General Discussion

@Lynne you're really beginning to depress me!

Sorry Flo - but it ain't me making all these decisions. I am but a piper who is playing but a more and more melancholic tune.

But.....to return to this Southdown Avenue development. Seems it is for 20 houses with 30% originally being for Affordable Housing.

Seems it is viability issues that is causing this no AH request. The viability issues are, of course,

confidential.

Yes me too!  There is a solution that the site provides either off site affordable on other land or a contribution towards off site provision.  There will be an increase in value on the remaining houses, therefore no reason why a contribution cannot be gained. The way it is going TDC need to release land and create their own affordable projects to meet their own targets, since it appears the developers do not want to or cannot do so in the current climate.  As seen from the recent reports in relation to DA2, most, if not all the sites will not be viable, so the first thing that will go is affordable, which is sad but true.  TDC have the land, but have they got the will or the finances to fill the affordable housing gap, even with monies gained from developers paying into off site provision pot?

Dawlish is slowly going downhill in terms of its amenities, shops and general well being. The councils (Dawlish, Teignbridge, DCC) seem to have autonomy in making any info about planning/projects that may cause public unrest  'confidential' when ever they please.

Planning, in my opinion, is sadly lacking when it comes to large housing developments. Especially in the case of safe ingress/egress from sites for the construction traffic.

Major development in this area is likely to increase over the next decade or so to cater for the increased population explosion that the governemnt has forcast. That means more pressure on the current infrastructure that is probably not going to be upgraded until it fails.

It seems the views/opinions of the local people count little when it comes to elected officials and their high and mighty attitudes.

Don't get me started on the millions that have been spent by Teignbridge council recently. When they say they are lacking money for basic/essential services. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I understand your frustration BEE9, but it would be wrong to lump Dawlish Town Council in with Teignbridge District and Devon County Councils. Leaving aside the differences in political make-up, since Teignbridge's Local Plan was settled, Dawlish Town Council and its Planning Committee have been fighting hard to retain our countryside and green open spaces, to encourage good design and higher architectural standards, and to bring forward infrastructure to match (not lag) demand. We also have taken a tough line on affordable hiousing provision and have been calling for all new development to meet the 25% Affordable Housing (AH) requirement of the Local Plan. 

I am deeply concerned about the growning number of developers and landowners claiming viabilty issues for not bringing forward their AH quotas. Redrow, Cavanna, Gatehouse and Langdon (to name but a few) - all guilty. Have  they paid too much for the land? Are they finding the costs of buildings unexpectly too high? Or is it that they know that the threat of a refused planning application going to a costly appeal will have Teignbridge throwing in the towel?

Time for the District Council to show some backbone. Making the viability calculations public would be a very good start.

@Gary Taylor..... i beg to differ, their (being whoever is in power at the time) track record of doing what is in the interest /best for the dawlish people is sadly lacking in my opinion. obviously we all have opinions and that is why dawlish.com is an excellant site for airing them.

Back last year I sent a letter about viability issues to our MP. In fact, I sent it twice but sad to

say, other than automated acknowlegement responses, I have never received

any reply from her.  

Would now be thinking of putting that letter and what I have written above in a further letter to the Gaz but at the moment I don't want to muddy the issues relating to the link road.  

But........

Point taken BEE9 - and there is much more to be done to change the perception of the work current being done by Town Council members on behalf of the Dawlish public. 

Gary since you have joined Dawlish Town Council more people are aware of what they are doing.  They can also see that when things matter DTC has a voice and is willing to stand up the Teignbridge.  It is a shame that Teignbridge only released evidence late on and over a holiday period, which was their intention to ensure it was difficult for the residents to act.  Any other time letters would have been circulated via the two schools to parents, so like the Government they are using the holiday as distraction and a way of reducing the communication networks.  With Warren Farm there were paper petitions, do you know of any out in the community and where people can sign?  If so could you let us know so those without a computer can make their views known.

Try this link, Barbarawils68. 

https://streetlife-uk-live-media.s3.amazonaws.com/conversations/4e/4e803173d8750d915a3be993e016ccf6debb0da9_o.pdf

I will post on the DA2 thread also.

