I see the lack of joined up road (and planning?) at Carhaix Way is a story today on the local BBC TV news.
Just to point out that this story first broke on here just over a year ago 
https://www.dawlish.com/thread/details/44632
My only surprise is that it has taken this long for the mainstream media to run with it.
Click on this link and then scroll down
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-38322229
I wonder if the residents will complain so much when they realise that a lot of the building traffic for Gatehouse Farm will probably use it as a short cut to avoid the problems of turning into Elm Grove Road. Wonder how they will like heavy constuction traffic passing their doors. It was also unsurprising to hear that TDC Planning Department are passing the buck to Devon County Council.
Yes Ken, I totally agree with you. "Be careful what you wish for" was an expression that was going through my mind when I watched the tv coverage yesterday.
Below is the unedited text of a letter published some 14 months ago in the Gaz. (published letter was a shorter, abridged version).
"Although the contents of this letter should be of interest to many, it is particularly aimed at those residents living on the new Cavanna and Strongvox estates whose homes are located beside Carhaix Way.
In his letter last week calling for the early completion of the link road between Sainsbury’s roundabout and Elm Grove Road, Cllr Gary Taylor made a passing reference to traffic being able to use Carhaix Way as a through route.
Just when exactly Carhaix Way will be open to through traffic is still unknown although I’d guess sometime around about the end of this year /beginning of next as that is when I understand Cavanna will complete building all the dwellings located either side of its bit of Carhaix Way.
I imagine also that by that time, if not sooner , the mismatch in levels between the Cavanna part of Carhaix Way and the Strongvox part of Carhaix Way will also have been resolved because until that happens the road cannot be a through route, can it? (for those of a technical bent I understand that this height mismatch was caused by a difference in datum levels used on the two developments).
So, sometime in the New Year, and all things being equal, it looks like Carhaix Way will be opened up as a through road. That’s when residents living along its route will swop the noise, dirt and potential danger of the Cavanna site traffic for the noise, dirt and potential danger of through traffic. For those residents not bothered by that future scenario the prospect of it will be no big deal. For other residents however it might be of great concern – hence my writing this letter so as to alert them.
Now, I don’t know about anyone else but for the life of me I cannot see why it will be only those living on the Cavanna estate who will use Carhaix Way as a through route. Yet that is the assumption that appears to have been made by Devon County Council’s Highways team in their briefing paper concerning traffic movement in the Elm Grove Road area.(see Dawlish DA2 Development Framework: Briefing Note on Elm Grove Road Junction improvements and Link Road to Sainsburys Junction. This can be read online http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=45539&p=0).
I quote: “Northbound traffic from Site A (that’s the Bovis/Cavanna site) towards Exeter will use Carhaix Way” .Yes, I’m quite sure it will. But so too surely will northbound traffic going toward Exeter (and Sainsbury’s supermarket don’t forget!) from other nearby locations such as The Buntings, The Gatehouse area, Newlands and the top end of Elm Grove Road near Secmaton Lane. And don’t forget all those other homes scheduled to be built around there. Will the occupants of those yet to be built dwellings also use Carhaix Way as a through route? Of course they will. In the absence of the link road from Sainsbury’s roundabout, Carhaix Way will be their nearest through road to access the A379.
That’s an awful lot of actual and potential traffic. And, of course, if such traffic is north bound outward it’s going to be southbound homeward. So it’ll go there and back again and all via Carhaix Way!
But hey! let’s not just look at the immediate vicinity in terms of traffic generation and the use of Carhaix Way as a through route. What about all that potential traffic originating from the other side of town via Stockton and Gatehouse Hills. I mean, why go through town with all its traffic hold ups when you can nip around ‘the back’ and access/exit the A379 by way of Carhaix Way?
So, it looks like a lot of traffic could end up cutting through the new Cavanna and Strongvox housing developments in order to access and exit the A379.
I am not a traffic engineer but I’ll hazard a guess that if the road from Sainsbury’s roundabout scheduled to link in with the top end of Elm Grove Road/Secmaton Lane area was to be in situ and open to through traffic, then a huge number of vehicles would stop going along Carhaix Way and would use this new road instead.
