC could afford to sit on its hands and wait for the landowners at Secmaton and Gatehouse to build the link road sequentially and safely, without any need for compulsion - or a diminution of Dawlish's 25% Affordable Housing quota.

An over-simplification, no doubt - but in my view (and I hope in the view of the PH for Planning & Housing) a policy 'masterplan' the town could unite behind.

@BEE9 - the link road will not now be on the agenda for the 12th april exec meeting. 

As I said, it was scheduled to have been there but due to the planning committee's decision that more investigation etc needs to be done re

the provision of 'the road', it will not now be on the Exec agenda on the 12th April.

As far as I am aware, once the alternatives etc have been fully explored  then a report will go to the planning committee BEFORE it goes

to the TDC Exec.  

And before anyone asks, I have no idea when that will be.

All,

take a look at @Gary Taylor's post again. and think about what it is implying.

Might it be the case that TDC Planning Committee have, and by complete chance,  potentially solved the acccess/egress site traffic dilemma caused by the lack of 'the road'?

No need for site traffic to go along the Elm Grove area if the Langdon site is built first and the rest of the DA2 area gets built in

an east to west direction, is there?

I appreciate that still doesn't resolve the no right turn at Elm Grove Road from the Exeter Road issue with regard to non site traffic but

it would mean no more site traffic going along the residential Elm Grove area once the smaller Gatehouse developments (that have already got planning permission) have been completed. 

Then put into the mix the opening up of Carhaix Way as a through route from the top end of Elm Grove Road/Secmaton Lane through

to the Exeter Road and that would take a lot of traffic away from Sandy Lane and Elm Grove Drive and the Elm Grove Road/Exeter Road junction.

(Just to point out though I have no idea when CW will be open as a through route as it is presently at two different heights where it

meets).

Still, food for thought?  

Dawlish link road delivery options FINAL REPORT (final rev : March 2016)

https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=46830&p=0

TDC and applicant's agent have agreed an extension of time to 8th June 2016 re planning app ref 15/02468/maj

(that's the big one at Gatehouse for some 400+ residential units, plus extra care unit, etc)    

Are the developers not locals if my info is correct should we not be targetting them.

The landowners are most certainly locals.

Though who ends up building on the land is anyone's guess.

So far around here we've had the following developers: Redrow, Bovis, Cavanna, Barratts and Strongvox.

Thanks Lynne. A good opportunity for a straw poll perhaps?

Out of these five, who's the best? And who gets the wooden spoon?

Points out of 10. 

Well, yes, we could indulge ourselves provided of course that we remember that irrespective of which 

developer we might think has done the best job what we think won't have any bearing whatsoever on

which developer(s) build the new housing still in the pipeline.  

So what will decide who builds what and where? Money?

Money - or profit - will of course be a major determining factor.

The price of the land, the build costs, the infrastructure and other site and development outgoings will all have an impact on a developer's bottom line, but market stability is also a factor - as is the size of the land parcels. A large national house builder for instance may have the ecomomies of scale to build more profitably in the short term when sales are good, but would also have the resource to enable a longer term view to be taken on the purchase of a largersite. A smaller local or regional builder however would probably score better on sites for tens of houses rather than hundreds, as they would minimise exposure to risk. Profit will also largely determine what will get built. While there are Local Plan policies that determine the percentage of 'Affordable Homes' that should come forward, the remainder will be built to suit the most profitable demands of the market. 

Coming back to the suggested straw poll, each of the builders listed above (other house builders are available) would seem to have ridden out the last few years well enough, however each also would appear to have a different take on what type and style of house people want. 

Call it an indulgence if you like, but as a Steering Group member of the resuscitated Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan (which I hope in the future can help inform builders about the sort of houses people in Dawlish believe should be built) I can assure anyone who wishes to contribute any feedback on this subject that it will be used to good effect. 

Okay then. A councillor said to me only the other day, and I agree with what she said, that we need more housing in Dawlish

to suit the needs of those over 50.  She said and I quote "it isn't only the young that need help with housing".

Someone else (an ex councillor as it happens) suggested a retirement village.

We (this household) will be seeking to downsize sometime in the not too distant future. We would like a three bedroom bungalow, with a bit of

a garden but not one that needs a lot of time and effort (because as we age we ain't got the energy and muscle power that

we had when younger).

So can you put in 'the pot' all the above please.

Ta.   

It seems, to me, that those developers building in Dawlish have the following set of rules:-

Maximise house build/density over green area's

Build a garage, but build it to the smallest dimensions possible. Unless you have a smart car or a push bike it won't go in and if it does you won't be able to get out when it is.