@Gary Taylor

Admire your decision to comment on here, so perhaps you would like to add your opinion as to why 4 out of our 5 district councillors cant respond to a simple e-mail containing 3 straight foward questions for them to answer. Respect to the one that did Rosalind Prowse however even she very cleverly dodged giving direct answers to the questions.

Absolute disgracefull show of contempt for the electorate who finance their expenses and jollies.

Have just taken a look at this planning app.

Seems TDC has refused the request.

From the planning docs (my emphasis in bold red)

IN CORRESPONDENCE PLEASE QUOTE

APPLICATION REF NO: 16/00844/MOD

TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1990

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE)

(ENGLAND) ORDER 2015

REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF SECTION 106

Applicant: Cavanna Homes Agent: Ms L Wilkinson

C/o Agent D2 Planning

Suites 3 And 4

Westbury Court

Church Road

Westbury On Trym

Bristol

BS9 3EF

Location: DAWLISH - Land At Southdowns Road

Proposal: Cavanna Homes

Teignbridge District Council hereby refuse permission to modify the Section 106

Agreement dated 6 September 2013 on outline planning approval reference

13/00943/MAJ as described in the application validated on 21 March 2016 for the

following reasons:

The application seeks a reduction in the Affordable Housing requirement as set out in the

Section 106 Agreement dated 6 September 2013 on outline planning approval reference

13/00943/MAJ, without a demonstrable viability reason(s) and is therefore contrary to the

affordable housing site targets as set out in Policies WE2 (Affordable Housing Site

Targets) and DA4 (West of Southdowns Road) and National Planning Policy Framework.

INFORMATIVES

In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework

the Council works in a positive and pro-active way with Applicants and looks for solutions

to enable the grant of planning permission. However in this case the proposal is not

sustainable development for the reasons set out and the Council was unable to identify a

way of securing a development that improves the economic, social and environmental

conditions of the area.

Further details relating to this planning application, including the rejected plans and the

Officer’s Report, can be viewed at www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planningonline.

Dated: 18 April 2016 Nick Davies

 Business Manager – Strategic Place

Well, that's two Dawlish planning applications in the last two weeks where TDC planning officers have put the skids under development proposals with less than the required amount of Affordable Housing.

Let's hope TDC now sticks to its guns - otherwise for every AH that does not get built, 4 houses (1 AH and 3 open-market) will need to be provided elsewhere (given the 25% AH ratio per Plan Teignbridge policy for Dawlish with sites above 15 houses) if strategic targets are to be maintained. 

And I think at this point I'll flag up that the government is presently wishing to alter the

official definition of Affordable Housing to include Starter Homes costing up to £250,000.

So........if the government has its way, then even if the 25% AH target were to be met quite a bit of it might well comprise these new Starter Homes rather than Affordable Rental and Shared Ownership ones which is what TDC originally intended. 

Since when have homes costing up to £250,000 been er........Affordable?

Thank you Lynne

However, we keep looking at affordables and not the whole picture of what we want for Dawlish, a vibrant place and society.  What I am to say might not be what some might want to hear, but looking at other councils they have adapted their housing to acheive this.

TDC woud be better getting the money in leu for the affordables not wanted at South Down and put it in a pot to build affordables on land that they have control over and own!  Since all the owners will do is wait and then appeal, so it could end up a compromise with starter homes instead of affordable.  They could argue that affordables are impacting on what would be deemed executive homes in the adjacent area and these need protecting, since if business is to come to Dawlish these would be the types of housing that would attract them to relocate.  I cannot see any other executive types being built unless I have missed something? As for Redrow saying they have executive style housing, if you have made lots of money, and with the best wishes in the world, you have made it, most due to having to a new position in life would be looking for more expensive housing on exclusive estates and not next to affordable rented.  

Dawlish/TDC has failed to grasp the point of studies that show councils are now building exception sites of pure exectuve housing to attract businesses that wish to relocate, since part of the relocation is a lifestyle choice.  If you do not create the lifestye that these people want then they will look elsewhere and take their businesses with them.  Dawlish has few what I call mid to high end housing and this is where joined up thinking is not working, all that will happen is that by mixing the housing it makes it less desirable to those who have money and want to invest in Dawlish, so if you want the town to remain the poor relative to Teignmouth then keep going. We need to bring jobs to Dawlish and keep them in Dawlish! I think there needs to be a serious rethink on where Dawlish wants to be in 5-10 years time, because we are handing new businesses to other areas due to this failing.  Maybe the business community need to get involved with this one, as they are best placed to advise and this should be looked at by the Neighbourhood Planning Committee, since it would be in their remit.