And given that assumption, I know that if I lived along Carhaix Way I’d be pushing for the Sainsbury roundabout link road to be constructed as a matter of urgency. Self interest by Carhaix Way residents maybe, but I’m sure many others in the town also feel that there is a clear and overwhelming need for that link road to be built and open to through traffic not only as soon as possible but certainly before anymore housing development takes place in the Gatehouse/Secmaton/Langdon areas of the town.
Oops! Oh dear! I’ve just noticed what Teignbridge District Council planners are saying about this Sainsbury roundabout/top of Elm Grove Road link road. Seems they aren’t thinking of it being a through road at all. I wonder if Devon County Council Highways department know about that? Perhaps someone should tell them.
Here is what TDC planners say about the function of the link road.
“The vehicular access through DA2 should be in the form of an avenue. ‘Secmaton
Avenue’ should be designed as an accessible continuous link through the
development, and it could be described as a ‘primary street’. It will be designed in
such a way as to achieve accessibility for residents within the site, however, detering
others from using it as an alternative to the A379. This will be achieved through
careful design.”
I wonder if Carhaix Way was also designed to deter through traffic?
Perhaps the residents of CW could let us know. After all it won’t be so very long before they’ll start finding out."
@Lynne your comments on stockton and gatehouse hill traffic using carhaix is exactly the reason that secmaton lane was closed off to vehicle traffic, and as an aside remember that it takes on average 10 lorry movements to build a house thats 10 in and 10 out. so for 484 houses at gatehouse thats a total of of 9680 lorry movements during the building either along elm grove road or carhaix way. shame more people dont pressurize tdc and dcc build the link road first.
from eye of dawlish today -
For all those waiting for Devon County Council and Teignbridge to open up the road block fence in Carhaix Way it seems this isnt going to happen...
" Many thank...s for your email and I have been awaiting details but my current understanding is that Teignbridge District Council are leading discussions with the two developers and the road will not be opened for traffic but a pedestrian and cycle-path will be created. I do not know the exact details or specification and have put Nick Davies of Teignbridge in the loop who is the contact name I have been given and am asking him via this email that we are up-dated about the latest position and I have also include Cllr Ted Hockin in the loop as one of the local District Cllrs. Regards johnclatworthy "
Local authorities always pass the buck between themselves and councillor Clatworthy will assist in that process. All roads are the responsibilty of the county council or the highways agency. Teignbridge can process on behalf of the county whatever the county wants. Teignbridge has no authority whatsoever to block any road without the consent of the county.
For those who haven't noticed, the blocking off of the path from Jubilee Bridge to the Viaduct, is illegal without a tempory Traffic Regulation Order. those of you who are observant enough will have noticed one such order attached to the lamp post oposite the blocked off end at Jubilee Bridge, but that is to do with the carnival.
It will be somewhat ironic if the two parts of Carhaix Way end up being connected by way only of a pedestrian and cycle path courtesy of what seems to have been a surveying **** up.
I say ironic because I seem to remember way back in 2007/8/9 when the planning apps for the Strongvox site and the Cavanna/Bovis were in their infancy that the original plan was that the two parts of Carhaix Way would be such that only pedestrians and cyclists would be able to pass through. Then there was talk of the small local bus needing to pass through the whole road. Then concerns about emergency vehicles needing to do the same. I remember all this quite vividly as I recall my wondering to myself (and me being me probably suggesting to someone somewhere) whether or not there could be bollards along CW that could be in place that could disappear into the ground if electronically activated to do so by the driver of the local bus or emergency vehicle. The type of system that you get at airports.
Anyway, it seemed that all of a sudden, the plans got altered circa 2009/10 so that instead of CW being a through route for pedestrians and cyclists only it was scheduled to become a through route for all vehicles.
Anyone else remember what I remember?
Just to make sure that what I had written in my post above wasn't a figment of my ageing imagination I subsequently checked out what I believe with someone I know who had also followed the planning proposals for CW circa 2008/9.
This person confirmed that the original plan for CW was that hydraulic bollards were to be put in place so that the small shopper bus could have a through route. No other vehicular traffic would be able to go through from one side to other. Pedestrians and cyclists would have through access.
So it seems we've gone round in a complete circle. (But now without the shopping bus)
@majorp. do you really need a traffic regulation order to temporarily block off a footpath? are you referring to the path that has been temporarily closed off to protect our cygnets?
JD2017 you certainly do it's a public footpath and a right of way now we all understand why they have done it but it doesn't make it right.
Fair enough, I think that the well-being of our cygnets is more of a priority than Majorp's and your own fondness for red tape.
