General Discussion

I see from today's Gazette that there are a series of drop-in sessions this week concerning the plan. Thought you might like to know details. Please tell others.

Thursday 29th - 10.00am - 1.00pm - United Reform Church, The Strand

Friday 30th - 10.00am - 12 noon - Open Daw, the Methodist Church, Brunswick Place

Saturday 31st - 10.00am - 4.00pm - The Manor House

Hi everyone. Attended a public meeting about the plan last night and didn't get a clear response about the key assumption in the plan - that 2000 new homes will be required. I challenged this figure (my calculations show it's closer to 13-1400) and was told that I could submit my comments in writing for consideration by the Steering Group.

I thought it would be useful to share with everyone some relevant bits of what I've submitted. If you agree with my logic perhaps you'd like to raise the same issues in your own comments - the pressure might force the planners to review their assumptions!!

So here it is:

1. Generally approve the tenor of the plan. It has a clear vision which, if achieved, ought to lead to a positive regeneration of Dawlish.
2. BUT its achievability is based on being able to generate £20 million for infrastructure developments. This in turn is based on a projected requirement of 2000 new homes over the next 20 years. However, there is no evidence in the plan of how this figure has been reached and it wasn’t really clarified at last night’s public meeting. There was reference to another document which I’ve been unable to trace yet on the internet.
3. Some research I’ve done on population and household projections (see last section of these notes) suggest the figure is closer to 1400 (or less). If this is true then it has significant implications to the conclusions of the plan:
   1. It would mean that all housing needs for the next 20 years could be accommodated by the approved 400 homes plus another 1000 in the Secmaton Lane proposal; so, there would be no need for other peripheral developments – much simpler
   2. It would also mean that only about £12.5 million would be generated (i.e £20m/1600 x 1000) or only about two-thirds of what is required to achieve the vision – a massive underfall
4. I’m not saying that my forecast is any better than the one stated in the plan but I can demonstrate how I’ve reached it whereas the current plan just presents it as an unquestioned figure with no evidential support.
5. Whichever is eventually proved more accurate it is absolutely clear that a forecast is only a forecast. I would recommend that the Plan should present alternative scenarios of what is achievable based on low, medium and high projections of growth. This would be good business practice anyway and would allow better decision-making based on an understanding of the risks involved.

Household Projections

You can forecast future household numbers either directly or by forecasting population change and then converting that to households. I have done both below for comparative purposes. The source data is from published national and local sources and is generally based on mid-census data (i.e from 2006/7). So the base data will inevitably be different if based on 2011 census figures but there shouldn’t be significant differences in projections.

1. Based on household statistics:
   1. Number of households in Dawlish (2009) = 6370 (Source = Devon County Council, Dawlish town mosaic profile 2009);
   2. National projections for percentage change in households over 20years: England = c.21.7%; SW Region = c.22.3% (Source = Office National Statistics, national and regional trends). Note: I haven’t been able to find a specific figure for Dawlish; also there is a warning that sub-regional projections are inevitably less accurate.
   3. So, conservatively taking the higher of these two figures, the extra homes required over 20 years would be 6370x0.223 = 1420
2. Based on population statistics:
   1. Dawlish 2006 population = 15,122 (Source: Devon County Council - Devon Town Population Projections – Dawlish – July 2007)
   2. Dawlish 2021 projected population = 17,274; with 14.2% change over that period (Source: ibid)
   3. These figures are based on the Chelmer Population Projection Model
   4. If we just pro-rata these figures then estimated 2011 population = 15,839 and projected 2031 population would be 18709.
   5. So projected increase in population = 2870 (or 18.1%, which is significantly higher than the England national average of around 14% over the same period)
   6. Average household size projection for England is falling from 2.3 in 2011 to 2.1 in 2031 (Source: Office National Statistics), so take an average of 2.2 over the 20 year period
   7. So, projected extra homes required = 2870/2.2 = 1305

tuck da words outta me mouth.

Thankyou Rainbow1. That must be a first!! Cheers.

Thank you Neil for your well reasoned arguments. I shall certainly be referring to it in my response to Teignbridge planners

TDC now (but only of the last few days!) putting more info re Dawlish local plan on their website.

Here is some more info that is not to be found in the draft plan available for public consultation but is nontheless very relevant. If I get anymore new links I'll post them (and if others could do the same that would be very useful).

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=30966&p=0

Interesting but only shows how they are going to spend the money, based on 1600 new homes + the 400 already approved. But they still haven't shown how the figure of 1600 is derived.

Perhaps they are planning back to front!! Perhaps they've started by saying they need 480 affordable homes, which means they have to build 1600 new homes in total (because 480 is 30% of 1600, which is the guideline ratio). But then if my earlier calculations based on actual population growth are closer to the mark then only 1100 homes would be needed and you'd end up with 500 empty houses (1600-1100)! Interesting use of resources!!