The same goes for bungalows where are the exception site for these? It is clear that the developers do not want to build them, since they take up so much room, so maybe TDC should provide land and get local builders to build them.  Once again you have to sell a lifestyle change to those elderly who want to down size, but are not able to since all they are being offered is flats!  Only then will the larger family home be able to be taken up by families.  Without the true mix of housing that is catering for all needs, and I mean ALL, then Dawlish is not a rounded society! 

Well, wherever the affordable rental and shared ownership homes get built (assuming of course that they will!) the point is that there are people in this town who cannot afford to buy a home and need such housing.

And this is borne out by TDC's policy that 25% of the housing to be built in the Gatehouse/Secmaton/Langdon areas of the town should be of the affordable rental/shared ownership kind.

Totally agree about the need for more bungalows.

However, planning regulations etc nothwithstanding I guess what will get built will be what will bring the developers the most profit.   

@Barbarawils68

Can you let us know where this TDC owned land is within the parish of Dawlish where you are

suggesting that the affordable rental/shared ownership homes should be built. 

Thanks

What justification is there in supplying people with free/low cost housing just because the say they cannot afford to buy a house? Look how well the council house plan went over the decades. It just became one big giveaway by local authorities to make a few quid and slime out of their responsibilities.

As Barbarawil68 quite clearly and rightly points out. Those that are spending hundreds of thousands of hard earned pounds are not looking to buy several feet away from a much lesser property. Estate agents mantra has always been location, location, location and the current formula for varied lifestyle/prestige (or lack of it) is not condusive to the high rollers buying into these type of estates.

The developer's are fully aware of this and will do everything in their power's to wriggle out of anything that cuts their profit margin. That's just the way the REAL world works!

Well, some might ask what justification is there, via the government's Starter Home scheme,  that home buyers should be subsidised by the taxpayer (Starter Homes are to be at 80% price of full market price homes.)  

When the owners of Starter Homes sell up, provided that they have lived in the home for a yet to be decided number of years, they will not have to pay any of the subsidy back.

In other words, if they make a profit when they sell, they will have done so courtesy of the taxpayer. 

Fair?

And I am sure it is not a matter of people saying they cannot afford to buy a house 'cos it might just be a matter of fact.

TDC were prepared to sell the allotments at Lanherne to a developer and it caused great concern as noted at TDC.  Here is the Document below.  At the time I just about remember Cllr Clemens saying it would be better to put affordable there if anything.  I am guessing the reduction of allotments would be added to the number within the green infrastructure in DA6.

http://www.dawlish.gov.uk/edit/uploads/1260.pdf

Somewhere there must be an up to date list of assets as they are aquiring them all of the time, point being the newton abbot market walk shopping centre.  I also remember Teignbridge trying to sell the Sandy Lane playing fields to Tesco, or is my memory playing tricks.  Thank goodness that didn't come off since that was left for the community.  I am not recommending that go for building, it is one of Dawlish's assets, but there might be other redundant sites that could be put to better use and the funds from off site affordable could be used to make that happen.

Sandy Lane playing fields is designated as part of Dawlish's green infrastructure in the Local Plan. Therefore as long as it remains designated at such in the LP any plan to build on it would be in contravention of the LP and therefore thrown out (that's as I understand the situation anyway).  

I'll open the question to all who read this thread and I'll put it in red so it can't be missed.

Does anyone know of any TDC owned land within the parish of Dawlish that could be used for the building of affordable rental/shared ownership housing?  

Purrrrrrfect you really get my goat !!! I have worked hard and supported my family all my adult life so has my husband. We have never been in the "right" employment to get a mortgage or earned a high enough wage, but have managed to avoid benefits. I have lived in my Council/HA property all those years and IF I could have got a mortgage to buy it I wouldnt have. Right to Buy is the biggest abnomaly this Country has ever introduced. Many people in Dawlish and the Country could never hope to own a home of their own. I take serious objection to your comments and thats being polite!!

