This site uses cookies Learn More

Dawlish News

Dawlish News
Dawlish News
27 May 2016 17:08

Plans for a new road and 1,000 homes at Dawlish are up for discussion next week.

FredBassett
FredBassett
28 May 2016 09:46

Why would there need to be a discussion on something that has already been agreed between greedy developers and the backhand recievers at TDC. 1,000 homes for sure, new roads and other infrastructure no chance. How about creating 2 or 3 thousand jobs before building any more houses. After all the local need only amounts to around 250 and they would need to be of the affordable type which developers are already saying they cant financially warrant building.  

Seriously the towns folk need to stick together on this enough is enough we dont need any more houses and our countryside is  to valuable an asset to loose. When we leave the EU next month we will need the fields to produce our food without relying on EU imports

 

1 Agree
Gary Taylor
Gary Taylor
28 May 2016 10:24

Whether we leave the EU or not Fred, those green fields should form a part of a 'resilience' strategy to enable food to be grown closer to home.

 

These fields are also a vital part of the distictive Dawlish rural landscape, drawing visitors and holiday makers to the area and underpinning our local tourist trade. Seasonal and relatively low paid the jobs provided may be, but other than perhaps erderly care, tourism is our biggest employer. We need to keep it that way because trying to create jobs where the infrastructure is so stretched (and the demand and resource patchy) would be like pushing on string.

 

But you are right - residents need to stick together. We don't need any more houses, but we do need the roads and the other infrastructure and services far earlier in the development cycle than is currently planned. Local voices are already being heard - but more noise will continue to need to be made if a better, safer solution is now to come about. 

Merlin228
Merlin228
28 May 2016 11:12

Just a casual query, on all new homes when being built should they now include an outside power point for electric/dual fuel cars to be plugged into as I have read that the average cost of having one of these installed is £1400 before any grant if available is given.

Gary Taylor
Gary Taylor
28 May 2016 11:29

A good question Merlin228. I guess it depends on how it is considered such vehicles contribute (or otherwise) to the environment.

FredBassett
FredBassett
28 May 2016 11:48

I think £1400 must include the transformer type battery charger as well as the outside socket plus of course labour and VAT. Even with all that it still seems a bit steep. As Gary says the environmental issues with these types of cars are still to be evaluated. There  will obviously come a time when the batteries will need replaceing  which will undoubtably cost more than the cars worth and we are then faced with the prospect of re-cycling the hazardous waste contained in these batteries. With a life expectancy of between 5-10 years average battery life I dont see how these cars represent good value for money

Lynne
Lynne
29 May 2016 09:38

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…

Barbarawils68
Barbarawils68
01 Jun 2016 15:04

The silence, the meeting has come and gone and all the councillors voted the Framework through including the changes to the road system.  So we know who to thank when the road changes come in,  those that passed it. 

Barbarawils68
Barbarawils68
01 Jun 2016 16:04

Anyone know exactly what happened at the planning meeting today?  From the feedback I have had which I would like confirmation on our Councillors sold out?  Is that right?

ShyTalk 47
ShyTalk 47
01 Jun 2016 16:07

Simplify please, for my aged brain!  Do you think that means the Link Road will come into being early? Or just that the right-turn road change into Sandy Lane has been passed?  Maybe the developers will just do their own thing again without interrupion.

FredBassett
FredBassett
01 Jun 2016 16:09

So who is going to propose a vote of no confidence in the 2 or more Dawlish town councillors who also sit on the planning committee at TDC. They need to be kicked off the town council with immediate effect for not putting the best interests of the town first. Make it happen and then get rid of the TDC councillors who also represent Dawlish but sail us down the swanny every time.

Gary Taylor
Gary Taylor
01 Jun 2016 17:30

 

This will be disappointing I know, but I have to report that Teignbridge have made no changes to the recommendation for the option(s) listed in the framework schedule posted last week and copied below:

 

https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=47119&p=0

 

More details to follow - a report will be given at Dawlish Town Council tonight.

1 Agree
Lynne
Lynne
01 Jun 2016 18:20

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."

