General Discussion
Continuation of Major development in Dawlish means Sandy lane to take brunt of Construction traffic - Part 1
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/DawlishNews
There is an article on the Herald Express web page regarding the two sites in Dawlish and the Development Framework. I have left a comment asking for anyone who wants to support Dawlish residents in our battle with Teignbridge to put their name to the Dawlish petition.
I intend contacting this person as he chairs the TDC planning committee. Anyone else fancy doing the same?
District Councillor for Ambrook Ward
|
Name: |
DENNIS SMITH |
|
Party: |
Conservative |
|
Ward: |
Ambrook |
|
Parishes: |
Abbotskerswell |
|
Address: |
Karinya, 9 Crokers Way, Ipplepen, Newton Abbot, TQ12 5QZ |
|
Telephone: |
01803 812653 |
|
Email: |
|
|
Ward Profile: |
Ambrook Ward |
| Register of Interests: |
 Cllr Smith, Dennis - Register of Interests [9kb] |
and in terms of lobbying the other councillors on TDC's planning committee you might find the info to be found on this link useful.
http://chudleighprotest.org/planning-committee-members-teignbridge-district-council/
A very good link Lynne, good to see how Chudleigh are responding to the threat to their town.
But best not forget the substitute TDC Planning Committee members from any lobbying list: Councillors Cox, Dewhirst, Golder, Haines, Hocking, Klinkenberg, Nutley, Russell and Thorne:
alistair.dewhirst@teignbridge.gov.uk,
timothy.golder@teignbridge.gov.uk,
Mike.Haines@teignbridge.gov.uk,
Michael.Hocking@teignbridge.gov.uk,
Anna.Klinkenberg@teignbridge.gov.uk,
john.nutley@teignbridge.gov.uk,
Sylvia.Russell@teignbridge.gov.uk,
bill.thorne@teignbridge.gov.uk,
Here is a full list of all that need to be emailed, so they are aware before the meeting that Dawlish has grave concerns about what is proposed and object to the Framework in its present form.
Beryl.Austen@teignbridge.gov.uk; Stuart.Barker@teignbridge.gov.uk; geoff.bladon@teignbridge.gov.uk; jackie.brodie@teignbridge.gov.uk; Peter.Bromell@teignbridge.gov.uk; philip.bullivant@teignbridge.gov.uk; Jeremy.Christophers@teignbridge.gov.uk
Chris.Clarance@teignbridge.gov.uk; Mary.Colclough@teignbridge.gov.uk; Alan.Connett@teignbridge.gov.uk; sheila.cook@teignbridge.gov.uk; David.Cox@teignbridge.gov.uk; charlie.dennis@teignbridge.gov.uk; Humphrey.Clemens@teignbridge.gov.uk
alistair.dewhirst@teignbridge.gov.uk; vince.fusco@teignbridge.gov.uk; timothy.golder@teignbridge.gov.uk; john.goodey@teignbridge.gov.uk; judy.grainger@teignbridge.gov.uk; reg.winsor@teignbridge.gov.uk; amanda.ford@teignbridge.gov.uk
amanda.ford@teignbridge.gov.uk
Gordon.Hook@teignbridge.gov.uk; george.gribble@teignbridge.gov.uk; Mike.Haines@teignbridge.gov.uk; doug.hellierlaing@teignbridge.gov.uk; Edward.Hockin@teignbridge.gov.uk; Mike.Jeffery@teignbridge.gov.uk; patricia.johnsonking@teignbridge.gov.uk; ann.jones@teignbridge.gov.uk; Mike.Walters@teignbridge.gov.uk
avril.kerswell@teignbridge.gov.uk; Anna.Klinkenberg@teignbridge.gov.uk; Kevin.Lake@teignbridge.gov.uk; dave.matthews@teignbridge.gov.uk; lisa.mayne@teignbridge.gov.uk; jacqui.orme@teignbridge.gov.uk; bill.thorne@teignbridge.gov.uk; john.nutley@teignbridge.gov.uk
Dennis.Smith@teignbridge.gov.uk; Sylvia.Russell@teignbridge.gov.uk; colin.parker@teignbridge.gov.uk; mike.pilkington@teignbridge.gov.uk; Graham.Price@teignbridge.gov.uk; Rosalind.Prowse@teignbridge.gov.uk; dave.rollason@teignbridge.gov.uk
RSPB OBJECT TO GATEHOUSE SITE - WHAT IT OFFERS IS IN CONFLICT WITH WHAT IS IN THE DA2 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK!