And as a footnote nothing to stop investors buying houses on those exclusive sites and then letting them out for a massive rent to people who cant afford to buy

I agree a lot of people in council/affordable housing work very hard and no matter what they do they will never afford their own home this in Dawlish is not helped by seasonal low paid work. That is why there should be 'life homes' where rents are set on income and those who earn enough to buy elsewhere pay more to support the rents of those who are not in the same position.  Just because you achieve a higher paid job does not always mean you want the worry of a mortgage or to move from the communities that you have grown up in or feel comfortable in.  I agree right to buy was so wrong, and purchase prices set far too low, so as the residents have made a profit.  I believe some have sold to landlords, to enable them then to rent again without responsibility and worry of maintaining their propertiies.

So as far as I can see we need more affordable homes, including bungalows for those to down size.  We also need high end homes not only to attract employers, but also for the young people of Dawlish to say 'one day I will own one of these or something like it'.  These homes are what dreams are made of and hopefully will inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs and business people to set businesses up in Dawlish.  It is these people who do have the big ideas and the drive to succeed, and they will enable others to fullfil their potential and will inspire others changing the 'I can't' attitude to 'I can'.  

Maybe we should ask Anne Marie Morris to come to Dawlish, so she can advice the Dawlish Neighbourhood Plan Committee as to what is the best way forward to encourage business in and what their needs and requirements are.  It is ok providing industrial facilities, but employers have a tick list of needs and if these are not met, then no amount of promotion will encourage take up of these units.  As far as I can see Teignbridge are happy to put industrial units in Dawlish, but I bet if asked they will not go out of their way to promote any of it themselves to support the town, it will be down to the business community already here to take the bull by the horns and actively engage with potential firms and show why Dawlish is a good place to live and work.  If not we will have masses of housing and gridlock on the roads, as people have try to get to work outside of the town, imagine an hour or more to Exeter or Torquay every day! 

@BarbaraWils 68 - hasn't anyone told you? There won't be any gridlock because all the new people will be commuting by bus or train.

Sustainable transport and all that. I believe that is DCC Highway's stance.

(and we all know how right DCC Highways department is, don't we. Well......don't we?) 

And I just saw a pig fly by!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and I think I've said this before but I'll say it again.

Not only will people on the new estates travel to work by bus or train but if they are travelling by

train then they will cycle to/from Dawlish Warren station down along Secmaton Lane and the Shutterton Brook cycle path.

Pigs!

Extract from Officer report below:

Site Address DAWLISH - Land At Southdowns Road, Dawlish

Proposal Application for modification of Section 106 agreement relating to Planning Permission 13/00943/MAJ to remove affordable housing provision

Officer’s Recommendation - Refusal

Conditions/Reasons

The Teignbridge District Council hereby refuse permission to modify the Section 106 Agreement dated 06 September 2013 of outline planning approval reference 13/00943/MAJ as described in the application validated on 21 March 2016 for the following reasons: The application seeks a reduction in the Affordable Housing requirement as set out in the Section 106 Agreement dated 06 September 2013 of outline planning approval reference 13/00943/MAJ, without a demonstrable viability reason(s) and is therefore contrary to the affordable housing site targets as set out in policies WE2 Affordable Housing Site Targets and DA4 West of Southdowns Road and National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives

Refusal (no negotiation) In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive and pro-active way with Applicants and looks for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However in this case the proposal is not sustainable development for the reasons set out and the Council was unable to identify a way of securing a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Refusals Further details relating to this planning application, including the rejected plans and the Officer’s Report or the Committee Report, can be viewed at www.teignbridge.gov.uk/planningonline.

Relevant site history

15/02428/MAJ - Approval of details for 18 dwellings (approval sought for layout, scale, access, appearance and landscaping) on land at Southdowns Road, Dawlish, Devon. APPLICATION NOT YET DETERMINED. 13/00943/MAJ – Outline: residential development (all matters reserved for future consideration) on land at Southdowns Road, Dawlish, Devon. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL GRANTED ON 09 SEPTEMBER 2013

I have not been advised by Teignbridge if this refused application is to be withdrawn from tonight's Dawlish Town Council Planning Committee agenda. For the avoidance of doubt, I will be declaring an interest (as a member and supporter of the group hoping to bring about a better plan for the site) and will not be voting on any resolution that may be taken on this item. 