Neil - Gawd knows how TDC ended up with that figure. I've since been told that the Steering Group decided on it but based on what info & figures I don't know.

Have you tried asking Simon Thornley who is TDC's Service Manager, Spatial Planning & Delivery.

Simon.Thornley@Teignbridge.gov.uk

I've presently a load of information that people have sent me (and others) that I need to plough through over the next few days. If any of it concerns any useful links or any info concerning housing numbers I'll post it on here.

Thanks Lynne. Have just e-mailed Simon Thornley. Will post answer when I get it.

thought this might be of interest

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/01/social-housing-planning-reform

Reply from Simon Thornley:

"Hi Neil,

thanks for your email. I will try to put something together for you today, but just to let you know it is not an exact science and therefore there is no magic formula on these things.

Simon"

Let's see what the formula brings.

Detailed reply from Simon. This suggests that actually MORE houses are required than stated in the plan (should be 2660 in 20 years) but confirms that the planning is working backwards from the number of affordable homes required (their estimate is 40 per annum for Dawlish, implying that 133 new homes per year would be needed to generate the numbers for affordable homes. Here's what he said:

"Thank you for your email. I am off to a meeting in Cockwood now, so please excuse the slightly rushed nature of this response.

Firstly, the Neighbourhood Plan makes proposals for 1600 new homes, but obviously (as in any location) there are also existing planning permissions already in place. In the Dawlish case, these amount to about 400 dwellings, but obviously already have consent.

As I said in my earlier email, there is no formula which we, as planners, plug into a place in order to come out with a dwelling requirement. We would consider a variety of issues and factors. I will set out some of these below. I would further add that the Neighbourhood Plan is not a product of Teignbridge officers working alone, it has been prepared in consultation with many members of the community (including, but not only, the Town Council) both at a community planning workshop to which about 500 people were invited, as well as through the steering group of local representatives.

The issues which we took into account:

The results of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (look here http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=13677 under "housing"). These indicate a need for about 740 dwellings per year across Teignbridge, of which about 40% should be affordable dwellings. They include meeting existing need as well as new need arising in the area. I have looked at the ONS population forecasts and these are slightly below this figure, but do not (as far as I can tell) allow for meeting existing need.

The proportion of current housing need to be found within Dawlish, from the Housing Register in 2010. This showed 13.2% of need was Dawlish. By multiplying this by the 300 per year required, a figure of about 40 per year was calculated for Dawlish affordable housing need.

The expected proportion of affordable housing to be gained from market housing (currently about 30%). To meet this estimated need of 40 per year, therefore about 133 dwellings per year overall would need to be developed.

The various groups of local people at the workshop came up with a variety of proposals and you can see these summarised on our website. Looking at these together, 1600 is on the low side, as most proposed more. see www.teignbridge.gov.uk/dawlish in the consultation report.

Taking all these things into account, the officers and steering group felt that the proposals reflected the right balance between need for developnent and other issues, of course the public may have different views and we will consider comments received in the very near future.

As I said, this is definitely not an exact science. I hope this is helpful."

And here is my reply:

Hi Simon. Thanks again for getting back to me so quickly.

If I understand the logic correctly it appears that there has been a detailed modelling of the requirements for affordable housing resulting in an estimate of 40 per annum for Dawlish. This figure has then been used "backwards" to project requireemnt for new homes overall - but this is just a notional figure based on the 30% ratio limit for financing of affordable housing. As you said, this would give a higher requirement over 20 years (2660) than that stated in the Plan (2000).

I guess I have a number of concerns about the methodology:

1. 2660 is purely an arithmetic "fix", not based on forecast population changes. Looking at forecast population and household projections suggest an overall new home requirement of 1300-1400 - i.e. half the arithmetic result. Such variation is highly significant and would result in substantially different future scenarios for Dawlish.

2. Then you said that the total figure was reduced to 2000 through the consultation process - again significantly different figure from 2660, which is essentially pure guesswork (or so I think!!). But the implication of 2000 is that there would be a shortfall of 200 affordable homes over 20 years - so how is that shortfall going to be made up in the Plan, or will it just be accepted?

here is an extract from one of the e-mails I received over the weekend. "

"The population (of Dawlish) is 13,800 with 26% of the population over the age of 65 which equates to 3588 people over the age of retirement. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects Report, the average life expectance in the UK is 79.4 years which means that based on an occupancy of 1.5 retired people per residence over the next twenty years over 2,300 residences will become available which is greater than the projected need. "

even my math is betta dan dat!!!! dat is da worse lye/stat eva. u do da math n cum bck wi sumthin lke da troot.

Not my calculation Rainbow1 - someone else's.

