Before anyone has a moan about my starting another thread concerning the possible sites for housing development in Dawlish, the reason I am doing this is because the other thread is now quite long and the info as to how you can register your thoughts with TDC might get ‘lost’.
The consultation opens at 12 noon on Monday 14th June.
You can send in your comments via the following ways;
Residents are asked to comment on specific sites under planning themes such as environment and landscape; health and well being; access, transport and connectivity; infrastructure; employment and the economy.
Consultation closes 12 noon Monday 9th August
Replies that you can expect:
1. "It's not a consultation, they've already made their mind up".
2. "Why build all these houses, nobody needs them?".
3. "People keep buying all these new houses that they're always building, but what about the extra traffic they're causing?".
4. "I blame cyclists".
An item on the agenda for this Thursday's (24th June) Dawlish Town Council's Planning Committee is whether or not DTC should submit a response (it will!) to TDC's Local Plan consultation.
It occurs to me that as well as members of the public being able to submit comments as individuals, it might also be of use to our town councillors if they were aware of concerns/agreements to what is being proposed by those living in the parish as such thoughts might then be fed into the town council's submission.
Here are the councillors who sit on Dawlish Town Council's planning committee should you wish to contact them.
1. Cllr Lin Goodman-Bradbury(Chair)
2. Cllr Gary Taylor (ViceChair)
3. Cllr Martin Heath
4. Cllr Byron Woods
5. Cllr Mike James
6. Cllr Carole Tamlyn
7. Cllr Alison Foden
8. Cllr Martin Wrigley
Never hear of some of them.
For example, what has Mike James done since he's been a Councillor...apart from being able to say "I'm a Councillor"!
Seems to collect committees, governerships etc for a passtime!
But does he actually do anything?
Just be aware that if you are wanting to send in a submission concerning the Local Plan review and in the process of research you look up past planning applications concerning any of the land under consideration, that if you try to search on TDC's planning portal using an address/postcode you won't necessarily get all the planning applications/Appeals concerning that piece of land. I write this because I have a specific piece of land in mind and became aware of this issue when some of the planning applications I knew had been submitted in the past were not being shown.
I have reported this to one of our TDC councillors.
It's when things like this happen that conspiracy theories start....
At its meeting last evening (24th June) the town council's planning committee decided to defer the matter to all the town councillors and it will be on the agenda at the next full council meeting .
During discussion on the item, the following points were made:
· a lack of infrastructure existed within the parish in relation to road, rail and cycle links, doctors, schools and hospitals;
· development should take place on the north side of the Parish;
· there appeared to be no mention of the requirement of green corridors given we were currently in a 6th extinction of wildlife which had also not been recognised in the document;
· population figures should be based on current levels and not those from the 2011 census;
· concerns with sewerage capacity, surface water runoff, and drainage in the Dawlish Warren area,
· the A379 was not fit for increased traffic levels and was not safe for children walking to school with no pavement on the seaward side of the road;
· the doctors surgery had been expanded on the basis of the previous local plan policy DA2 and concern existed that further expansion would not be possible.
The Teignbridge Local Plan Review is an agenda item at the next town council meeting being held on Weds. 7th July. Cllrs will be asked if they wish to add anything to the list shown above. So if anyone reading this thinks other things should be added perhaps now might be a time to contact a town councillor and let them know. Here's how to find out who they are and how to contact them. Click on the link and then scroll down.https://democracy.dawlish.gov.uk/mgMemberIndex.aspx?bcr=1
See below for text of the report that will be put to all town councillors at tomorrow's full council meeting.
From Dawlish Planning Committee - 01/07/2021 PROPOSED HELAA Local Plan comments from members of the Planning Committee. Members are asked to read and review this document prior to the Full Council meeting on Wednesday 7th July. The proposal is that this document or a modified version of it is to be submitted to Teignbridge District Council in response to the Local Plan consultation.
Dawlish Town Council Members want to highlight the following points when considering further development in and around Dawlish Parish in response to the Local Plan consultation.