Let's look at this logically people take the route of least effort.  The Langdon site can use the current pedestrian path to the A379 and cross over to take the cycle route to Dawlish Warren.  Area 3 could use the proposed valley park, path that will run along beside Shutterton Brook and access at the same point, so like Langdon this will be the most direct route and all pedestrian/cycle paths will lead to this point.  Area 3 could also use the valley park towards Sainsbury's or most likely the pedestrian/cycle route via Elm Grove Road and join the new cycle path on Exeter Road that will go through Lanherne and down to the railway station.  Take a look at the Development Framework plan, there are more direct routes due to be installed than using the middle and lower Secmaton lane, which like the pedestrian/cycle way to Dawlish Warren will be virtually flat by design, so that they are usable for all, including disabled.  These new routes will combine with the already established pedestrian/cycle routes, as per the joint approach with Sustrans, TDC and DCC.

As for bus routes, the new estates will have a bus service, however I doubt the buses will come anywhere near the proposed Hill Drive site if and when linked up, since there would not be financial gain when there are bus stops on the Exeter Road less that 2 minutes from the site.

You make some very interesting macro-economic points on market and Affordable Housing, Barbarawils68. Returning to these for a moment, do you have information to hand regarding the TDC off-site AH tariff (as employed by Pegasus Life at the part brownfield site at Shell Cove House)?

If so, do you feel the tariff is set too high to encourage its consideration by the developer at Southdowns Road as you are suggesting? Or is it set so low that Teignbridge would struggle to employ the tariff cash to better effect elsewhere?

Per the officer report above 'without a demonstrable viability reason' it is difficult to understand who may be holding who to account - but perhaps there are other forces at work?

Shell cove house

The agreed affordable housing payment per unit of off site affordable housing provision required under 14/02780 was £53,000. Totalling £159,000 Affordable Housing s106 payment. With 3 additional dwellings now proposed, the revised total affordable housing payment required would be £212,000 as a proportionate increased in the affordable housing contribution associated with this revised scheme. The calculation basis is set out below: 28 dwellings – 13 (net existing dwellings) = 15 15 x 25% = 3.75 (rounds up to 4) 4 x £53,000 = £212,000 off site affordable housing payment required to be paid.

Before the above was settled Housing tried to set the target for £200k, but it was argued down.

http://docimages.teignbridge.gov.uk/Planning/StreamDocPage/obj.pdf?DocNo=3582581&PageNo=1&content=obj.pdf

Just my thought is that the figues above are too low when compared to those of Secmaton Farm's 10 passed for outline in 2013, since the above figure was settled on in 2016. Even a one bed flat minus housing association contribution would leave the developer to pay £72941 if we use the below data as our benchmark, so where they got £53k from I do not know.  Also where is the mixed housing contribution if they are carrying out multiples of £53k?  Shouldn't there be the same rule for all? Surely they should have had to provide 2 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed as a minimum.  Anyone else agree?

https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=40275&p=0

DAWLISH - 13/02135/MAJ - Land south of Secmaton Farm, Secmaton Lane - Outline - ten dwellings (all matters reserved for future consideration

i. Target affordable housing delivery =

2 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed units;

ii. Comparable sales values for Dawlish would suggest the following market values:

 £119,500 for 1 bed flats;

 £132,000 for 2 bed flats;

 £145,500 for 2 bed terraced house; and

 £165,000 for 3 bed terraced house (all figures are from Levvel Study for Teignbridge District Council).

The total purchase costs would therefore be £681,500 (2 x £119,500 + £132,000 + £145,500 + £165,000) 

iii. A provider is only able to pay £46,559 for a 1 bed unit (2011 data), £72,763 for a 2 bed unit and £93,193 for a 3 bed unit. The maximum receipt from a provider would therefore be £93,118 + £145,526 + £93,193 = £331,837

iv. The developer subsidy for the delivery of affordable housing (and therefore the off-site contribution we are seeking) is £682,000 - £331,837 = £349,663

Can anyone involved in this thread please give an upto date fiqure for the exact number of local families currently living in Dawlish that are actually wanting or waiting for an affordable house. Taking into account that they are local Dawlish people and can realistically afford to buy or live in such a property. The point being if there is no local demand why should a developer be blackmailed into providing this type of housing and the stigma attached to it.