Tell you what - you do the maths for as you yourself say "even my math is betta dan dat!!!!"

will no1 b born in nxt 20 yrs? r dey puting controciptivs in da water? also will no 1 becum 65 yrs old in da nxt 20 yrs cos dey r gunna kill evry1 who gets 2 65? u shud b a pollytican.

o yeh. n i 4got 2 say dat live expectation is 4 us 2 life longr in da futur.

Teignbridge didn't base the number of homes on UK % population growth applied to Dawlish or on meeting a proportion of the affordable homes need. They held a planning workshop at which a game was played where people around several tables put counters for 100 houses on big maps of Dawlish and surrounding fields and worked out how much money would be raised with the CIL tax, which they could then 'spend' on a selection of benefits like GP surgeries or allotments on a costed list. It was great fun. TDC took all the maps back to the office and counted the 100-house counters for each table. They then included an Appendix 2 on a 'strictly confidential draft plan' that said: 'All maps showed a level of consistency in suggesting there being a need for growth in and around Dawlish to bring about positive changes to help address issues affecting the area. This broadly included an average of about 1,600 new homes ...' After that TDC and the Steering Group accepted 1,600 new homes (plus 400 in pipeline) as Dawlish people's decision. IT WAS A GAME!!!

Fascinating! So guesswork after all.

let me guess. u r anuva bitta old DARE member who likes 2 mek up lyes. u shud get ur name in da paper like dat bludy lynne nichols woman evry bludy wk. u lot r in da dark ages. git outta ur nursin hme n git in da real wrld.

nt fasnating. a lye.

Sorry Rainbow it was no lie, what Chris Marsh has said is true. So no one has to get out of their nursing homes to get real. What would help is if you could spell english and use grammar so it doesn't take me an hour to understand one of your sentences.

i mite rite a letta 2 da gazet lol. cos ive got nowt betta 2 do n am realy vain. jus lyk dat lynne nicolls woman dat peeps round da lish r laffin at.

@Rainbow1 -oh yes! what a good idea please do write a letter to the Gazette. I'm sure we would all love to read what you have to say. A well argued, well researched letter from you and written in plain English would be such a change from the snidy and almost unintelligible comments you post on this website.

such a pity some people cannot be objectively and intelligently engaged in discussion but have to spit out personal insults - sadly not just you '@Rainbow1', whoever you are...

There seem to be 2 discussion threads with similar themes so have posted this on "Affordable Homes" as well!! The nub of the problem about the Dawlish Plan is the conflict between meeting Social Need and producing a realistic, achievable plan. The figures suggest that these can’t be reconciled so something has to give. From e-mail exchanges with TDC I understand that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) implies that 40 affordable houses will be needed per annum over the next 20 years, or 800 in total. This includes projected population growth and an apparent existing shortfall in affordable homes in Dawlish. So this is the conflict: 1. Forecasts based on population or household growth (see calculationsearlier in thread) suggest at most 1400 new homes are required. But this results in only 420 affordable homes under the political target of 30% - way short of what TDC is saying is required. 2. Starting instead from TDC’s forecast of 800 affordable homes required means that 2660 new homes would have to be built to secure funding from the political target. This figure has somehow been “toned down” in a Steering Group planning session (which has been referred to as just a game) to 2000. So this figure of 2000 still results in only 600 affordable homes, or 200 short of the starting target.

AND THAT IS IF developers will actually build 2000 homes. If the population forecasts show a need for only 1400 new homes then developers will soon see that through the level of market demand and they will downscale their building programme accordingly so we’d still end up with only 1400 new homes including 420 affordable houses. So either way is Plan is raising expectations which can not be met and is therefore an unrealistic and misleading plan. The forecast income will not be achieved so the infrastructure proposals will not be achieved.

I participated in the Workshop at the Red Rock Centre. For the avoidance of doubt we were NOT consulted on the number of homes that should be built in Dawlish over the next 20 years. This was presented as fait accompli by TDC officers leading the workshop.

We were given no opportunity to demur. In the afternoon session we were simply directed to place the pieces of paper, each representing 100 houses, onto a large scale map and given a very short time to think up where to put them. We were also presentented with a whole lot of information about infrasructure needs and budgets for which insufficient time was available to make much headway in making sense of how they should be calculated, allocated, distributed, etc. (And given that TDC control and finance only a proportion of these resources it was a rather spurious exercise.) Bear in mind, too, that TDC planners have months to study this sort of information.

Whilst discussions took place at our table concerning the desirability and wisdom of playing this dangerous game (i.e. implicitly agreeing that 2,000 houses were appropriate) we did cooperate in a well-mannered way, and placed most of the houses, and, within the limited time available gave the infrastructure and budgets our best shot.