1. Infrastructure We have grave concerns as to whether the infrastructure of the parish is robust and able to cope with the increased population, traffic and demands on services that the proposed housing expansion would bring. Roads - The main link to the major employment sites of Newton Abbot and Exeter from Dawlish is the A379. This road is already suffering heavy day to day congestion at the current level of housing. Commuters to Exeter are also joined at Exminster by many other commuters. There is only single lane direct access to connect Dawlish to A380, A38 and M5 from Dawlish Many parts of the main road network do not have safe pedestrian access or cycle paths. There is an hourly bus route plus train link, but this is situated in the centre of town and would still require driving from outlying estates to access it. The coastal town of Dawlish also has a huge increase of population during holiday periods as visitors come to stay within the parish. This again stretches the already stretched resources and impacts on the infrastructure and services. Services - Major improvements to pavements or cycle paths would be required for many of the proposed sites to enable safe pedestrian access from one side of the parish to the other and safely access the train station. Bus and train service would also need to be expanded to encourage more public transport use to support any increase in population and offer a more viable solution. Bank - The local plan document states that Dawlish has as bank. This is not correct. The two banks that were in the town have since closed and now only visit on a weekly basis with mobile vans for 30 minutes time slots. This in our opinion is not the same service as “A Bank".
Doctors’ surgery/ Hospital - This was expanded on the basis of the DA2. development so further housing/ population would also require further investment and expansion to support the increased population. The status quo would not be feasible as the services are already stretched to support the influx of visitors in the holiday season. Schools - An increase in development will also necessitate at least one extra primary school and possible extra provision for Secondary school places. The A379 road access means that there is no safe sustainable journey to school for pupils currently so expansion would make this situation worse. In addition, Dawlish also does not have adequate nursery provision. Water, drainage, and Sewage- The number of homes has increased yet water and waste capacity has not changed. Significant increased capacity for water pressure, drainage and sewage processing would be required. The further building work and development would mean less land to soak away rainfall and so more water run-off. Some of the HELAA sites border the Exe estuary SSSI. The further development and increase of built-up areas could cause critical damage to the SSSI caused by this run off. This would also impact the other water courses in the area with floods being a much more common occurrence. In addition: Dawlish Town Council has declared a Climate Change emergency so is looking to build a sustainable Town and Parish with safe access for pedestrians to walking and cycling routes. With further development it is local wildlife that would also suffer.
2.Comments on Specific sites: - It is our opinion that we discount those areas that do not rated as Yellow through the HELAA process. This would discount most or all the following sites for housing development: - Land West of Teignmouth Road. Flagged Amber in HELAA. Undeveloped Coast. Remote from local services. - Land at Warren Farm. Flagged Amber in HELAA. Sits alongside area of Undeveloped Coast. (Previously considered for a SANGS Coastal Park - perhaps could be considered for further SANGS, community facilities or other green infrastructure should other sites in same ownership be taken forward?). - Land at Langdon Farm. Flagged Amber in HELAA process. County Wildlife Site with mitigation Area for Cirl Bunting pairs displaced from DA2 over western fields. Remote from local services (although less so at north-eastern fringe of site adjacent to Land at Langdon Hospital, below)
Other Flagged Yellow sites are only deliverable in part (HELAA text in quotes): - Land at Amity Farm (1 of 2, ref 5h15yx9). “Submitted for consideration for tourism purposes”. Northern part disregarded (“access…landscape…remote”).
- Land at Langdon Hospital. “Approximately 500m west of Shutterton Bridge and adjacent to allocated development, to the northwest of the hospital, becoming almost 1.5km distant from Shutterton Bridge. In considering this site for development, only the two fields that lie to the south of the hospital, closest to the allocated development are considered to have potential”. - Land off Langdon Road. Much of site is already identified either for housing at DA2 or for Green Infrastructure at DA6. Of the remainder, “North facing slopes and higher elevations which comprise the bulk of the land parcel would be conspicuous from the wider landscape” (as would any access route). Of the other sites put forward to the north of Dawlish the distance from local services would leave Sparrow’s Nest an outlier (but it is alongside the A379 on a regular bus route). Of the remainder of the sites in this vicinity, some contain areas of higher ground and are conspicuous in the landscape. Development would therefore need to be handled sensitively with tree planting and other listed mitigation measures such as improved or new sustainable travel corridors, road crossings, green infrastructure (playing fields, community orchard, allotments, etc). We could consider brownfield sites other than the development at the vets when it serves the community well where it is. We would suggest this site is removed from the plan.