Houses to be built  with the smallest windows possible. Plus side, for developers, is it makes the houses look bigger and cuts heat emissions from the house for the relevant reports. The fact you get very little light coming into the house and you have to have the windows open most of the time to ventilate the house i.e. like living inside a black bin bag! On top of that the houses get little sunlight as they are always in the shadow of one house or another as the day progresses.

Woefully unprovide for, realistic, vehicle number, especially when it comes to the blocks of flats.

Pay little or no attention to ingress/egress routes, sewage, local facilities, privacy for the intended home occupants.

Profit, profit, profit........There is no other way to descibe it..Oh, greed I suppose and little thought or respect to others.

In my opinion TDC planning dept certainly has not had the Dawlish/Warren current occupants best interests at heart during this rather dismal planning saga, but woe betide you build a tree house in your back garden or put up a miniscule summer house without planning permission!!!

People (the electorate) need to understand that ALL councillors are voted in by you, to look after your interests in a democratic way. If your councillor votes in a certain way on a particular topic, we should all no about which way they voted. It is called transparency and transparency is being flouted day in and day out - WHY? because we let it happen. We are not interested until it affects an idividual or a group of individuals and then there is protest. But the way loacal authorities work, there are many ways that proposals for something are slipped in under the radar and many people do not know about any proposal until it is too late.IF YOUR COUCILLOR IS WORTH HIS SALT, THEN ANY PROPSAL (for whatever) GOING ON IN HIS OR HER AREA SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE AREA. It is not rocket science.

Your councillor is fast enough sending out flyers when they are after your vote - get them to do more than that. Get them to open up, get them to me more transparent and get them to argue your case.

Good grief! It's Viaduct! I haven't seen a posting on here from Viaduct for quite a few years now.

Totally agree about the transparency issue by the way.  It could be simply rectified by having every vote taken being recorded. At the 

moment this only happens if a certain number of Cllrs request that the vote be recorded.

To return to GT's request for ideas - 'owzabout a certain number of allotments to be provided per a certain number of 

new dwellings built? 'owsabout solar panels to be fitted to all suitably sun facing (ie not north) roofs of new build dwellings.?

'owsabout all new builds having wide enough doors for a wheelchair user to be able to get through? 'owsabout having all sockets

in the rooms being, say, half way up the wall, and not down towards the floor?  

I miss the transparency of Michael Clayson and Robert Vickery

Well said Viaduct and Roberta.

Thanks for the input on tranparency, Viaduct and roberta. Totally agree. Co-incidentally, this is what I had penned earlier today in response to a report that the new TDC electronic voting system at Forde House (which was live-tested to shambolic effect at the planning committee meeting on 5th April) which currently allows the voting pattern of the Councillors to become available via a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request, will be doctored so that it cannot:

'... as was said at the meeting, it would have been much quicker for a named vote to have been taken (for all of the motions). Elsewhere, planning decisions go to a recorded named vote (unless the decision is unanimous) - the same should happen here in Teignbridge. This new electronic system at least appears to have the benefit of allowing a Councillor to understand if the correct button had been pressed (if any) for the motion in front of them (per the 10/1 vote at 10.24 and the 11/3 vote at 10.27). Having now realised this useful information would make voting results publicly available via a FOI [which revealed the miss-cue above] the powers-that-be want a cover-up. This would deny the public a more transparent and democratic process and should in my view be resisted.'

BTW, a public named vote was requested at that meeting (which was allowed, having gained the agreement of a minimum of five Councillors) so the names of those who voted on the motion to defer the development framework for DA2 (proposed by Jackie Brodie, seconded by Alistair Dewhirst) will appear in the minutes of the meeting, which will follow. FYI, as reported in the press, there were no votes against, eleven for and one abstention.  

According to the notes I made at the meeting there were 15 planning committee councillors present

One Cllr had to declare an interest having made the error of having predetermined the Dawlish items. So she left the council chamber. 

So that left 14. According to the notes I made at the time, 13 voted for the DA2 development framework to be deferred and

one Cllr abstained. 

The next agenda item was the Gatehouse one (15/02468/MAJ) for 400+ dwellings etc. According to my notes by the time the vote was taken the number of Cllrs had reduced to 13. All of whom voted for this planning application also to be deferred.

Then the next agenda item was for the Langdon development (15/02700/MAj) 200 + dwellings etc. I seem to remember that a recorded vote

was called for but not enough Cllrs supported the call so therefore I do not know which councillors voted which way. However, according to

my notes 8 voted for the application to be approved, 4 voted against. I can't remember any abstentions.

We will have to wait for the official minutes to go online to see if my notes tally with them

But I totally agree that the TDC electronic voting system was a complete and utter farce.  

Apologies. Yes that was 13 for deferral and 1 abstention on the Development Framework vote.

Gatehouse was 13 for deferral, no abstentions, none against.