Good news Fred - the number in Teignbridge has recently dropped:

According to BBC News nearly 40% of people could be removed from a waiting list for social housing in part of Devon, under new proposals.  Teignbridge District Council is considering removing band E from its social housing list – the lowest priority in its A-E banding system.

In Devon, there are currently 35,000 people on a waiting list for housing with 4,500 in Teignbridge and 1756 of those in band E... Teignbridge District Council said it had made the proposals in the hope of making the department more efficient by catering to those people who are assessed as being in bands A to D.

It said as well as removing band E it was considering taking people off the list who do not bid for houses or who repeatedly refused housing offers.  Councillor Stephen Purser from Teign Housing said: “I think we need to be honest with people and if you’re on band E then you effectively have about half a per cent chance of getting a house.  “It’s unrealistic and it’s raising their expectations unfairly.”

So ........the numbers of people needing social housing has dropped because...........those falling 

into a certain category are no longer counted.

!

I remember reading , years ago it was now, that Soviet Russia claimed it had no homeless people. And why did it claim that? Because all people in Soviet Russia were deemed to have a home even if that home was a cardboard box underneath a bridge.

There's no stigma attached to living in affordable homes. Except in the minds of a couple of related people who post on here. 

Fred, here is the data:

www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-rents-lettings-and-tenancies

Table 600  Numbers of households on local authorities' housing waiting lists, by district: England 1997-2015

You do the maths...

@FB and anyone else wanting to know how TDC have arrived at their housing figures 

both for open market and affordable housing I suggest you contact the following person at TDC

Graham Davey. Tel: 01626 215412. email graham.davey@teignbridge.gov.uk

for a bit of background reading take a look at this http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=33289&p=0 

As usual answer to question totally dodged. The question refered to the number of LOCAL people/families, i.e. local being already in Dawlish.

What it does prove though is that Dawlish is expected to be the main provider of affordable homes, not only for its own local people but for the entire district of Teignbridge and posibly beyond as we offten hear rumurs of housing association property in our area being sub let to authorities up country.

The whole issue of demanding developers to provide affordable homes is nothing short of an authority money making scam and a shifting of responsibility. It seems what is needed is for the major developers to band together, appoint the best legal team, and challenge in court the current system.

Fred - go ask Graham Davey about the Dawlish need. I've given you his contact details.

And you have used the word rumour - can you substantiate in any way what you claim? 

@Lynne - done the above answer expected monday

Here is the info direct from TDC.

The number of confirmed registrations on Devon Home Choice from Dawlish and qualifing for affordable housing is 227.

The number of confirmed registrations on Help to buy SW qualifing for the shared ownership scheme is 22 allthough these may also be on the affordable housing list as well.

It seems the need therefore is not huge and dosent mean that the people waiting are currently homeless, or that there are not duplicated applications.

Surely accomodating several of them on the new town of Cranbrook would be logical, nearer to employment oppertunities and with better transport links.

I think from these fiqures I can see the developers point of view.

Number of new homes due to be built in Dawlish over the next years is circa 1000. 

On DA2 (that's the area northwest of Secmaton Lane, made up mainly but not exclusively of, Gatehouse Farm, Secmaton Farm and Langdon (NHS)) 25% of housing is scheduled to be affordable.

25% of 1000 = 250. Not that far off the 227 figure that you quote. 

BUT the affordables will not be built all at once. So............the number of affordable homes being built over, say, the next few years(even if the 25% is met) will not be enough to meet the numbers (227) who have an affordable housing need right now. 

So, present demand for affordable housing  is greater than the supply of affordable housing as even if 10 affordable homes were to be built next month  that would still leave 217 persons/families on the affordable home waiting list.  

As for being housed at Cranbrook. What good would that be if, for example, the people concerned work in and around Dawlish? Have friends and family in and around Dawlish ( who help out with child care for example?). 

Well said LN. That post is one of the few pieces of commonsense that I've read on this whole topic (this thread and the multitude of related ones).