Dawlish News

Coastal or Country? Interesting. 

In a time of supposed 'AUSTERITY' and with cuts to most essential services throughout Teignbridge millions have and are being spent on large scale developments by our councils. The usual excuse is that this money comes from outside the local area and as such we either spend it on some lavish scheme or don't have it.

At the end of the day THIS money came, mostly, from hard working taxpayers.

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink comes to mind.

The cost of this U-turn by Teignbridge is likely to come out of the public purse, BEE9 - however the money for the land, new planting, landscaping and ongoing maintenance will come from 'S106' developer contributions, imposed as a condition for building houses close to the environmentally sensitive Exe estuary and Dawlish Warren beaches.

Quite right Gary. It's disturbing that there are still people who don't realise this. 

Including the £436,800 already paid by Redrow towards "... the Dawlish Coastal Park or other area of SANGS determined by [Teignbridge] Council which is to mitigate the recreational impacts of development in the locality..." the total that will continue to come forward from developers will amount to somewhere in the region of £2,000,000 in S106 'SANGS Acquisition and Captital Contributions'.

With farmland now going to market at around £10,000 per acre (£25,000 per hectare) even allowing for an uplift in the purchase price of any land required due to what is now a pressing need for a permanent SANGS area, such S106 funding would allow Teignbridge to deliver a generously proportioned country park not only to meet current prescribed needs, but also those of the future. 

Will Teignbridge do the right thing? We can now only wait and see.

Country park! so one area full of wildlife is bulldozed and concreted over under the banner of building affordable housing for local people, we all know that that is a croc of poop. Then the blood money for building houses that were not needed in the first place is used to build a revenue earning 'country park' for the local council on another area untouched by development.

To say that the money comes from the developer's and not the tax payer is a rather blinkered view of the basic, inherent problems that the southwest is facing due to this unneeded and unwanted mass development of cramped and poorly thought out developments.

I have no problem with building affordable housing for local people, but the excuse to build thousands of homes that the developer's will do anything they can to weasel out of giving across the few meagre affordable homes that they initially agreed to is unacceptable.

I agree that developers will try and get themselves out of providing Affordable Housing if they possibly can. But at the moment that is the only way that Affordable Housing can be provided.

(and courtesy of the 2016 Housing and Planning Act even that meagre amount may disappear as the Act effectively replaces Affordable Homes to rent with Shared ownership schemes and Starter Homes).

This government is not into Affordable Housing in the sense of rented homes. It is into home ownership. Period.  

Whilst I understand why people feel concerned about homes being built on greenfield sites (despite the fact that only 2% of our land is built on), however I don't understand why people say that new homes aren't needed. 

All these new homes are being sold and lived in by either the homeowners or their tenants.   So clearly there's a need, otherwise they'd all be left unsold. Or am I being too logical?

@MV - you're certainly being something.

What something is that Bee9?  Factual? Positive?  Half Full?

Channel 4. 8.00pm this evening. The Great Housing Scandal

Hope you're not too disappointed LN, the programme will be bemoaning the fact that not enough new homes are being built! 

Bit confused by your comment MV - are you implying that I think we don't need more homes?

Oh sorry LN, I thought you were on a crusade to stop housing being built. Apologies if I've misread your articles. 

I do have concerns about housing being built on grade 1 agricultural land.

I also have concerns about housing being built without the necessary infrastructure being in place.

I have concerns about not enough Affordable rental Housing (AH= rents of 80% or less of market level) being built.

And I have great concerns about the impact of the 2016 Housing and Planning Act and how that will negatively impact on the provision of Affordable Rental Housing. 

When the 2016 Housing Act was still a Bill I posted on here the text of an email I sent the then housing minister. I think that made my position on housing clear.