Langdon was 8 for approval (Cllrs Austen, Bullivant, Haines, Kerswell, Price, Prowse, Smith, Winsor) and 4 against (Brodie, Clarance, Dewhirst, Pilkington) according to the FOI documentation.

I nearly choked on my cocoa when I read Roberta's comment of 15.28. Not surprised Morty Vicker agreed! You would be shocked if you all new the half of it when it comes to lack of transparency in the last administration. The proposed building of the slug on the lawn was not the only deceitful piece of skulduggery! 

And to think that a certain ray of sunshine on here recently had the nerve to wrongly accuse me of "destroying interesting threads" on here. I assume that Margaret's insinuations will be laid bare for us all to form our own opinions. I fear however that she's still drinking her "cocoa"...

I knew that would bring out the real Mrs C!! 

Seeing as you've single-handedly managed to drag this thread down, are you going to sunstantiate your allegations? If not, then please apologise to Roberta and I for dragging us into your pathetic feud. 

In the interests of transparency, here are the heads of what was being discussed at the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan meeting on 5th April (minutes to appear on Dawlish Town Council website once approved at the next meeting on 3rd May):

Features of New Housing Developments

Water run-off, Permeable Materials, Drainage

Insulation, Solar Power and Alternatives

Broadband and Mobile Coverage

Housing Style and Design Variety

Community Features

Post Boxes

Car and Bicycle Parking, and Traffic Access

Villages and Rural Areas

(Green Spaces will be discussed at the next meeting on 3rd May. Members of the public welcome)

Yes Margaret, it is not fair to make such outspoken accusations without providing factual evidence.

While I am no fan of 'The Slug' (nor for that matter any proposal to permanently reduce the amount of green space on The Lawn) in all of my dealings with Michael Clayson and Bob Vickery I have found them nothing but helpful, hard-working, open-minded and courteous.

Their terms in office has also, in my view, helped raise the bar in local governance through their determination to deliver what they believe is best for our town (sometimes in the face of unexpected headwinds) alongside due diligence.

Gary, can you post a link on here please that will take us to the minutes of past DNP#2 minutes.

It was given out publicly in a copy of the Town Crier a few editions back but I've mislaid both that copy

of the Town Crier and the link. 

No problem, Lynne. Link to DNP#2 below:

http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/neighbourhoodplan.php

If for any reason that does not work, go to the Dawlish Town Council website: www.dawlish.gov.uk and click on the Neighbourhood Plan tab. 

Yes, that's the link and it works

http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/neighbourhoodplan.php

Thank you

Yes, I was still drinking my cocoa, coconut flavoured Cabury's Options to be precise. And yes, happy to provide lots of evidence. Please get in touch.

Thanks for the precise detail about your diet cocoa, it's just a pity that you can't be so detailed about substantiating your vile slurs. Obviously asking for an apology from you was more in hope than expectation, but there you go. 

@Morty Vicker - john 8:7

Thanks for the link to a fairytale BEE9. How apt. 

BTW, you never answered my previous question to you asking you to point out to me what I need to apologise for. Have a good afternoon, sunshine. 

A footnote on matters of transparency: apparently last Friday's Teignbridge District Council Planning Committee meeting was again plagued by gremlins within the whizzy new secretive push button voting machinery.

Seems that an old fashion show of hands was used to good effect on at least one occasion. 

In a democratic society, this voting system is fundamentally flawed. It would seem the systems electronics are similarly affected.

... but the issue of how (or if) the link road will be built has not gone away.

Rumour has it that such matters are to be discussed at the Executive on  14th June.  Below is a schedule of June meetings at Teignbridge at which a decision could be made:

Planning 1 June 2016 9.45 am

Executive 14 June 2016 10.00 am

Planning 28 June 2016 9.45 am

Agendas for each of these meetings should be made available on the Teignbridge website at least one full week beforehand.

Some 674 signatures on the e-petition petition so far. If you have not already signed it, there could be a very good reason for doing so now...

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/humans-before-houses-build-the-link-road-first

And I wonder if at any of those meetings there will be an agenda item concerned with the new Housing

and Planning Act and how it will impact on the Teignbridge Local Plan in general and the provision

of Affordable Housing in particular. 

This looks serious - a decision on DA2 and the Link Road is to be taken in part I (Item 7) with futher details to be held in closed session in Part II (Item 13):

Agenda, reports and minutes of the Planning Committee to be held on 1 June 2016

PLANNING COMMITTEE

A meeting of the above Committee which will take place on 1 June , 2016 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Forde House, Newton Abbot at 9.45 a.m.