 

PS I wasn't at the meeting this morning but have been told that 19 councillors voted for the TDC proposals and 0 voted against.  

 

 

 

1 Agree
Barbarawils68
Barbarawils68
01 Jun 2016 18:23

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

1 Agree
Lynne
Lynne
01 Jun 2016 18:32
1 Agree
Gary Taylor
Gary Taylor
02 Jun 2016 08:39

So these are the various scenarios considered for the delivery of the link road - followed by the officer recommendation that the TDC Planning Committee voted for yesterday:

 

Option1:

PHASED ACCESS FROM NORTH ONLY: TDC could seek to use the Development Framework Plan (DFP) to phase development from Sainsbury’s roundabout, preventing road access from the south before full provision of a completed northern access. Following adoption of the DFP, this option would guide the Council to refusing applications on Area 2, until Area 3 and 4 are is permitted and commenced. OPTION AT HIGH RISK OF APPEAL

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.

Option 3:

TEIGNBRIDGE BUILD ROAD UNDER LICIENCE: TDC to seek to build road under licence, delivering link road from the north to boundary of Area 3-2. This option would require landowners’ agreement and full planning permission for housing layout to determine route of the link road. This approach moves much of the risk and cost of delivering a link road onto the public sector. Would require an agreement to see repayment of link road costs as homes are built. OPTION 3 IS CONSIDERED FINANCIALLY UNVIABLE.

Option 4:

USE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC TO GO NORTH AS SOON AS FEASIBLE. Include condition for Construction Environment Management Plan to require landowners to allow construction traffic from sites to t ravel north to Sainsbury’s roundabout as soon as road is constructed. Such an agreement would allow traffic to use the road after 50 dwelling trigger, even though the link road would not yet be adopted. Potential to require contributions towards monitoring and enforcement of Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). OPTION IS DELIVERABLE AND LOW RISK.

Option 5:

COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LAND: Add text to Framework Plan to set out in what circumstances the Council would consider use Compulsory Purchase (CPO) powers. The use of CPO powers would be a back-stop if any of the sites failed to come forward, or failed to deliver the link road. This option would communicate the Council’s clear intentions if development stalls. THE USE OF CPO WOULD NOT ACCELERATE LINK ROAD DELIVERY, BUT RATHER IS A BACKSTOP TO ENSURE THE FULL ROAD IS DELIVERED.

Option 6:

USE GRAMPIAN CONDITION TO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT IN AREA 2 UNTIL 2020: Additional planning condition or S106 to prevent construction of more than 50 dwellings on Area 2 until an agreed date (possibly 2020). To limit this risk of ransom, if link road is still not completed to boundary of Area 2-3 by 2020, Area 2 may proceed from the south. This option would allow 4 years for link road to be completed before more dwellings are built in Area 2. THE USE OF SUCH A ‘GRAMPIAN CONDITION’ IS NOT RECOMMENDED, DUE TO RISK OF APPEAL.

 

Recommendation:

Officers recommend that the Council: Pursues adoption of the amended draft Development Framework Plan which includes an area-by-area trigger of 50 dwellings for link road delivery, plus;

Option 4: Use Construction Management Plan to require construction traffic to go north as soon as feasible;

Option 5: Set out Council’s intentions to use CPO powers if necessary;

Other options will not speed up delivery of a completed link road, are likely to result in Appeal or challenge, and will erode the Council’s 5 year land supply which will increase the chance of unplanned development occurring in the rest of the district.

Lynne
Lynne
02 Jun 2016 08:48

Text of email sent to TDC planning committee councillors. Carhaix Way residents especially please 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."

 

Barbarawils68
Barbarawils68
02 Jun 2016 08:58

It depends if the Elm Grove Road area create a protest group to challenge this, others have used the below to delay or reverse documents, therefore there is redress if it is not acceptable to the public. I don't know but I think you can use legal aid for things like this:

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

Lynne
Lynne
02 Jun 2016 12:05

“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

Lynne
Lynne
02 Jun 2016 15:26

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

This was option 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.

Lynne
Lynne
03 Jun 2016 11:05

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.

