General Discussion

The planning application shown below went to TDC's planning committee on Monday. It was refused. Note the reasons why.

And it was quite rightly refused. Do you disagree with the reasons for refusal? 

The reasons for the refusal are because of the policies in the Local Plan determined in part by European and National planning regulations. On that basis, as I see it, I agree the application had to be refused.

The point is, however, that such planning policies will restrict the growth of tourism bed places in the Dawlish area. 

Yet plans exist to build houses on land that is currently used by rare bats and Cirl Buntings in other parts of Dawlish, and it did not stop the whitehall wallies from granting permission for 270 houses at Shutterton despite local opposition, Planning it does not exsist money talks.

Ken, I assume that mitigation has been put in place re the bats and curl bunting. This application afforded no mitigation. 

Lynne, it will only affect any increase in tourism if applicants fail to provide mitigation for the impact that additional tourist heads has on our environment. I'd hope that all right-minded people would agree that mitigation is absolutely necessary. 

It will be very interesting to know what form the mitigation needs to take for TDC to look favourably on this or any other planning application seeking to increase the number of tourists staying in this area.  

It depends on what needs mitigating. If you suggesting financial backhanders, then you'd be wrong. 

Others may have suggested financial backhanders with regard to TDC and planning issues but I have never done that.  

Wrong! Where, just where, did I say that the money would be of the backhanding kind?

Are you not aware of S106 financial contributions?

You are so right. Absolutely no insinuations on my part.

@JC It was me that said money talks and as usual you get totally the wrong end of the blog and twist things the wrong way. Money talks refers to the additional council tax, Section 106 money, CIL. That is  all Teignbridge is interested in, and as to the Bats and the Buntings has any body from the planning dept or the developers even thought about destroying their habitat, I don't think so.  

An example of mitigation (I've removed the planning reference)

bunting habitat elsewhere in the District" 

Thanks Lynne. Like I said, it doesn't have to be money, and despite Ken's conspiracy nonsense it does show that TDC does consider and act upon environmental impacts.  No need to have removed the reference though, it's in the public domain. 

So, to go full circle (almost). It would seem that any planning applications near to Dawlish Warren/the Exe estuary which are seeking to increase the number of tourist beds will either not get through (for reasons given above in my first posting) or might go through provided that mitigation forms part of the planning application.

Now, I believe that in most if not all instances, planning officers can give pre planning application advice as to the likely success of any particular planning application or what would be needed to increase the likelihood of that planning application proving to be successful.      

The question then becomes what mitigation is it that is required by TDC planners, begging the question of course that mitigation would prove to be the magic ingredient,, that would get planning permission approval for extra tourist beds in the Dawlish Warren/Exe Estuary area?

Perhaps someone might like to ask TDC planners that question?       

It's a fallacy anyway that you can provide suitable alternative habitat in another place, just ask any naturalist. Once the habitat is gone, that's it, finished, no more bats or buntings.

Cassandra, a quick Google search shows that relocation does work. Yes the original habitat has gone (don't most of us live in houses built on what was previously open land???), but the bats etc do successfully relocate. It's a fact. 

Sorry JC but relocation does not work and there evidence to it.

@JC and Sandycott any chance you could both provide some links to support what you are claiming?

Also, are we necessarily only talking about bats and cirl buntings? It seems to me from looking at the reasons why TDC planners said the planning application should be refused, that the preservation of the wildlife found on the Exe Estuary and at the Warren NNR was of paramount importance.      

this is from the Teignbridge Local Plan:

and this link should take you to the Teignbridge Local Plan

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=41652&p=0

Policy WE8 is on page 58

Policy EN2 on page 61

Policies EN8 and EN9 on pages 67 and 68,

Policy EN10 on page 79

@Lynne, see the link below

BBC News - Cinderford mine bat colony relocation criticised

Have a look at the info on this link

http://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/article/15246/What-development-needs-Habitat-Regulations-mitigation-for-recreational-impacts

Just been looking again at the planning documentation concerning this, now refused, planning application. It seems to me that even if those submitting the application had provided mitigation (in the form of £9,060) the application would still have been refused because mitigation or no mitigation it would still contravene TDC's Local Plan policy protecting the Undeveloped Coast. (Policy EN2).

Which then raises the question of whether any increase in tourist beds can take place in the Dawlish/Exe estuary area? Would any and all applications for such a thing contravene the Undeveloped Coast policy?  

This is policy EN2: EN2 Undeveloped Coast

and this, amongst other things, is what the Local Plan says about tourism developments (my emphasis in bold).