However, it was evident from the presentations made by individual tables that many of the participants had not taken the exercise very seriously, for example, placing the majority of the houses on land owned by the Luscombe Estate, in close proximity to the Castle. There were yurts, and wave power generators close to the shore, and so on. At the same time the budgets for providing infrastructure varied wildly due to lack of time to assimilate and consider requirements. After all this was an enormous task to be sprung on delegates without warning, adequate time allowance, and opportunity for research.

I don't think it was appreciated just how the results would be used and, perhaps, come back to haunt us. For TDC to make any claim that this component of the workshop delivered considered and well thought out information, responses and opinions is at the very least ill-founded.

This Luscombe Estate idea........I know someone (not me) who has suggested the very same thing in their response to the draft plan.

This person though went a bit further than just suggesting the area as a potential site for new housing as they put to TDC that a Compulsory Purchase Order could be used to acquire land there. After all, the estate does have low level land near the town centre.........

Makes me smile every time I think of it. :)

Lynne - Yes, smile, but in disbelief that folk are happy to see the rape and pillage our wondrous landscape!!!

According to TDC Luscombe ( buildings Grade II*) would be ring-fenced under the Neighbourhood Plan item 9.4 'Protection of important buildings and spaces of historic value'.

After such a promising banner heading sadly (and frustratingly), however, TDC have not enlarged on their 'vision' in this respect. They have failed to define which buildings and which spaces, specifically will be protected. Will their definition of important or historic match the community's view, or that of any of the authorities such as English Heritage, Garden History Society or Devon Gardens Trust? TDC are currently required to consult English Heritage ref planning applications for Grade I and II* sites but EH's funding has been cut by 32%. Garden History Society are shortly to have some of their statutory responsibilities axed, including being consulted on Grade II applications. In other words their teeth are being drawn and both bodies are destined to be less effective at protecting heritage assets.

Furthermore in their 'Confidential Draft Phasing and Funding Schedule' TDC have given no information or budgets that might enlighten us as to their thinking. So really another meaningless vision.

We can expect little practical support for our heritage in the Government's emerging National Planning Policy Framework, which waters down considerably the provisions of the existing PPS5 "Planning for the Historic Environment", which itself was only adopted as recently as March 2010, after extensive consultation with all stakeholders. Of particular concern is the wooliness of references to "heritage assets" - where the implication is that very little weight is to be given to the protection of sites that do not appear on the statutory lists. There are very many sites of this category in Devon including Grade II buildings and unlisted buildings and land of local historical significance.

Knowle House is Grade II listed. Should the Museum move (see Neighbourhood Plan 4.5) what would happen to that building?

Curiously TDC seem to think that someone will stump up £3m at some future date to move the museum into a combined attraction in the town centre. Perhaps a state of the art building on Tuck's Plot to rival the Tate St. Ives? That would look nice .

I take your point(s) totally Flower about preservation (or not!) of the landscape and TDC's pie in the sky vision.

Don't have a problem with the Luscombe Estate staying as it is and not having new houses on it provided the parkland were to be open for public use!

Now there's a radical idea!

Excellent idea! I believe that Lusombe Estate also owns the piece of land next to Southdowns Road (according to Councillor Pratt, the chair of the Steering Group) and has already committed to put it up for development (even though it's in coastal preservation area). If that actually goes through then perhaps there should be a tit-for-tat condition imposed that opens up the other parkland for public use. How about that for political shenanigans!!

We only have our allotments at Browns Brook courtesy of the Luscombe Estate, who own the land and rent it to the Town Council. There is a lengthy waiting list for allotments (I have been on it for several years) and the Town Council seem to be making little progress in finding more land for those of us hankering after becoming self sufficient in fruit and veg...

The Luscombe estate is open for one or two days each year for charitable events when you can walk and enjoy the wonderful Repton landscape. Even when we can't gain access we can still see it from vantage points outside and marvel at its beauty! Yes, it would be great to have more frequent access and some public footpaths through the land. But build on it never!

And some might say that building on fertile farm land is just as bad as building on the Luscombe estate. Especially as there is such a long list of people in the town wanting allotments.

And yes, I know, the proposals concerning the Gatehouse and Secmaton Farm areas allow for orchards and allotments etc but somehow I doubt that they would ever come to fruition to use a very appropriate word.

And I for one would like to do more than marvel at the Luscombe Estate's beauty from outside. I'd like to enjoy it from the inside - for free. Don't they charge something like £5 per person entrance fee on those one or two days per year that the rest of us can actually set foot on the grounds?

I've lived in two parts of Dawlish now where play parks were promised as part of the development and neither were built. I don't believe any promises about facilities I'm afraid.

Yes, I know that the allotments at Browns Brook are rented out by the Luscombe Estate to the town council. What I'd like to know though is why, given that the Luscombe Estate is sooooooo big, don't the owners give that land (and more land as well?) to the town?