Ah yes! Red Tape.
Wonder if that will go when we leave the EU? After all wasn't that a reason for leaving? To get rid of red tape?
I am far from fond of red tape i was just pointing out that technically they have no right to close a public footpath i know why and accept it. The reason that no order was obtained is probably down to the cost.
I didn't realise the EU controlled our Traffic Regulation Orders too, fancy that.
When people decide to cherry pick on what laws they think should apply and what ones do not, there is something radically wrong with the way our democracy is run. The CEO of DCC is the man responsible for the way things are done, and he and his other officers should make sure everything is run according to the letter of the law. They do not! and in my opinion that is the reason why local authorities are in such a mess. Grenfel is such an example and now it is going to cost millions to sort it out.
Another example closer to home. DCC placed a barrier across a public highway with NO lawful authority. A man was badly injured when the barrier was lowered during a fire test. The case could cost DCC millions, but who cares?
Ground Control to Major P.
That's one hell of a leap to compare the Grenfell Tower disaster to an orange plastic barrier securely placed across a short pathway. The former was allegedly caused by negligence, whilst the latter is merely the use of common sense that causes inconvenience to nobody it would seem but you.
The point I was making that it was the councils fault that both accidents occured through negligence of what happened. People that are elected into office, cry I'm a councillor - so what. but when a tradgedy happens, the blaim game begins and it will take great expense and many hours to sort both cases out. And who will be paying for that?
JD2017, do you really know what caused the rapid spread of the Grenfel fire? go on publish it. Do you know what caused the severe accident to a man who broke his hip at the barrier? go on publish it.
I wouldn't mind betting you know nothing. The leap is not so far fetched as you seem to imply. Many lives were lost/broken/destroyed at Grenfel that is a tradgedy, one man was severely injured at the barrier, that is also a tradgedy. Neither should have happened but they did and it will be interesting to see in both cases, who is going to be the lamb to the slaughter.
@JD2017. As you know, we have a no name-calling policy on this forum. It also applies to using slurs like "Ground Control to Major P".
@Majorlyangryp.
We must be rambling on about different barriers in Dawlish, me old fruit. I'm banging on about the harmless barrier put in place to protect the cygnets, whilst you're referring to an actual accident (involving you????) elsewhere in Dawlish.
Where there's blame there's a claim. I hope you get the help you need.
@majorp, there is no need to reply to JD2017 as his account has been closed (yet again). The person behind JD2017 is an old poster and is only ever interested in flaming other members on this site which is against the terms. I've nipped it in the bud early because it always escalates with this poster.
Can I reply about what JD2017 has said for the benefit of others. The barrier that I refered too was not in Dawlish, it was in Exeter, and I was not the injured party. It should not have been there, but it was placed there by DCC. Now DCC has (I think) 68 Councillors and only one to my knowledge had been fighting for the removal of this barrier for over two years with no backing from other councillors, that to me speaks volumes of the way councils are run. Because the barrier should not have been there and a serios accident occurred because it was, there is likely to be a huge cost to the tax payer, because as you all know, it is the tax payer that always pays the piper. But if things had been done according to the law in both cases I referred to in my earlier post, then probably neither would have happed with such devastating consequences. But councillors are not interested, their interests lie elsewhere.
I was only referring to the barrier at Jubilee Bridge as an example of how councils do what they like until something happens and a fight begins to sort it out. I see a lot of cases where others have taken on DCC and won, but no one outside of those cases seem to bother about how much it has cost DCC in trying to defend the indefensible.
An Obituary printed in the London Times.....Brilliant !!
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, (Don't get common sense muddled up with common purpose).
who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he
was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red
tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable
lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair;
- and maybe it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend
more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not
children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but
overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old
boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens
suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher
fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his
condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing
the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their
unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental
consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but
could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to
have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became
businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their
victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a
burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed
to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a
little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust,
by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his
son, Reason.
He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If
you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and
do nothing.
Everybody these day's seem to talk the talk but do not walk the walk until it is too late!!!!!!!
Why is common sense a HE!
Why not ?? It's Common Sence.
Jesus Christ is supposed to be a HE! Why not query that?
Sigh, things never change on this site.
So what would you like common sence to be deedoodle
Spiral, spiral.
DEEDOODLE, What would you like to changed?
Please 