Neil Aggett
Democratic Services Manager

Distribution: Councillors Smith (Chairman), Kerswell (Vice Chairman)
Austen, Bladon, Brodie, Bullivant, Clarance, Colclough, Dennis, Ford, Fusco, Johnson-King, Jones, Orme, Parker, Pilkington, Price, Prowse, Rollason, Walters and Winsor

Substitutes: Councillors Cox, Dewhirst, Golder, Haines, Hocking, Klinkenberg, Nutley, Russell and Thorne#

PART I

7. Development Framework Plan - DA2 (North West Secmaton Lane) and DA6 (Green Infrastructure), Dawlish.

 DA2 Report and Apps [7Mb]

PART II
(Private)

Items which may be taken in the absence of the Public and Press on the grounds that Exempt Information may be disclosed. Local Government Act 1972 (Section 100 and Schedule 12A) - Reports in Part II of this agenda which contain exempt information are confidential and exempt.

12. Exclusion of the Public and Press - the Committee is recommended to approve the following resolution:

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

13. Development Framework Plan - DA2 (North West Secmaton Lane) and DA6 (Green Infrastructure), Dawlish.

If Councillors have any questions relating to predetermination or interests in items on this Agenda, please contact the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

If it's being discussed by elected officials then the electorate have every right to know. Without full disclosure by our elected representatives I can only assume something is a little whiffy behind the scene's.

OK, so here is the nitty gritty from the DA2 report concerning the link road:

Measures to accelerate delivery of the completed link road On 5 April 2016, following concerns raised including concerning traffic impacts on residential streets and safety of school children to the south of Gatehouse Farm, the Planning Committee deferred their decision on the Framework Plan.

This allowed officers to carry out further discussions with interested parties, in particularly in relation to exploring how the delivery of the Link Road may be achieved more quickly. Officers have taken this opportunity to respond to Councillor and public opinion and have held discussions with various stakeholders about their views on the best ways to bring the link forward.

Through these discussions, it has been confirmed that: - developers intend to bring forward a planning application on area 3 this year

The County Council will now wait to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order requiring right turn movements from the A379 on to Sandy Lane until any such time as the impact of turning onto Elm Grove road becomes unacceptable. As a result the DFP document has been amended to make the following changes set out below by Development Area. Officers consider that these measures are the furthest the Council can go in pushing for early delivery of the link road within the existing planning policy context. 

Development Area 4 [Langdon] : Use Construction Management Plan to require construction traffic to go north as soon as feasible; Development Area 4 must also not unreasonably withhold agreement to allow construction traffic from development elsewhere in the allocation, allowing access north over their land to Sainsbury’s roundabout as soon as the link road is constructed, including prior to adoption of the link road by the Highway Authority.

Development Area 3 [Secmaton Farm] : Use Construction Management Plan to require construction traffic to go north as soon as feasible; Construction traffic from Development Area 3 must travel north to the Sainsbury’s roundabout as soon as a link is made. Development Area 3 must also not unreasonably withhold agreement to allow construction traffic from Development Area 2 to travel north over their land to Sainsbury’s roundabout as soon as the link road is constructed, including prior to adoption of the link road by the Highway Authority.

In Development Area 2 [Gatehouse Farm] : Use Construction Management Plan to require construction traffic to go north as soon as feasible; Construction traffic from Area 2 must travel north to Sainsbury’s roundabout as soon as the link road is completed, including when link road is completed but not yet adopted by the Highway Authority.

And TDC are threatening Compulsory Purchase Orders if there is deemed to be any unnecessary delay in the building of the road.

And this is interesting:

The delivery of a completed link road as described is strategically important to the sustainability of this allocation and the existing community. The Council will therefore consider the need to use Compulsory Purchase powers to ensure and if necessary accelerate its delivery. CPO powers could be used where any area of land within the allocation (which is necessary for the delivery of the link road) does not gain planning permission in a timely manner and at least by 2020 for development which broadly accords with the aims of this Development Framework Plan and the Local Plan. The Council will also consider using Compulsory Purchase powers where the development of the link road within any Development Area fails to commence within a reasonable period or at least by 2021.

@GT - Snap!

This is also new:

Minimising the impact of traffic

3.35 Construction traffic can be minimised by requiring developers to work together and bring construction traffic to the north as soon as feasible. Developers should work together and not unreasonably withhold agreement to allow traffic to pass over their land, if necessary subject to reasonable maintenance costs being agreed.

3.36 Construction traffic from Development Area 4 must travel north to the Sainsbury’s roundabout. Development Area 4 must also not unreasonably withhold agreement to allow construction traffic from Development Areas 2 and 3 to travel over their land to Sainsbury’s roundabout as soon as the link road (and bridge) is constructed, including prior to its completion to adoption standards and/or adoption by the Highway Authority. The same principle applies to Development Area 3 allowing construction traffic from Development Area 2.