From: Jessop, Helene [mailto:helene.jessop@rspb.org.uk]
Sent: 24 March 2016 22:42
To: Ian Perry
Cc: Mary Rush
Subject: RE: Application 15/02648/MAJ Gatehouse Farm, Secmaton Lane, Dawlish
Thank you for seeking RSPB views on this; I hope this is helpful. We consider SLR's assessment of 4 territories on site (Gatehouse Farm Cirl Bunting Territory Review, V1 January 2016 and Cirl Bunting Survey Drawing 1, October 2015) is too conservative, and insufficiently precautionary. In our view, the number and distribution of records indicate more than 4 territories. For example, we consider that the records in the eastern area could be interpreted as two territories, considering there are two fairly discrete areas of cirl bunting activity several hundred metres apart while the southern area appears to show activity adjacent to Langdon Road and additional activity in the hedgerow to the north-east of this. Additionally, we do not know where birds from Phase 1 have been displaced to – in our view, it is not a safe assumption that they have all moved to Phase 2 and are therefore now being double-counted. For these reasons, our view is that it would be more appropriate for Phase 2 to compensate for 4 territories.
It is extremely disappointing that the proposal is now to reduce the buffer strip along Langdon Road and to change the phasing to develop the southern area first rather than last. This strongly suggests that nature conservation viewed as an optional add-on rather than essential and conflicts with the statement in the Draft Development Framework Plan Supplementary Planning Document Consultation Draft, September 2015 which states “In order to safeguard a key cirl bunting habitat the southern part of Development Area 2 will be the last phase of Development Area 2 allocation to be developed . . . The southern area of Development Area 2 must not be developed (including vegetation clearance) until the LPA are satisfied that the compensation land is providing an adequate compensatory cirl bunting habitat and that its long term management has been secured.�
The cumulative impact of what is now proposed is that the historic cirl bunting sub-population in the Gatehouse Farm area is likely to die out, increasing the isolation and vulnerability of neighbouring sub-populations. This would not be acceptable to RSPB, unless we have confidence that geographically and temporally related compensatory habitat provision will be delivered. The draft SPD states “The DA2 allocation will lead to a loss of cirl bunting habitat, that will require compensatory habitat to be funded by, or provided by and managed in perpetuity by the developer. TDC is pursuing sites for a compensation area.� However, we are not aware of any proposals to deliver compensatory habitat in the vicinity.
Therefore in our view TDC needs to progress such compensation. Without this being progressed, we consider the application should be refused and so currently maintain our objection.
The RSPB is keen to support identification and assessment of potentially suitable sites.
If you know of concerned residents and friends who would like to sign a paper version of Alison Foden's petition instead of the online version, please see the attached file which can be printed out and copied as required. Happy to collect on Monday if you contact me by email by (say) 3pm - jitb2b@aol.com
https://streetlife-uk-live-media.s3.amazonaws.com/conversations/4e/4e803173d8750d915a3be993e016ccf6debb0da9_o.pdf
Thank you for that Gary. Just to let you know that the Dawlish Gazette articles can be seen now online at http://www.dawlishnewspapers.co.uk/ . So anyone who has not managed to get their hands on the Dawlish Gazette can see what is happening.
Does anybody know what the Emergency Services think of this? surely with all this traffic being diverted could cause death/or deaths due to blockedacess in the narrow areas Sandy Lanr/ElmGrove
@roberta - they'd be allowed to turn right into elm grove road do you think?
Still, a good point to make.
Fancy sending a missive to that effect to the TDC planning committee councillors?
This has very recently been posted on another website. Thought readers of this site also might like
to read it.
"Having emailed all the addresses given earlier this evening I have already received a couple of responses - well done to those councilliors for actually reading and replying. Without wishing to name who replied, this makes interesting reading, and I quote verbatim .......
'There never has been an agreement that the link road would be delivered prior to development. The local plan simply states the number of houses and employment land etc. and a link road. The delivery framework plan being discussed on Tuesday by the Planning Committee sets out what is the method that is most likely to deliver, among other things, the link road. If the Planning Authority puts a condition on approvals that the developers complete the £6mil. road before any development then the developers would simply appeal that condition because it would render the development inviable and with the support of viability studies already done would almost certainly win the appeal and probably be allowed to develop without even the safeguards that only limited development could take place as is advised in the Dev Framework. '
It seems obvious from this that there never was any actual agreement at the outset of the planning application , and if the project is not viable to the developers, then I ask why shoudl it go ahead anyway.....Maybe it s bit of a 'chicken and egg' situtaion, but it seems to give little comfort that the road will evre be built, let alon at the outset of the development....
The councillor responding to me also stated that they are looking to get agreement from the developers to provide money for the infrastructure under S106 of the regulations, but my cmment would be this looks a bit 'sky in the pie' and as stated above may well never materelise - yet the developement could go ahead?
I am sure someone out there has far greater knoweldeg and understanding of these things than I have, but thought the reply I had might be of interest in this discussion.
There is no money that developers are offering as an incentive, far from it, it is the council that is demanding the Section 106 monies to support all the infrastructure this development will need.