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

All 19 Teignbridge District Councillors on the Planning Committee voted in approval the DA2 Development Framework, that the first 50 houses will be constructed on each of the three developments, before construction of the link road even commences.

Devon County Council may have delayed the imposition of a right turn ban into Elm Grove Road and diverting traffic along Sandy Lane, but they haven’t looked again at the realities of the traffic.

Where is the voice for Dawlish residents at Devon County Council? This needs to be looked at again and a realistic solution found.

At the Dawlish Town Council meeting on the evening of Wed 1st June 2016, 5 town councillors expressed disappointment and anger that safety concerns have not been even considered.

Please help us keep the pressure up for the the Link Road to be built as soon as possible.

With regards

Alison Foden

Facebook: Dawlish Deserves Better

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

 

Barbarawils68
Barbarawils68
03 Jun 2016 17:37

The Consultation did not contain the road changes as these were added after.  If I read the below correctly, the public could challenge the document and force a second public consultation that includes the road changes. Sorry it is so long, but it contains points that need to considered.

 

CONSULTATION AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS Clive Sheldon QC 

19. Although in general there is no obligation on the decision-maker to communicate advice received from officials or internal material or information to consultees, there may be exceptions. In Robin Murray & Co., the Divisional Court explained at [47] that such cases will be ‘where the matters which have emerged lead the public authority to wish to do something fundamentally different from the proposals consulted upon, or fairness otherwise requires further consultation on a matter or issue that has been thrown up. One such situation may be where the internal material undermines the value of the responses that have been made to a consultation.’  

 

III. When is fresh consultation required?

32. A decision-maker is faced with a conundrum where it has genuinely considered consultation responses and wants to adjust its original proposals, or where circumstances have changed since consultation began. Is the decision-maker required to consult again?

33. The issue was discussed by Silber J. in East Kent Hospital NHS Trust. Silber J. observed that ‘trivial changes do not require further consideration’ (at [43]). The learned judge was mindful of ‘the dangers and consequence of too readily requiring re-consultation’, noting that in R v. Shropshire Health Authority and Secretary of State ex parte Duffus [1990] 1 Med L R 119, Schiemann J (with whom Lloyd LJ agreed) had stated that ‘Each consultation process if it produces any changes has the potential to give rise to an expectation in others, that they will be consulted about any changes. If the courts are to be too liberal in the use of their power of judicial review to compel consultation on any change, there is a danger that the process will prevent any change — either in the sense that the authority will be disinclined to make any change because of the repeated consultation process which this might engender, or in the sense that no decision gets taken because consultation never comes to an end. One must not forget there are those with legitimate expectations that decisions will be taken”.

34. Silber J. concluded that fresh consultation was only required where there was ‘a fundamental difference between the proposals consulted on and those which the consulting party subsequently wishes to adopt’.

35. What is ‘fundamental’? In R (Elphinstone) v Westminster City Council, [2008] EWHC 1287 (Admin) at [62], Kenneth Parker QC (then sitting as a Deputy High Court judge) observed that ‘a fundamental change is a change of such a kind that it would be conspicuously unfair for the decision-maker to proceed without having given consultees a further opportunity to make representations about the proposal as so changed.'

http://www.adminlaw.org.uk/docs/18%20January%202012%20Sheldon.pdf

Lynne
Lynne
03 Jun 2016 18:47

Well, 'the public' will need someone to look at whether a legal challenge is feasible or not.

You seem to be leading on this at the moment BarbaraW.........   

Barbarawils68
Barbarawils68
17 Jun 2016 16:22

Sorry been working away. The document in relation to Hill Drive contains information sent to the Inspector in relation to the Hill Drive case, it covers the DA2 Framework Document.  The Planning Officer states this:

 

'Our Executive has now resolved to Adopt the SPD. This decision is subject to a 7 day call in period by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee after which time the Framework will become a fully Adopted SPD.' 

 

I am off to work in a minute so can someone check out the below properly and see if the councillors could use this as a means of having the lack of second round of consultation looked into.

https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=6699&p=0

Comment Please sign in or sign up to post