3.37 To achieve this, developers will need to agree (possibly via Construction Environment Management Plans (CEMP) or agreement of S106) the terms of any reasonable access arrangements and any necessary reasonable maintenance costs. This may also include contributions towards the monitoring of construction traffic to the south of the allocation to ensure any construction vehicles using this route and surrounding roads are complying with the CEMP.

A good nudge, Purrrrrfect. Today we have full disclosure of the item that was to take place in private in Part II of the meeting.:

13. Development Framework Plan - DA2 (North West Secmaton Lane) and DA6 (Green Infrastructure), Dawlish.

NOTE: This item will be taken in the public part of the meeting and is now on the Council's website as appendix 5 under item 7

7. Development Framework Plan - DA2 (North West Secmaton Lane) and DA6 (Green Infrastructure), Dawlish.

 DA2 Report and Apps [7Mb]
 Appendix 5 [148kb]

Appendix 5 makes for interesting reading - it is concerned with the various options for getting the link road built.

@GT - Why the change of heart on TDC's part re now having this in Part 1 and not Part II of the meeting? 

The six options that have been explored since the Development Framework Plan was deferred in March can now be viewed in Appendix 5 (above).

Due to document tabulation, it would probably best to go on-line to see what has been considered in each of these options, together with the implications and the possible outcomes.

As you say Lynne, it does make interesting reading.

As for why TDC have gone public, your guess is as good as mine. Let's hope we will see more such important disclosure in the future.

Nothing has changed, Elm Grove Drive and Sandy Lane are still going to take the brunt of the traffic and all will go past Gatehouse School.  The fact that Area 3 are to put a planning application in for November means nothing, since it will take minimum of 6 months to gain outline and that is if there is if there are no issues.  Then it is matters reserved, so  it could be 18 months before they even cut turf.  Oh and then all the infrastructure and services have to be put in before any house is started, so it could be 2 years before a brick is layed.  So good luck to those who live in Elm Grove Drive, Sandy Lane and especially Carhaix Way as it will be hell.  There is also the fact that with all the sites building at the same time the market will be flooded and drive down prices and then the developers will stop building because they will not be able to achieve the price needed to make each house a viable prospect.  Meanwhile those houses that do get built will need to keep using the only routes provided.  Brexit might also stall the whole developmen so there are many factors to consider and nothing is as it appears: A Treasury report on the short-term impact of Brexit, due for publication next week, predicts people's homes would lose between 10% and 18% of their value by 2018.http://news.sky.com/story/1699719/ids-calls-osborne-pinocchio-over-brexit-claim  

From the underlined comment it appears that no study has been done regarding precise figures.  Therefore, why say it is acceptable without carrying out a survey to get a grasp of the situation?

September 2015 DCC Highways

Dawlish DA2 Development Framework: Briefing Note on Elm Grove Road Junction Improvements and Link Road to Sainsburys Junction 

In capacity terms only, a further 250 – 270 dwellings could be accommodated by this junction without further improvements. This is fully taken up by the remaining dwellings with planning permission but which have not yet been built or occupied. In addition the increased level of traffic movements raises potential safety concerns regarding the interaction with the high number of school children at peak times. This includes the need for children to safely access the new cycle route on the south side of Exeter Road. A junction improvement scheme incorporating pedestrian and cycle crossings will be required before any further planning permissions are granted, including the current site 2 application. 

https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=45539&p=0

Dawlish DA2 Allocation Junction Modelling Report December 2015 

6.1.6 It is recognised that whilst junction capacities are an important factor, the suitability of the links between them must also be considered. Elm Grove Road, Elm Grove Drive and Sandy Lane are all lined by existing residential properties to a greater or lesser degree. Elm Grove Road also includes both Dawlish Community College (approx. 740 students plus staff) and Gatehouse primary school (planned to expand with development), both of which generate significant peaks in travel at opening and closing times. Sandy Lane has width restrictions at its northern end at the junction with Elm Grove Drive. There is also general ‘friction’ to movement in the areas around the two schools at peak times although this is for a limited period and will mostly impact on the morning peak. place precise figures These factors create some air quality, noise and safety issues compared to the current situation although it is difficult to place precise figures on them.. 

https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=46833&p=0

well said @Barbarawils68.

And another thing - way back a few years when someone, somewhere, first had the thought that the land that presently comprises Gatehouse

and Secmaton Farms could be developed for housing did they not think through how the development traffic and then the conseqeuential increase in residential traffic would access those sites?

This is one almighty **** up!

Who is to blame? 

Far be it from me to point the finger Lynne - but it is disappointing to learn that TDC appear still to be running scared of the threat of a developer going to appeal. Do they not consider that the safety of our residents and school children is worth the fight?