So from reading the above and if my brain is in gear if the link road had to be built prior to development no houses would be built as there is not enough profit in the developments to fund the link road. It's utter madness if i am correct then why did TDC grant planning knowing the link road will never be built, there must be among us who post on here someone who can calculate the profit in these developments it would be interesting to know if it is viable or not.
Why is TDC doing this? Because it has to comply with central government planning legislation/house building policies. That's why.
As to the DA2 Developmet Framework if the landowners, developers, Council or residents do not agree with it once adopted a legal challenge can be mounted and residents have challenged before and won.
https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/12039/Supplementary-planning-documents
In accordance with Regulation 16(b) and 16(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, any person aggrieved by a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) may apply to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review of the decision to adopt the SPD; and that any such application for leave must be made promptly and in any event no later than 3 months after the date on which the SPD were adopted.
Therefore there is an option, but not the preferred one.
Lynne have a look at this from back in 2013 it appear that Teignbridge's commissioned report is flawed. It was the Three Dragons which triggered a memory and here it is:
http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=40088&p=0
Simon Steele Perkins - Strategic Land Partnerships (Agent for Langdon site - Waddeton Park) 24th January 2013
Consultation on the Teignbridge Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.
It starts of:
It is unfortunate that the meeting notes do not present an accurate reflection of the feedback given by members at the workshop (as referred to in my emails). There was a very clear message given by the majority of attendees at the workshop that the approach being taken by the Council’s consultant team did not reflect the “real world” in terms of the way in which developers, landowner and contractors run their buisnesses. As a consequence it was abundantly clear during the course of the workshops that even CIL rates of - £10,000 per plot (which were being discussed at that time) would not be viable because so many of the assumptions were wrong particularly in relation to the residual land value, landowner expectation, developers profit, the market, the availability of finance and various other matters. I will refer to some of these points in more detail below.
Comments on the prelininary Charging Schedule:
Fundamentally the Charging Schedule if adopted by the Council will have far reaching and very negative impacts on the deliverability of the Council's ambitious plans set out in the draft local plan. The root problem is the viablity evidence prepared by Three Dragons/PBA
which falls woefully short of any real world assessment and whilst as an academic exercise it has no doubt cost the Council considerable sums of money and can be presented as a form of evidence, it does not reflect what really happen in the land and development business.
As such it threatens the soundness of the draft Local Plan but also given the negative impacts on delivery, the lack of proper justification and the inevitable consequence that in the end it will be ineffective in raising the monies required this Charging Schedule is not sound.
Viability evidence:
As far as the assumptions made in relation to residential viability in Chapter 4 are concerned the other development costs relating to professional fees, internal overheads, interest rates, marketing fees, developers return and contractors return all disregard the advice and feedback from the industry. Developers, contractors and the industry generally will not be able to deliver development based on these figures.
2. Affordable Housing:
At paragraph 4.1.5 it is stated that the affordable housing is being modelled at 70% affordable rent and 30% shared ownership.
The evidence base shows that there is a considerable need for social rented properties which have not been modelled at all and which will fundametally affect the viability of any site.
My concern is that this person should know what he is talking about, which is scary. Why, it appears the Council are out of touch with reality and basing all their assumptions on a report which the industury feels is unsound. This concerns me, since all that is in the DA2 Development Framework could be hot air and no substance and the red flag is Gatehouse waving the viability card already. This letter shortly preceeds the date of the Three Dragon's report, but since Teignbridge supplied all the facts to them, is this accurate? TDC ticked the box to say the SANGS were not next to a sewage works, so did they give this company the true facts or facts to create report to back their position?
@leatash by my very approximate calculation and from knowledge gained in the building industry the profit before taxes for the gatehouse site will be between 15 and 18 million pounds, taxes of course can be legally avoided in many ways.
I know I've posted this before - but here it is again.
At the October 2015 TDC Planning Committee meeting, an outline planning application for a residential development on land adjacent to Hill Drive, Secmaton Lane, was refused permission. The planning application reference is 14/01577/MAJ.
What is of particular interest is that during the debate concerning this planning application reference was made to the link road. This should take you to the minutes https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=45843&p=0 and then scroll down to page 4.
Towards the bottom of page 5 you will find this: (my emphasis in red)
“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.”
Note that the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing is Cllr Humphrey Clemens who is also a Dawlish Town councillor.
The reasons the application was refused were as follows: (again my emphasis in red)
“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. “
Note that Dawlish Cllrs Prowse and Price were also at that planning meeting as they are members
of TDC's planning committee.
A TDC councillor responds:
A neighbour emailed all the TDC planning councillors and the substitutes and received this back from one of them
"I am in full agreement with all your views and I have been voicing this for some time. YES, we must have this link road built before any houses are started. Please ,all who are concerned keep writing to us and I do hope we can help Best wishes"
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..