22/01923/OUT | Outline application for a exceptions site with 4 First Homes (approval sought for access and scale) | Land Adjacent To Sutton Close Dawlish Devon EX7 0DS
This is on the agenda at the next Dawlish town council planning committee meeting being held on Thursday 10th November
Not a single landowner along Commons Lane has contributed to the upkeep of the track - which includes a footpath over it! Devon County Council (who we have spoken to) will not enforce it.
For the past 12 years my son and I have kept that path open (with the help of Neil Carpenter when he had his tractor available) and in the last 6 years this has been done with hand tools only! We have put in a French Drain and chopped back the hedges in that time.
The amount of abuse we have suffered (by Trevor and his ilk) whilst doing it had been astonishing.
The Luscombe Estate, St Marychurch Housing Association and others, all have landlord responsibility along Commons Lane and do nothing.
Additionally, I have never seen any of those who use it offering to help!
Unfortunately my son died at the age of 28 in January 2022. I am now 60 and cannot keep this lane clear on my own.
I have engaged a hedge-cutting tractor driver (at my own expense) but he can't do the work until I cut back the top cover which will damage his gear.
I own the land called Thatchcombe at the very end of the lane (none of which has a boundary on it other than our gate). We had an idea to do a project to help disdvantaged kids and adults on it and also abandoned animals. Subsequent events have so far prevented this from coming to fruition. We currently have a couple of animals from the Donkey Sanctuary and a few pigs from the RSPCA. We pay to provide food and to look after these.
A 100 yrds or so of someone else looking after Commons Lane will be no disadvantage to me at all!
@HuwMatthews2: Not sure how, if this development is given the go ahead, that it will improve Commons Lane. From looking at the planning documents it seems that access to it will be from the south via Sutton Close. Sutton Close residents may be non too happy about the construction site traffic accessing the site via Sutton Close? Still, do you think any objections on their part will make the slightest bit of difference? I know what I think.
Just a bit of background info. Back in 2018 when a 'call for land' took place for future development sites a piece of land to the west of Commons Lane was submitted for consideration. This was not progressed for reasons of access and ecology as "Commons Lane is a narrow "green lane" that is not highways owned/maintained. Access difficult at bottleneck of Commons Lane and Sutton Close. Could not widen without involving 3rd party owner of adjacent dwellings".
From looking at the planning docs accompanying this application it seems to me that the land in question bears a remarkable resemblance to the land to which I refer in the second para in my posting above this one.
The land lies north west of, and adjacent to, Rivendell.
Looks like the access to the proposed 4 dwellings would be via an existing driveway access (I guess the driveway that presently exists to access Rivendell?).
The access/egress of the present driveway would be altered (by partial removal of hedge) so that it would be as near as damn it opposite the entrance to Sutton Close.
It seems that prospectors can/will build whatever and wherever they want in these days and no matter how much you protest, it will go ahead.
Good ole' tories.
Rich get richer and the poor, well, stuff them as they don't care!!!
DTC's planning committee :
Resolved that this Council Recommends Refusal on the grounds that:
· The application site falls within an area of undeveloped coast.
· There would be restricted vehicular access to the site due to the nature of the narrow roads approaching it and the increased traffic movement that this site would generate.
· There would be a loss of biodiversity through the loss of hedgerows and habitats.
The committee further Resolved that if the Planning Officer is minded to approve the application, the Town Council Planning Committee requests that the application is called-in to the Teignbridge Planning Committee for determination.
I just love the bit about 'The application site falls within an area of undeveloped coast'. If you look toward the coast from Sutton Close/Commons Lane and see the amount of development between it and the Coast by both parts of the Jefferies family and the NHS at Langdon. Why has DTC not objected to these developments or the new proposed Hensford Lane development? In addition both Warren Farm and Amity Farm are being considered for housing etc in the local plan. They are both between Commons Lane/Sutton Close and the sea! The whole thing is a bloody joke!!!