3. Total Housing numbers of up to 7272 (including all noted in Dawlish coastal sites) DTC consider this number fundamentally too large. We would consider that 10% or less of the housing numbers for sites put forward would be the maximum that infrastructure, climate change and landscape constraints could sustain. This would be in the region of 700 additional houses in the parish, developed during the lifetime of the next local plan period of 2020-2040.
This item is again on the agenda for the town council's planning committee meeting this Thursday (15th July) so now might be a good time to let councillors know what you think of the proposals.
The larger sites are as follows:
Dawlish North - land around the countryside park and both sides of the A379.
Langdon Hospital - land around the hospital and Langdon farm area.
Warren Farm - land where the Thursday pm boot fair is presently held plus the field on Mount Pleasant Road (where a Wednesday market and boot fair used to be held) opposite the bungalows.
Teignmouth Road - land opposite The Smugglers pub across the A379.
I've just been reading a thread on Eyes of Dawlish concerning this Local Plan review.
Quite understandably there are comments expressing concern about Grade 1 agricultural land being developed for housing and how this shouldn't be allowed to happen because this country should be more self sufficient with regard to food, and how it doesn't augur well for the future of the British farming industry etc etc.
All are sentiments I agree with. But as one commentator on that thread points out - it is the farmers themselves who have put forward their land for development...
So who's to blame? TDC or local farmers/landowners?
I was up at Oaklands Wood yesterday. Oaklands wood leads onto three fields that have a path running around them often used by dog walkers. These three fields are up for consideration for housing development. They are known as the Teignmouth Road site in the Local Plan review. Someone has placed some A4 posters where access to the fields can be made from the wood giving information about this proposal. I took some photographs and if I can work out how to do it I will post them on here. If you have access to Eyes of Dawlish they have been posted on there so take a look.
A couple of weeks back in the local paper there was a letter published about the proposal to develop this site. This is what it said:
"I wish to draw readers’ attention to the possible development for housing, as shown in the Teignbridge Local Plan review, on land referred to as the Teignmouth Road site.
The land in question is that which is opposite The Smugglers pub at Holcombe, looking across the A379 in an inland direction up to Oak Hill Cross Road. To the right the land is bounded by the settlements at Southdown Road, Bunting Way, and Shillingate Close and then Oaklands Wood. To its left it partially follows the line of Holcombe Road.
I am writing this letter as I wish to publicly express my concern that this land is being considered for development when I understand it to have Undeveloped Coast designation.
According to the present Teignbridge Local Plan, land that has Undeveloped Coast designation cannot be built on unless the development concerned necessitates a coastal location.
The Undeveloped Coast policy states that: “The open stretches of undeveloped coast have their own special character and, where possible, should remain open. Therefore there is a presumption against development on undeveloped coast where a proposal does not have a demonstrable need to have a coastal location.”
I would be very interested to know just what ‘demonstrable need to have a coastal location’ there is for some 200 plus houses to be built on this site.
If land has an Undeveloped coast designation, and by way of of that be protected from development, then that is what it should have - protection from development. If that is not the case then what on earth is the point of having a policy aimed at protecting the coastal landscape when it can be seemingly over-ridden if the land is wanted for new housing?
It also raises the issue that other land, both presently, or in the future, designated as Undeveloped Coast might also end up as housing as the development of one UC designated piece of land would set a precedent for others to follow suit.
For those who are as alarmed about this matter as I am I ask that you share your concerns with your local councillor(s) and also to the planners at Teignbridge District Council. This can be done by email: firstname.lastname@example.org "