So still no link road first, the whole mess is just one big F*** up by TDC and there has to be a clear out of the incompetents that work there starting with the Chief Executive.

From the TDC document concerning the threat of an Appeal (my emphasis in bold). Area 2 = Gatehouse Farm.  

@Gary Taylor re your post above. Shouldn't the question of safety for residents and children also be of paramount concern for

the landowners and developers involved?  

PS Forgot to say - TDC estimate the link road could be completed by 2021.

(but in the meantime..................?) 

Yes Lynne, you would expect so.

On the matter of the link road completion estimate, I guess the end date would depend on whether the TDC suggested 'build-out' rate is accurate. According to Appendix 5 (copied again below) the whole of DA2 will be completed by 2024/5 at which point in time the likely prohibition of a right turn into Elm Grove Road will already have been acted upon.

But DA2 is supposed to provide a 20-year supply of housing of 'at least 860 homes', a figure incidentally well above government census housing projections at the inception of 'Plan Teignbridge'. Is it likely that a developer would want to risk flooding the market and suffer low profit margins as a result of building at twice the rate required? 

If you believe not, then the link road completion could still be some ten years away.

However, assuming the estimated 'build out' rate is accurate, given that the link road will not be completed in each land area until 50 houses are built and occupied, it would be 2021/22 (not 2020/21 as stated by TDC in the appendix, table 2) before area 3 would connect to area 2 for access for construction traffic.

So construction trucks going past the two schools in Elm Grove Road for another six to ten years. After that, residential traffic to use Sandy Lane and Elm Grove Drive for access to the whole of Elm Grove Road if turning right (heading south) from Exeter Road.

Everyone happy?

  Appendix 5 [148kb]

As a new resident on the Bovis estate, I missed the September meeting(s) regarding future construction etc.

Most of my car trips out, down Elm Grove Road, are to travel east towards Exeter, so the mythical Secmaton Avenue Link Road would be a great boon, particularly at school exit times.  If it is to be maybe six or eight years off (or at all?) will I soon be able to drive from the Bovis estate directly onto Carhaix Way to save a couple of miles?  None of my new neighbours seem sure.  Is there perhaps a plan to avoid that estate turning into a 'rat run'?

Is Carhaix Way still not linked up yet then? I know the two different bits have met up but last time I was up there they were still at two

different heights!

As far as I remember TDC had it in mind that the two bits should meet and become one through road (otherwise why have them meet up?).

If they are still at different heights then I can only imagine it is because of legal wranglings (like who is responsible for the mismatch in

height and therefore who has to cough up the dosh to put it right). 

But yes, once it is a through road, as was intended, I think it will indeed become a rat run (as was anticipated by quite a few of us some

years back and pointed out to the powers that be. But were we taken any notice of? Well, what do you think?).

BTW that Carhaix Way has been built at two difffernt heights doesn't exactly bode well for the different bits of the link road being

built to meet up exactly, does it?   

Thanks for that Lynne.  You don't imagine a row of bollards then?

Well, funny you should say that as I do remember suggesting that very thing or something along those lines like  

bollards that can go up and down provided you have an electronic key or something similar. This would allow buses to go

along but not private vehicles.

Think it got dismissed though because of emergency vehicles maybe needing to traverse the whole of Carhaix Way.

But you could always raise the suggestion again with the powers that be and see what joy (if any) you get.

Time to start lobbying councillors before next Wednesday's planning meeting.

Please can people who read this alert those who live in Elm Grove Road, EG Drive, Sandy Lane and Carhaix Way to what is being proposed and how it will impact on their lives.

Let's start with our Dawlish councillors

Cllrs Price and Prowse are both members of the planning committee

Cllr Clemens is the senior councillor in charge of Housing and Planning.

Graham.Price@teignbridge.gov.uk  tel; 07970 892093

Lisa.Mayne@teignbridge.gov.uk tel: 01626 865680

Edward.Hockin@teignbridge.gov.uk tel: 01626 862088

Rosalind.Prowse@teignbridge.gov.uk tel: 01626 866621

Humphrey.Clemens@teignbridge.gov.uk tel: 01626 863020

Lynne do not forget all the Cllrs that sit on the planning committee, since they are the ones who will vote it through or defer it.

I see in appendix 5 that TDC have individually spoken to the 3 main landowners, but Area 5 are being asked to contribute, so why were they not included?  First TDC do not print their comments, since they must have made some in relation to the Public Consultation and now they are excluded from talks!  Also why did they meet with the landowners individually and not call a further landowners meeting so that concerns could be openly discussed? Now each landowner is not aware of what the TDC reps have said to the other, which does not bode well for working in a partnership for the greater good of Dawlish.