The land owned by both parts of the Jefferies family (Gatehouse Farm and Secmaton Farm) plus what was the NHS land at Langdon (now being developed by Persimmon) was put forward for potential development when the call for land sites was made by TDC, I would guess, some 10 plus years or so ago.
Amongst other parcels of land in the parish, (eg where the new build houses are in Holcombe) these three sites made it through to the present Local Plan. The present Local Plan came into effect in 2014. The area in question in the present Local Plan is known in TDC plannerspeak as DA2. I have referred to the area known as DA2 quite often on other threads. It is where the Gatehouse/Sainsburys link road is due to traverse.
The Local Plan shows which areas have been designated for future development whether that be for housing or employment or something else.
So the reason TDC has not objected to these areas being developed for housing is quite simply that it was agreed some 8(ish) years ago that this should be the case.
The Hensford Lane proposal is a future planning concept. It shows how the Langdon Farm area might be developed. It is not a planning application - yet! It might be in the future though depending on whether or not land at Langdon Farm is deemed suitable for development by those putting together future Local Plans.
Yes I agree that both Warren Farm and Amity Farm made their way through as land being considered for future development by TDC. Both bits of land were shown in the public consultation that took place June - August of 2021. We, the public, will not know the outcome of that consultation until end of this year/ beginning of next. Personally speaking, and for what it is worth, I don't think either Warren Farm or Amity Farm should be developed. But I am not involved in the final decision making process.
I'll post separately about the Undeveloped coast policy.
You miss my point.
How can land closer to the coast not be protected as 'Undeveloped Coast' irrespective to when any OPP was granted?
Plus, how can the various LAs now move that 'protected land'' inland?
By their reckoning Okehampton will soon fall under 'Undeveloped Coast'!!!
And you are not the only one mystyfied by how some land is deemed to be undeveloped coast, whilst other bits of land are not.
Who says what is, and what is not, land that should be defined as undeveloped coast? What criteria is used? High land visible from the sea? (see TDC policy below)
At what point and under what circumstances might land that is presently deemed to be undeveloped coast have this status removed? I know for a fact that some of the land that was put forward for consideration for development in the emerging Local Plan presently has Undeveloped coast designation. So, with a few exceptions it shouldn't be built on. I await to see if any of it is included in the final draft of the emerging Local Plan which will be in the public domain in a few weeks time.
I can only suggest that you put your questions to TDC planning department - and let the rest of us know the response.
This is TDC's Undeveloped Coast policy in the present Local Plan:
EN2 Undeveloped Coast The protection, maintenance and enhancement of the distinctive landscape and seascape character and ecological qualities of the undeveloped coast, will be a priority alongside the ecological and biodiversity considerations. Development which would have a detrimental effect on the character of the undeveloped coast and estuaries will not be permitted. New development will be regarded as inappropriate except where it has regard to the Shoreline Management Plan and: a) is a minor alteration in line with WE8; or b) is required for the purposes of agriculture or forestry or involves a use that requires a coastal location and by virtue of its scale, nature and location does not detract from the undeveloped character of the coast.
The Undeveloped Coast is defined on the policies map and is based on the extent of maritime and coastal influences, particularly its visibility from sea, coastline and estuary.
The open stretches of undeveloped coast have their own special character and, where possible, should remain open. Therefore there is a presumption against development 62 Adopted Teignbridge Local Plan (6th May 2014) on undeveloped coast where a proposal does not have a demonstrable need to have a coastal location. 5.4 Development that requires a coastal location, including flood defences and measures to improve public access and enjoyment must conserve and enhance the distinctive coastal landscape and seascape qualities and character. The Shoreline Management Plan will be considered alongside this policy, which takes into account any adverse effects of sea level and on coastal erosion.
Okay...come on...cough up! Which complete prat has now installed bird and bat boxes along Commons Lane then?
Apparently there are so many Cirl Buntings in Dawlish now that we probably need a cull!
And as for bats....I believe there's now a movement to rename Dawlish as Gotham City!!!