This site uses cookies

General Discussion

28 Oct 2020 12:44

This planning application was submitted at the beginnng of the year. Loads of objections. It seems it has now been revised. Still a lot of objections. Dawlish Town Council requested that it go to TDC planning committee rather than being decided by a planning officer.


Documents related to this Application are available here.

You can comment on this application using this form.

Cofton Country Holiday Park , Cofton Lane, Cofton, Starcross, EX6 8RP
Dawlish North East
Construction of compound for the secure storage of caravans, construction of compound for the storage of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders, construction of waste compactor foundations and recycling storage compound, construction of building for storage and for the provision of staff facilities and offices, construction of building for the storage, repair and maintenance of works vehicles and machinery, construction of new vehicular access to serve the development together with construction of vehicle wash-down and hard standing, provision of drainage infrastructure and landscaping and associated works

Full Planning Application   

14 Aug 2021 08:59

I've just taken a look at this planning app. and it seems from a recent letter that Cofton are getting frustrated that this application still hasn't been determined and that furthermore they understand that the recommendation is for refusal. This planning application concerns land towards the upper end of Orchard Lane opposite the countryside park.

However, more to the point, it seems the reason for refusal is the following:

"This would conflict with the guidelines for the area which are to: conserve the landscape setting of Dawlish; conserve the settlement pattern of nucleated villages; ensuring the sensitive location of new development avoiding prominent ridges and valley sides; and ensure any improvements to the network of lanes reflects their rural character Permitting the development would conflict with local plan policies S2, S22 and EN2a which all set out the need for development proposals to conserve and enhance the distinctive character of the landscape, particularly AGLV and have regard to the guidelines for the area and, as consequence, there is a landscape objection."


I thought this objection from TDC's Landscape officer 'interesting' as in the proposals recently put forward for future housing in Dawlish found in the Local Plan Review part 2, TDC planners have suggested land for development that would indeed include prominent ridges and valley sides. Some of the land put forward also presently has AGLV (Area of Great Landscape Value) status.


Local councillors please take note.  


1 Agree
15 Aug 2021 08:07

Just taken another look at the land put forward by TDC as possible housing development sites as per the Local Plan Review Part 2.

Two of the sites under consideration presently form part of Amity Farm and they are located either side of Orchard Lane, one being above and on the same side as St Mary's cottages and which seems to be adjacent to Cofton Holiday Park.  (thus very near to the land Cofton wish to get planning permission for to store caravans and other stuff  - see above).

According to the site analysis a plus for this site being developed is that "There is a supermarket relatively close by, and opportunities for sustainable travel to it through Dawlish Countryside Park."

Really? So if this land were to be developed then those living there will walk or cycle through the Dawlish Countryside Park in order to do their weekly 'big' shop at Sainsburys. And then of course they will carry/cycle all their shopping back with them across the park and up the hill to where they live.

Yeah! Course they will (not!). 


16 Aug 2021 19:43

You're still misunderstanding the Local Plan review. None of the sites have been "put forward by TDC", they've all been put forward by the landowners (mainly farmers). 
They are all on this list, but the majority of them will be disregarded. Including, in my view, those around the Countryside Park. 

17 Aug 2021 05:59

I'm not misunderstanding the Local Plan review. The sites have been put forward by TDC because, as you rightly say, they have been put forward by landowners.

And not all land that was put forward by the landowners was subsequently put on the list for consideration in the Local Plan Review Part 2.

Furthermore, I agree that not all the land that was put out for consideration in the recent Local Plan Review will be built on. That was made very clear during the consultation period. And one of those I strongly suspect will not be built on is the land that I refer to in my post above.

I mentioned it because I could see how building on it would contradict TDC's present planning policies and that this contradiction is borne out by TDC's landscape officer's objections.  Nontheless it still found its way onto the list of possible development sites. I also mentioned it because of the, as I see it, ridiculous statement with regard to sustainable travel through the country park in order to get to the supermarket.


Click this link to see all the land submitted to TDC for consideration for development within Dawlish CP

and click on this link to see the land that was subsequently put out by TDC for consideration for development in that first list was whittled down to land in that second list. Land in that second list will now be whittled down again.  

We now await to see what land remains for proposed development when the third list comes out.  


01 Nov 2021 13:44

Planning permission refused.

Here's why:

Reasons for refusal: The application site is a self-contained area of agricultural land located outside of the established holiday park, on the opposite side of Orchard Lane which bisects the two sites. The proposed development, including the siting of touring caravans, operational buildings and associated works would have commercial characteristics that would strongly conflict with the undeveloped character of the area, have an adverse effect on the Area of Great Landscape Value and erode the rural character of the area. Whilst mitigation has been proposed which would provide improved screening, this does not sufficiently address the high degree of visual intrusion associated with the proposals or the erosion of the wider landscape character. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies S1 (Sustainable Development Criteria), S2 (Quality Development), S22 (Countryside) and EN2A (Landscape Protection and Enhancement) of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013 – 2033 (6th May 2014) as well as guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (20 July 2021)

1 Agree
19 May 2022 19:29

Appeal has been lodged.

04 Aug 2022 15:21

Appeal dismissed.

Comment Please sign in or sign up to post