It concerns me that the document could get through this time and there is no guarantee that the landowners will agree to the terms within it, in the longterm.  These new conditions they want to force on those landowners who are to provide the link road, may not be acceptable and this would leave TDC with an unworkable document.  Maybe the Planning Cllrs should defer the document once again, since Langdon has set a precedent being passed ahead of the Framework, so others could also now be passed.  The point is the Framework should be sound and from where I am I would not bet my life on it.  The Councillors would be better calling a meeting, just them and the landowners and find out if what TDC are saying is actually factually true and achieveable because TDC have tried to mislead at every opportunity.  The town doesn't need the fiasco of last July when bully boy tactics were used to drive the Framework document through committee so as it could go out to public consultation, knowing fair well the Landowners did not agree to its content.

Also what are DTC doing about this?  As we can see with Redrow those houses do go up fast once started, so the trigger to put a no right turn on Elm Grove Road could come sooner, much sooner than predicted.  I would like to know what they have planned and what they are doing to delay the process until there is more clarity.  Once this document is in then we are all stuck with it and we do not want it passed just so TDC can tick a box to say it is done, regardless of the consequences.

I haven't forgotton the TDC planning cllrs at all.

I said let's start with our Dawlish cllrs.

And re your last para - have you contacted the DTC councillors to ask them that very question?

How to contact Dawlish Town Councillors - click on this link http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/edit/uploads/1566.pdf and then scroll down to the last page.

There you'll find who they are and their email addresses and telephone numbers. 

Town councillors receiving a briefing today (Friday 27th) re DA2&DA6 Framework.

http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/edit/uploads/1858.pdf

(see agenda item 19)

Express & Echo article

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/New-road-1-000-homes-Dawlish-discussion/story-29324923-detail/story.html#ixzz49rc8CJKO

Great you would think the Cllrs would have had an emergency meeting, being that the Draft Development Framework is going back to the TDC Planning Committee on the 1st of June in the MORNING and the DTC meeting is in the EVENING!  It is no use having a meeting in the evening and discussing the topic, since TDC could have passed it by then.  I guess that is why TDC have slotted the decision onto the back of a holiday again, so that they hope lots of the members are going to be away or their eye is off of the ball since it is a family time.

@Barbarawils68 - yes, similar thoughts had gone through my mind. 

https://www.facebook.com/DawlishDeservesBetter/?pnref=story 

"On Friday 27th May 2016, Dawlish town councillors were invited to attend a presentation from the Teignbridge District Council planning department: Simon Thornley, Alex Lessware, Phil Shears, and team. They explained the options for accelerating the building of the Link Road, that we are demanding, that they had explored.

Three Dawlish town councillors re-emphasised the urgent need for the link road to be built first, before any further house-building on the new developments is allowed. We re-iterated the need to put human lives and safety first, before landowners' greed and instant profits.

On Wednesday 1st June 2016, the Planning Committee of Teignbridge District Council will meet to discuss the DA2 Development Framework for these house-building developments, and will make a decision that will have an effect on all Dawlish residents for at least the next 20 years.

Please help us keep the pressure up for the the Link Road to be built first.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/…/humans-before-houses-build-t…

I heard Ros Prowse was expecting her comments to reach the Dawlish Gazette and she was right.  Here is the Gazette's take on it.

The comment that worries me is this:

However, a suggestion for the developers to jointly procure the road was ruled out as the landowners were ‘unwilling’ to co-operate.

So if they are unwilling to work together, what makes any of us sure that they are not going to challenge the 50 house trigger to build their part of the link road?  If they can prove this is not viable off of the back of 50 houses, then the amount rise substantially above that.  

Meanwhile the middle section have not even put in for planning and are not intending to until at least November and from my earlier post the Elm Grove Road capacity will be exceeded by any new houses above those who already have permission.  

Can I also state another worry, if there is an accident outside of Gatehouse Barns and the road closed, where is the traffic going to go? Is it going to be trapped, since as I have said there is no timeframe for the Carhaix road mix up to be sorted out to enable the hight of the road to be made the same. Is there another route through the new developments that will bypass this busy bit of road, that will now become even busier? Does anyone know what the Plan B is?

Here is the article everyone in Dawlish needs to see:

http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/article.cfm?id=102686

click on this to go directly to the Gazette article http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/article.cfm?id=102686

Text of letter on this matter in today's Gazette. (the letter that was published had been edited slightly). 

"At the end of March I wrote a letter concerning the impending increase in traffic to be endured by the residents of Elm Grove Road, Elm Grove Drive and Sandy Lane due to an increase in house building in the Gatehouse/Secmaton area  but with a corresponding lack of road linking that area with the Sainsbury’s roundabout and the A379.

The opening paragraph of that letter asked residents to read what I had to say. I am asking them to do the same again now because the contentious issue concerning this ‘missing’ Dawlish link road is on the agenda again at today’s (June 1st) Teignbridge District Council Planning Committee meeting.

For those living in the Elm Grove area I fear this latest proposal will not be of any great solace for although some may argue that what is now being proposed is better than what was on the table a few months back, TDC planners still do not envisage the link road being complete until 2021 and, of course, there is nothing to say that timescale will be met.

So between now and the next five years (minimum!) what might life be like for the residents of Elm Grove Road, Elm Grove Drive, Sandy Lane and also, let’s not forget, Carhaix Way.  Well, I’d hazard a guess they’ll be subject to more and more vehicles going past their homes along with all the noise, pollution and danger that accompanies such ever increasing amounts of traffic.

And don’t forget that this ever increasing residential and site traffic will be passing two schools on its way back and forth from the new developments/building sites.

I am sure I am not the only person in Dawlish who would love to know just who it was who decided it would be such good idea to have an urban extension to the town in the Gatehouse, Secmaton and Langdon areas (in Teignbridge District Council planning speak these areas are known as DA2).  Did they ever give any thought to the inevitable accompanying traffic issues and how these issues would be addressed? It would seem the answer to that question is, ‘No, they did not.'

Sadly it seems that as far as planning policies, developers, and landowners are concerned the building of houses and the making of profit take precedence over the quality of life and the safety of the towns’ residents and children."

On the question of safety. I have just gotten back from the town council meeting. It seems that it is police policy that issues concerning

traffic and safety will not be addressed until it is proven that there is a safety issue to be addressed. 

Will it have to wait until someone gets killed then?

The only advice I can give to people living in the Elm Grove area is that if they do not wish to have all this extra

residential and site traffic trundling past their doors, then if you possibly can, put your house up for sale and get out whilst you can.   

It looks like if people are affected by a Supplementary Planning Document they can do the following:

The final SPD, incorporating any modifications proposed as a result of consultation, was adopted at full council on Tuesday 1st April 2014.  Any person aggrieved by the decision to adopt the SCI/SPDs can apply to the High Court for permission to apply for a judicial review of that decision. Any such application must be made promptly and in any event be no later than 3 months from the date on which the SPD was adopted.http://www.sstaffs.gov.uk/your_services/strategic_services/planning_policy_-_local_plans/spds.aspx

The document will be adopted at the next executive

text of email sent to all TDC planning committee councillors. Carhaix Way residents take note!

"I thought to bring to your attention the cautionary tale of what can happen when bits of the same road are built but at different times and by different developers.

I have in mind the two halves of Carhaix Way, Dawlish, where the two halves of the road, recently built by two different developers, do indeed meet up but unfortunately they are at different heights!

I joke not.

I am sure TDC planning officers will be able to confirm the above as should any of the Dawlish Cllrs.

I thought to bring this highway issue to your attention as I note that the different bits of the link road in Areas 2,3,4 & 5 of DA2 will be built at different times and by different developers.

Let’s hope that not only will all the bits of the link road meet up but that they do so at the same height otherwise the link road will no more be a through road in some 5/6 years (or more?) time anymore than Carhaix Way is a through road today.

And Carhaix Way, if you look at its location, is, I would suggest, quite an integral highway in terms of relieving traffic flow in the Elm Grove area.  That said though, I have to say I can’t imagine anyone living along it or near it would necessarily be pushing for the road height to be rectified thus enabling traffic to flow its complete length.

After all, who would want an ever increasing amount of traffic flowing past their front doors? But that is what will happen when that height issue does eventually get resolved and if the link road is not in situ and open to through traffic."

“I find it very sad that the land we are arguing over comes under the ownership of Dawlish families who appear to be putting Dawlish residents through a great deal of stress and strain and inconvenience.”

Cllr Rosalind Prowse http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/article.cfm?id=102686

The planners at TDC looked at 5 options for how the link road could be delivered.

This is option no. 2. Note why it was deemed not feasible.

Option 2:

DEVELOPERS JOINTLY PROCURE LINK ROAD: Landowners to work together to procure and construct link road as soon as possible. This option would enable economies of scale in procurement and potential early delivery of completed road. LANDOWNERS ARE UNWILLING TO COOPERATE TO PROCURE LINK ROAD.

UPDATE ON THE DAWLISH LINK ROAD CAMPAIGN

On Friday 27th May 2016, Dawlish town councillors were invited to attend a presentation from the Teignbridge District Council planning department: Simon Thornley, Alex Lessware, Phil Shears, and team. They explained the options for accelerating the building of the Link Road, that we are demanding, that they had explored.

Three Dawlish town councillors re-emphasised the urgent need for the link road to be built first, before any further house-building on the new developments is allowed. We re-iterated the need to put human lives and safety first, before landowners' greed and instant profits.